posted on October 13, 2000 08:22:26 PM new
Julesy goes Hmmmmm.
Did anyone else notice Georgie boy's response when questioned about the three convicted killers in that recent Texas case? His eyes lit up and he said "They're gonna' Die!".
I guess he does act in the interests of the state of Texas. Right there he saved the expense of any twelth hour appeal to the Governor.
posted on October 13, 2000 08:30:33 PM new
Katy's going hmmmmmm. My vote for Nader, is just that, a vote for Nader. If he wasn't on the ballot, I was going to just write my husband's name in.
Did anyone else notice Georgie boy's response when questioned about the three convicted killers in that recent Texas case? His eyes lit up and he said "They're gonna' Die!".
krs, are you serious or making a joke? Did he really say that? I haven't read anything about it. I know he might have been thinking it, but tell me he wouldn't be so stupid as to actually say such a thing.
posted on October 13, 2000 08:31:04 PM new
The lesser of two evils? Who can tell anymore. Which is it; the candidate who whores himself out to corps for 20 million dollars...or the candidate who whores himself out for 10 million dollars? Who's better; the candidate who is pro-life, or the candidate who sold out poor women on abortion when he supported the Hyde Amendment?
Both candidates have all the integrity of a jellyfish, and only seem to be in a race to see who can reach the middle first. Why should I support a party who considers me the "fringe," and has all but abandoned their core values? Gore never had my support to begin with.
Why vote at all? Because for once I get to vote for a candidate whose ideals mirror mine. I wouldn't trade that away for anything.
posted on October 13, 2000 08:44:45 PM new
KatD,
He said that, in those words, in the debate the other day. Once said, he hesitated for a second, then added "The jury decided that", or words to that effect.
Julesy,
That's what my vote for McGovern was about. But if there is a perceived lesser of two evils I think a vote for that candidate, considered as a vote AGAINST the greater evil is a valid and pretty pervasive behavior in the voting public. Voting for non contenders is much like rooting for perennially losing sports teams. Floridians seem to be inclined toward such martyrdom.
posted on October 13, 2000 08:48:13 PM newJulesy You are 100% right and you make an interesting point and I did take that into consideration before writing my post, however, I still think that I am making a valid point also.
It is as citizens of the good old USA, each and everyones constitutional right to vote in any and all elections and many Republican and Democrat people feel that because of that right that they must vote and it is these people that I am mostly talking about.
In alot of what I have read and seen about Ralph Nader, it seems that he is pulling alot of votes away from people that would have voted Democrat.
From some of your past post's on the political threads here at AW I kinda get the feeling, Julesy, that you are a Democrat and are contemplating a vote for Nader instead, so in a way you are making my point for me, unless I am wrong about my assumptions as to your political beleifs, in which case I appologise in advance.
posted on October 13, 2000 09:16:44 PM new
Just wanted to point out...regarding the Texas case and the supposed three that are "gonna die." Only two got the death penalty; they other testified for the state and received a life sentence. Bush has trouble with facts...
Krs --
Isn't that why we are in this rut...because we keep settling for less, just to vote along party lines? To vote for "our guy." I think what you said about the "pervasive behavior in the voting public" is right on target, but *that* is part of the problem. That behavior is perpetuated, election after election, which only results in one lousy candidate after another. You've called it a "machine"; I call it a monster, and I won't feed it anymore. Why nuture a broken-down system?
Plus, let's not forget matching funds. I can't remember the percentage (I am thinking 6%), but a good turn-out for Nader and the Greens means they get matching funds in 2004.
Yellowstone --
Constitutional rights or not, there is a huge amount of voter apathy. In '96, Clinton won with only 25% of the voting age population's endorsement. Less than 50% of the voting age pop. even voted.
I agree that some votes will come from Gore, but certainly not all. I'm more Liberal than Democrat, especially with the current state of the Dem party. Gore never had my vote in his pocket, and I considered not voting at all, until I had all the info on Nader.
posted on October 13, 2000 09:31:56 PM newJulesy,
Yes, monster or machine, it's the bucks that decide what is presented to us for election. Given that, an abstention is a sensible disclaimer of responsibility for the result. It's to say "WhatEver". Maybe I've observed the BS too long now. I used to adopt losing underdog causes with enthusiasm, and perhaps at your age I would join you with Ralph (bumper sticker: " I Ralph at the thought of Gore for President", but I'm 70 years your senior, remember.
posted on October 13, 2000 11:00:44 PM new
Ralph Nader is the "people's candidate" because he doesn't have ties to either one of the two dominant politcal groups? Is that what this thread is supposed to manifest?
