Top Leaderboard, Site wide
November 22, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Green Revolution Trebles Human Burden on Planet




Joan of Arc


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Nader Threatens to Run

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Feb 16, 2007
Ralph Nader
aljazeera.com

Perennial spoiler Ralph Nader says he’s considering yet another run for president, depending on what the Democrats “come up with.” The former consumer advocate said front-runners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama lack “political fortitude,” and criticized John Edwards’ foreign policy stances.


San Francisco Chronicle:

Former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader said he is considering a presidential run in 2008 and strongly suggested today he would enter the race if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton wins the Democratic Party nomination.

“She’s just another bad version of (former President) Bill Clinton,’’ Nader told KGO radio host Ronn Owens in San Francisco.

Asked to describe Clinton, a front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination a year in advance of the primaries, Nader said: “Flatters, panders, coasting, front-runner, looking for a coronation, not taking on the huge waste in the military budget as a member of the Armed Services commission, never going after the corporate crimes against pensions, against workers. ... She has no political fortitude.’‘

Asked specifically if he would run in 2008, Nader said it is “too early to say. ... (I’m) considering it. We’re going to see what the Democrats come up with.’’

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By John smith, February 25, 2008 at 11:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To accuse Nader of being a racist is ridiculous. He is the only candidate that openly talks about issues that directly affect minorities, marticularly his stances on foreign policy, the drug war, and economic inequalities- all of which have negative reprocussions disproportionately in minority communities.
  Also, if u think any mainstream Democrats or Republicans (not counting Kucinich or Ron Paul) that have any sincere intention to solve Americas problems. ITS ALL THE SAME OLD BS. AND UR VOTES R RIGGED BY THE WAY. so all u haters that talk sh*t on Nader and claim that hes ‘spoling’ elections, what u dont realize is that in corrupt systems in which the power elite runs the world, spoling elections is exactly what we should be doing. theres a reason that 40% of america doesnt vote in presidential elections. They dont care cuz the candidates dont care to help them. RON PAUL and RALPH NADER ARE YOUR ONLY HOPES FOR TRUE REFORM. WAKE UP THE NEW WORLD ORDER IS TAKING OVER AND TIME IS RUNNING OUT

Report this

By Bert, February 25, 2008 at 8:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There should theoretically be about 100 MILLION candidates, or so, and the election process should be different. This is a charisma/payola contest.
Paul’s closest to the mark, I’m looking for a payola-free Candidate that’s going to stand and answer questions like he was at the officer’s academy.
Keep the song and dance and the hitler-wave and the socialized medicine, let’s have 10 uninterrupted minutes from each Pandidate on the concept of democracy and their understanding and willingness to
administer OUR Constitution, not some sort of half-baked psuedo-garbage which is what let Bush slide into office smelling like used motor oil. INdepencerererer@$@#$2323424errorerrorerrorSTOP

Report this

By Gregory Gras, February 25, 2008 at 5:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I can’t help but wonder how much $ the g.o.p is paying Him/ or worse the k.k.k for sabotage. OL’ Ralpho’s true color is coming out(or his dislike of color)

Report this

By Jackie T. Gabel, February 23, 2007 at 10:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To all who insist on calling Nader a narcissistic spoiler, your thoughtless support of a reprehensible iron-maiden, winner-take-all electoral pressure cooker and its manipulation through a voracious advertising industry, butt-licking Main Stream Media and cash-cow corporate king-maker paradigm is a sad testament to its ignoble success. If nothing else, Nadar at least keeps alive the awareness of just how monstrous the system is.

As for “...the mess we are in…” it is your Congress, dear sirs and kind ladies, that has failed you. For crying out loud, it took a virtually Olympian effort by four devastated 911 widows from New Jersey to finally get a 911 investigation, then Congress stood by while the panel was loaded with administration sycophants and old boys and seriously underfunded.

Even with their new majority, this “Democratic” congress lacks the guts to really challenge this regime. All they can manage is a non-binding resolution against “the surge,” — utterly pathetic. They should be drafting complaints of Misprisions of Treason in order to secure indictments of every cabinet-level member of the administration and their staff. Then once in the doc, show them the noose and cut deals only with those who flip on their handlers or give up their coconspirators.

Report this

By Rodney, February 18, 2007 at 8:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ralph Nader and his selfishness is just as responsible for the mess we are in as much as the man who created the mess George Bush. At least most Americans realizes that votes do count and they can no longer be wasted trying to prove a point. So Ralph stay out of it. The stakes are higher than you.

Report this

By Bert, February 18, 2007 at 12:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I don’t know, Ralph knows some of those Big Words, it could be ugly for the GOP and their hangers-on if he throws his hat in the ring…
Go Ralph! People are listening this time…

Report this

By Joe Walker, February 18, 2007 at 12:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Nader might make a difference if he could get elected, but he could be elected dogcatcher. Why doesn’t he find an electable candidate he can support and help that person get elected.

Report this

By M.Fitch, February 17, 2007 at 11:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Nader is a narcissistic, pathetic old man who has done nothing for our country. He is a spoiler who put Bush in the White House and he stirs nothing but contempt in others especially those of us formerly in the green party to which he has disgraced. He is no threat to Hillary Clinton.

Report this

By Joe R., February 17, 2007 at 6:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Nader is right about Clinton.  To bad he is unelectable. We are only going to get their chosen picks to run.  It takes too much money to run for President and a poor man or woman wouldn’t stand a chance against the ruling class.  The working class is screwed.

Report this

By Christopher Robin, February 17, 2007 at 6:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dear Nader demonizers,

How’s this for a idea? I recall Nixon making this remark.I’m not sure he coined it? But it may apply in this instance?

Nixon said, about some appointee, the name escapes me now? “Better to have him inside the tent pissing out. Then to have him outside the tent pissing in”

Why not encourage Ralph to join the Democratic presidential primaries? Why not invite him to the stage during the primary debates? What do you have to fear?

