Agreed. Back before Dennis Miller lost his mind and drank the Koolaid., he once
said of Bill Clinton detractors...."We elected him to be President, we didn't
elect him to be the Pope". Too bad he's an idiot now. What a waste.
Kevin White <cuitlacoche1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: I think this wasted
vote obsession is purely Californian.
What coin does political purity actually buy besides smugness and an
exaggerated sense of superiority?
K
----- Original Message ----
From: Melinda Iley-Dohn <Iley_dohn@xxxxxxxxx>
To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 11:15:37 PM
Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] Re: Nader: And Now the Slander Begins Again
We don't elect a President because they speak eloquently. We elect a
President because
we hope that they represent US not their own brillance. Part of why Obama is
gaining such
momentum is that he talks about including Americans in this effort to bring
back our country
to us. Hillary is about "I am ready to do the job on day one". So what? We
don't care about her being able to go in and do what she wants to do without
including the people who she is supposed to serve. We should go back to calling
them Public Servants. That is who they are.
stephan <sgeras@mindspring. com> wrote:
and if you really listen to the man speak and answer questions, he has
more focus and, I'm sure as a result of years of independent work as a public
s..t disturber, more coherent information than any of the mainstream
candidates. He's the only person who answers questions fully, more in depth,
because he stays on the subject, stays focused on the subject matter longer,
and always answers the marrow of the question without wasting thought on trying
to make himself look good and pretty. He's actually a delight to listen to, an
inspiration for the mind, not eye or ear candy.
----- Original Message -----
From: Pamela Somers
To: NewPacifica@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:03 AM
Subject: [NewPacifica] Re: Nader: And Now the Slander Begins Again
Agreed. They should watch the Ralph Nader Documentary, An
Unreasonable Man, to see how politically savvy he really is. He has a
large organization that believes in the same things that he does, and
if he ever made it to the White House he'd surround himself with
those people. Want change? Then we'd see change.
p
--- In NewPacifica@ yahoogroups. com, wanzala@... wrote:
>
> You only reveal your ignorance about ralph nader whenb you say (in
another post) that he would not know how to pass a bill and below
that he is pushing his own agenda - that is plain bs. He has been a
tireless consumer advocate for decades working in the public interest
and has a more impressive legislative record than most senators or
congress people.
>
> It is one thing to pragmatically support barack obama, it is quite
another to pretend, as you are doing, that he is something that he is
not. And the claim that electing obama would ipso facto surpass
nader's achievements over the last three/fours decades is just
nonsense.
>
> Joe w.
>
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Melinda Iley-Dohn <Iley_dohn@. ..>
>
> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:55:39
> To:NewPacifica@ yahoogroups. com
> Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] Re: Nader: And Now the Slander Begins
Again
>
>
> No Joe. We do not elect a President to represent their own agenda.
We elect a President to work with Congress to represent Americans of
all backgrounds. We elect a President who serves the good of
Americans not a shill for their own agenda.
>
> I want somebody who can work in behalf of Americans with an ability
to work within the Constitutional system of checks and balances.Bush
is a reality check. We can not have any more time spent with a
President that thinks that theirs is the only agenda involved or that
they have the right to dictate to Americans. The world is full of
dreamers who can spin
> a yarn. I voted for Barack Obama today at the Barbara Bush library
because he has a history of making things happen. As an Illinois
congressman, he passed a contested bill into law that made it
manditory for all questions asked by police officers had to be taped.
>
> Nobody wanted it but he worked the bill and got it passed after a
lot of hard work. He recently worked with Sen. Luger to pass a bill
that would helped to insure that the previously
> unaccounted Soviet nuclear weapons did not fall in the wrong hands.
I don't want a dreamer
> who can talk the talk. I want somebody who has shown that they can
unite the people and
> make things happen. That man for me is Barack Obama. I think that
having moved forward
> and electing a black President could do more to heal the wounds
than ten Ralph Naders.
>
> wanzala@... wrote: Anger, pity, whatever negative or condescending
feeling you have, is misplaced. It is your loyalty to the democratic
party that derserves pity.
>
> If you foreclose the possibility of any progressive agenda gaining
traction in congress why are you bothering to vote in the first
place? In any case, ralph nader has been working in washington dc and
with congress for decades, helping pass legislation and develop
policy initiatives. He has a proven track record of working with
congress.