Sorry.
Nader, like any other pol, panders when he has to. He pandered (ridiculously, albeit at the attempt of satire) on SNL. I cited an incident where Nader clearly lacked some professional ethics, yet the respondents of this thread ignored that item.
Shall I proceed, because I can.
Ralph Nader, who is not recognized as a working journalist, which is the standard for most SPJ or NABJ events, demanded press credentials for two serious national events organized by those two groups. He was miffed when NABJ refused, since he is not a working journalist.
Say what you will, but Nader is not above pandering, which he so often accuses the other candidates for.
posted on October 13, 2000 11:10:24 PM new
I don't think I was clear enough here, on Nader. He begs, throws hissy fits in an effort to be included - For Free - on Panels other have paid to be on. Then he tries to invoke public access. Sorry, that dog won't walk, wag, or hunt.
posted on October 13, 2000 11:11:31 PM new
Badu,
I didn't ignore the tidbit about the cabfare, in fact I thought 'good for him'. The reporter was there to make money from whatever twist he or she may decide to put on the results of an interview with him, and he made the reporter pay for it.
posted on October 13, 2000 11:25:18 PM new
Krs: Now, you really know better than that. Nader was skirting his economical responsibility. Reporters dont spin. You are thinking of PR folk. Their heads spin constantly.
posted on October 14, 2000 05:54:55 AM new
I'm a registered Republican. My vote will be an anti Bush vote.
And, krs, Floridians have nothing on the Philly sports fans!
Your comment regarding the reporter wasn't overlooked; I just didn't think much of it. For all I know, Nader assumed the reporter was going to pay. The reporter who relayed the story could have his/her own biases and could have made the entire incident up. Contrary to what you believe, the media does spin. Haven't you ever watched the Fox News Channel?
He did SNL 20+ years ago = who cares?
He demanded press credentials = Big deal. Considering the many books he has written, and the fact that he founded and writes for his own magazine, is it so shocking that he would demand access? It's not shocking to me at all.
Nader couldn't pander if he wanted to; the man is too unpolished, and can't hide the fact that he doesn't fit today's mold of what a politician is. He is all issues and policies, which he can be, because he hasn't sold his soul and the American people to corporate interests, unlike Gore & Bush. He doesn't wait for poll results to jump on certain issues, unlike Gore & Bush.
I don't think anyone specifically called him the "people's candidate" in this thread, but I'll bite...
It *isn't* because he has no ties to either of the two big parties (though at this stage of the game, that is an added bonus). I would be thrilled if the Dem party would stop compromising itself; but they appear dead-set on chasing corp $, instead of voters like me.
He is appealing because he can honestly address issues, without the fear of losing financial backing. He is appealing because he refuses to accept the current system as it is; a system which addresses issues based on who has the biggest wallet. That is why people respond to him. Can you say the same for the two mainstream candidates?
posted on October 14, 2000 06:36:03 AM new
We tried the hyperintellectual outsider back in 1976, if you'll recall. There is a reason "we" haven't tried since, and it's not because "we" don't like smart guys with no ties to the big pols.
Personally, I found Nader an embarrassment back in the early '70s, and his attachment to the Green Party (! Why not pick something a tad more fringe-element?) is as painful to watch as Dukakis scooting around in that tank: hideously bad judgment carried to its most public extreme. It's not that his heart is in the wrong place, mind you; like Michael Moore, he's simply lacking fundamental social and political skills. That makes him appealing as an outsider; but those same skills are the grease that keeps the democratic machine from grinding to a complete halt.
Nader is fine doing what he does: being a gadfly, somebody OUTside the system - a technogeek Don-Quixote-for-the-common-man who annoys the right people often enough to occasionally effect change. Somebody has to play that role, and Nader has done it better than most for longer than anybody. This does NOT qualify him for a job inside the Beltline.