Maybe if his message garners support….Those with fingers to the wind (90% of current nominees) will adjust their sails?

Is it not better to run a real democrat? As opposed to what has happen in election cycle after election cycle for the last 50 years? “a Repub-lo-crat” neither fish nor fowl…Will yet another “hybrid” earn the admiration and respect of the voters? and lead?

Will this republican Lt. nominee earn back the Reagan democrats? The middle class? which has been falling behind for over 30 yrs now? Is this moderation working for us?

Bill ran as a populist, but sadly governed as republican lite (with Hillary’s advice and guidance.)

Some quotes to recall

“We kept all the promises we intended to” -George Stephanopoulos
(after election analysis)

“If you want to get an answer you don’t go to Bill , you go to Hillary”- Henry Cisneros (paraphrased)

Speaking on Democratic candidates:

“Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time” - Harry S. Truman

Before you proceed to blame Ralph Nader for Bush.
That the Bush disaster is due to Nader drawing votes away from the democrat?

Bush had “help” creating this disaster of his Presidency. Where was the Democratic Party? When faced with giving Bush permission to go to war. Who voted yes? Nader? Or current party standard bearers?  Hillary, Kerry, Edwards? more?(amnesia)

Among the few wise and brave enough to stand up and be counted was Dean, Kucinich and Obama. (then only a state senator)

Who? took those arrows when it wasn’t so popular to stand up to the flag waving and patriotic bluster? Who’s judgment proved correct and who’s judgment proved expedient?

Expedient won, and we all lost.

“Democrats” holding power and a vote? And when courage was required…they went a-l-o-n-g

(Displays character: Spineless, more worried about their own seat than any ideals.)

Where’s that outrage? Or is it just saved for Nader, marginal third party candidate?

Why can’t Democrats win 3% more voters,or current non-voters? How weak the party is?

Why?

Ralph’s entire life speaks to his loyalties.

Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, Gore? What does their records show? (Crumbs, gestures while the loaf goes to the top)

To hear democrats revile Nader really disappoints me.I guess idol worship and campaign talk , count for more, than performance?
 
There’s the power structure in the Democratic party. That so fears Nader, they actively malign his name, and recast the work he has done over 50 yrs. What is their agenda? Is it a stronger progressive democratic party? Or rather the current toothless, spineless party…Which always manages to sell out to the powers that be?

(Whom are they really fighting on behalf of?)

About what if?

How about that “real” Democratic champion of the little guy?

Vice Pres. Lieberman anyone?

(Forgot that one?)

I wonder who recomended him? (shhh… I suspect it was Bill & Hill? I’d make book on it!)

“Lieberman Pick Will Help Her, First Lady Predicts”-August 9, 2000 NY Times Link

Democrats didn’t “win” this last election, it was Bush that lost it.

Be an “Old Democrat” and win FOR something.

Report this

By Open u Nader, February 17, 2007 at 5:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How much are the Republicans paying you this year, Nader?

Report this

By yours truly, February 17, 2007 at 3:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why are we concerning ourselves with which sell-out the Democratic Party runs for president next year, when at this very minute we’ve got one war to stop and another to prevent.  Must we always fall for the divide and conquer ploys of the powers that be, as they tie us up with so many simultaneous struggles (stopping and preventing wars, health care, education, pensions, elections, name it) that we’re like fleas jumping from one warm body to the next.  Can’t we stay on one page, just long enough to prevail upon Congress to cut off all funding for the Iraq war, then to impeach President George Bush, after which off he goes to the International Court of Criminal Justice, there to be tried for his crimes against humanity?  And then?  It’ll be up to us.

Report this

By DMcD, February 17, 2007 at 12:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Nader , although the best man for the job in 2000 , was a pain in the ass at that time in history. Like many others, I wish he had won then but wish he had conceeded over his votes to Gore (for the common good of our country) when it became obvious he had no chance.
Today, things are soooo much more screwed-up and dangerous that we need Nader, that much more than ever. I’ve heard large numbers of people wishing there was a viable 3rd party to overcome the bi-party, self-serving Washington establishment. This was evident and going strong when Perot came around (before he self-destructed—& turned out to be a good thing, given Perot’s hidden agenda).
If it can work for the Perot as a 3rd party candidate, why the hell can’t it be made to work for Nader. Nader, to my mind, is the only one available with the right mixture of intelligence, guts, fortitude, agenda and basic goodness to fight the right fights and restore the meaning and practice of our Constitution to its former glory ( and fill the weaknesses in it, as exploited and made evident by the repugs.). I’d vote for him !!!!!! We (& our children) need the REAL & MAJOR change of course that only someone like Nader can provide.

Report this

By Jon B, February 17, 2007 at 11:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Let’s be frank, how many presidential candidates and presidents had done and dedicated their lives as much to people as Nader? Other than Jimmy Carter, I can’t anyone else.
http://www.rawstory.com//news/2007/Giuliani_fee_100k_private_jet_for_0216.html

Here is one candidate who actually took money from Tsunami victims. Do you want to speculate what he would do to PEOPLE?

Ruling class and its mouthpiece aka some “mainstream media” have picked and chosen which candidates for you to vote. When some news outlets kept promoting couple of candidates, you are they are stuffing harm down your throat.

Nader can’t win but Nader is a good man.

Report this

By 86bushnow, February 17, 2007 at 11:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If Nader is for real and not a MI-Complex Divide and Conquer stooge, then he ought to be demanding IRV (instant runoff voting) & paper trails. To run as third party and not do that is stupid.

But then again maybe we could use a Repub spoiler- anyone have Ross Perot’s phone number? Let’s play divide and conquer with them.

—-

On an activist note: The first Democratic debate is coming up next Wed (Feb 21st) in Carson City, Nevada. Have you ever seen a politician talk about WTC 7?