>
> Why do you think that barack obama or any other democrat can do
anything more than carry forward policies that fall within the
already established narrow confines of the democratic party's neo-
liberal agenda.
>
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Melinda Iley-Dohn
>
> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:30:01
> To:NewPacifica@ yahoogroups. com
> Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] Re: Nader: And Now the Slander Begins
Again
>
>
> I am not angry at my former hero. I feel sorry for him. He is
destroying a reputation for
> being a huge American asset. What does he have to offer that nobody
else could?
>
> If he DID win, Nader reminds me of the dog chasing a car. If he
caught it
> that doesn't mean he could drive it. If Nader DID win, what would
he have in mind?
> He has always had a shopping list that sounds decent but he would
have to be able
> to work WITH Democrats and Republicans in Congress. How would he
get any of
> these lofty goals accomplished if nobody would vote for them?
>
> wanzala@... wrote: Wrong. It is a maxim underscoring the points
made by sam smith in the original article, namely, that if democracy
in america is to progress past the stagnant zero-sum game of
republicrats, in other words if there is to be any meaningful and
positive change in this country, we will need people like cynthia
mckinney, ralph nader and other 'unreasonable' people who have to
refuse to be co-opted and become subsumed in the okey-doke electoral
charades like the one we are witnessing this year.
>
> Instead of venting misplaced anger at ralph nader you, kevin and
others should be tracking down the 100,000 democrats who voted for
bush, and chastizing people who don't bother to vote at all.
>
> You have no right to lay claim to the votes of people who choose to
vote for nader or any other 3rd party candidate. People still have
the right to choose.
>
> Joe w.
>
>
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Melinda Iley-Dohn
>
> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:48:05
> To:NewPacifica@ yahoogroups. com
> Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] Re: Nader: And Now the Slander Begins
Again
>
>
> That is the best summation about Nader running. He is so convinced
that he is the only person capable for the job. It's sort of like
Cheney when Bush sent him to find him a suitable
> VP and he came back with the suprise result of.....himself. I have
to wonder how hard he
> REALLY looked.
>
> Joseph Wanzala wrote:
>
>
> The reasonable [person] adapts [her]/himself to the world: the
unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to
[her]/himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable
[person].
>
> GEORGE BERNARD SHAW, Maxims for Revolutionists
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Frank LeFever com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Sanity and INFORMATION. This deserves wide distribution.
>
> --Frank
>
> ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= =======
>
>
>
> --- In NewPacifica@ yahoogroups. com, "Joseph Wanzala" wrote:
> >
> > NADER: AND NOW THE SLANDER BEGINS AGAIN
> >
> > http://prorev. com/2008/02/ nader-and- now-slander- begins-again. html
> >
> > SAM SMITH - AP started it in their lead story on Ralph Nader's
> announcement
> > that he is running for president: "He is still loathed by many
> Democrats who
> > call him a spoiler and claim his candidacy in 2000 cost the party
the
> > election by siphoning votes away from Al Gore in a razor-thin
contest in
> > Florida."
> >
> > More on that below, but even if what the Democrats said were
true, the
> > behavior of the party in the years that followed 2000 did
absolutely
> nothing
> > to correct the situation. For example:
> >
> > - The Democrats could have supported and worked for instant runoff
> voting
> > which dramatically changes the effect of third parties on
elections and
> > politics.
> >
> > - They could have avoided gratuitously angering Green voters
through
> such
> > cheap tricks as redistricting Maine's one Green state legislator.
> >
> > - They could have adopted some Green policies, much as European
major
> > parties do when pressed by from the left or right.
> >
> > - They could have stopped being so consistently indistinguishable
> from the
> > Republicans.
> >
> > - Obama could have said he would add one or more Greens to his
> cabinet just
> > as promised he might with one or more right wingers.
> >
> > None of this happened.
> >
> > I supported Nader's run in 2000 but, for pragmatic reasons,
> suggested he not
> > run in 2004. In my memo on the topic, I argued that just because
you had
> > something righteous to say didn't mean that standing in the
middle of an
> > interstate at rush hour was the best place to argue it. The drop
in
> returns
> > for Nader and the Green candidate, David Cobb, supported my
thesis.