I think you're right on many counts. Nader doesn't have the capacity survive in the Beltway, as it is now. He isn't a schmoozer, a back-slapper, or a back-room deal maker. Congress probably wouldn't work with him, and in turn, I bet he would never give Congress an inch either. Indeed, he is an activist and not a politician.
I don't think Nader is unqualified though. I prefer to think that the system, as a whole, isn't flexible enough to work with someone like Nader. They system feeds on Bush and Gore types, so that is what it will have. At least that's what we are led to believe, right?
I know Nader can't win. Even Nader know's he can't win, and he has addressed that, but it is still an effort worthy of support.
Enough of my pandering; time to seek new and exciting inventory for ebay.
posted on October 14, 2000 08:10:19 AM new
"Why vote at all? Because for once I get to vote for a candidate whose ideals mirror mine. I wouldn't trade that away for anything".
"'96, Clinton won with only 25% of the voting age population's endorsement. Less than 50% of the voting age pop. even voted."
Julesy, Two very important reasons as to why you should vote.
Does anyone know what kicks in when 80% of the voting public votes? The answer to this is why you should Vote!!!.
posted on October 14, 2000 08:32:25 AM newNader is fine doing what he does: being a gadfly, somebody OUTside the system - a technogeek Don-Quixote-for-the-common-man who annoys the right people often enough to occasionally effect change. Somebody has to play that role, and Nader has done it better than most for longer than anybody. This does NOT qualify him for a job inside the Beltline.
Hardly a "technogeek". But then if you want to consider whoring for corporation $$ and being ever beholden to such private interests as qualifications for the top "Beltway" job, the field is wide open. Lots of choices there...a)Bad or b)Worse.
(! Why not pick something a tad more fringe-element?)So anybody who chooses not to sample the media force fed mainstream choices of chocolate or vanilla is considered to be part of a "fringe element"? Unfortunately, such a "label" implies "radical", "outside the mainstream" or
lunatic". All "labels" which have been used to describe those who would effect change, by "tilting at windmills".
posted on October 14, 2000 09:54:24 AM newBut then if you want to consider whoring for corporation $$ and being ever beholden to such private interests as qualifications for the top "Beltway" job, the field is wide open
Unfortunately, an outsider has virtually NO chance of effecting change, no matter how much in the public interest that change might be. He has absolutely no power base, and I can guarantee you that the insiders, no matter how much they despise each other, will gladly hold hands and share the experience of shutting out every initiative the insider even attempts to make. That's not right, that's not fair, but that's politics, whether you're talking 6th century Byzantium or 21st century Washington.
As somebody with what are apparently "fringe" ideas herself (philosophically I'm libertarian), I hardly condemn anybody for holding beliefs outside the mainstream. However, mere head-count shows that the Green Party is indeed a fringe element. It is not moderate (which is different from "mainstream" ), and is taken just about as seriously by the public as the Reform Party. (Interestingly, both the Greens and the Reforms have had some parallel, rather public catfights about who's a "real" party member and who's not.)
But not "fringe"? Here's a selection from the Green Party/Nader platform. No matter whether you like these ideas or not, they're hardly anything approaching mainstream.
Military
Cut US military spending unilaterally by 75% in two years
Close all overseas US military bases
Disband NATO
Abolish CIA, NSA
Drugs
Decriminalize possession of drugs.
Regulate and tax drug distribution
Racial issues
Set up a restitution trust fund to compensate African Americans for historical discrimination
Have the Justice Department "intervene to oppose judicial rulings against affirmative action".
Federally mandate eliminating "racist mascots" for sports teams
Health care
Free health care.
Prohibit patent licensing on drugs: "[I ]instead of giving a monopoly on these drugs to just one company, multiple licenses should be issued to any company that wants to sell them."
Social issues
Legalize gay marriage
Economy/Workplace
Guaranteed universal income of $26K/year for a family of 4
Minimum wage of $12.50/hour.
Double-time pay for all overtime
Maximum work week of 30 hours.
A "second paycheck" for workers enabling them to receive 40 hours pay for 30 hours work.
Housing costs to be no more than 25% of income.
Unemployment pay for strikers
6 weeks paid vacation annually
1 year paid educational leave for every 7 years worked
100% tax on all income over ten times the minimum wage (IOW, any income over $260K goes directly to the government)
Child care/Education
Free child care
Free education including graduate school
Maximum student/teacher classroom ratio of 15:1
Government
Abolish the 2-house Congressional system - replace House and Senate with one body.