It’s my goal to get an audience member in the debate to ask the them (blurt it out if necessary- and have a friend film it on cell-cam) - why did this tower “mysteriously” fall on the afternoon of 9/11, and why did the 9/11 Commission refuse to mention it in their report.

Report this

By Jim Yell, February 17, 2007 at 7:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The trouble with fundamentalists of any kind is they frequently destroy what they say they want, because they will not relent. I agree that both parties are a mess, but can anyone believe it would be a worse mess if G. W. hadn’t stolen an election, perhaps two?

I think if the person who has doubt about the judgement of Nader in my comment would read the whole thing again, he would understand my point and that it is a reasonable question to address.

He can still be a Naderite, but a candidate that can only pull a few percentage points in a campaign is only helping the most right leaning party to prevail—-leaving us all to suffer for their “all or none” ego trip.

Report this

By Jaded Prole, February 17, 2007 at 5:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Nader is doing what he can to pressure the Dems to put forth an un-owned candidate with a real agenda, someone like Kucinich. He’s absolutley right about Clinton and Obama and he knows that the DLC will hand us a shallow corporate candidate. He is a hero for doing so and anyone that continues to buy the DLC propaganda that he is a “spoiler” should probably take up another interest because politically their naiveity makes them their own enemy. If you buy that line then you are saying we have no choice but to choose between the pre-selected puppets of the corporate king-makers. What a sham! Nader and other indeppendents are examples of popular democracy.

Report this

By Jackie T. Gabel, February 16, 2007 at 11:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE: Comment #54020 by Kellina  on  2/16  at  1:20 pm — ”One thing I was wondering about—you mentioned that you think that the oligarchy is split over whether or not to strike Iran. Why would that be? And how would you know something like that? What makes you think it? (I.e., maybe the only reason we know so much about the potential strike against Iran is because someone wants us to know it.) I don’t know if this makes sense, but I did want to ask you about it.”

>>> yeah, in some other threads

I’ve mentioned the schism. It’s based on analysis of what’s gone on of late in the realm of MSM book publishing — an avalanche of limited hangouts on the “intelligence failure” e.g. Woodward, Lance, Drumheller, Ritter, et al), the Iraq Study Group calling for proxy wars, a pull out and negotiations, British intentions of pulling out, Blair’s demise, etc. and I can’t take credit. The most insightful analyst is Webster G. Tarpley, who focussed this week in his Republic Broadcast Network report on Putin’s Munich dressing down of the NWO puppets and the US blatant imposition of its own domestic laws on anyone and everyone, wherever. Gates and Leiberman were there and reportedly livid over his candor and cheek.

The New World Oligarchs have been sold a bill of goods, just like everyone else. The NeoCons’ Global War of Terror was supposed to salvage the collapsing Petro-Drugs-Arms Dollar. As we see it’s a total failure, though the hedge funds have pumped up the markets of late…don’t get too excited another one will blow next week. So what’s next? The Rogue Network dictates Bush’s every utterance and he grows more deranged by the day. He can’t turn on them. Even though they were the ones who held the gun to his head on 911, they could dump enough evidence into the MSM in one news cycle to put his whole cabinet in the doc on treason overnight. They’re all on a short leash. And, as failure looms, the launch on Iran looks more and more like the only exit for the madmen.

The less than strangelove faction are not really sold on the idea that surgically precise bunker-buster nukes are such a good idea. They’re getting desperate to rein in the madmen, ergo: the numerous limited hangouts — incompetence is the ticket. It has to be done without blowing the 911 cover up, triggering the greatest constitutional crisis since the Civil War and precipitating a global financial meltdown — sending 80-90% of NWO wealth up in smoke, which a totally radioactive Middle East would do.

We can bleat and bah about the next 911 or Gulf of Tonkin, but only another of their insider coups will likely change the course in time. As for what “...someone wants us to know…” it’s that they are ruthless enough and fully capable of having any one of us disappeared into the Black Hole of their Torture Gulag, at any moment, forever. I guess the smart thing would be to STFU…wasn’t raised that way, so what?

Report this

By Spinoza, February 16, 2007 at 10:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

> BUT…. even you have to admit that ANY CLINTON is infinitely better for the country than what we’ve got now and whatever the Republicans have planned for the next election.

Why would I admit that—-the Clintons are scum.

Only disgusting liberals can say anything nice about low lifes like the Clintons.


Look, we need to change this country around. The Dimocrats are the enemy as much as the Repukes. Until so called liberals understand that there is no doubt that fascism will prevail.  Look at what we have in the Supreme court—-Roberts and Alito are neo Nazis. They can only be taken out by a revolution.  Only violence can change this country.

Anyone who says otherwise is not serious and doesn’t support democracy.

Report this

By Spinoza, February 16, 2007 at 9:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Looks like I will be voting for Nader again not as a protest vote but as a zeitgeist vote.  The so called left has to get off its ass and start acting like a left.  Fuck Fascism.

Report this

By CJ, February 16, 2007 at 9:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well, yeah, Nader’s a “spoiler” if ones interest is in the same ole, same ole elitism. What DID Clinton do that was so terrific? Let’s see. Well, we got NAFTA; we got his Crime Bill, complete with grossly disparate sentencing guidelines, depending on whether or not one is a white person in possession of powder cocaine or a black person in possession of crack; we got Welfare “reform,” under the direction of Tommy Thompson; we got Madeline Albright and continued Bush 1 sanctions on the Iraqi people; we got intervention in Kosovo—based on “Just War” theory, which was handily—with devastating logic—dismissed by Chomsky (in an address given to West Point senior cadets). What else? Well, Clinton happened to be president when cheap-paying jobs were created in place of good-paying jobs that to this day continue to be off-shored. Oh, and according to Doug Henwood, in his book “Wall Street,” Bill eventually came to the conclusion that he had no choice but to knuckle under to the bond market. Does anyone recall Amy’s interview of Bill about 10 years ago? He lost it when she got tough with him. Bill doesn’t like to be asked hard questions.

