Blue Jersey, are you as sick as I am of Ralph Nader? He's running for president again.

Your diary (0.00 / 0)

is good.

smelly's is funnier.

Jarty Smones

---

by: SmartyJones @ Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 17:05:24 PM UTC

yes, I am (0.00 / 0)

But he got less than .5% last time.  

Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch

---

by: Hopeful @ Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 18:12:57 PM UTC

Nader Has Reached The Nadir.... (4.00 / 2)

....of his political career.

The man is walking proof that the (potential) road to hell is paved with good intentions.  

No doubt that the Republicans and the corporate media will support him in every way hey can.   The MTP "interview "was a series of softballs that amounts to (at least) 5 million bucks worth of free national advertising.  

I don't even see how he rates a MTP solo unless it's their agenda to prop him up.  Without this kind of "launch" I doubt he would even be "running".

The "silver linings"?  This forces progressives and all informed intelligent Democrats of any stripe to expand the voter base and to activate/motivate that base to become involved in political action at all levels.

Perhaps we can limit Nader's voters to the category of those who are just so disgusted with the obvious flaws of both parties that they would have stayed home anyway.

The best way to insure that a Naderesque agenda is implemented is for Obama/Clinton to win in a landslide that carries candidates like Tom Wyka, Lynda Stender, and who ever runs against Scott Garrett into Congress along with lots of New Blood in the Senate.

A filibuster proof majority of Democrats in the Senate and a large enough majority of progressive Dems in the House to overcome the obstruction of the "blue-dog" Democrats would be passing seriously transformative legislation that a President Clinton/Obama could dare not veto.

Nader's announcement this morning presents us with both risks and opportunities.    Let's make it a blowout!

One thing seems sure, the system is constructing various "frames" to insure that Obama or Clinton will lose if the results are "close".

Again, only a national  Democratic landslide will suffice this November.    

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 20:07:58 PM UTC

On the Blue Dogs (4.00 / 1)

Largely, they were the ones who stuck to their guns about not heaping another $50 billion onto the national debt back in December.  

Balancing the budget and paying off the debt have been largely abandoned by the votes of both parties, but the Blue Dogs held firm.  Returning fiscal sanity to Washington doesn't seem like "obstruction" to me; it's principled and in the best interest of the nation.

---

by: rmfretz @ Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 22:23:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Democrats might as well give the nomination to Hillary (4.00 / 1)

What good is the nomination if yet another election is going to get spoiled by Ralph "holier than thou" Nader?  I would rather see Nader ruin Hillary's chances at getting elected than Obama's.

It is bad enough that Cynthia McKinney will be running and possibly stealing the votes from the small minority of African-American voters who think that the only African-American member of the U.S. Senate isn't "black" enough.  Now Ralph Nader is going to come along and say that someone who has been labeled (fairly or unfairly) the most liberal Senator in the Senate isn't liberal enough.

What is the point of a democratic process if egomaniacal demagogues like McKinney and Nader can destroy it?  I guess the best thing that we can hope for is a right-wingnut independent candidate to steal votes from John McCain.

And the far left wonders why the Democratic Party leans to the center rather than the left.  Independent voters in the middle are far more rational and easier to appeal to than the far left, which will never be satisfied until every one of their extreme positions are satisfied.

And before Scarlet Knight tries to call me out for being hypocritical or inconsistent, my expectations for our state government in NJ are much different than my expectations for our federal government in DC, because I am able to recognize the fact that the citizens of our nation as a whole are far more conservative that the residents of our state.

If Barack Obama becomes our next President and significantly increases the majorities that we have in the House and Senate, it would be fair to argue that the makeup of our federal government is probably more progressive than its constituents.  Conversely, our Governor, State Senate, and State Assembly are far less progressive than its constituents.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 21:29:41 PM UTC

one other point about my hypocrisy and/or inconsistency (0.00 / 0)

Upon further reflection, I realize that I am not being nearly as hypocritical nor as inconsistent as I thought Scarlet Knight might have accused if he/she tried to do so.

If Ralph Nader felt that his voice could add more to the public discourse, he could offer his perspective in a more constructive and productive manner by running in the Democratic caucuses and primary elections like Dennis Kucinich.  My guess is that if he committed to not running in the general election as an independent, he would probably perform at least as well as Kucinich if not better.

