Democrats & Liberals: Archives

The problem here seems to be that the ideological causes that unite the left are more diverse than those uniting the right, not that one group is more or less ideological. Trying to keep the left together is like herding cats.

I think Naderites should be commended for sticking to their principles, actually, instead of abandoning those principles by just giving their votes to the Democrats. Go Nader!

Bert, your arguments could equally be used to ask why you don’t just become a Republican—after all, then you could try to effect “a major political party” from within. After all, if being on the winning team is what matters, couldn’t you just enlist your vaunted salesmanship in the cause of swinging, say 2 or 3 percent of Democrats to Bush? Then you WOULD definitely be on the winning team.

Why do you demand of Nader voters something you would never do yourself?

Interesting, isn’t it, that Democrats console themselves about Nader’s growing, burgeoning, swelling-like-Michael-Moore-on-an-eating-binge, popularity with the idea that Nader will concentrate on “safe states” or even “safe areas” within a state. Has anybody heard of the national media and the internet or do people think that voters in say, Oregon, only get their news about from candidates from local newspaper?

Here’s the question: How do you campaign in one area and prevent your message from creeping into another and effecting votes there?

Actually, as a Republican, I see the belief in micro-focused campaigning on the part of the left as symptomatic of a larger deficiency in strategic thinking as a whole. It’s a small step from thinking that toppling Saddam is not good for our position in the middle east to thinking that you can campaign in say, Texas, while not effecting votes in New Mexico. The vision thing. Some gots it. Some don’t.

I think Naderites should be commended for sticking to their principles, actually, instead of abandoning those principles by just giving their votes to the Democrats. Go Nader!

I should’ve known Martin, that this post would give you a gleeful respite from taking fire! But, you missed my point and the central question I posed.

I would have not qualms with Naderites if they explained clearly what those principles are, and how they differ from the Dem party. You infer Martin that you’re in the know, care to take a crack at it?

Bert, your arguments could equally be used to ask why you don’t just become a Republican—after all, then you could try to effect “a major political party” from within. After all, if being on the winning team is what matters, couldn’t you just enlist your vaunted salesmanship in the cause of swinging, say 2 or 3 percent of Democrats to Bush? Then you WOULD definitely be on the winning team.

There is a dwindling faction in the GOP (moderates) who would be susceptable to my ‘vaunted salesmanship’, due to their openess, bi-partisan and progressive nature. This of course, describes the sum total of the Democratic Party also!

Unlike Naderites, in the GOP I’d be banned from state conventions for being gay, would need to accept white supremacists and their views, and not assert any opinions on gun control and choice, for fear of becoming the next Arlen Spector.

And, Nader’s campaign is every bit the opposite of ‘burgeoning’ or ‘growing’! In fact, he failed to make the Oregon ballot and also the Texas ballot by 14,000 signatures! Spending campaign funds suing the Texas Election Board is not promising either.

This being 5+ months to go, this ‘micro-focused campaigning’ you see, needs some clarification. Simple election history tells, you’ve not won over the Undecideds to Bush and never will. That number in Nov. goes to the Incumbent - game over.

In closing, two questions…

- Can one’s opinion of Micheal Moore’s new movie be deemed worthy of debate and credible, if he has not seen the movie?

- If toppling Saddam was ‘good for our position in the Middle East’, why are Americans now being told to evacuate Saudi Arabia?

Bert:

I’ve gotta say, you do seem to have a very high opinion of yourself.

“One of the things that has fueled my anger toward Nader supporters, are my reasonable scenarios that have fallen on deaf ears.” This sounds suspiciously like what a teenage girl might say to her parents. She might whine, “Dad, you aren’t listening. You dont GET it!”

You see Bert, perhaps they have in fact heard you and simply disagree with you. But you filter that to mean they cannot have heard, since if they had heard, they would of course also have to agree with your “reasonable scenarios.”

“What kind of person would pass on the opportunity to harness the power of a major political party to advance their cause?”, you ask.

The answer is really quite simple, Bert. Perhaps being a “black belt in arguing”, you tried to make it more complex than it really is. The answer is—-the kind of person who truly believes in their cause! While Nader leans more the the Democratic side of things than the Republican side, he also knows that the Dem party has not advanced his cause either.