Just recently, on Goodman’s program, Ralph said once again that Gore cost him votes. Quite right. Had all you whining Democrats voted for Nader, he might be Pres today, ‘stead a Bush.

Anyone who thinks Dems don’t make war need only recall Kennedy and Johnson, not to mention Truman. Does anyone, including Ian Masters (who has long blamed Nader for Gore’s losing, even when Gore didn’t lose!), have a shred of evidence the Dems would not brought down war on Iraq? After 9/11? “Well,” they say, “had we known then what we know now….” How come so many of the rest of us DID know then, when none of us was privy to supposedly faulty intelligence? Because it stood to reason that Saddam had nothing with which to threaten us. Plus, Ritter and Blix said he had nothing! They were there! Inspecting, already!

Most Democratic members of Congress voted to authorize war. NOW—three thousand dead American soldiers and up to 650,000 dead Iraqis later—they’re backtracking. Not Hillary (about whom Nader is exactly right), of course, who still can’t bring herself to utter the word “mistake”. Thus far, Dems have made it to voting on and passing—just today—a “nonbinding” resolution in the House, under the supervision of Speaker “impeachment is off the table” Pelosi. I’ve heard there are at least seven plans to be explored to get out of Iraq. By the time they’re all “explored,” we’ll be on to 2012. Meanwhile, the Senate, under the “leadership” of Harry Reid(?), has allowed itself to be stymied by Mitch McConnell? Well, you know, the Senate is the “greatest deliberative body in the world.” Indeed. So deliberative, in fact, nothing beyond argument results. For all practical purposes, the whole point of the Senate seems to be never to go beyond deliberation!

For those who continue to think of Nader as “spoiler,” I would say to you that so long as you persist in voting for candidates who belong to one or the other of the two corporatized political parties, exactly so long will America continue in its ambition to extend its global reach until construction of empire is complete, Chinese (who by now own our butts) competition notwithstanding. When that happens, as Chalmers Johnson has said, the price will be most heavily paid here at the center of empire, not to say damage worldwide hasn’t been and won’t continue to be ruinous as aspirations are aspired to.

Nader and all other other-party candidates are systematically excluded—from debates, from corporate media, and from ballot access according to various states’ laws pertaining to ballot access—by power Period No amount of Kissingerian, so-called “realism” (actually, quietist acceptance of the status quo powers that have been and remain) justifies such exclusion in a nation-state that lays claim to democratic government of, by and FOR the people.

Report this

By TJ, February 16, 2007 at 9:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How can Mr. Nadar’s approach to this be explained a differenct way?  “Vote for me or I shoot the puppy!”

Report this

By Khaliq, February 16, 2007 at 8:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

GO Nader GO….To all those nader bashers, shut up, listen, and read more. 2000 and 2004 were stolen. Hillary is a crook, Barak Obama is an insider with loads of big money support, Edwards is a smooth talking lawyer…None of them would stand up to the Military Industrial Complex, Israel or the NeoCons….If only Nader spoke with passion like George Gallaway, then we would see this country turned upside down…And finally, yes, 911 was a criminal inside job and yes we are being ruled by a bunch of mass murderers aka Super Terrorists !

Report this

By D. H. Fabian, February 16, 2007 at 8:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am disappointed that there are those who support Hillary Clinton because she is a woman. As a “New Democrat”, she played a vital role in creating the dynamics that have resulted in our unprecedented
economic disparities. This includes an entire range of policies impacting everything from basic aid for our poor to declining wages and the dramatic increase of family supporting jobs that were broken down into part-time, minimum wage labor.  Probably her greatest accomplishment was that of making America’s poor—-most of whom are women—-invisible, transferring tax dollars from the former social safety net over to cover the costs of an endless (so far) string of tax cuts for the very wealthy. Hillary Clinton has played a vital role in merging the Dem Party and the Republican Party into one, all-powerful Party of the Wealthy Elite.

Report this

By TOC, February 16, 2007 at 8:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Democrats have made themselves a joke over the past 20 years. They have no program. If you were to put the Democratic platform from the last election side by side with Nader’s the overwhelming majority of Democrats would have chosen Nader’s platform. Again, they have no program and are intellectually bankrupt.

Put it this way, as much as anyone wants to complain about Bush, the Democrats lost to him twice. Do you think that is an easy thing to do?

Their excuse, Bush stole the elections. As far as stealing elections is concerned, politics is not a Gentleman’s game. You could ask the Kennedys and Mayor Daley about that, if they were still alive.

For all the whining about Nader stealing votes that are really Democratic, the reality is they are not Democratic votes. Nader is correct in saying you have to earn votes. A lot of people, myself included, are fed up with the utter vacuousness of the Democratic Party and the fact that they do next to nothing to earn any votes.

If the excuse is that they are not as vacuous as the Republicans, well you can swallow that insipid argument if you want, but I prefer to vote the way I believe and not for a party who expects to gain my vote on the sole basis of not being Republicans.

The problem with the Democracy is the Democrats and their utter insipidness. The Republicans have and always will be pretty much the same, dumb and greedy. The Democrats used to have Ideas.

I will continue to vote for Nader until the Democrats get it through their head that they have to do a better job than they are doing now.

Mark my words, these idiots will find a way to lose the next election. Granted that is an almost impossible task, but the Democrats have a knack of finding ways to be wishy/washy enough to lose.

Nader is doing the Democrats a big favor. The problem is they are too dumb to realize it.

Report this

By Dennis D, February 16, 2007 at 8:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Isn’t choice what it’s supposed to be about. You want real change, it’s not going to come from either party. Everyone talks about a third or fourth party but too few are willing to vote for one. Nader is exactly what the D.C. boys fear most so why not give him to them. It’s time to flush the Washington toilet once and for all. Nader in 08!