> >
> > At the same time, I believe that anyone who feels there is
something
> wrong
> > with their neighborhood, city, state or country not only has the
> right to
> > run for public office but honors that office by doing so. To
criticize
> > someone for exercising this right is repulsively anti-democratic
> and, when
> > the target is Nader or the Greens, reflects the political trust
fund
> baby
> > mentality of the Democratic Party, living off the hard efforts of
> its past
> > and doing little or nothing for the present and future.
> >
> > The party of denial needs to look at its own defects and not seek
> salvation
> > in blaming others for exercising their constitutional rights.
Deceive
> > yourself once or twice and you can chalk it up to political error.
> Deceive
> > yourself thrice and you really need therapy.
> >
> >
> > WHY NADER DID NOT LOSE THE 2000 ELECTION FOR THE DEMOCRATS
> >
> > SAM SMITH, 2001 - A study by the Progressive Review of national
and
> Florida
> > polls during the 2000 election indicates that Ralph Nader's
> influence on the
> > final results was minimal to non-existent.
> >
> > The Review tested the widely held Democratic assumption that Nader
> caused
> > Gore's loss by checking changes in poll results. Presumably, if
> Nader was
> > actually responsible for Gore's troubles, his tallies would change
> inversely
> > to those of Gore: if Gore did better, Nader would do worse and
vice
> versa.
> >
> > In fact, the only time any correlation could be found was when the
> changes
> > were so small - 1 or 2 percentage points - that they were
statistically
> > insignificant. When, for example, in September of 2000, Gore's
> average poll
> > result went up 7.5 points over August, Nader's only declined by 1
point.
> > Similarly, in November, Gore's average poll tally declined 5.7
> points but
> > Nader's only went up 0.8 points.
> >
> > In the close Florida race, there were similar results:
statistically
> > insignificant correlation when the Gore tally changed by only one
or two
> > points, but dramatic non-correlation when the change was bigger.
For
> > example, in nine successive surveys in which Nader pulled only 2
or 3
> > points, Gore's total varied by 7 points. As late as two weeks
before the
> > election, Gore was ahead by as much as 7-10 points.
> >
> > Nationally, the Review's moving average showed Gore steadily
hacking
> away at
> > Bush's 15 point lead until he was ahead by as much six points in
> September.
> > But this lead rapidly disappeared until Bush was back in a narrow
> lead by
> > early October. While Gore eventually won the popular vote, the
> election was
> > so close that most polls projections were still within the
standard
> margin
> > of error.
> >
> > During almost all of 2000, Bush led Gore with the major exception
of a
> > month-long period following the Democratic convention. During
this high
> > point for Gore, Nader was pulling a running average of 2-4% in the
> polls.
> > While it is true that during October, Nader began pulling a
running
> average
> > of 6% at a time when Gore was fading, Gore continued to lose
ground
> even as
> > Nader's support dropped to its final 3%. In other words, despite
the
> help of
> > defectors from Nader, Gore did worse.
> >
> > Further, as Michael Eisencher reported in Z Magazine, 20% of all
> Democratic
> > voters, 12% of all self- identified liberal voters, 39% of all
women
> voters,
> > 44% of all seniors, one-third of all voters earning under $20,000
> per year
> > and 42% of those earning $20-30,000 annually, and 31% of all
voting
> union
> > members cast their ballots for Bush.
> >
> > (Interestingly, the same critics who blame Nader for Gore's loss
fail to
> > give him credit for narrow Democratic victories in the Senate,
such
> as the
> > one in Washington state, where the Green vote theoretically
helped the
> > Democrat)
> >
> > Since the mythology of the 2000 election shows no signs of
fading, a few
> > other points are worth noting:
> >
> > - According to exit polling, those who voted for Nader were
> > disproportionately under 30, independent, first time voters,
> formerly Perot
> > voters, and of no organized religion. In other words, many of his
> voters did
> > not naturally belong to the Democratic party. In fact, half as
many
> > Republicans as Democrats voted for Nader. Six percent of
> independents and 7%
> > of Perot voters supported Nader while only 2% of Democrats did.
> >
> > - The public had a cynical view of both major candidates with 41%
> believing
> > that both would say anything to win votes. Barely half considered
either
> > major candidate honest and trustworthy. And an astounding 51% had
> > reservations about their own vote.
> >
> > - Gore even lost his home state of Tennessee. This is like
flunking a
> > political breathalyzer test.