I’m sure Nader knows people who have lost their jobs, don’t have health insurance, had their job outsourced. And Nader is bright enough to know that these things have happened during Republican AND Democratic administrations. He knows that outsourcing, a new Democratic buzzword, has been going on for years now, though you seem to think it just started.

Nader knows that health insurance problems and education problems have not been solved, despite 8 years of Democratic presidency in the 1990’s, and while I’m sure you will try to blame that on the Republican Congress (how convenient Bert), Nader understands that NEITHER party has been willing or able to solve these issues to his satisfaction.

Nader knows that if he throws his support wholely to the Democratic Party, he will be a forgotten man the moment Kerry wins the White House. In fact, he’d be just as forgotten in that scenario as he would be if Bush wins the White House. Just look at how Nader was treated in the aftermath of the 2000 election. Did Democrats even try to understand Nader’s positions (which I dont agree with, by the way)? Nope, instead, they pilloried him for helping elect Bush. Nader received blame and scorn for his cause, and what in that would lead him to expect anything different now.

Bottom line, Bert. While I disagree with his positions, I can appreciate Nader’s committment to his principles. Whereas Kerry is suggesting that McCain would make a great Democrat (if only he would toss aside his convictions on abortion), Nader is holding true to his convictions. And yet you find that abhorrent. How interesting….how very interesting and enlightening.

To Nader-leaning folks reading this blog:

Be wary: joebagodonuts and Martin are trying to trick you! Don’t listen to them! ;)

-Cf

Christopher:

My post was directed solely at Bert, and not as an attempt to “trick” those leaning towards Nader. You do both me and them a disservice by trying to characterize me as scheming, and them as dumb rubes who would buy into such trickery.

As I said, I don’t like Nader’s positions. Never have. But I appreciate his committment to his convictions.

Y’know, the other day, two young Mormon gentlemen stopped by my door to discuss their viewpoint on religion. I freely discussed my beliefs with them ( I believe in the Bible, but not the Book of Mormon). And while I don’t follow their particular beliefs, I will admit to being impressed with their committment to their beliefs. They illustrate that by going door to door to discuss their beliefs, which is a very hard thing to do. I personally dont find it all that effective, but as I’ve said, they certainly lived their convictions.

So too does Nader. While one goal for Nader is to remove Bush from office, his other goals also have importance to him. And he is showing so far that he is not willing to sacrifice them.

Now, reality may intrude, and Kerry may offer enough inducement and compromise to Nader to get him to stop running. This wouldnt surprise me. It would surprise me, though, if Nader simply dropped or altered his convictions.

You talk about not getting a legitimate reason from “Nader-ites” …

other than Nader’s stump speech about too much corporate control and influence of special interest over the two major parties

and then when you get one you just dismiss it. The Democratic party is, like the Republican party, controlled by big money. Exchange big business with trial lawyers and labor unions - that’s all.

I voted 3rd party in 2000 (not Nader) because I heard Gore and Lieberman giving a morality schtick and talking censorship. If I wanted that I’d vote for Dick cheney. Other than that I don’t see any new ideas from the Dems. On most major issues they not only don’t differ much but they don’t put up a decent argument against issues they do disagree on. It’s not that I think compromise is bad, I just think, more and more, they are being paid by people that are basically the same.

Finally, your condescending attitude is basically what has sealed the deal for me this year. I’ve talked to so many hard core Democrats and they usually do one of three things.
1) Blame Nader for 2000 (yes, I still believe Gore’s crappy campaign was the reason he lost).
2) Use hyperbole when discribing Bush so as to make him out to be the worst president ever thereby making Jon Kerry our white night - yet somehow not knowing any of the ways Kerry will make the country better (because Kerry doesn’t know).
3) Insult me, call me an idiot, call me naive, stupid etc…all because I weigh my options before voting (no I haven’t chosen a candidate yet).

It’s that group think mentality that I see with both of the major parties. Don’t give me this line about Nader supporters not being able to come up with good arguments. People stuck to their party line are the real ones who can’t think for themselves.

Bert, I consider myself a supporter of Nader’s candidacy. And my father was a liar, and I too have pissed off some of my “friends” and employers with my uber-argumentative personality.

I think Ralph speak’s the populist voice. I believe he is the only candidate with a chance of being a voice that the Dems may find necessary to heed.