Report this

By TOC, February 16, 2007 at 7:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Democrats have made themselves a joke over the past 20 years. They have no program. If you were to put the Democratic platform from the last election side by side with Nader’s the overwhelming majority of Democrats would have chosen Nader’s platform. Again, they have no program and are intellectually bankrupt.

Put it this way, as much as anyone wants to complain about Bush, the Democrats lost to him twice. Do you think that is an easy thing to do?

Their excuse, Bush stole the elections. As far as stealing elections is concerned, politics is not a Gentleman’s game. You could ask the Kennedys and Mayor Daley about that.

For all the whining about Nader stealing votes that are really Democratic, they are not. A lot of people, myself included, are fed up with the utter vacuousness of the Democratic Party.

If the excuse is that they are not as vacuous as the Republicans, you can swallow that insipid argument if you want, but I prefer to vote the way I believe and not for a party who expects to gain my vote on the sole basis of not being Republicans.

The problem with the Democracy is the Democrats and their utter insipidness. The Republicans have and always will be pretty much the same, dumb and greedy. The Democrats used to have Ideas.

I will continue to vote for Nader until the Democrats get it through their head that they have to do a better job than they are doing now.

Mark my words, these idiots will find a way to lose the next election. Granted that is an almost impossible task, but the Democrats have a knack of finding ways to be wishy/washy enough to lose.

Nader is doing the Democrats a big favor. The problem is they are too dumb to realize it.

Report this

By Ron Ranft, February 16, 2007 at 7:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The next time you get in your car and look down at the airbag, Nader did that. Put on your seat belt. Nader did that. Drink clean water, Nader did that. Clean air, he did that too. And all those politicians on the Hill had to be forced into doing these things because they are owned by the corporations whose bottom line does not include our best interests or safety.

You name me one other person who has ran for President who has done as much as Ralph Nader for this country. When Ralph says that there is virtually no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, he knows what he is talking about because more than any of us he has dealt with these people throughout his life. I can tell you that with him as President this country would become what we want it to become. We wouldn’t be worried about our health, our safety, our well-being! Even JFK couldn’t and didn’t live up to his promises either.

I for one, am tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils. If he runs, he has my vote, my money, and my support. I’d like to live in a country that has hope instead of fear as its future! For me, he is a candidate I can really get excited about!

Report this

By R.M., February 16, 2007 at 5:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dunno whether he feels justified or not, but he is responsible for the “Mean” means we’re in right now…whether he really spoke the truth while the others spoke the “poll tested pablum” seems irrelevant at this point. The imbecil ended up with the power and the fowl intentions to use it for “his own” fowl intentions. Not the butterfly effect….this shit was predictable.

We could have ended up with a duely elected, environmentally conscious leader with the “common good” as his aiming point…but NO…here we are…an 8.6 trillion dollar debt which will effect the quality of life of Americans for decades to come…diminished constitutional rights as individuals…a more strident stratification of social circumstances because of money and influence peddling, corporate welfare, and tax breaks for the ludicrously rich. There has been constant meticulous propaganda promoting anything which furthers the agenda. Manufacturing evidence for the need to go to war.  Stiffling peer reviewed scientific opinion on every subject. Editing of intelligence data where advantageous. Lies as a default at every opportunity to really be an American president…morally borderline decisions effecting millions…leave us trying to think of how to explain all this to our kids…

You explain it Mr Nader !

Report this

By Jeff B, February 16, 2007 at 4:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A few pertinent facts to recall:

the final official margin in the 2000 campaign was 537 votes.

Yes, Ralph Nader polled more than that many votes.  But let’s remember who else did: Browne, Buchanan, Hagelin, Harris, McReynolds, Moorehead and Phillips.

Oh yes, and Bush.

When was the last time you encountered a public lambasting of any one of the other “third party” candidates whose vote total also had the potential to swing the election?

Furthermore, turnout among registered voters was up significantly in 2000.  In other words, there was an increase in participation among those people who usually stay home on election day, and there are good reasons for believing Ralph Nader deserves some credit for getting them involved in the process.  About 6% on average, nationwide - which would translate to about 400,000 votes in Florida. Those are votes that would not have been cast for any candidate, and cannot logically be said to have been “taken from” Gore (as if any could).

Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote, “We can either have a democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” Ralph Nader has spent a lifetime embodying that principle, tirelessly working on behalf of others and eschewing the personal material benefits that others of similar energies and talents realized for themselves.

So enough with the personal attacks - you’d all be better served taking that angry energy and putting it towards something constructive.

So would we all.

Report this

By Frenday, February 16, 2007 at 3:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is desparate and despicable illogic to castigate someone who serves people and who puts excellent values out there… for running for office… in a DEMOCRACY.  How in the world can you justify this mean-spirited “perennial spoiler” intro.  Nader’s “duopoly” critique is right on, and when you behave in this way, you are, for the moment, duopoly’s friends.

You farted up the place with this one.

Report this

By Margaret Currey, February 16, 2007 at 2:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

No matter is Nader is a so called spoiler, the spoiler in any election is the people who run the Election system at least two states are corrupt Fla. and Ohio, when partinship enters into officials who run the election system than this is really not a democracy.

This country should have a third party, I will vote for Nader in the primiaries if that is possible, if the Democrats are this strong and cannot win, then they deserve to lose.

Margaret from Vancouver, Washington

Report this

By Anonymous, February 16, 2007 at 2:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I hope Nader runs so that voters can have a way out of the corrupt, two-party system.  If independant and progressive candidates are absent in these elections, the U.S. will destroy itself.  He is the only one qualified to be president.  With all the things he has done for the American public, I am shocked that people blame him for losing Kerry the election.