> >
> > - Perhaps the most important, but seldom mentioned, factor in the
> outcome
> > was the impact of the Clinton scandals. 68% of voters thought
> Clinton would
> > go down in history more for his scandals than for his leadership.
> 44% said
> > that the scandals were somewhat to very important and 57% thought
the
> > country to be on the wrong moral track.
> >
> > - In short, the individual who did the most harm to Gore (aside
from
> > himself) was Bill Clinton. If Gore had distanced himself from the
> Clinton
> > moral miasma he would probably be president today.
> >
> > - Clinton hurt in other ways, most notably in the damage his
> administration
> > did to other Democratic officeholders, again something Democrats
> don't want
> > to face. During the Clinton administration, Democrats lost over
> 1,200 state
> > legislative seats. Further, the Democrats lost control of 9
> legislatures and
> > for the first time since 1954 the GOP controlled more state
legislatures
> > than the Democrats. In addition, the GOP won 45 seats in the
House,
> 7 in the
> > Senate, 11 governorships and 439 Democratic officeholders switched
> to the
> > Republican Party. Only three Republicans went the other way. In
> short, the
> > Clinton administration was a disaster for the Democrats.
> >
> > But even if Nader only took one percentage point away from Gore -
> the most
> > that can possibly be claimed - some will say that the Greens
should have
> > known better than to take that risk. In a way, it comes down to a
debate
> > between Democratic situationists - I am what the polls tell me I
> ought to be
> > - and Green existentialists - I am what I am regardless of the
> polls. The
> > danger with the Green existentialist approach is that you may end
up
> with a
> > Bush (or a Clinton, for that matter) in the White House. The
danger
> with the
> > Democratic situationist approach is that you definitely will. In
one
> case,
> > you give up on democracy in favor of a 800-pound-gorillacr acy; in
> the other
> > case you still retain some hope that things can get better.
> >
> > Ironically, if Nader had done much better - say 10 or 15 points -
we
> would
> > all be in better shape since politics tends to follow third party
> uprisings
> > when they are powerful enough. In the most recent case, for
example,
> both
> > the GOP and Democratic parties still remain in the shadow of the
Perot
> > paradigm. But because Nader didn't do all that well, the
Democrats can
> > muddle along pretending that it wasn't their fault after all but
> some guy
> > they wouldn't even let into the debate.
> >
> > Democrats tend to think of Greens as wayward members of their
party,
> which
> > is why they try to browbeat them rather than convincing them. In
> fact, the
> > Greens have less and less in common with the Democratic Party -
> especially
> > since the latter refuses to stand up against the Bush war, greedy
> > globalization, and the disintegration of constitutional
government. . .
> >
> > Too many Democrats presume they can either ignore the Greens or
> hector them
> > back into their pointless, spiritless, and morally dead confines.
It
> won't
> > work for the simple reason that, unlike the Democratic Party,
Greens
> > actually believe in something. And when you believe in something,
> you are
> > willing to take a few risks along the way.
> >
> > KEVIN ZEESE points out that had Nader not run, Bush would have won
> by more
> > in Florida. CNN's exit poll showed Bush at 49 percent and Gore at
47
> > percent, with 2 percent not voting in a hypothetical Naderless
> Florida race.
> > Further:
> >
> > - Gore lost his home state of Tennessee, Bill Clinton's Arkansas
and
> > traditionally Democratic West Virginia; with any one of these,
Gore
> would
> > have won.
> >
> > - Nine million Democrats voted for Bush, and less than half of
the 3
> million
> > Nader voters were Democrats.
> >
> > - Zeese also notes, "The Democrats lost the 2002 congressional
> elections,
> > the California and New York governorships, and many state
legislatures
> > throughout the country. Surely Nader is not to blame for those
defeats."
> ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= =
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------ ----
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
Try it now.
>
> New Pacifica Working Group
> http://www.egroups. com/group/ NewPacifica
> 'Save Our Stations!'
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------ ----
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
Try it now.
>
> New Pacifica Working Group
> http://www.egroups. com/group/ NewPacifica
> 'Save Our Stations!'
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------ ----
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
<http://us.rd. yahoo.com/ evt=51734/ *http://tools. search.yahoo. com/newse
arch/category. php?category= shopping>
>
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now.
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.