Replace majority elections with "runoff" system
National economy
Demolish corporate agribusiness, and redistribute the land to small farmers.
Demolish any firm with more than 10% market share unless it makes a compelling case every five years in a public regulatory proceeding that it serves the public interest to keep the firm intact
Allow employees in any business with over 10 employees to elect supervisors and managers and to determine how to organize work.
Demolish the country's 500 largest corporations and convert them to "democratic worker, consumer, and/or public ownership on a human scale"
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Oct 14, 2000 09:57 AM ]
Many of HCQ's interpretations of the GP's goals are incorrect, and her subjective translation of some specific points of the platform might give the impression of "fringe element" if taken as she has laid out above. Her personal "spin" on the Green Platform does not make all of her statements above true. I invite all to read and decide for themselves.
KatyD
[ edited by KatyD on Oct 14, 2000 11:55 AM ]
posted on October 14, 2000 10:47:15 AM new
Enough of the pointless unattributed factoidlets. Vote your heart, and if you can't do that, vote your gut. You want George Bush's boy, vote him in. You want Clinton's right-hand lickup, pull his lever. You want somebody clean, he's there too.
Julesy, thanks for the link to Ehrenreich's article. She makes some great points, of course. I'm looking forward to Nickel and Dimed, afer reading an article she wrote on the subject in Harper's awhile back. It should be a great, if depressing, read.
The link you posted is to the Nader platform alone. It does indeed differ, in that its statements are general goals.
The actual GP link I posted above lists specific methods by which the GP intends to accomplish those goals. Does Nader not support those methods? Or maybe there's actually two Green Party platforms? I know there was quite a fracas awhile back over who in the GP was "really" green.
I applaud their positions on NAFTA and GATT, among many others. The actual position paper makes good reading; snippets cannot fairly represent the organization's perspective and objectives, IMO. I can't see anyone agreeing 100% with all their statements, but they have a lot of good ideas.
posted on October 14, 2000 12:11:13 PM newThe link you posted is to the Nader platform alone. It does indeed differ, in that its statements are general goals.
You are incorrect, again, HCQ, as Pareau points out. The link I provided was NOT Nader's platform alone, but indeed the Green Party platform as ratified by the 2000 National convention. I have fixed my link to include the "http" which links to the same url as Pareau provides above.
I agree with you Pareau, that only the most rigid of any registered political party member would endorse 100% ALL of any given Party Platform. While I cannot endorse 2 or 3 of the Green Party's specific points of their platform, the majority of it's views are in sync with my own. I am also in complete agreement with respect to their take on NAFTA and GATT, Gun Control, and the privatization of Social Security, yet I do not endorse a couple of other Party points. But I believe that's pretty much par with any political platform. I think most people do not endorse any political platform in total regardless of their registered affiliation or voting intent.
posted on October 14, 2000 12:12:32 PM new
Oh - wait - this explains everything! From the Preamble to the platform in the link I posted:
This platform, therefore, does not necessarily reflect in every respect the views of Green Party candidates at any level, including Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke, Green Party candidates for President and Vice-President in 2000.
So although Nader's the Green candidate, he doesn't have to ascribe to everything - or, I suppose, anything in the Green platform. I guess. (HCQ goes "hmmmm" )
But let's set that utterly inconsequential question aside for a minute, katyD. What part of my "interpretations" in my earlier post is refuted by the information on the GP's own webpage to which I provided a link?
It should also be noted that in my earlier post, I described the Green Party itself - not Nader - as "fringe", noting that I though it poor judgment on Nader's part ot ally himself with this group. Do you believe that, for example, disbanding NATO, eliminating the CIA, providing a guaranteed income, setting up an African-American restitution fund, legalizing gay marriage, abolishing the bicameral system, redistributing corporate agribusiness holdings and demolishing the Fortune 500 are mainstream ideas? I'm not asking whether you think they're "good" or not, and I'd suggest you not put words into my mouth regarding whether I do. I'm just wondering whether you believe that even a third of the voting public now supports these policies.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Oct 14, 2000 12:22 PM ]