Report this

By Walt, February 16, 2007 at 2:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The reason why democrats see Nader as “the spoiler” is because they are themselves too spoiled to know the difference between words and actions.  Nader has done nothing to spoil what is already spoiled. He’s the dominatrix to tell you what a bad boy you’ve been. 

And if any “progressive” or “liberal” tries to tell me that Nader or anyone else who might run as a Green or Social Dem or whatever is “spoiling” the demcratic nominee’s chance of victory, I will immediately run as the candidate of the Spoiler party. 

The more the merrier.  My god. If eight years of the Bush have not taught the dems anything then what will? 

Republicans think that being right is without question.  The Dems that being right is sometimes wrong.  Nader just knows that being right is, more than simply common sense, a shitload of work.

Report this

By Kellina, February 16, 2007 at 2:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Jackie T. Gabel:

I agree with you. The dems are very similar to the repubs in all but a few respects. Just look at where the candidate stands on the CFR, Israel, etc.

Paul Craig Roberts, in an article linked below, describes why he thinks there is NO credible opposition:

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/060207_epiphany.htm

People like Amy Goodman, the folks at the Nation, and our own lovely Bob Sheer, are all blackmailable. Everyone has foibles, many have secrets they’d rather not publicize. The Administration’s likely got the goods on them; they can put them on the “no-fly list,” they can monitor anyone’s email and phone conversations. If an extra-marital affair or a favorite porn site doesn’t pop up, well they can always kill that person (e.g., Wellstone). As Roberts pointed out, even Ted Kennedy got put on a no-fly list. And he has a TON of power. So we are all vulnerable.

There are 80,000 people on that no-fly list. Are they all terrorists or suspected terrorists? Any, what is the point of a no-fly list if they are suspected terrorists? If you suspected someone of being a terrorist, you would arrest them, you wouldn’t just block them from flying.

9/11 was so obviously an inside job. That tells you how scared people are to say it like it is. Why else would Gore not challenge the Florida votes? Why else would Edwards and Kerry not challenge the Ohio votes? There was obvious, documented fraud in both cases. If you spent millions to run a campaign, and years on the road to promote yourself, would you just give up like that? Maybe you would if they threatened to reveal something really awful about you, or threatened the health and safety of you or your loved ones. Gore is probably more principled than most, because he will not run again, even though he would win. I think he’s scared.

One thing I was wondering about—you mentioned that you think that the oligarchy is split over whether or not to strike Iran. Why would that be? And how would you know something like that? What makes you think it? (I.e., maybe the only reason we know so much about the potential strike against Iran is because someone wants us to know it.) I don’t know if this makes sense, but I did want to ask you about it.

Oh, by the way, I don’t think you should worry about Nader because there will not be an election in 2008. We’ll have martial law and Chimpy McFligtsuit will ascend the throne, unless Darth kills him on a “hunting trip.”

Report this

By BoDo, February 16, 2007 at 2:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Would everyone quit blaming this guy?  Bush et al. stole both elections.  Nader’s trying to help build a viable third party.  It’s hopeless, of course, since our political system’s in ruins.  But if you all think the 1% of the vote that he won (and how many votes were thrown out?) gave Bush the White House, then Bush and the Supreme Court are well pleased with you.

Report this

By Lord Byron, February 16, 2007 at 1:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Enough with the Nader bashing!  All of you should be ashamed of yourselves!  This man has done a tremendous amount on behalf of the consumer in this ugly and corrupt capitalist economy known as the USA.

I already posted that Nader did NOT cost Al Gore the election so any reference to that is utter BS. Lest any of you nimrods need to be reminded, here’s what a supreme court judge had to say one more time:

What must underlie petitioners’ entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today’s decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

Now if Hillary Clinton DOES get the Democratic nomination, I sure as hell WILL vote for Nader. Because whomever the Republicans choose, Hillary won’t be able to contrast herself at all. She’s a non-starter and I want her to drop out from being a presidential candidate NOW.

Stop it with the Nader bashing! This man is entitled to run as any of you are entitled to run. Nader has done much more for this country than any of you blowhards!  And this is the kind of appreciate he gets?  All of you should be ashamed of yourselves!

Report this

By trantieungoc, February 16, 2007 at 1:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Does he get pay from Bush to do so ? But he still keeps running, his results will surely be flushed off through the toilet anyway !

Report this

By HeadlessHessian, February 16, 2007 at 12:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Stop blaming the man for the 2000 election mess.  The man has a full right to do what he did.  And has the full right to do it again. 
Its only idiot voters that were fooled by the Shrub and his lies…..TWICE…read it again TWICE.
So stop your bitching and start getting more involved in the local politics where it really matters.  If you voted for Bush at any time, or for a republican at any time since 1990 then you only have yourself to blame for being a complete idiot!

Headless

Report this

By tj, February 16, 2007 at 12:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

His “Not a Dime’s Worth of Difference” between the Democrats and Republicans argument is not worth a plugged nickel today unless he can convince everyone that somehow the Democratic president would have put us in the same place today that the Republican one has.
The fallacy of Mr. Nadar’s view assumes that it doesn’t matter if the Democrats lose and the Republican’s win because the outcome of either presidency will not result in a dime’s worth of difference to the issues important to the American people.  In view of the Bush administration’s performance, this position cannot be credibly argued.
Assuming, then, that it makes a tremendous difference to the issues that are important to the American people on whether there is a Republican in the White House instead of a Democrat, the goal of the American people should be to make sure that a credible candidate other than a Republican is elected. 
Can Mr. Nadar argue with any credibility that the probabilities favor his election to the Presidency instead of a Democratic candidate in a three way race (Republican, Democratic, Mr. Nadar)?  If not, he needs to step aside. 
I have no problem with Mr. Nadar running for president so long as he does it in the context of the Democratic primaries, and if he wins, fine.  If he doesn’t win the Democratic nomination through the primary process, then he needs to explain why, in the context of the practical realities of our electoral process, he is willing to risk the defeat of the Democratic candidate and 4 more years of disastrous Republican leadership.