But I live in Texas. Now I’ve read that Ohio has only a 30 day residency requirement to vote there, and I have a sister that lives there.

In Texas, my vote won’t count for anything but a protest vote. Now, if I were to skirt election law and declare residency in Ohio, I would surely vote for Kerry,because I truly believe that Bush will be exceptionally dangerous if he wins in November.

It is possible, however, that a Republican revolt might occur if he squeaks in. To some degree, that has already begun.

But until then I will shout load and hard for Ralph to run and speak the truth, which Kerry seems afraid to do, or possibly is blind to, in his ambiton to win.

If Amerika chooses Bush again, perhaps I’ll move to Canada or France, or even Spain where Nazism hasn’t yet seeped.

Joe and Martin aren’t ALWAYS wrong, they are only duped by the zeig heils from time to time.

Greg:

I find it immensely humorous (in a sad little way)when people actually take the time to compare America (yes, spelled with a “C”) to Nazi Germany. It really shows that they are either prone to hyperbole or intellectual laziness. I did note the qualifier “perhaps” in your bold statement to move if/when Bush is re-elected.
How very brave of you.

The sad part is how the comparison negates the tyranny, abuse, genocide and terror that those under the evil hand of Naziism must really have felt. We know that the abuse at Abu Ghraib was not acceptable, but to compare it to Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor or any other death camp is simple impossible to do without minimizing greatly the horrors of those places.

To paint our government as a tyrannical fascist dictatorship, and our President as a Fuhrer is just as weak an argument. To do so actually says less for our Congress and for any opposition party (Democrat, Libertarian, Green etc) than it does for Bush. It would actually show Bush to be all-powerful, and the Republicans as capable of wresting that power away from the rest of the ineffectual weaklings. It’s just not the case.

It’s a certainty that those who compare America to Nazi Germany have no real inkling of what Nazi Germany was like. They must not know the history, or havent read books by noted authors such as Corrie Ten Boom or Victor Frankl. They compare the ability of government to wiretap conversations with the ability of government to break down doors and shoot people like dogs in the street.

Greg, its obvious you havent relatives that lived through those times, nor have you taken the onus to learn anything about those times. But the great thing about our country is that you STILL have the freedom to say what you want to, however inaccurate or insipid it might be.

Long live America!!

Joe, I think you missed my — ;) — sarcasm indicator device. I didn’t mean to suggest that you were really a con man or that WatchBlog readers were easily fooled. Sorry about that.

-Cf

Christopher:

Apparently my sensory ability index has slid below an acceptable level. The rampant rabidness of rhetoric (i think my alliteration almost tops Spiro Agnew’s “nattering nabobs of negativity) has left me without the capability to recognize sarcasm from vitriol, common sense from doltishness, and true comedic interlude from those who are simply so stiltingly, stupefyingly, staggeringly, surprisingly and shockingly STUPID.

What is to become of me then? Am I to mutate downward towards their ilk? Am I to morph into a miasm of meandering thought, incapable of understanding things as they are? NOOO—I refuse!!

I shall learn from this mistake, and soar beyond my inadequacy, newly reborn as once was the Phoenix…to fly again with skill, precision and intelligence. And for the sake of all readers, hopefully a new-found brevity.

Um yeah, I thought I had someone on my side in this argument while reading the first part of your comment greg but I would pass on that after the Nazi comment.

joebagodonuts wrote:

Bert:
I’ve gotta say, you do seem to have a very high opinion of yourself.

I prefaced my declaration ‘in all modesty’, Joe. And, although I knew some like you would sneer, I made it out of confidence (a long time coming for me) and, not arrogance (your inference).

Joe, even if you’re not a Nader supporter, the defense of their actions need to be supported by more than just vague, disengenious and partisan responses to my genuine query.

My objective here is clarity, definitive answers and rational thought. One of the other by-products of being in sales was my responsibility to render an unambiguious solution, for my customers and my bosses.

I thought I made it clear, that I have yet to hear a Nader supporter make a convincing argument in response to my assertions. However, you and Martin insist I’m being dismissive and arrogant, all the while, implying your confidence that they’ve strongly made their case.

If so Joe, please make the Nader-ites case?

Jeff,

Count yourself also guilty of ‘group think mentality’!

