Semi-Daily Journal

Please please hope that Nader supports Democrats this next time round. Remember, the possibility is that the Senate will become more Republican because of the loss of the "Democrat/Republican" from Georgia.

Asking people to vote for you because you are the lesser of two evils isn't wise. Nor is being a fake republican (after all why vote for a right wing Dem when you can have the real thing.)

As the T-Shirt said, "Why settle for the lesser evil - vote for Cthulhu in 2004!"

Hmm. Not sure what about the quote or even the piece at whole (from 12/00, no less) says about Nader's IQ. I read it that Nader is an ideologue and/or and idealist. That's no vary prudent, perhaps, but not an indicator that he's stupid.

In one of my Legal Studies classes (possibly Law & Econ I) it was pointed out that Nader has exercised his influence to detrimental effect, forcing changes in policy that save less lives than could have been saved under a previous policy treating an issue that Nader just didn't feel particularly righteous about.

Politics is all about compromise. That is what it takes to get anything done. Nadar's complaints about Democrats are untrue. Mr. Bush has undone many of the Environmental regs, family planning monies, huge tax cuts to wealthy individuals (like Ralph Nadar). These are things that Al Gore never would have let pass if he were president.

Under Clinton, unemployment among blacks dropped under 10%, the bottom quintile actually gained ground, the poorest workers took home significantly more money. Clinton's program of rewarding work and job training was effective. Mr. Bush is abandoning that path.

Given Brad's distaste for governors from small states, it is interesting to hear Howard Dean saying that governors from small states can learn very quickly. That may be true, but it is one thing to run for office on ideological policy. It is quite another to get it enacted. Even if a Democrat wins in 04, they will likely have to work with a Congress, or at least a House controlled by the GOP. That will take a lot of experience that a governor from a small liberal state may not have.

I can't believe democrats are still sore about Nader. Let's face it, as bad as Bush is, at least he won his own state. I wish Bush was not not in office, but that doesn't mean Gore deserves to be there. Dems should try to move on and win the next election instead of recycling excuses about past setbacks.

If George Bush had lost Florida by 500 votes, instead of losing by 500 votes, plenty of people would say that Harry Browne (Libertarian) or Pat Buchanan (Reform) or Howard Philips (Constitution) cost Bush the election. They'd be right. And as a Libertarian, I certainly wouldn't be sorry.

I think the best thing that could happen to the Libertarian Party would be to have the Libertarian presidential candidate draw enough votes to be seen as the difference in the election in 2004.

Of course, both the Republicans and the Democrats will make certain that no one with views outside their own gets into the presidential debates. (Perish the thought that *issues* might actually get discussed! :-/)

Ralph Nadar showed how dim he was at politics by failing to recognize how far right wing Mr. Bush is. Mr. Nadar added to the perception that Mr. Bush was moderate in his views. He is not.

What matters is that Democrats are and stay united, and remember the injunction not to criticize fellow Democrats. The need in Georgia will be to find a Democrat who can compete for the Senate. A loss in Georgia would cement the Republican hold on the Senate.

Umm Bush did NOT 'win' Fl by 500 votes. The most reliable estimates are that IF all the votes were counted he would have lost it by more than 2,000 votes. As it was more than 500 Disqualified Repug. votes were allowed to be counted due to various riots and mob tactics during the recount. Some credible outside estimates place a reasonable possibility that Bush lost Fl by around 20K, but those votes were not counted. Under most of the 'reasonable' recount scenarios, Gore won handily, but these facts were easily covered up by the media. Gore WON Fla as he WON the popular vote by more than 550K votes. BTW: The Democrats got more votes for Senate than did the Repugs, only about 1 Million more, but the way the Senate is set up natually favors depopulated or sparcely populated western Plains states, and hence the Dems are at an institutional disadvantage there.

And Nader? I say let him run, it'll be a generation before anything will ever be heard about 3rd party politics after that foolhardy decision. That the man is self delusional is undeniable. It was he who fed the media 'meme' that there was no difference between Gore and Bush, the D's and the R's. This is sheer fantasy and nihilism. For someone to have picked up 2-3% of the vote actually saying this canard at every campaign stop shows just how deluded some people are willing to become to fulfill their desperate and dangerous private agendas. I say if the Greens let him anywhere near their party this time they will go up in a puff of smoke not to be heard from again in most of our lifetimes. He barely endorsed ANY part of their national platform the last time, and he'd run as the same 'maverick' using the party as a simple
vehicle for his personal private agenda once again. That's got to be some of the worst reasoning for a campaign in modern history.

>Ralph Nader is an idiot

I used to work for Ralph. He is many things. An idiot is not one of them.

His agenda differs from most. Does that make him stupid?

I'd grown accustomed to sophomoric ad hominem attacks on those to the right of the sacred "social democratic" center. Now, I learn that those to its left are also to be smeared as mental inferiors.

Calling Nader an idiot is not impressive at all. Grow up.

Nader isn't an idiot, he is a despicable toad. Its the Naderites who are idiots.

Nader isn't an idiot, he is a despicable toad. Its the Naderites who are idiots.

"I'd grown accustomed to sophomoric ad hominem attacks on those to the right of the sacred "social democratic" center. Now, I learn that those to its left are also to be smeared as mental inferiors."

Good piece by Cathy Young on nastiness across the political spectrum:

http://www.reason.com/cy/cy071503.shtml

I think it merely reflects how low political discussion has currently sunk in the U.S.

But I guess it's not all *that* new. SCTV did a modern version of the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1978. It was hilarious, but I don't remember enough to do it justice. But it ended with:

Douglas: "Stinkin' Lincoln! Stinkin' Lincoln!"

Lincoln: "Dirty Douglas! Dirty Douglas!"

An amazing 1978 preview of the 2000 Bush/Gore debates. :-/

I expect small brainpan discourse on CNN/Fox/etc.

But it is depressing to see highbrow, state-employed academics -- with time in DC policy circles no less -- display such behavior.

Ralph Nadar was the only canidate in 2000 that spoke on issues that matter and frankly the the things he spoke about that where wrong about this country, reveiled it ugly face after the election. Corrupt election process, Corperate theives and the list can go on and on. I sorry but I'm sick and tried of people saying I voted for Bush when I voted for Nadar. I vote for the person i thought was best fit to run the country. Someone who has prove himself in politics and activism someone who's passion lies in making things better.

Ralph Nadar was the only canidate in 2000 that spoke on issues that matter and frankly the the things he spoke about that where wrong about this country, reveiled it ugly face after the election. Corrupt election process, Corperate theives and the list can go on and on. I sorry but I'm sick and tried of people saying I voted for Bush when I voted for Nadar. I vote for the person i thought was best fit to run the country. Someone who has prove himself in politics and activism someone who's passion lies in making things better.