Report this

By TOC, February 16, 2007 at 12:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Great News.  I hope he elects the republicans again. Then Maybe the democrats will begin to get the idea that their craven attitude towards the issues over the past 20 years makes them unfit as the party of the left.

Hillary Clinton is a Republican to all but the blind.

Report this

By LG, February 16, 2007 at 11:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Nader facilitated the victory of Bushco. Whatever Nader is or isn’t, LOOK AT THE RESULTS. from now on do not blame Nader, only those who now foolishly vote for him.

Report this

By Dale Headley, February 16, 2007 at 11:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Attaboy, Nader!  Give the election to the Republicans again.  You were once a respected activist for noble causes; but you’ve descended into a joke by putting your own ambitions ahead of the welfare of the people.  Whatever your true motives, your disastrous effect cannot help but cast your rhetoric in a disingenuous light.

Report this

By Jackie T. Gabel, February 16, 2007 at 11:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE: •    Comment #53929 by Jim Yell  on  2/16  at  6:04 am — ” by his arrogance and self-centered-ness has shadowed much of what good he once gave us…he defeats his own agenda and takes everyone else down with him…if Nader had gotten out the vote for Democratic candidates, perhaps George would not have prevailed in the political process, even with his money and dirty campaign.”

>>>>>> BS…the fix was in, probably from both sides…

Congress did nothing to support complaints officially lodged by Florida Blacks whose votes were clearly suppressed. Gore wouldn’t fight for them and Kerry didn’t fight for those who “tried” to vote for him in Ohio. These pathetic Democrats are the epitome of the kind of liberal who leaves the room when a fight breaks out. You’re better off at the barricade than expecting any of these yellow bellies to do anything for you.

Nader runs to promote substantive issues — exactly what the Democrats literally refuse to do. Nader is essential simply to keep those issues at least marginally in the picture.

As for being a spoiler, the Democrats are there own worst spoilers — simply put: they are bought and sold, dyed in the wool go for the gold — yeah, it’s said, “They gotta be to run multi-million-dollar campaigns.” Yet, none show the sense with which they were born by proposing to make the process public and throwing the advertising industry out of it — the no-brainer of the century. If money is free speech as the courts have ruled, then “Arbeit” really does “macht Frei” — knock yourself out with all that freedom.

My only issue with Nader is that he’s already so reviled, he has nothing to loose in supporting 911Turth — the media 3rd rail for any and all, but in his case, so what?

Come on, Ralph. Lend your voice!
Support 911Truth - End War of Terror

Report this

By Rusty Scalf, February 16, 2007 at 11:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The man is addicted to microphones and cameras. I really believe it’s that simple.

Report this

By Dr.Knowitall, PhD, PhD, February 16, 2007 at 11:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A % point or two in a national election indicates a couple things.  1) The candidates aren’t significantly different in the eyes and minds of the voters, or worth going to the polls for. 2) The campaign and election process, i.e. campaign financing and PAC’s, is so flawed and unfair that significant differences between candidates are not generally exposed. 3) Our national elections are more media circus and beauty contest than electing the best person for the job.
I think that most would agree with me that the best people for the job of president of this country are never heard from and walking the streets of hometown, USA.  And, because our system is flawed as it is, we never will hear from them.
Let Nader be.  He has good qualities.  If we had candidates part of “system” who were worth voting for, Nader’s 1 or 2% wouldn’t matter.  Face it, we’re doomed.

Report this

By Anton, February 16, 2007 at 11:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hey, Hey, Hey!
     
      It is a great day for all decent, but
    flawed people of this nation to hear of the
    possible entrance of Ralph Nader into the 08
    presidential race.
   
    I say decent, but flawed people because the
    only entity I know of who is perfect is God,
    if he exsists. Considering the current state
    of the world, I seriously doubt his exsist-
    ance.

    That belief does not in any way deminish ones
    fever for fairness, righteousness, and decen-
    cy toward those who exibit the same toward
    others.

    We are taught from infancy, to always respect
    authority. The key word is always, even if
    that same authority is urinating on you and
    insists its rain. Woe be it to thoses who
    would justifibly challege or speak truth to
    power.

    The last 30 plus years have shown what occurs
    when ” The People “, the citizens of our so
    called democracy will experience when they
    stage a strike for fair wages. Jobs are ex-
    ported to Mexico, Canada, Central America or
    overseas to lower wages, obscenely maximize
    profits, and foster in any group or individ-
    ual fear of economic reprisal fo daring to
    question authority. Corporations only want
    obediant workers. Those who can operate the
    machines and or do the paperwork.

    As soon as the workers started thinking for
    themselves, asking for reasonable compensa-
    tion for their labor, thet were labeled comm-
    unists or agitators/troublemakers. The very
    foundation of society would collapse when one
    dares to say ” Stop! No More Bullying Bull-
    shit “.

    It is my fervent hope that Ralph runs for the
    presidency in 08. I voted for him in 2000 and
    will do so again. Anyone who would spread the
    bile that obama spewed about mayor daley of
    Chicago, are either taught by inbreeders or
    are in fact, inbreeders themselves. Only
    someone from a contaminated genepool, sells
    a miscreant like daley as a decent human be-
    ing.

    Only scam artists/thugs would dare to perpet-
    uate such bilge as polite discourse and one
    dare not utter a word in opposition or the
    society will teach one a lesson and make you
    unenployable or worse. Kick or kill your ass.

    So, Thank You Ralph for even considering a
    in 08. If you choose not to run, please en-
    dose a candidate who mirrors your sense of
    fairness and true justice for all of the peo-
    ple.
 
    I do not use uppercase capitalization for
    scum/murders like bush or any of the sucho-
    phants who dare to tell the people the lies
    that kill other with appearent glee.