The most intellectually dishonest aspect of Nader's reasoning for running in the general election is that his positions on the issues are not being heard.  But the fact of the matter is that they were.

There is very little, if any, difference between the positions held by Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich.  Kucinich has been running for President since 2003 and  Nader could have done a lot more to help Kucinich get more votes in the Democratic caucuses and primaries if he truly cared about making sure that these positions were represented during the general election.  And if Nader didn't think that Kucinich was the right voice for these issues, he should  tell him to stop running and run in his place.

Considering the fact that I have probably been one of Dennis Kucinich's greatest detractors on this site, I would like to be able to give credit where credit is due by saying that the difference between Kucinich and Nader is that he doesn't screw the Democratic Party over by running as an independent.  But there is a good reason that Kucinich hasn't done that... yet.

As an incumbent Congressman, Kucinich always has his seat for which to run for re-election.  When Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are battling in the Ohio primary on March 4, he will actually be facing a very tough primary challenge of his own.  If he loses this primary election, it will be interesting to see if he runs with either Nader or McKinney either for re-election to his Congressional seat or as a Vice-Presidential candidate.

I am going to guess that since Kucinich has been able to keep this seat for as long as he has, his district must be pretty liberal.  If I am right, and there is little to no serious Republican opposition in that district and Ohio doesn't have a sore loser law like NJ's, I predict that Kucinich runs for re-election to his Congressional seat as an independent with Nader.

If I am right about this, it could give Nader a very strong base of operations in a key swing state.  Ohio in 2008 could go the same way as Florida in 2000.

If I am right about Kucinich abandoning the Democratic Party, I wonder if the loyalties of his supporters here in NJ and elsewhere go with him.  If so, I guess the Progressive Democrats of America will have to find a new word that starts with D.  How about Dumbasses.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:39:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think... (0.00 / 0)

based on a quick google search, that Ohio has a strict "sore loser" law which would prevent Kucinich from running.  

Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch

---

by: Hopeful @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:07:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

good to know... thanks (0.00 / 0)

If Hopeful is right, then I change my prediction.  If Kucinich loses his primary on March 4, we will see him running with either McKinney or Nader as a VP candidate.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:47:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My Dad loved his '65 Corvair. (4.00 / 1)

I don't think Ralph is getting a lotta love from my neck of the woods.

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

---

by: FogerRox @ Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 22:00:52 PM UTC

Problem was fixed by '65 (0.00 / 0)

http://www.familycar.com/Class...

The Corvair eventually became one of GM's most interesting and beautiful designs. Nader was right about the first edition Corvair ('61-'63) - a simple antisway bar (or something similar and equally inexpensive - $50 a car or so) would have prevented its unfortunate wild-assed handling under certain conditions. Ralph also created the network of state Public Interest Research Groups, which many Rutgers students will remember as a  source of ready income and which can be credited with promoting much social good. Proving that, like a stopped watch, even Ralph Nader can be right twice a day.  

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 13:42:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Larger front air dam's (0.00 / 0)

made the Corvair really hug the road at speed, I remember driving with my Dad on the highway and a gust loosened up the front end.

Though I rode in a Pantera that had similar issues, though at twice the speed.

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

---

by: FogerRox @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 23:47:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Steven and I strongly agree! :-) n/t (4.00 / 2)

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 22:08:30 PM UTC

A vote for Nader (4.00 / 2)

is a vote for repealing universal sufferage in favor of a sanity test.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 23:48:32 PM UTC

Good intentions? (4.00 / 2)

In 2000 he said there was "no difference" between Bush and Gore.  He still says that. I don't believe for a minute that he's an innocent with "good intentions." He knows damn' well what he's doing and he'll pick up some dough from the Repugs again, as he did in 2000 and 2004.  

How does one describe someone who puts his head up his ass, hibernates for four years, and then comes out and announces he will save the country again? The last thing he saved us from was getting rid of Dubya--gee, thanks, Ralph. When what we need is a life preserver, it doesn't help to throw an anchor at us.    

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:53:07 AM UTC

Ergo Nader's "Good Intentions" Pave the Road To Hell... n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:00:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes they did! n/t (0.00 / 0)

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 19:25:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]