Surprise! I agree with Nader that there is too much control/influence of corporations, special interests and unions over the two parties. That being said, please go back and read (answer?) the question I posed in bold type!

Drop the besieged idealist bit by claiming all Gore voters blame you! You’re absolutely right, he lost it all on his own!

You describe our outrage against Bush as ‘hyperbole’ and blown out of proportion. His failed leadership has impacted my life, my career and my family. The Iraq war has created new enemies ten-fold and we are less safer than 4 years ago. And, I am furious that innocent soldiers are paying for his deception with their lives. And, for many more reasons, he needs to go.

So tell me Jeff, how has the Bush presidency impacted your life?

How about you, Greg?

And what “group” would that be? The party I’m not registered in? The politician I’m not campaigning for? The candidate that I haven’t committed to yet?

As for your question. No, my belief is not unwavering. But even if it was, why should I be forced to try and affect change within a structure that I dislike? If you really believe that big money is ruining this politics in this country then I don’t see how you can be anything but apalled at both campaigns and both parties right now.

The point about Gore in 2000 was not a “besieged idealist bit” - that was my third point :).

Bert seriously, you just proved my second point. You talk about Bush being so bad but you didn’t mention one thing that any Democrat would be doing differently. Yes, he’s effected me. I have friends gearing up to go to Iraq and my kids are going to have trillions more in debt to pay off. But I don’t see how any of this would have been different under Gore or will be different under Kerry. W’s policies have created many enemies but that doesn’t mean Jon Kerry knows how to fight this war. Maybe if your party hadn’t deep sixed Howard Dean then you (and I) would be voting for someone who would have done things differently. But instead, they saw an outsider and said no way.

I have now decompressed from my Hyperbolic chamber

Yes, I was being somewhat sarcastic Joe.

And yes my family were all Nazi’s ( again with the sarcasm)

I never compared Abu Ghraib to Auschwitz. I didn’t even mention either one.

Joe, it is late and I am not really interested in searching for the recent letters to the editor by Holocaust survivors comparing some of Bush’s actions to Hitler’s early rise.

The point is Joe, the Next Hitler will not wear a red swastika,nor dress in jack boots or even rage against the Jews.

Bush HAS eroded democracy in this country without increasing security. Remember Hitler was elected. In fact, many people now beleive he has increased instability and our vunerability to it.

Ask a few Democrats in Texas or Florida, if they think Tom Delay or Jeb are flaunting election law.

Hitler believed in his cause, too.

I have never compared the Bush administration to the Holocaust, just described some of his tactics as facist. Iraq could’ve been Poland. Ask the families of the more than 10,000 Iraqi civilians killed there if they think Bush is a really nice guy. Or maybe the prisoners tortured to death.

Many Germans were very happy to see Hitler rise to power. Many Americans feel very proud to be American and will wave their flags, while some Arab Americans are arrested without charge, without access to attorneys, subjected to torture, and stripped of all rights. The Nazi’s understood nationalism very well. So does the Bush administration. THAT is exactly what scares me.

I have not (in other posts) said that George Bush is a Nazi or compared anything he has done to the Holocaust. I HAVE said he is degrading the bill of rights, using nationalism in a cynical way, is a dishonest politician and shows signs of religious zealotry that are disturbing. Some people call this facism. ( me, for one) And let’s not talk about the drug companies, energy policy, KBR, or Chalabi…..

But, I thought this was about Ralph Nader……

Greg:

Your hyperbolic chamber worked wonders. While I still disagree with you, your latest post uses valid reasoning. You DID bring up the comparison of America to Nazi Germany, so my examples remain correct, even if not directly stated by you in your post.

The point I would make is that in Florida 2000, BOTH sides tried to use the “law” to their advantage. Gore wanted to count only certain votes, Bush wanted his version of a recount. The funny part is that time proved both parties to be wrong: had they followed the OTHER party’s guidelines, it would have helped them more.
To claim that only Republicans do this is infantile and naive.

Greg, I’d suggest you go back and look at Texas since you brought it up. Do you know how the Democrats have gerrymandered that state in the past, yet the only time it has come up as an issue is when Republicans gerrymander the state. Its abhorrent to me to see ANY party get away with that, but its infantile to not understand that it goes on all the time.

The solution then is to stop it from happening—-not simply to stop it when it happens to the detriment of your particular party. I’m not one for changing rules in the middle of the game. In California, I supported the recall of Gray Davis, even though I think the law is a stupid one. I did so because the law was implemented by California citizens who voted it in years ago. I also support changing that law, but NOT during that current recall. To do so would simply have been a concession to the losing side.

It would be similar to the Pistons now claiming that anyone over 320 lbs should not be allowed to play basketball—-or that such players only get 3 fouls per game. You cant change the rules midgame or midseason. You wait til the end.

Greg—what I see as patriotism, you cast off as nationalism with scorn. Im sorry you dont see America—and the love of America—as more than simple nationalism. I dont see Bush as doing the things you say, but you are free—-in our great country—to have your beliefs.

Thanks for the retake on the earlier post.

Joe, you are welcome.

Actually comparing Abu Ghraib to concentration camps is not a correct analysis. It bears no relationship to what I said.

I was comparing the rise of facism in Nazi Germany to the rise in facism here in America. I was not comparing the Nazi’s of the late thirties and 40’s to America today.

My point is and was that freedom and liberty require constant dilligence from both the right and left.

I AM proud of the democratic values espoused in the constitution and the values that are indoctrinated in our elementary schools and society which ingrain our youth with the belief they have rights.

It is this culture which abhors the continuing culture of racism, and imperialism of which I am not proud.

Hyperbole aside, I do not believe we have descended into a facist culture. Yet. I never believe we are far from it.

The racism against the Japanese and the Germans in WWII were not our proudest moments.

The lynchings and discrimination against African Americans are not American things of which I am proud.

The slaughter of Native Americans is not a proud history.

The Reagan administration’s use of the FBI to shut down and harass legitimate organizations in Texas that opposed our use of Death Squads in El Salvador and Nicarauga were not proud moments.

The selling of the legislature in Texas to PACS by Tom Delay and Rick Perry is not a proud moment. ( I was not refering to the gerrimandering) I am hopeful that will eventually be prosecuted, but I’m not holding my breath.

I am proud of our freedom of speech here. I worry about the encroachment of government into every moment of our lives that squeeze’s the very heart of liberty like a sponge. I worry that the use of Super corporations to avoid personal responsibility and divorce us from moral imperitives weakens our freedom and our press.

Even though people often choose to harken back to time when this or that were “better”, there has always been both a dark and light side to American politics like any other people in this world.

All of these things are why I support Mr. Nader.

Jeff said:

As for your question. No, my belief is not unwavering. But even if it was, why should I be forced to try and affect change within a structure that I dislike? If you really believe that big money is ruining this politics in this country then I don’t see how you can be anything but apalled at both campaigns and both parties right now.

I guess that makes me a pragmatist then, Jeff. Yes, I am appalled that big money is ruining (and controlling) politics in this country. I am also appalled that no greater than 50% of eligible voters in this country exercise that right on a consistent bases.

But, as I struggle within my party to banish the effect of the former, and berate my friends and family to vote in an attempt to reverse the latter, things will not change drastically, anytime soon.

In his 70 years, Nader has affected important change in this country and his ideology is shared by a greater segment of the electorate, than most folks believe.

So I ask, if you were to try to affect change (with my support!) in a ‘structure you dislike’, are you afraid of failure? Because, I don’t think we would!

Secondly, I believe (unlike Kerry) that we should unconditionally pull out of Iraq. However, the reason Kerry will not, is that most Democrats will not accept a repeat of Vietnam. Thus, Kerry’s plan differs little from Bush’s (except for the arrogant, unilateral blunders!) Europe and reasonable Arabs don’t hate America, they hate what thias administration has done in our name.

If Gore was President, we would be tracking down Al Queda and not in Iraq. We might still have some semblence of a budget surplus.

I was a Dean supporter from day one, however, my party thought it more important to defeat Bush with a seasoned (but, flawed) pro, than take a chance on a idealist amateur.

I was a Dean supporter from day one, however, my party thought it more important to defeat Bush with a seasoned (but, flawed) pro, than take a chance on a idealist amateur.

Bert, by “my party” I’m assuming you mean all of the individual voters who voted for Kerry in the primaries, as I don’t recall getting the DNC memo to switch my vote (I was a Clark guy).

Who’s this Ralph Nader feller? Sounds like Jon F. Kerry; albeit with principles and conviction.