Report this

By jhus, February 16, 2007 at 10:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Go Ralph!  Go!  I will vote for Kucinich, but the contest between you two will be lovely!

Report this

By Robert Hutwohl, February 16, 2007 at 10:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

None of the current Democrat contenders appear to be very serious about getting us out of the Iraq war. None of them have the backbone to stand up to Bush. Hillary appears to be as much a hawk as Bush. She would rather kiss-rear her way into the front runnning position that speak the truth. I say Ralph Nader is stronger, has more courage than any of them. However, it is questionable whether America can recognize that enough to vote for him. America seems to be under some miasma; unable to see the current world situation for what it really is. It is only Nader who has, for decades, stood up against corrupt government and corrupt corporations. What does it take for people to wake up?

Report this

By kenoshaMarge, February 16, 2007 at 10:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Only Nader’s ego would convince him to run again. It is his right to run. No one should stop him from running. But anyone who votes for him should remember that a vote for him takes one away from a Democratic candidate. Do I like the field thus far. Some better than others. But I do know that any of them are better than a McCain, a Gulianni, a Brownback, etc. etc.

Report this

By Robert B. Livingston, February 16, 2007 at 9:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am offended by the San Francisco Chronicle article which Truthdig links to.

The article by Carla Marinucci drums the widely swallowed propaganda that Nader had more influence over the outcome of the 2000 U.S. presidential election than actually was the case.

She writes: “Nader gained more than 2.7 percent of the national popular vote as the Green Party candidate for president in 2000, which some analysts said came primarily at the expense of Democrat Al Gore and helped Republican George W. Bush win the White House.”

I think it is important that readers question the motives behind the mainstream media’s gratuitous reiterations of speculations that were never grounded in fact.

Readers need to ask why the mainstream media’s memory is long when it comes to echoing widely believed myths, but is short when it comes to facts:  especially the facts about the proven deceptions and lies that put our country in an illegal war and which are institutionalizing laws that violate the spirit of our Constitution.

Report this

By Christopher Robin, February 16, 2007 at 9:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Asked to describe Clinton, a front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination a year in advance of the primaries, Nader said: “Flatters, panders, coasting, front-runner, looking for a coronation, not taking on the huge waste in the military budget as a member of the Armed Services commission, never going after the corporate crimes against pensions, against workers. ... She has no political fortitude.’’”

^ About sums it up? Unless Hillary fans wish to dispute the facts proffered by him?

Or instead will we hear more boot licking nasty comments aimed at Ralph? (suspect so)

Critics your right about “the boot licking”, but you have assigned it to wrong person.

Did Hillary vote for the war effort before voting against?....Help me? my memory is so fogged with some sort of Nader mania smoke.

Perhaps, if I just watch Hillary’s political gears turning again…It will all come back to me? huh?

Report this

By RAE, February 16, 2007 at 8:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Y’know, Nader, you could very well be correct when you say..

““She’s (Hillary Clinton) just another bad version of (former President) Bill Clinton,’’ Nader told KGO radio host Ronn Owens in San Francisco.”

BUT…. even you have to admit that ANY CLINTON is infinitely better for the country than what we’ve got now and whatever the Republicans have planned for the next election.

In fact, I’d go so far as to charge YOU, Nader, with the FULL RESPONSIBILITY for the mess this country is in at the moment! If your running the last time hadn’t split the vote, Bush & Co wouldn’t even have come close enough to manipulate Florida so they’d win.

So please… if you love your country… STAY OUT OF IT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU.

Report this

By thomsen, February 16, 2007 at 8:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Nader 1st ran in 1996 as the Green candidate.  Democrats didn’t notice him then because they had a strong candidate in President Clinton.  Only when Democrats have weak candidates does Nader “spoil” the election.

Report this

By John Lowell, February 16, 2007 at 8:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Any person having affection for either democracy or liberty would encourage Ralph Nader to run and to do everything possible to smooth the way for him respecting ballot assess. It is a measure of the present one party dictatorship that we are powerless to help ourselves when it comes to the Middle East. That won’t change until non-regime candidates like Nader or Buchanan are permitted to run simply because they want to. Nader’s treatment by Republicans and Democrats in Ohio by election officials last time had much in common with the treatment accorded the Social Democrats in 1933 Germany. The talk by Democrats of Nader costing them elections is the very expression of their own bancrupcy. I’ll buy such foolishness when Edwards gives up his dual citizenship.

John Lowell

Report this

By Bukko in Australia, February 16, 2007 at 7:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Go right ahead, Ralph. The 67 votes you get in the general election won’t affect any REAL left-wing candidate. And the money and manpower that Republican stealth operatives use to get you on the ballot won’t be used to defeat REAL left-wing candidates, or even other right-wing but non-fascist ones like Hillary.

I voted for Nader when I lived in Florida in 2000. I’m sorry. I apologise. If I had not done that, maybe I would not have had to leave the country.

Report this

By Jim Yell, February 16, 2007 at 7:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Nader was once a positive influence on our society, but as the years have gone by his arrogance and self-centered-ness has shadowed much of what good he once gave us.

If the American Election system wasn’t such an all or none process and if Nader could throw his few percent of the votes to the more liberal party, than he would do no harm and perhaps actually have some positive influence on the process and result.

However, that is not the way of the country’s election process and so he is indeed a spoiler, but worse with the small margins that it sometimes takes to win an election, he defeats his own agenda and takes everyone else down with him.

George did not have a mandate to be President, even with his only possible legal election, but he has acted like he was given a mandate and has done terrible damage to the country, to its laws which he has continued to violate,even after swearing to enforce and uphold them. It is possible that if Nader had gotten out the vote for Democratic candidates, perhaps George would not have prevailed in the political process, even with his money and dirty campaign.

Report this
 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook