Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
July 26, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

The Unwomanly Face of War

Truthdig Bazaar
The Dangerous Doctrine

The Dangerous Doctrine

Saul Landau

more items

Email this item Print this item

Nader’s Utopia: The World According to Ralph

Posted on Dec 21, 2009
Collage from fly navy and soundfromwayout

By Chris Hedges

(Page 3)

“What would the framers of the Constitution say about the state of our country today?” Nader asks. “Well, they would say that the important parts of the Constitution are a dead letter. They are being ignored. Look at the equal protections clause between corporations as entities and real human beings. The declaration-of-war clause is dead. The one thing the framers never anticipated was that a branch of government—judicial, executive or legislative—would ever give up its power willingly to another branch. They didn’t anticipate Congress abdicating its power to the executive branch. And it’s getting worse and worse.”

“Appropriation power is supposed to start in the House,” Nader says. “Who’s kidding who? It starts in the Office of Management and Budget. So as a result they didn’t give us any revenue. No American can challenge this in a court of law, because they would not have any standing to sue. The case would be thrown out. And members of Congress don’t have standing to sue over this violation of the Constitution, of their own authority. The only one who may have standing to sue is the attorney general, and the attorney general is not going to sue the president. So that’s a very serious situation. We’re getting a de facto destruction of the separation of powers. Madison and others did not want anybody but Congress to deliberate and take our country to war. They were adamant about this. In The New York Times, after Obama’s [Dec. 1] speech, they had on the jump page a little paragraph that said President Obama will expand the war into Pakistan, if he can work with a weak and dysfunctional Pakistan government. Hello? Who gave him authority to do that? Is he going to the Air Force Academy in a year to talk about the war in Pakistan? We have accepted, as a people, that the president can go anywhere in the world, with any troops, at any time, under any pretext. Period.”

“There are a lot of good people in this country who may not agree on some things, but they agree a lot on things that the mass media never emphasizes,” Nader says. “But they’ve persuaded themselves they’re powerless. Why didn’t you show up? It doesn’t make any difference. I was busy. Busy, doing what? Well, I had to take the kids to soccer practice. Half of democracy’s showing up. There is demoralization. How do these super-rich people turn the motivation to action? How do they turn a demoralized, powerless population to action? You start with imagination. William Blake said his residence was his imagination. That’s what’s been squeezed out of us and out of our children. And children are the most imaginative human beings, but they have their imagination squeezed out of them with standardized testing and rote learning, etc., etc. We’ve got to make real-life discussions like this exciting so they happen again and again.”

Chris Hedges, whose column is published on Truthdig every Monday, has written nine books, the most recent being “Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle” (2009).


Square, Site wide, Desktop


Square, Site wide, Mobile
1   2   3
Banner, End of Story, Desktop
Banner, End of Story, Mobile
Wages of Rebellion: The Moral Imperative of Revolt, By Chris Hedges, Truthdig Columnist and Winner of the Pulitzer Prize -- Get Your Autographed Copy Today Also Available! Truthdig Exclusive DVD of Chris Hedges' Wages of Rebellion Lecture The World As It Is: 
Dispatches on the Myth of Human Progress: A collection of Truthdig Columns, by Chris Hedges -- Get Your Autographed Copy Today

Keep up with Chris Hedges’ latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at

Watch a selection of Wibbitz videos based on Truthdig stories:

Get a book from one of our contributors in the Truthdig Bazaar.

Related Entries

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every day.

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.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By elisalouisa, January 19, 2010 at 10:16 pm Link to this comment

Ed_Tru_Lib: I guess my point is, TR’s son dying may well have killed him, but
not necessarily because of the way he came to die.
Your comment is quite appropriate and describes in a few words the pain the
President Roosevelt surely endured.

Night-Gaunt: My point is, why would you even quote Glenn Beck? Beck puts a
spin on certain words and comments that purposely lead to incorrect
assumptions that suit his agenda and those of the people he caters to and
thinks he is part of, namely the power/elite.
You and I do not read the same books as to President Theodore Roosevelt. I
am grateful to him for all the joy he has brought to many Americans including
me because of our National Parks and Monuments. You are correct in saying
that President Theodore Roosevelt was a heterogenous person. Labels do not a
person make or necessarily describe. President Theodore Roosevelt was larger
than life and I shall leave it at that.

Leefeller: I remember that restaurant, filled with sunshine,  as being called “Hug
me Hug me” with a Teddy Bear at each table. What joy to have breakfast there
with eggs sunny side up.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, January 19, 2010 at 5:51 pm Link to this comment


You may or may not be right, but you must realize, that prior to 1914, we had NONE of the feelings toward Germany we had for decades in the aftermath of Hitler.
We ADMIRED the Germans as hard-working, forward-thinking, industrial, and ferocious warriors (they defeated Austria in 1866 and France in 1871).  “Little Phil” Sheridan, having nothing to do after 1865, rented his services to the German central command.

There were many Irish immigrants who hated the Brits and had nothing against Germany. There were many German-Americans all over the nation who saw Germany as “justified”.  In 1914, our relations with Britain were NOTHING like they were from 1917 to today.  We found the Brits arrogant, imperial, and condescending to us Colonials.  They ruled the world—the Sun never set on the British Empire and ... people distrusted “empire”—as they should.

And the French had tossed off democracy for monarchy a couple of times and managed to declare and lose a stupid war in 1871….yet they STILL were our ally.

I don’t have the answer, but I DO know there was a large dislike of the Brits and admiration of the Germans, and it took a MASSIVE propaganda campaign to swing that over—and a MAJOR series of mistakes by the Germans that played into that.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, January 19, 2010 at 10:21 am Link to this comment

Elisalouisa I wish you would have read what I said more closely or you would have seen that I wasn’t agreeing with the Beckster but criticizing him for his ignominious and loose use of “Progressive” and totally leaving out all of those Regressives in supporting those things he says only Progressives supported i.e. eugenics, League of Nations, welfare etc. (Yes a mixed bag and they all don’t go together.) So please reread it and don’t jump to such a wrong conclusion.

Now TR is a heterogenous person in his personal ways of seeing the world and would have been thrown out of the present Republican party in many quarters. (Even someone like McCaine is being called “liberal” by the most extreme of the extremists.) The parts I like are Progressive and the parts I don’t like are definitely Regressive. Beck is following an agenda that Progressives are behind everything evil in the USA not Regressives like himself. Strange considering just a little digging shows the bloody prints of the Regressives all over it. (Corporatists who want to make this nation a theocratic capitalist empire & are the ones who want to bring down the nation as it is.) The ultimate Shock Doctrine brought home and nationalizied in the corporate reconstruction way.

Report this

By ed_tru_lib, January 18, 2010 at 8:01 pm Link to this comment


ITW-I guess I agree that both Wilson and TR were as you say, “warlike,” but maybe a lot less so considering the context of their time.

Its inconceivable to me that we ever could have fought WITH Germany against England, but perhaps in some more enlightened age, all things being the same, we could have retained our neutrality. However could you seriously imagine us THEN, siding with ANYONE against France? As General Pershing said when he landed in 1917, on Wilson’s orders and with TR’s blessing-“Lafayette-nous sommes ICI”

Also Germany was an overt militaristic dictatorship posing as a monarchy. England was, as it remains, a democracy posing as a monarchy, though cerrtainly like our own then or today, with plenty of undemocratic things happening.

Undoubtedly TR was deeply affected by his son’s death, and combined with other factors (regret about his political decisions among others) it seriously depressed him and shortened his life.

The one republican I admire more than TR also was deeply affected by his favorite son Willie’s death during the civil war. Lincoln was also of course a depression sufferer. While his son’s death didn’t kill him then, by most accounts he rarely seemed happy about anything in life thereafter. I guess my point is, TR’s son dying may well have killed him, but not necessarily because of the way he came to die.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, January 18, 2010 at 5:42 pm Link to this comment

Quentin Roosevelt died in July of 1918.  TR died in January of 1919—just 6 months later.  One of his sons committed suicide out of depression, so it ran in the family.

I don’t deny TR’s great mental power to overcome being a sickly kid, and he WAS far more open to Black advancement than Wilson was.  Wilson was a professor of History, yet lauded “Birth of a Nation” as absolutely factual.  Of course, WW was a Southerner who migrated to New Jersey.

Of the two, I prefer TR over Wilson.

Report this

By elisalouisa, January 18, 2010 at 4:00 pm Link to this comment

Such a post does not befit you Night-Gaunt. I hope I am mistaken but this is not the first time you have quoted Glenn Beck.

From Wilikpedia Encyclopedia:
President Theodore Roosevelt and
Civil Rights
“Although Roosevelt did some work improving race relations, he, like most
leaders of the Progressive Era, lacked initiative on most racial issues. Booker T.
Washington, the most important black leader of the day, was the first African
American to be invited to dinner, on October 16, 1901, at the White House,
where he discussed politics and racism with Roosevelt. News of the dinner
reached the press two days later. The white public outcry following the dinner
was so strong, especially from the Southern states, that Roosevelt never
repeated the experiment.[15] Roosevelt was reluctant to use federal authority
to enforce the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing voting
rights to African Americans. Roosevelt did not sponsor or support laws to
prohibit the lynching of African Americans.
‘Publicly, Roosevelt spoke out against racism and discrimination, and appointed
many blacks to lower-level Federal offices, and wrote fondly of the “Buffalo
Soldiers,” who had fought beside his Rough Riders at the Battle of San Juan Hill
in Cuba in July 1898. Roosevelt opposed school segregation, having ended the
practice in New York State during his governorship. Roosevelt rejected anti-
Semitism—he was the first to appoint a Jew, Oscar S. Straus, to the cabinet.
Like most intellectuals of the era, Roosevelt believed in evolution; as an
authority on biology he paid special attention to the issue. Every race, and every individual, was capable of unlimited improvement, Roosevelt felt. Furthermore, a new “race” (in the cultural sense, not biological) had emerged on the American frontier, the “American race,” and it was quite distinct from other ethnic groups, such as the Anglo-Saxons. Roosevelt thought himself as Dutch, not Anglo-Saxon.”

How can one compare the views of a politician today with those of one a century ago? One would hope that progress has been made, and it has although not in all areas as I pointed out in a previous post. In our fight for racial equality there has been much progress. Theodore Roosevelt was a man of his time and he indeed was Progressive and a leader in many ways. Apparently you pay heed to what utterances Glenn Beck emits.  Shame! Glenn Beck has done zero for this country.
No, I take that back. Glenn Beck’s contribution is not zero, his contribution is in the minus column as he has done much harm.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, January 18, 2010 at 10:58 am Link to this comment

Glenn Beck has put both FDR, TR & WW on his list of “progressives” who were really “fascists or communists” or something and that they are the same type as today. Except none of them were really especially if you remember that TR considered a Nordic man a traitor if he didn’t marry and have loads of kids. He believed in one flag, one race (white) one creed one religion to rule the USA. He was disappointed that the USA had all the elements necessary to make an empire and didn’t do it. Eugenics was popular here in the USA and people of many types, all white most Christian, agreed with its pseudo-scientific tenants. (Started in England and reached its ultimate fruition in Germany.) Some were Progressives, but many others were what we could call Conservatives but <b<Glenn Beck</b> & company have another agenda and so Progressives of today replace the Communists of yesterday. Labeled by what they themselves believe is true and Godly.

Nader is a Progressive and he stands against such things and by that he doesn’t have a chance of being elected in our compromised system. Corporation uber alles or no go.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, January 18, 2010 at 8:44 am Link to this comment

Ellouise and ITW enjoyed the interesting TR History, learning new things is always most gratifying to me. My Historical knowledge which is quite weak. My level of history is probably somewhere as low or maybe close to hat of the George W. Bush, a in degrees of ignorance. Though, maybe not well hidden in the cellar or low as Imbecilic Winky Palins degree of stupidty.

History as I grow longer and of tooth, seems to be more and more interesting, I just never have had the opportunity to enjoy it before, and it is obvious learning from history has not happened for many others.

Talking about Teddy Roosevelt, brought up memories of a Resturant I used to enjoy many years ago when I was working in California.  I believe the restaurant was named “Bully Bully”. My memory recalls extensive pictures and memorabilia of TR as a Theme of the Restaurant in a dark wood panel setting.

Now! Thanks to your posts, my mind has filled in a few more of those many, many blank spots.


Report this

By elisalouisa, January 18, 2010 at 7:44 am Link to this comment

ITW:My problem with TR is that he was super-gung ho for military action, for
the “manly” arts as he called them.  Somehow, it never seemed to connect to
him that real people DIED in war.  He survived, all his sons survived—until
Quentin, his favorite, was shot down and killed. Only then did TR actually
experience the awful pain of losing a child to a war—and it killed him.

President Theodore Roosevelt’s was a sickly child and his childhood trips to South Dakota taught him the value of being
physically in shape; overcoming danger was part of this. He learned to ride
a horse in South Dakota and his cowboy buddies were part of his Roughrider
group. He perhaps thought of himself as invincible. As to his health, no where
have I found it written that losing Quentin to war killed him. However, I have
read similar accounts of what is written below.

From Library Journal
“Through the Brazilian Wilderness. Ornig’s extensive research results in as
complete an account as we are likely to get of Roosevelt’s harrowing trip, a trip
that broke his health and hastened his death at age 60. For entertainment,
Jeffers’s work is better, but both volumes contribute to understanding the
personality, character, and contributions of TR before and after his presidency.”
Nicholas C. Burckel, Washington Univ. Libs., St. Louis
Copyright 1994 Reed Business Information, Inc.—This text refers to the
Hardcover edition.

Enjoyed your post ed_tru_lib.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, January 18, 2010 at 5:30 am Link to this comment


I know more about Wilson than I would care to.  Despite how they were positioned, Wilson was a racist and dictatorial manager, whose main attraction seems to have been for the agrarian interests.  He LOOKED like a liberal but wasn’t.

Wilson, unlike most of America, was a total Anglophile and favored Britain in WWI long before we got in, despite Germany’s major efforts NOT to p*** us off until mid-1916, and the UK’s high-handed ways of dealing with our shipping.

TR OTOH, looked like a conservative, but TRULY was more progressive than Wilson.

Either would have gotten us into WWI—as Taft probably would have.  When we got into the War, we NEVER joined the Alliance, but remained an Associated Power.  Our goal was to establish a balance of power in Europe, whereas the Allies and Central powers wanted to crush each other.

Wilson nearly destroyed this goal by allowing the shadowy (and foolish) Col. House to give away nearly EVERYTHING at Versailles to get the League of Nations done (Kinda like Obama and Reid giving away everything to get a bad health care bill done).

Wilson’s supposed-heart attack, whatever, was most likely a nervous breakdown from the stress.  Most people aren’t aware, but it wasn’t the first “attack” Wilson had had. As President of Princeton he got into a long running battle with the Dean of the Law School—I don’t remember the details—and ended up with a similar “attack”.

My problem with TR is that he was super-gung ho for military action, for the “manly” arts as he called them.  Somehow, it never seemed to connect to him that real people DIED in war.  He survived, all his sons survived—until Quentin, his favorite, was shot down and killed. Only then did TR actually experience the awful pain of losing a child to a war—and it killed him.

Report this

By ed_tru_lib, January 17, 2010 at 8:25 pm Link to this comment

Elisalouisa-very interesting comment and certainly something I couldn’t agree more with, about TR having class. I never knew about this coin motto thing, but knew TR was, like pretty much every wealthy person in government of that era, an Episcopalian. Even then that church, although somewhat conservative and traditional in its rituals, was quite tolerant and progressive.

ITW-nobody’s perfect, including TR. My understanding of the 1912 election is that Roosevelt was trying to make up for what he had come to see as a terrible mistake, to have fulfilled a regrettable 1904 campaign pledge to not run again in 1908. He had approved Taft’s nomination then, but soon, like most Americans, saw Taft as a disaster, and himself as savior, since he was sure that Wilson would win if he faced Taft alone. Of course Teddy DID make a grand showing, running ahead of Taft as a third party candidate, but still losing to Wilson.

Hard to say how I would have voted in that election-I probably would have liked Roosevelt more personally but agreed more politically with Wilson, particularly on the Trusts issue. TR to his great credit as a Republican wanted them intensely regulated. Wilson had the better plan-just destroy them and make it illegal to have them form again.

Interesting (well to ME anyway lol) footnote. Theres hardly a more liberal, progressive denomination that Unitarian Universalism. Taft, the puppet of conservative interests, was our only Unitarian president.

Report this

By elisalouisa, January 17, 2010 at 5:57 pm Link to this comment

In 1864 the words “In God We Trust” were applied to a newly designed two-
cent coin. Decades later, President Theodore Roosevelt in a letter to William
Boldly on Nov 11 1907 wrote:
“My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such
a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good
but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously
close to sacrilege…It is a motto which it is indeed well to have inscribed on our
great national monuments, in our temples of justice, in our legislative halls,
and in building such as those at West Point and Annapolis—in short, wherever
it will tend to arouse and inspire a lofty emotion in those who look thereon. But
it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just
as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in
advertisements.“From Religious Tolerance Website.

I can understand that. No where did I find that President Roosevelt was not for
the term “In God We Trust” on money because “money was used for so many
sinful things.” Put in the context of also not wanting the motto on postage
stamps or advertising it shows that President Roosevelt had class. But of
course, that is a given.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, January 16, 2010 at 8:46 pm Link to this comment

While you are praising TR don’t forget that he brought about a TOTAL re-design of the tired old coinage.  He was directly responsible for the change that brought us the:
Lincoln Cent
Buffalo Nickel
Mercury Dime
Standing Liberty Quarter
Walking Liberty Half
Peace Dollar
Indian Head 1/4 recused Eagle
Indian Head 1/2 recused Eagle
Liberty with a Feathered head dress Eagle
St. Gaudin Double Eagle.

But most important—he had “In God We Trust” REMOVED from the money.  And, amazingly, he did for religious reasons as a devout Christian—he thought it was sacrilegious to put God’s name on money, used for so many sinful things.

BTW, ALL TR’s sons went to War.  Theodore Jr was awarded the Medal of Honor (Postumously).

Report this

By elisalouisa, January 16, 2010 at 8:26 am Link to this comment

Added Note to my last post:
Considering the fact that California is seriously considering selling some of its
state parks to raise money and the Republicans are privatizing many branches
of government one wonders exactly what progress has been made.
President T. Roosevelt had to fight Congress to pass some laws as to acquiring
land for the National Parks. He did fight Congress and by whatever means
provided such land of beauty for the people of America to enjoy, all the people,
not just the wealthy. As we continually throw money at Wall Street and ask no
accountability it is most likely just a matter of time before our wimps in
Washington tell us that we can no longer afford the upkeep on our National
Parks and Monuments, some will have to be sold. Of course, the land would be
sold to their buddies on Wall Street and the price would be low. Since California
started the trend this would not be a difficult thing to tell the people. That tells
you about the progress we have made in the past century.

Report this

By elisalouisa, January 15, 2010 at 11:05 pm Link to this comment

Theodore Roosevelt was a lover of nature as Douglas Brinkley relates in his book
‘The Wilderness Warrior’ second title ‘Theodore Roosevelt and The Crusade for
America.’ Because of his love of the land he created many National Parks and National Monuments in America. He also stood up to big business a trait not common in our Presidents. Many of the social programs that FDR put into place he first heard from his uncle Theodore.
President Roosevelt was a sickly child and not in good health most of his life. A
trip through the Amazon really took a toll on his health and played a part in his
early death. President Roosevelt encouraged his son Quentin to join the Air Force
in WWI as this was the honorable thing to do. These are but a few facts that made
President Roosevelt a great man and great leader. He not only talked the talk but
he walked the walk.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, January 15, 2010 at 10:17 pm Link to this comment

That was better—thanks.  It’s possible to be biting legitimately in debate and you achieved it in this post, nicely.

I have very mixed feeling about TR.  His loyalty to his own party was thin enough that he destroyed its chances in 1912 because he no long liked Taft, but couldn’t wrestle the nomination back from him.  Also, TR was personally a brave man, and willing to lead other brave men, but when HE lost a son, Quentin, his favorite, in WWI, he went into a depression from which he never recovered.  6 months after Quentin was shot down, TR died at age 60.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, January 15, 2010 at 3:38 pm Link to this comment

Ed Tru Lib, thanks for the information. Actually enjoyed the vision of Teddy pissing on Nader only if he was on fire running into the redwoods comment. 

Very amusing, maybe MR Fish can use it?

Report this

By ardee, January 15, 2010 at 3:10 pm Link to this comment

Hope this brings you some
comfort Ardee.
Added Note: Starkist Ardee, not Sunkist; hey, maybe you are really Folktruther.

I do not need comforting,elisa, and one missed brand name doesnt make me Folktruther either. What I need, what my nation needs in fact, is a way out of the corporate controlled swamp we currently reside within. That path will not be found in either major party, that should be very,very obvious by now, even to die hard democratic loyalists.

Thus I seek my political goals from those pledged to refuse corporate financing and the control that comes with such. What I support are those who speak to my own vision for this know folks like :

Have you, I wonder, read his agenda or his platform? If so what do you disagree with. If not, why?

Report this

By ed_tru_lib, January 15, 2010 at 2:08 pm Link to this comment

Well gee, I had hoped my superb and succinct last comment here would indeed BE my last, but it looks, as Syl doing his Michael Corleone from G3 impression says “just when I thought I was out…Dey pull me Back IN!!!” would say, a few more well chosen curse-words are called for lol.

Actually in these latter days (no I’m DEFF not a Christian-I’m referring to the current epoch of this post) its time for civility, even in the face of true (even if only through terminal ignorance) EVIL, such as even CONSIDERING voting for someone when there is the clear and present danger to our democracy of it creating a vice-president dick cheney, or (their chance is coming—President Sarah Palin)

Ellalouisa-Teddy Roosevelt is ALSO one of my favorite people, and certainly my fave republican, well at least after the 1st one. He is the founder of the world’s environmental/ecological movement—a position currently SO very ably filled (Oscar, Nobel Prize etc) by the man NADER PREVENTED FROM BECOMING PRESIDENT. TR would be so proud of Gore, but he was a true man’s man—he wouldn’t piss on a prissy, whiney lil spoiler like nader if ralph was burning, much less one of nader’s minimal minions, unless Roosevelt was afraid flaming ralphie might run into some Red woods.

Leefeller-Its not so much that FDR was afraid of Long. Remember FDR or ANY democrat had little or no chance in those days of being elected president without the south—pretty much the opposite of what has developed the last 20-30 years. Also however morally/legally corrupt Long was, he was also a populist, and probably as close to a downright LIBERAL as a southern politician dared to be in those days. (HAD to keep away from those pesky race issues) FDR, the ultimate liberal, the ultimate president, the ultimate American, certainly USED Long as he did many others of virtually EVERY political stripe, to get the country, and then by extension the world, out of the Depression, and then to win the war. If you really want to research some interesting unknown history, check out the early career of Gov. George Wallace, who began his political career as a “southern liberal” condemning racism and the Klan. Sadly he lost his first big election that way, and the rest was history.

ITW-obviously we have somewhat different personal styles-just remember it takes working together to defeat the evil right that could rise from the ashes at any time. I guess I just get a lil more easily upset than you at those who are determined to divide us so the right can conquer.

Ardee ol’buddy-Lighten up-ITW was just being his over-courteous self. Your king was gone long ago-and ol’ralph couldn’t get arrested now. If we DO start to see more of him though, ONE will get you A HUNDRED IT WILL BE ON FOX!!!!

Report this

By elisalouisa, January 15, 2010 at 8:59 am Link to this comment

“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong
man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit
belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust
and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again
and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who
knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a
worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high
achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring
greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who
knew neither victory nor defeat.” - Theodore Roosevelt

Theodore Roosevelt, one of my favorite people, knew what he was talking about
for he kept getting in the arena over and over again. This quote might also
describe Ralph Nader and those who are his critics. Hope this brings you some
comfort Ardee.
Added Note: Starkist Ardee, not Sunkist; hey, maybe you are really Folktruther.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, January 15, 2010 at 7:54 am Link to this comment

Hey! ITW; Huey Long scared FDR? History not being one of my strong points, actually history is like most other things, but the idea Huey Long may have prompted FDR direction is interesting.  Now I have to do some damn research. As an old Union Rep. I know who Huey Long was. I thought FDR had a populist VP?

To bad Nader has not inspired much, except a few Ron Paul converts and a couple of Corvette owners. 

I preferred Gravel to Nader, though I don’t seem to   have a chip on my shoulder about it, seems to be a sour looser thing, sort of like the Hillary folks and the GOP?

Like it makes a real difference. (George Carlin)

Report this

By ardee, January 15, 2010 at 5:50 am Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, January 15 at 9:10 am

Are you really,truly as childish as these last efforts indicate? I hope you and your apparent intellectual equal,ed-tru-lib, will be very happy together…What a major disappointment you are.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, January 15, 2010 at 5:10 am Link to this comment

ardee, January 15 at 7:27 am #

Inherit The Wind, January 15 at 1:10 am

Sorry Charlie, only the best Tuna is good enough for Sunkist. Your smelly fish is stinking up the joint ,[bITW.

Ralph is obviously the boogeyman in your nightmare. I cant help that and cannot debate with such illogical postioning on your part.

Have a nice day.

Not a very graceful way to tip over your king, but OK.

Report this

By ardee, January 15, 2010 at 3:27 am Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, January 15 at 1:10 am

Sorry Charlie, only the best Tuna is good enough for Sunkist. Your smelly fish is stinking up the joint ,[bITW.

Ralph is obviously the boogeyman in your nightmare. I cant help that and cannot debate with such illogical postioning on your part.

Have a nice day.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, January 14, 2010 at 9:10 pm Link to this comment

There HAVE been 3rd party movements that have changed the political scene.  USUALLY the success comes by being absorbed by one of the major parties and changes their “mission”.  But Ralph Nader’s runs at the Presidency were not among them.  Even Eugene Debs did far better.
1) Whigs replace tired, old Federalists.
2) Republicans replace tired, old Whigs.
3) Populist Party forces Bryan to run with one VP on the Dem ticket and another on the Populist ticket—Populists are absorbed.
4) Progressive “Bull Moose” party effectively replaces GOP in the 1912 election on the back of Teddy Roosevelt.  TR and Taft divide the vote allowing Wilson to get in on a plurality win.
5) Huey Long’s populist appeals force FDR to change his campaign structure.  Long terrifies him.
6) Strom Thurmond’s racist “Dixiecrat” party has a major impact on the 1948 race.
7) George Wallace’s racist 3rd Party candidacy wins something like 45 electoral votes, splitting Southern Dems from the party’s candidate, Humphrey, allowing Nixon to win in 1968
8) H. Ross Perot, the Stalin of EDS, sells enough “sugar” to grab about 10% of the vote in 1992, allowing Clinton to unseat Bush.  But Perot’s warnings become part of the political landscape…“A great sucking sound!”

Even John Anderson’s 3rd party run had far more steam than Nader’s.

So…what actually has Ralph Nader’s candidacy achieved other than putting the final nail in Gore’s political coffin and giving us George W. Bush?  Who has adopted his ideas as a result of his candidacy?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, January 14, 2010 at 8:10 am Link to this comment

What could have happened if Nader had won the presidency?  Possibly the majority of the people would have supported him so their would be some sort of change in the political main street landscape and from the ongoing opportunism we see now. 

Nader as president may not have been much different than what we presently see happening, one may probably suspect things would even be worse than what we have now if Nader had become president. Two way grid lock may have enveloped a Nader!  The Democrats would be looking like present day Republicans,(which they do in some ways already). This is one of the flavors of the caucus.

We know the two party system seems highly self serving, very similar to a bureaucracy. A bureaucracy, as both Parties must substantiate themselves to provide for their own existence. We see the wounded GOP now (which to me seems not much different from the GOP from before, except seemingly more ignorant).  A two party system is very similar to the good cop bad cop mentality. They sure as hell do not want any competition from a third cop.  So we see these constant contrived fears. instead of real issues, (look how they ignored Gravel, Nader, Paul and Kucinich).

This constant fanning of the fires of fear!  Right to life, gay marriage, fear of illegals, add your own smoke and mirrors, there is a whole passel of non issues to choose from.  Those pulling the puppet strings, the opportunists are always feeding the fires of ignorance.

Okay, Nader making a difference for anyone who believes Congress would have listened to President Nader, seems most Naive! 

It would take a strong change in how Congress operates to make any real differences,  I mean real changes the kind which could sink ones teeth into, a Nation of respect which really cares for it’s people. 

Nader could have brought his Santa Clause list of issues to the White House, Issues of his preference to light, but where are they now, buried very deep with Gravel and other debris.

Report this

By elisalouisa, January 14, 2010 at 6:17 am Link to this comment

Leefeller post 1/12 at 12:07 pm. Any cause noble as the pure snow,  can end with
different agenda then what it started with. 
So true Leefeller, in fact, that is the norm. Somewhere along the line a cause
looses momentum and the purpose for which it exists suddenly ceases to be the
driving factor and is replaced by another purpose that is usually more self serving.
The problem now is that there is no cause, no spirit to ignite the action that might
save our country. Perhaps Nader was the last vestige of hope that many of us had
although I did not see it at the time.  My only rethinking involves Nader’s character and there I give him the benefit of the doubt for more than one reason.
As ed_true_lib said, “It IS personal” The hope and enthusiasm we had at that time is but an ember.
That is the real tragedy.

Report this

By ed_tru_lib, January 13, 2010 at 1:52 pm Link to this comment

Jee-ZUSSS! WATTA BUNCHA LONNNNG WINDED CANDYASSES. I hope you all wind up getting taped at a nader rally for a new reality show-World’s Dumbest Political Geeks, right beside the TWO who showed up for a teabag rally yesterday. nader probably won’t be able to match that unless ardee has a friend.

Report this

By ardee, January 13, 2010 at 3:29 am Link to this comment

elisalouisa, January 12 at 9:53 am #

Ardee, you keep pounding away the theme that a third party will solve everything, preferably with Ralph at the helm. I in return have reiterated that this would never occur.  Is that so hard to understand?

Gee, elisa, I guess it must be hard to understand simply because you dont. Where have I said that third party growth is a panacea? I havent. What I did say, and I thought in simple enough terms for you to get it instead of descending into childish rant in defense of your loyalty to democrats, is that continuing to put ones faith in the two party system is foolish.

If we seek to wrest our government from the forces that now control it and return it to the people, then we are going to have to learn to think outside the box. Thrid Party growth is a part of the solution in my own opinion. I hope you can read this over the rim of that box you remain currenltly entrapped within.

Inherit The Wind, January 13 at 12:54 am

Your antipathy towards democrats has been observed, as has your continuing to see them as the solution. It is not enough to criticize, ITW one must also act. You remaind me a bit of elisa straining to make logical an illogical support of the democrats.

You call , and rightly so, the GOP a bunch of fascists. In the same breath, after roundly criticizing the Demos as spineless, useless and worthless ( oh yeah you right)you continue to see them as a solution…Sorry Charley, I like you, respect you but will not follow you there.

Not One More!, January 12 at 5:18 pm

I thank you for the support, it does sometimes get lonely. But I have no choice but to defend a position in which I strongly believe.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, January 12, 2010 at 8:54 pm Link to this comment


It’s not your argument I disagree with—I whole-heartedly endorse your view of Nader—it’s my view as well. It’s how you act like s schm*** presenting it.

I know it feels that way to you but I have ALWAYS been critical of the Dems—I was totally flabbergasted by how they kow-towed to Bush when they took BOTH Houses in 2006, when they should have said to him: F*** off, @$$#ole, we’ve had enough of your lies and wars and $#!tty policies.”

I am reminded of David Niven’s description of Errol Flynn: “You can rely on Errol Flynn.  He will always let you down.”

Still, when the choice is sucky, spineless, ballless Dims, or a corrupt, insidious, stop-at-nothing neo-conistic fascist Re-Thuglican, I see no choice—you GOTTA stop the fascists.

I remind you of the Viet Nam adage: “When you are up to your ass in alligators it’s not the time to think about the objective of draining the swamp.”

And BOY! did the Rethugs bring on the alligators!

Report this
Not One More!'s avatar

By Not One More!, January 12, 2010 at 1:18 pm Link to this comment

First, as an unrepentant Nader supporter, thank you Ardee for all your points. Someone has to counter all the misinformation that is spouted by those people who still cling to the mistaken belief that Nader is somehow responsible for 8 years of Bush.

The first thing I ask of a Nader basher is if they supported Bill Clinton. If the answer is yes, then I understand where they are coming from and that we don’t have common ground.

And Gore didn’t separate himself from Clinton because of a difference on his political and economic views, but because of the political liability from Clinton’s sexual distractions.

What gets me is that the democratic party is just as bad as the republicans in upholding the law when it is not to their advantage. An ethical person upholds the law whether or not it is to their advantage. Where was the outrage in 2008 from the ‘democrats’ when Kucinich and Mike Gravel were excluded from the democratic party debates? I’m sure that some posters on this article would explain it away by saying that they weren’t ‘winnable’ candidates so no big loss. 

The democratic party blowhards reveal themselves to be the very thing they accuse Nader supporters.  Unreasonable and having too big an ego to realize that they have to change course when they realize they made a mistake.

They fail to apply the same standards to their own candidates as they do Nader. Nader has to be held against a much higher standard; but Gore, Kerry, and Obama are given a pass for all the corporate beholden, limited forward thinking, and unethical/illegal acts that they carry out.

Obama’s presidency succeeded in confirming (again) something that was evident from the beginning. Realizing that the democratic party is on the same path as the republicans in terms of my core issues: The war; the defense industry; health care; FISA and patriot act; corporate welfare; ethics, accountability; lack of public participation; and justice.

The lesson that should have been learned from voting for the lesser of two evils is this. If you follow a path, eventually that path takes you to its destination.

Report this

By ed_tru_lib, January 12, 2010 at 8:41 am Link to this comment

I guess they edited out my last comment. Pity. The truth obviously hurts, bad.

INHERIT THE BREAKING WIND and others-sorry to offend, but not that sorry. Nader gave us EIGHT YEARS of Bush and all the damage to our country and world that naturally followed. Many 2000 nader supporters have realized and regretted their mistakes, and some have even realized what a low person nader was to do, or actually NOT do, what he didn’t.

Seems to me, given our current political situation, the damage is now irreparable. Yet here we have a couple of true trolls(blind devotees to a particular point of view, however discredited and HOWEVER, LIKE HERE, EASY TO DISCREDIT)

I’m old enough, as you indicated you were, to remember better times, especially in terms of hope for the future.

Hey my irateness about a slimeball who even now pretends he doesn’t realize the harm he did, and have the modicum of remaining decency it would take to slink off permanently, and leave folowers like sodium, or clueless followers like ardee to find another, hopefully SOMEWHAT more worthwhile dobbleganger to worship, offends—TOUGH, to them, you, and especially him.

And it IS personal-I used to feel at least as enthusiatic in my support of nader as anyone here, but also have the class to admit when I was wrong, and to unlike ardee, actully defend my position with specifics, rather than just attack the attacker.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, January 12, 2010 at 8:07 am Link to this comment

In the end a third party or even more system would be subject to the same caucus control and manipulations ongoing.  From what I understand even Hitler and Stalin’s politics were noble with seemingly appealing intentions in the beginning? Obama seemingly started with these real or false euphoric intentions only to be made a puppet to the system? Any cause noble as the pure snow,  can end with different agenda then what it started with. 

Manipulations make honesty and integrity seem to have little place in the grand deception of politics.

In the last election, Kucinich, Gravel, Nader and even Ron Paul brought out many real failings in the systems direction of status quo, only to become litter on the MSM toll road. Little squashed squirrel car-kisses seem to litter this busy money making toll road!

Report this

By elisalouisa, January 12, 2010 at 5:53 am Link to this comment

Ardee, you keep pounding away the theme that a third party will solve everything, preferably with Ralph at the helm. I in return have reiterated that this would never occur.  Is that so hard to understand? Apparently it is. It would be nipped in the bud with Dick Cheney precision. My concern is that the Fascist Republican party will make certain one way or the other that they make a comeback full steam in 2012.

I agree with Sodium as to ITW’s candor in sharing his thoughts on both parties. Perhaps I should have made that clear when I posted my concerns as to the GOP in a previous post. The point is the our government is not what it was at one time. “The People” no longer have a voice and our elected officials’ primary concerns are not with the constituents who voted for them but for those who gave large campaign contributions and also “perks” that afford them a more luxurious lifestyle. That being said, where do we go from here?

Report this

By ardee, January 12, 2010 at 3:53 am Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, January 11 at 9:04 am

Oh my friend I think thou doth protesteth overmuch.

You have spent much effort condemning the campaign of a non democrat, Ralphie boy, on the grounds that it was an irrelevant vote or that it cost Gore the election. You have written a story about an alternate universe in which Gore won and we all lived happily ever after.

Now, suddenly , you seem to have had an epiphany concerning the party you have defended for the two years I have been at this forum. Well good for you, I certainly agree with your assessment thereof. But will you take the next step and consider not voting for those members of that party you so accurately condemn?

Let us not forget that we engage in a debate, one in which I respect your right to an opposing opinion and you in turn respect mine. There is no shortage of dolts among us, (listening ed-tru-lib?) but that doesnt mean we must become them.

Report this

By ardee, January 12, 2010 at 3:44 am Link to this comment

elisalouisa, January 12 at 2:23 am

The Democratic Party is in charge. The war has been moved to Afghanistan, and soon Yemen no doubt. The policies of Bush are carried out by Obama, the health care reform is a debacle and the economy continues to serve only the wealthy.

Attempting to shift blame to the GOP, the minority party currently, seems futile and a sort of last gasp…but thanks for trying.

Report this

By Sodium, January 12, 2010 at 2:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Wikipedia,the free encyclopedia,gives the following conclusion of an analysis of the 2000 presidential election,conducted by Professer B.C.Burden of Harvard University:


Contrary to Democrats’complaints,Nader was not intentionally trying to throw the election.A spoiler strategy would have caused him to focus disproportionately on the most competitive states and markets with the hopes of being a key player in the outcome. There is no evidence that his appearances responded to closeness.He did,apparently,pursue voter support,however,in a quest to recieve 5% of the popular vote.


I think that the importance of the 5 percant of the popular vote has to do,if he got the 5%,with him becoming elegible for federal funding for running as Independent.I believe that was his aim.It was not at all to hurt Al Gore’s chances of winning the election.Of course,the main target of running in the first place was to keep certain issues alive in the public mind.

The following quote was also given by Wikipedia,indicating that the allegation as spelled out by some Democrats as “spoiler” does not withstand scrutiny by the open mind with a degree of self-discipline:


When asked by MSNBC’s Tim Russert the possibility of preventing a Democratic victory in 2008,Nader responded,“Not a chance.If the Democrats can’t land slide the Republicans this year,they ought to juat wrap up,close down,and emerge in a different form.In an interview on Midweek Politics he stated that while Bush and Gore have very similar positions on plurality of issues,“no one would have mangled the situation(war)in Iraq the way that George W. Bush did as President.


No further comments are needed from me,since the comments embodied in the foregoing quote are self-explanatory.

That is it for me on this thread.I wish to catch-up on my reading.I have tried to be as object and fair as much as I could muster.Whether I succeeded or not,that is not really for me to say.I have other obligations to tend to.However, I did enjoy the exhanges with ardee,elisa,Night-Gaunt and Inherit The Wind.

I do thank every one of you for the interesting exchanges you all so graciously have granted me.

Report this

By elisalouisa, January 11, 2010 at 10:23 pm Link to this comment

There is something in this thread that haunts us, and that’s why we keep
coming back. Take ITW’s comment:
But the Republican Party is now the American Fascist Party,closely
approximating the policies and tactics of Mussolini’s Italian fascist government
of the 1920. It is as much “Christo-fascist” as it accuses unnamed Arabs of
being “Islamofascist”. The Republican Party is beyond saving.
Fascism implies a strong authoritarian government and I readily agree, that is
where we are headed at full speed. Even though a government is Fascist it can still be for the people in that an education is provided, public transportation is improved,
in other words living conditions of “the people” are of concern to those who
rule. I do not find that the case with the Republican Party as it is now. In fact,
they could care less as was proved by Bush’s response to New Orleans’ cry for
help after the hurricane. The only concern of the Fascist Republicans are the
elite and Wall Street. Where is the socialistic structure that is for the good of
the people which can underlie a Fascist regime?
Added Note: I really do not see anything “Christo-fascist about it.” As I have
said before, once the far right does gain complete control and the Evangelical
Christians are no longer of use they are in for a rude awakening.
The Republican Party cannot be saved because those who hijacked it will never relinquish control.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, January 11, 2010 at 8:14 pm Link to this comment

Thanks, Sodium.  I realize we rarely are in agreement, so it means a lot to me.

Ed_tru_Lummox. This is a simply a request, nothing more.

Please STFU.

Report this

By Sodium, January 11, 2010 at 11:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The following comments have been posted by ITW:


The Democratic Party is corrupt,fractured,weak,and full of major problems that needs over-hauling,or even replacement.

But the Republican Party is now the American Fascist Party,closely approximating the policies and tactics of Mussolini’s Italian fascist government of the 1920. It is as much “Christo-fascist” as it accuses unnamed Arabs of being “Islamofascist”. The Republican Party is beyond saving.


I would have been less than an honest man if I have refrained from coming forward and say to you,ITW,that you really have hit the jackpot in both paragraphs of yours;I enjoyed reading,and quoted above. I totally and wholeheartedly agree.

I think ardee knows that very well. And I believe so does elisa.

Thank you for being fair,here,to both parties.

When Suzan Eisenhower,the grand-daughter of President Dwight Eisenhower and current President of Eisenhower Institute,in Washington DC,appeared on the podium of the Democratic Party Convention in Colorado last year,2008,and openly supported Barack Obama for President,she was,indeed,protesting what had happened to her grand-father’s once moderate party.

When former Iowa’s Congressman,James Leach,appeared also at the podium of the Democratic convention in 2008 and announced his support for Barack Obama against John McCain,his Republican Party’s candidate,told me that he was also protesting what had happened to the moderate wing of his party-The Nelson Rockefeller’s/Dwight Eisenhower’s once moderate party!!

When a popular public figure like Ralph Nader submitted 20 pages of issues to John Kerry at the start of the Presidential campaign of 2004 and asked him to choose any three issues and “highlight” them in the campaign and Nader would step aside from running. And yet,Kerry who was/is considered one of the most liberals in the Senate could not accommodate only any three issues close to Ralph’s belief that would serve the common good. Why? Why? It seems to me that the resentment toward Ralph was rampant among the big bosses in the Democratic Party. John Kerry could not antagonize his handlers and bosses of his party. Anyone blaming Nader should know all these serious things that left no other alternatives except for him to run as Independent for merely to keep raising the issues that he strongly believed would serve the public interest.

Thank you,again,sir,for bieng HONEST in those two paragraphs I specifically quoted above.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, January 11, 2010 at 10:30 am Link to this comment

I must agree with you Elisalouisa for I was unaware of Gore’s connexion to Podhoretz and so must come to the same conclusion. And it fits as well. The problem is that the same ones that have taken over the Republican party are also in the Democratic party as well. Which explains why so many of them didn’t want to impeach the previous administration and want to eviscerate any chance of a full coverage medical plan that isn’t corporate friendly.

As I said before the system has been configured over the years to lock in our duopoly party and that has been taken over by too many crypto-fascists as they kluge the republic but fast track those things that will benefit the empire they are forming externally. Until we stop that we will lose what remains of our republic. Why would anyone go back to the same party that failed so recently? Because they are the only game in town and they have nothing else.

Report this

By Sodium, January 11, 2010 at 9:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To Those ranters who could not add and subtract:

New Hampshire has only 4 electoral votes.

While Tennessee has 11 electoral votes(Gore’s home state which he lost as well).

It does not need a brainer to reach the right conclusion.

If one adds Arkansas which has 6 electoral votes,Bill Clinton and Hilary Clinton could have won it for Gore. All what was required spending enough time campaigning for Gore in their home state of Arkansas. But how could they do so when it was so obvious Gore and his handlers did not want them,at all.

Yeah,a total of 17 electoral votes Gore lost in his home state of Tennessee(11)and Bill Clinton’s home state of Arkansas(6)against the
4 electoral votes of New Hampshire.

It seems to me that some “EXTREMELY INTELLIGENT MIND?” BELIEVES THAT FOUR ELECTORAL VOTES(4)IS EQUEL TO SEVENTEEN ELECTORAL VOTES(17). If this is the mentality involved in this thread,I must say that ardee,elisa,including myself are wasting time here. 

Therefore,the loss of only 4 electoral votes of the great state of New Hampshire by Gore is an easy OPENNING for some loud,assertive, obnoxious,arrogant and bigoted ranter to blame all the loss of his/her beloved Gore on Ralph Nader!!!


Report this

By elisalouisa, January 11, 2010 at 5:48 am Link to this comment

If what Sodium said as to Norman Pohdoretz being a mentor to Al Gore at Harvard and then a friend and political connection through the years, then the big
revelation in this dialogue is that the second Gulf War would have been fought if Gore had been elected President. In 2000. I
doubt that anyone would have been a candidate on either ticket had they not
agreed to pursue our policy of dominance in the Middle East through war.  Ardee is right in that we cannot assume how things would
have been with Gore as President.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, January 11, 2010 at 5:04 am Link to this comment

I fail to see how I have missed your rather blatant point, that supporting other than a Democrat is a waste of time…I disagree, and vehemently too.

Because that is not and never has been my point.

The Democratic Party is every bit the enemy to progress and overcoming our creeping fascist condition as are the Republicans.

That is an absurd contention that I have shown repeatedly in point by point is not true.  I have shown how between 100,000 and 650,000 people would be ALIVE today had George W. Bush not become President.

The Democratic Party is corrupt, fractured, weak, and full of major problems that needs major over-hauling, or even replacement.

But the Republican Party is now the American Fascist Party, closely approximating the policies and tactics of Mussolini’s Italian fascist government of the 1920’s.  It is as much “Christo-fascist” as it accuses unnamed Arabs of being “Islamo-fascist”.  The Republican Party is now beyond saving.

Report this

By ardee, January 11, 2010 at 4:41 am Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, January 11 at 1:23 am

I fail to see how I have missed your rather blatant point, that supporting other than a Democrat is a waste of time…I disagree, and vehemently too.The Democratic Party is every bit the enemy to progress and overcoming our creeping fascist condition as are the Republicans.

The more voters who opt for a sane and workable platform the more your precious Democrats will be forced to consider a progressive agenda. As no such agenda comes from Democratic candidates, no sincere agenda actually as Obama lied through his teeth apparently, then one is forced to vote for those indies who stand upon said platform.

As to the increasingly childish ed-tru-lib..I stopped reading your crap as it never contained anything useful or even above a junior high school level of intellect…if a fool falls in the forest and there is noone there to hear that fall has it made a sound?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, January 10, 2010 at 9:23 pm Link to this comment

You keep missing my point. I do NOT deny ANY of those things are each separately and severally responsible for Gore’s loss and the catastrophe that was brought on by Bush.  And I never have.

So….if I’m not saying THAT, then what have I been saying?

What you have been implying is that there is no value in voting for other than a democratic candidate.

Ardee, I am saddened.  You have totally and completely missed my point, to concentrate on what is mainly an irrelevancy.

BTW, the last, truly potent third-party candidacies were H. Ross Perot in 1992 and George Wallace in 1968.  But that’s trivia, not relevant.

Report this

By ed_tru_lib, January 10, 2010 at 3:46 pm Link to this comment


I just KNEW we’d win you back to commenting here if we just kept atcha….WELCOME BACK lil friend.

Thanks for the info; didn’t know you were a male-certainly couldn’t tell from your writing, which has at times seemed a tad…well…bitchy.

Anyway bro, on the subject of rants, in all your limitless nonsensical repetition of your pointless points, you STILL have NOT ONCE responded to my base, original point, from my first response to your nonsense on another post altogether——2 words—-NEW HAMPSHIRE!!!. For any and all of the Gore campaign’s mistakes, and they were legion, Gore STILL WOULD HAVE WON IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, AND THUS WON THE ELECTION, but for the witless, stupidity of his followers in the granite-head state, and nader’s own intellectual and moral bankruptcy.

Oh and hey-if ralph hadn’t prevented Gore from being elected, we all know there’d be a WHOLE LOT MORE STATES where you and ITW could hook up, assuming he was willing which the gentleman has indicated he is not, but take heart chum. There’s always the next election, where ralph will probably be doing his damndest to elect Palin, so you KNOW things will be opening up (no pun intended, so don’t get yourself all excited)

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, January 10, 2010 at 11:07 am Link to this comment

I am sorry if I was not clear, Norman Pohdoretz left being a leftist to go to the reich wing camp and found a bonanza of wealth and recognition he didn’t have before. [The reich wingers have deep pockets and many backers. He is still a hack and inferior writer and thinker so he is in good stead.]

Until we can break the cabal’s control of our lives via our gov’t we will always be on the losing end. The oligarchs and their follower wannabes are ardent in their quest to remove the Bill of Rights/Constitution and replace with total lassaize faire capitalism and a Leviticus based legal system.

Report this

By elisalouisa, January 10, 2010 at 7:30 am Link to this comment

You posts for the most part are quite accurate as to detail Night-Gaunt. However,
in my searches I have not found where Norman Polhoretz has left us. Perhaps you
could give me the site where that information was obtained.
Your input has enhanced this discussion especially your comment about not liking
bigots because they act out their dislikes and hatreds. As you put it, “If your way
of life directly hurts another that is wrong and should never be tolerated.”

Report this

By elisalouisa, January 10, 2010 at 7:08 am Link to this comment

Ardee: With the best intentions and concern I ask you to open you brain just a
little so new thoughts may penetrate that spirit that is Ardee. Please think
beyond Democrat, Republican and Ralph Nader. When in my writing have I
defended voting the Democratic ticket? Sodium has opened my eyes as to Al
Gore. If Senator Al Gore could cast his vote for or against the first Gulf War on
the fact as to which party would give him more TV time that tells me quite a
bit. First of all it tells me about Al Gore, then Al Simpson’s revelation of this
occurrence also speaks for Senator Simpson and the atmosphere in the Senate.
By the time the second Gulf war rolled around you might say we had a wimp
Congress and still do. The fight was gone and with good reason. The highest
bidder called the shots as to what bills were passed, etc. This is what your
brain cannot respond to. You still think in terms of a broken two party system
which the creation of a strong third party would be the solution. I am telling
you that cannot be. That is what Tao Walker is telling you also. Our government
(for want of another word) is in the hands of the money people. They control
who the candidates are, not the voters, they also control the outcome in
Presidential elections for the most part. This fact has been solidified within the
last twoenty years. It is you who are living in the past and also in denial for you
cannot see this.

Report this

By ardee, January 10, 2010 at 5:57 am Link to this comment

At “the highest levels,” however, no one will be allowed into a
“position” who isn’t known by those actually in CONtrol to be completely on-
board with the “project.”
Please ponder over the last sentence, especaially you Ardee.

Oh I ponder,[elisa and all the time too…For example, I ponder as to how, after Sodium’s eloquent and factual condemnation of the record of Albert Gore Jr. you can simply turn off your brain and throw up your hands in a sad and hopeless defense of voting democrat because “they” wont allow any one else to win.

You keep missing my point. I do NOT deny ANY of those things are each separately and severally responsible for Gore’s loss and the catastrophe that was brought on by Bush.  And I never have.

So….if I’m not saying THAT, then what have I been saying?

What you have been implying is that there is no value in voting for other than a democratic candidate.

ed-tru-lib Thank you ever so much for continuing to descend into sophomoric and baseless rant while most here attempt to communicate. I understand how you might think an attempt to speak to each other instead of speaking at folks as is your penchant is a prelude to romance, especially considering the hints in your post that you are friendless and very, very alone.

Marriage between ITW and myself would be legal in only a handful of states so far as we are both males, but your apparent matchmaking attempt, like the great majority of what you post here, is as phony as are you and your interminable rages against sanity and civility. You are a sad little half wit indeed.

Report this

By elisalouisa, January 9, 2010 at 6:46 am Link to this comment

Your recent posts lead to greater understanding and in many ways Sodium.
First of all there is the probability that Norman Podhoretz, Al Gore’s main
mentor at Harvard, was aware of the potential that Al Jr. possessed for
influencing the political atmosphere in future years in Washington because of
his father being a Representative and then a Senator in Congress. This more
likely was a friendship built on each seeing the potential as to what the other
could do in achieving their goals. This is important because it provides pieces
of the missing puzzle as to why things are as they are today. In retelling the
story of events leading to the 1991 Gulf War Senator Al Sempson provides a
glimpse as to how the pulse of Congress changed from the first Gulf War in
1991 to the second Gulf War. More important by the time the second Gulf war
came into being there really were no Senators like Al Simpson left, except
perhaps Paul Wellstone and we all know what happened to him. If all this is
true,  both candidates in 2000 were in the pockets of the neoconservatives
with similar world views as Norman Podhoretz. Either way Mideast policy would
have continued with Muslims not getting a fair shake resulting in more
“terrorist” attacks. Ralph Nader clarified his views as to the Middle East in many
ways including a letter dated October 12 2004 to Mr. Abraham H. Foxman,
National Director of the Anti-Defamation League in which Mr. Nader expresses
what some Zionists might strongly disagree with. Change has indeed been
accomplished and I shall quote TAO Walker, December 25 at 4:20 pm
confirming such change:
“The evidence shows clearly that the supposed “power”-train described in the
original specs (the U.S. Constitution) not only no longer is connected (if it ever
really was anyhow) to “We the People.”  What’s more, their elected officials, at
the federal level at-least, are only there for-show anymore, too….and a
damned expensive, even unaffordable production it is.
It is a dead-certainty those co-opted “individuals” theirownselfs are very well
aware of this ‘short-circuit,’ and some may still be attempting conscientiously
to repair it.  At “the highest levels,” however, no one will be allowed into a
“position” who isn’t known by those actually in CONtrol to be completely on-
board with the “project.” 
Please ponder over the last sentence, especaially you Ardee.

Report this

By Sodium, January 8, 2010 at 2:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

PART 2 of 2

Continuation about Al Gore’s dealing and wheeling in the Senate when he voted for The First Gulf War in 1991.He went against his own party policy and voted for the war:

After Senator Gore left,Senator Dole asked Howard Green,the Republican Senate secretary,to call Gore’s office and promise that he would try to schedule Gore’s 20 minutes during prime time,thus ensuring plenty of coverage in the news cycle.Later that night,Senator Dole called Green and asked if Senator Dole had schedule him for a prime-time speaking slot.

When Green said nothing had been finalizedyet,Gore erupted,“Damnit,Howard!If I do not get 20 minutes tomorrow I am going to vote the other way.”

The following day Gore arrived on the Senate floor with,I always thought,two speeches in hand.Gore was still waiting to see which side,Republicans or Democrats,would offer him the most and the best speeking time.

Senator Dole immediately asked the Senate to increase the amount of speeking timefor both sides.I believe only then,after Gore realized we were asking for more time to make room for him on our side,that he finally decided support the resolution authorizing the use of force to drive Saddam Huseein out of Kuwiat.

It brings no joy to recount the events leading up to the Gulf War vote.It Isn’t something I wanted to do.But it is something I have to do.I was there.I have to set the record straight because the Gore campaign is now running an ad proclaiming that Gore “broke with his own party to support the war.“In reality,it is much closer to say he broke for the cameras to support the Gulf War.And I have to set the record straight because the Gulf War vote was far too important an issue to fall victim to politics and repulsive revisionism.

It was a moment of challenge,and sadly,Al Gore was not up to it.As a member of the United States Senate for 18 years,I saw many senators show their stuff when times got tough.And,sadly,I saw some who failed to rise to the occasion.In January,1991,Al Gore put politics over principle.


I can detect when a Senator or a politician is sincere and honest by getting a feeling from reading between the lines and from the words he/she uses.Senator Alan Simpson is true to himself in the foregoing essay of his.

I went through all of that to prove one single point that:those who brag about Gore supriority to Nader and those who dare to predict what Al Gore would have done on 9/11,if he was in place of Bush live in the “fantazia” of extreme delusion.And delusion can be destructive to self and to others. Hence this piece from a WITNESS who was there in the Senate cloak room where Al Gore made his deal over the bloodshed and ugliness of war.

Yeah,you see Al Gore is “superior?” to Ralph Nader in principle,honesty,purity of purpose and consistency in what he belives!!!!Yeah,Only fools believe in that.

For those who have no idea of what I believe,the following short outline may prove helpful:

*I am not a Democrat,nor am I Republican,nor am I a fan of Ralph Nader.Yes,yes,I admire greatly what Ralph has done for the American consumers.It Is really massive and I would vote for him again and again for the cleanliness of his hands and the honesty he has demonstrated in all his life,his consistency and his purity of purpose that has characterized all his activities.It has been so clear to me all along.

*I am a centrist,leaning slightly to the left I am an Idependent Voter who had voted for Democrats,Republicans and proudly for Ralph.I am my own man and follow no man or a woman.

*I am against all wars regardless of the real or phony reasons that may be given to wage it.

*I strive for JUSTICE,at all times.

*My supreme belief is in the Universal Decleration of the Human Rights and UN Charter.

*My heros are:Mahatma Ganghi,Dwight Eisenhower(for his 8 years of peace in 70 years)),Albert Schweister and Mother Teresa.

You figure…

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, January 8, 2010 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment

I admit the only thing about Al Gore I liked was his stance on climate, pollution and how to clean it up without going broke. I didn’t know he still maintained such a close relationship to Norman Podhoretz extending to his political views even after his 180 degree change. Most disturbing. But then Ralf Nader continues to remain consistent and that is what counts.

I don’t like bigots because they act out their dislikes and hatreds. If your way of life directly hurts another that is wrong and should never be tolerated.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, January 8, 2010 at 12:50 pm Link to this comment

Oh and I wasn’t really serious about you & ardee tying the knot either.

Thanks—I wasn’t sure…even though I AM already happily married and don’t think polygamy is a good thing—but it’s hard enough to think of having multiple wives without trying to imagine having multiple spouses of EACH sex!

Guess I missed the irony of your other posts…slowing down in my old age.

Report this

By Sodium, January 8, 2010 at 11:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The following article as appeared in the Denver Rocky News and later reported by Larry King Live and C-Span as well,will be divided into two parts to prove how Al Gore is “superior?” to Ralph Nader in straightforwarness and purity of purpose and commitments!! This should be considered to be a respose to the loud,assertive,obnoxious and arrogant bigot who dared to call Ralph Nader “Abdul Nader”,emotionally exposing his true colors of bigotry against all Arab Americans since Ralph Nader’s father and mother were imigrants from the Arab country of Lebanon.Abdul is a common Arabic name like “Paula Abdul”,another famous Arab American.Such a person who expressed bigotry against one ethnic group can do likewise against others as it becomes convenient to him to do so.I can read between the line,ed-tru-lib. And because I despise Begotry with profound passion,I have found it incumbent upon me NOT to ignore your lousy pointless garbages any longer and answer you in kind,although it is beneath my personal dignity to do so. 

PART 1 of 2:

PART TIME AL-Gore held out for prime time media coverage in order to cast his vote in favor of the Gulf War!!(the First Gulf War of 1991 of Bush Senior).

“Gore’s Gulf War Vote Hinged on Key TV Slot” by Senator Alan Simpson

Al Gore’s new campaign ad is running across the country now and says he is “fighting for us.” But the true story of his Gulf War in January 1991 says he is usually fighting for Al.Here the inside story of what happened.

The Gulf War vote was pretty serious business.I cannot think of anyone who did’t have a lump in his or her throat while weighing the situation: 500,000 Americans troops already deployed;Saddam Hussein promising the “mother of all battles”;most “experts” predicting heavy American losses.

The choice was not an easy one. Senators with combat experience on both sides of the aisle on both side of the issue. Some Democrts supported the measure;some Republicans oposed it. And vice versa.

The seriousness of the situation called for open,honest debate.No deal making. No cajoling.No politics.Just an honest discussion,followed by an honest vote of conscience by each senator.As Republican whip,I worked with the Republican leader,Bob Dole,and the Democratic leaders,George Mitchel and Sam Nun,to schedule the debate.As Republicans,Bob and I were responsible for scheduling time to speak for senators who supported the war.As Democrats,George and Sam were responsible for scheduling time to speak for those who opposed the war.

The night before this monumental debate,I sat in the Republican cloakroom with Sen.Dole.The mood was somber. The tension was palpable.We were on the verge of sending troops to war.Our national credibility was on line.Would America stand up to tyrany and aggression in the Middle East? This was not some issue to be taken lightly.

As Bob and I discussed the debate schedule for the next day,a senator walked into our cloakroom and asked to speak to us.The senator’s appearance and request surprised Bob and me.It surprised us because the senator was a Democrat,coming to ask for a favor.

Who was that man? It was Tennessee Senator Al Gore,Jr.Senator Gore got right to the point:“How much time will you give me if I support the President?” In layman’s terms,Gore was asking how much debate time we would be willing to give him to speak on the floor if he voted with us.“How much time will the Democrats give you?” Senator Dole asked in respons.

“Seven minutes” was the response. “I’ll give you 15 minutes,” Senator Dole said. “And I’ll give five of mine,so you can have 20 minutes,” I offered.

Gore seemed pleased,but made no formal commitment,promising only to think it over. Senator Gore played hard to get.He had received his time.But now he wanted prime time.And Sennator Dole and I knew it.


Report this

By Sodium, January 8, 2010 at 8:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re: elisalouisa,January 7 at 103 am.


Sodium:More than once I have wondered if Gore’s tactical errors during the campaign were do to his people giving poor advice.One such blunder was the canceling of his scheduled interview with the leaders of the Muslim community as you stated in your January 5 (at) 3:42 am. Is it possible there was a mole in his organization?



Yes,Al Gore had made so many “tactical errors” as you put it that might have led some people to wonder about the competence of his handlers/advisors to a point of thinking that he might have a “MOLE” in his team. As much as I love to answer your question with an affirmative “yes”,I simply cannot do so because I do not know based on the way I collected the information I have,as an outside observer,on Al Gore and his team for the campaign. However,I can share the following information I have with you and others so that you can reach your own conclusion:

(1) The relationship between Gore and Podhoretz,his former teacher had remained profound after Harvard.Podhoretz is the editor and publisher of a political newsletter called “Commentary” in which he expressed his extremely hawkish views openly.Gore,in all his lengthy political career just repeated his former teacher’s political views. The prove of that is when he stood against his Democratic party stand on the First Gulf War in 1991 and voted for the war-after exacting from the Republican Senate Majority leader then,Robert Dole,a price,he thought,was so important for the advancement of his political career.I may dwell on that,in a seperate post,if my family circumstance would allow to do so.

(2) Norman Podhoretz and his wife Megan Dicker,(she is called Meg for short),have been extreme and fanatical supporters of Israel,whether Israel was/is right or wrong,especially with its obvious repression and brutality against the Palestinians. Inspit the fact that one expects Gore to hold somewhat a fairer view,he just repeated almost word for word what Podhoretz wrote in his newsletter,“Commentary”. The next point below will affirm that.

(3) My file shows that Al Gore had publiclly declared that “our” relationship with Israel,as he put it,“TRANSCENDS” any other relationship and other any other issue.  After I personally heard him using such an effective word,“TRANSCEND”,how could I vote for Gore as I knew better,especially after I was stationed in Amman,Jordan for more than twenty years and ending-up knowing the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians from A to Z. And in spite of my liking to his person as a human being,I simply could not vote for him while he publiclly declared such unhealthy views.

(4) Unless someone proves to me otherwise,I will continue to believe that the selection of Joe Lieberman as his running-mate by Gore’s handlers was based upon two facts then: (A) the importance of Florida’s 27 electoral votes to win the presidential election nation-wide and (B) the importance of the Florid’s Jewish votes to win the 27 electoral votes of Florida.

(5) Meanwhile, Norman Podhoretz was not out of what was going on in the Gore’s camp for Florida and I believe that he was the one who nodded to Gore to accept his handlers’selection,since Lieberman’s hawkish records in the Senate was compatible with the warmongering views of Podhoretz and the rest of the crowd of warmongering Neoconservatives. The proof for what I am saying here was the fact that Al Gore declined to endorse Lieberman for the nomination for president in the Democratic primary,2004. Instead,Gore endorsed John Kerry in 2004 Presidential election. That meant that Lieberman was really pushed through Gore’s throat in election 2000.

That’s it for now,elisa and others who are interested.

elisa: Thank you for being so assiduous in chasing the “truth”,regardless how long it takes to come just close to it. You may hear more from me concerning your diligence/sincerity.

Report this

By ed_tru_lib, January 8, 2010 at 8:00 am Link to this comment

Oh for heaven’s sake’s ITW

I hate to ever say anything remotely critical sounding, much less truly obnoxious to anyone here who matters in the least, but, and I hope you’ll forgive me for such an apparent insult, I bet even ardee got the joke in my last comment.

OF COURSE you’ve never said anything that anyone sane or decent could EVER think favored curtailing ralph’s rights. But if you check back to some of my comments back in the Triassic era of comments to this post, my WHOLE POINT, AS WELL AS THE RATIONALE FOR MY RIGHTEOUSLY CONTEMPTUOUS MEANS OF EXPRESSION TO SUCH PEOPLE AS nader OR HIS PATHETIC MINION ardee

Oh and I wasn’t really serious about you & ardee tying the knot either.

Report this

By Sodium, January 8, 2010 at 12:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re: elisalouisa,January 7 at 12:27 am.


Did you by any chancemean Norman Podhoretz rather than Martin Podhore? Did not find anything under Martin Podhoretz or Martin Pedhoretz.



I have rechecked my file and find out that your guess and Night-Gaunt’s last post implicitly being address to you,without mentioning your name,both your guess and Night-Gaunt’s last post are correct. The correct name and correct spelling are:


Why I posted an erroneous first name and have mispelled his last name,I do not know. Most likely,it was due to an old age or I was typing with one fingure and my mind thinking of my wife,whether or not I stayed away from near by her for too long.

At any rate,I thank both of you for calling my attentions to my error.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, January 7, 2010 at 7:57 pm Link to this comment

Can’t you read? THIS is what I said:

But it makes the point:  Just because you HAVE a legal RIGHT doesn’t mean you MUST exercise it all the time.

So…Ralph has a right to run.  And I have a right to ask him not to, or even make a speech on a street corner about why his running is a bad thing—not illegal mind you, but bad.

Simple point. Why is it so hard to grasp?

Please tell where I have EVER said Ralph Nader does NOT have a right to run.

Ardee: You keep missing my point. I do NOT deny ANY of those things are each separately and severally responsible for Gore’s loss and the catastrophe that was brought on by Bush.  And I never have.

So….if I’m not saying THAT, then what have I been saying?

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, January 7, 2010 at 12:45 pm Link to this comment

Thank Humanity that hack Norman Podhoretz is on other other side! I would say that it was Norm, Sodium meant. I know I would.

Until we change our system no third party will ever have a chance in hell to win. The system is designed, now, to do just that.

Report this

By Sodium, January 7, 2010 at 11:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

For elisalouisa:


I will respond to your two latest posts addressed to me,in the next 24 hours. Currently,I have to take care of my disabled wife. She is totally helpless without me being around or close by to make sure her needs are met.

Report this

By ed_tru_lib, January 7, 2010 at 6:20 am Link to this comment


Time to get serious!

ITW will you please get it through your head that ALL ardee is asking is that you STOP DENYING nader HIS RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!ralph HAS A RIGHT TO RUN AND THAT’S THAT MY FRIEND. Thank God ralph has a champion truly worthy of him in our beloved lil ardee.

Say, any chance of you two wacky kids getting married??

Report this

By ardee, January 7, 2010 at 5:53 am Link to this comment

speaking of self delusional,ITW\ my misguided but well meaning friend, the support of a candidate whose platform one cannot accept is simply a sophomoric and childish delusion. Gore had the choice of adopting several campaign planks and thus earning Nader’s support, he chose not to do so. I am very sorry that having your head so firmly up the Democratic Party’s rectum obscures your ability to reason….I do understand that we share goals but not paths.

Who Really Spoiled in 2000?

Join the party that fights for democracy instead of empire, peace instead of endless war, working people instead of corporations, and the health of our planet!

The Green Party and its candidates take no money from corporations.

The Real Difference
Dispelling the Myth of 2000

The Supreme Court Spoiled:
Al Gore won the 2000 election. George W. Bush became President when a biased US Supreme Court allowed election manipulation by Florida Republicans.

Al Gore Spoiled:

Gore ran a weak campaign with no clear message. He failed to defeat Bush in the debates and even lost his home state of Tennessee. Millions of Democrats voted for Bush compared to the few hundred thousand who voted for Nader.

Democratic Senators Spoiled:
When the Black Caucus challenged Bush’s election victory in January 2001, not one Democratic Senator stood up in support. Senate Democrats failed to push for an investigation of the Florida vote debacle.

The Democratic Party Spoiled:
For many years, Democrats never objected when officials removed African American and other voters from the voter rolls in Florida and other states. Why didn’t the Democrats sue when 90,000 Florida voters were disqualified earlier in 2000? Why were Democrats (including Gore) silent about disqualified votes in the weeks after the election?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, January 7, 2010 at 4:44 am Link to this comment

ardee, January 7 at 7:50 am #

Inherit The Wind, January 6 at 10:46 pm

What is “so hard to grasp” is your refusal to see that it matters not at all which party occupies the White House.
I can give you tens or hundreds of thousands of reasons why that is a morally bankrupt view—all the dead in Iraq who would be alive today but for Bush’s illegal and unnecessary war. 

And that war was determined to happen by Bush in December of 2000, long before 9/11 happened.  Phony causes and evidence were manufactured, critics who cried foul were silenced, reports that contradicted the desired goal were buried. “Cassus Belli” were drummed up in every speech and in the press, all of which they cynically KNEW was false. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfawitz, Libby and all the Bush team wanted this war, planned this war, and STARTED this war.

There is not one shred of evidence that Gore would have changed Clinton’s policy on Iraq so drastically from containment.

It’s as simple as that.  Estimates run as high as 650,000 dead in Iraq from causes due to Bush’s war. Even the MOST conservative estimates put it at close to 100,000 Iraqis dead from causes due to the war. And that doesn’t even count the roughly 5,000 US troops killed, and 20,000 to 25,000 maimed and injured.  Thousands upon thousands of lives ended or were ruined because George W. Bush went into the White House instead of Albert Gore.

That’s not a guess. That’s not “science fiction”.  That’s as certain a fact as that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow and set in the West.

To pretend otherwise is self-delusional.

Report this

By ardee, January 7, 2010 at 3:50 am Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, January 6 at 10:46 pm

What is “so hard to grasp” is your refusal to see that it matters not at all which party occupies the White House.

I think it very sad, considering that I think we both seek a better nation and share many common goals, that your refusal to see the sham your Party is making of its dominant role in our current govt.

For the last time, as this argument has run its course and only gives that jackass ed-tru-lib more opportunities to prove his uselessness in adult conversation, read Nader’s platform and tell me what there is about it that you object to, then we can discuss his refusal to give in to the ever rightward swing of your own miserably failed party.

Report this

By elisalouisa, January 6, 2010 at 9:03 pm Link to this comment

Sodium: :More than once I have wondered if Gore’s tactical errors during the
campaign were due to his people giving poor advice. One such blunder was the
canceling of his scheduled interview with the leaders of the Muslim community as
you stated in your January 5 3:42 am post. Is it possible there was a mole in his

Report this

By elisalouisa, January 6, 2010 at 8:27 pm Link to this comment

Sodium: Thank you so much for your very informative post January 2 10:24 a.m.
Question: Did you by any chance mean Norman Podhoretz rather than Martin
Podhoretz? Didn’t find anything under Martin Podhoretz or Martin Pedhoretz.

Report this

By ed_tru_lib, January 6, 2010 at 7:19 pm Link to this comment

This is like watching “who’s on first?” w/o the intellectual factor.

Actually Night Gaunt, Florida needn’t have mattered-Bush won New Hampshire by less than 1100 votes-nader pulled over 100,000. Only nader’s being a traitor to all he ever claimed to care about for America, and by not telling supporters hey, if you’re not going to vote for me, vote for Gore (Bush) AKA doing what Pat Buchanan of all people had the class and patriotism to do, caused Gore to lose NH and the election. Ralph gave us Bush, Cheney, Rove, Britney Speares, and ardee. Damn that self-righteous, narcissistic, scumbag 4ever.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, January 6, 2010 at 6:46 pm Link to this comment

Where have I EVER said Nader didn’t have the RIGHT to run?

But a RIGHT means you cannot be legally barred from doing something, or punished by the government and justice system for doing it.  “RIGHT” even means you can have the government side with you when someone else uses ILLEGAL means to stop you from using that RIGHT.

I like to take very extreme, obvious and even nutty examples to prove a point.  Say, Ardee, you wanted to go into a certain ethnic neighborhood, stand on a street corner and make a speech denouncing that ethnicity.  You have the RIGHT.  I could try to stop by both legal and illegal means.  I could say “Please Ardee, don’t do this mean and dangerous thing!”.  That’s legal.  I could try to handcuff you to the gas main—that’s illegal.  Silly? Of course! and I know you would never do this. 

But it makes the point:  Just because you HAVE a legal RIGHT doesn’t mean you MUST exercise it all the time.

So…Ralph has a right to run.  And I have a right to ask him not to, or even make a speech on a street corner about why his running is a bad thing—not illegal mind you, but bad.

Simple point. Why is it so hard to grasp?

Report this

By elisalouisa, January 6, 2010 at 6:09 am Link to this comment

Ardee, Sodium, Night-Gaunt, ITW
Ardee one must not only consider what is written but also the writer as to his
character. I have concluded from Chris Hedges’ writing that he really likes Ralph
Nader and considers him a friend. Also, I have done a turn around on Ralph
Nader, having come to the conclusion that he really did not know what the next
8 years would bring as a result of his staying on course. One tends to conclude
that if a person is savvy in one respect they carry that over in other areas. Ego
sometimes gets in the way and that’s what happened to Ralph Nader. I have not
changed my view that if Ralph had really become a threat and had a chance of
winning he would have been stopped one way or the other.  Perhaps there is some truth in what we have all said.
Sometimes I feel it is a sign of weakness that I can reconsider. However, the
way you put it “attempting to see the light” does not seem quite that way. Most
of us would not be on Truthdig except that we are attempting to form correct
views on what is. Thus we can alter our views at times and eat humble pie. Isn’t
that the way it is put? Will I ever succeed in my attempts to be savvy. Perhaps
that is a trait that is inborn.

Report this

By ardee, January 6, 2010 at 4:32 am Link to this comment

But I think Gore f***ed up, where Nader simply made a choice based on his ego.  More on that below.

Hopefully our discussion will not become more difficult,ITW being carried out amidst the idiotic distractions of ed-tru-lib, who says nothing and takes several paragraphs to do so.

Your assumption and opinion (italics above) is a personal belief. One might just as easily say that Gore decided to run based upon his own ego, or that refusing the help of a seated and popular President was an ego driven mistake. Who knows, who cares.

You almost mirror the sophomoric political opinion of the aforementioned mouth breather interjecting such personal and unprovable garbage into this debate.

The issue is twofold, and not at all about personalities but about the system of governance under which we function. Anyone who meets the constitutional criteria can run for office, whether or not you choose to support that effort,ITW, understand that because it is important. The responsibility for success or failure, in elections, in careers , in ones personal life always fall upon the individual.That means Gore too.

Despite your protestations that you understand that you repeatedly deny Nader’s right to do so, how dichotomous of you. You simply cannot have it both ways. Either Nader had the right to run or he didnt. If he wanted Gore in the White House he could have voted for him, campaigned for him, he didnt and he didnt. You seem to refuse to take responsibility, preferring to believe in plots, in reasons for failure that have absolutely nothing to do with fact and evidence, only interjecting your own ego where you should be thinking not reacting.

Shame on you.

I judge Ralph Nader,Barack Obama Al Gore, George Bush , anyone in public life on their words and their deeds.Only those and not upon some sophomoric anger because your chosen candidate lost. Blame Donna Brazile for being an inept campaign manager, blame Al Gore for being an inept candidate, treating passion and commitment as if it were a social disease instead of a necessity. No, instead you retreat into an apparent thumb sucking funk, sorry buddy I do like and respect you, but enough is enough.

I , for one, will continue to cast my ballot for that candidate who best exemplifies my own vision for this nation. You do whatever it is you do.

elisa I see you attempting to come into the light…;-) good for you. You are an honest and refreshing person i think.

Report this

By ardee, January 6, 2010 at 4:11 am Link to this comment

ed_tru_lib, January 6 at 1:07 am

Ironic that you will never see how a typical ( for you) post like this latest one of yours condemns you and says absolutely nothing about fact or direction.

Thank you ever so much for being as stupid as you seem.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, January 5, 2010 at 11:03 pm Link to this comment

By Sodium, January 5 at 4:27 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Why don’t you simply register? Easy and fast and only need to do it once. Then no more hassle.

The problem is that Al Gore won Florida but it was taken away from him by Supreme Court fiat and was and is un-Constitutional. Hence he won the election, end of story.

Report this

By ed_tru_lib, January 5, 2010 at 9:07 pm Link to this comment


If you check your last post and compare it to previous ones here, and in other truthdig articles relating to abdul nader going back more than a month, I think you’re reasonable enough to see the points you make are not just similar, but essentially identical. In other words, for all the discussion, nothing has changed-ardee is still a typical nader supporter AKA a pathetic, blind loser who wil never EVER have the intellectual wherewithal, or simple balls, to respond intelligently to your points by actual sensible, rational argument, but will forever babble about von nader’s “rights”.

Frankly, though I take your disgreement as a given even now, I really think my admittedly less cordial, but I really think more appropriate approach to this cockroach is the better alternative. In any case its certainly less time-wasting. Ardee is like a “christian” who when asked about whether he really believes the biblical stories of Noah, or Joshua stopping the sun are literally true, responds by questioning what kind of an American you must be to not allow him to exercise his “right” to his beliefs-in other words, with total, and apparently ENDLESS, bullshit.

Come to think of it I guess my original point hasn’t changed much either-If losers like this are what remains of nader’s traitors from 2000, what kind of schmuck was nader in the first place. Gore wasn’t just infinitely superior to Bush; he was infinitely superior to nader.

Anyway Happy New Year to all.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, January 5, 2010 at 7:16 pm Link to this comment


You keep missing the point: I FULLY ACKNOWLEDGE that Al Gore SHOULD have won his home state and we wouldn’t be having this discussion as Gore would have turned over the WH a year ago to…????  I ALSO fully acknowledge that is far more significant than Nader’s few hundred thousand votes in Florida.  Never disputed those points.  Gore should have won other states, too and AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID, the Lion’s Share of blame rests on Gore.  But I think Gore f***ed up, where Nader simply made a choice based on his ego.  More on that below.

I don’t GIVE a rat’s ass if Nader’s policies were “the best”. It doesn’t matter because they never had a snowball’s chance in hell of being implemented.  But Gore’s polices, EVEN IF INFERIOR to Nader’s (which is irrelevant to this point) were SUPERIOR by light years to Bush’s.

You can’t get around that.  Unless you are willing to subscribe to the proven-wrong contention of Nader’s that there was no difference between them.

But Ralph has it in his hand to perhaps change history and prevent catastrophe and MADE A CHOICE.  Sure, he had every legal right to do so.  NO DEBATE ON THAT EITHER.

But he made a choice and I believe THAT choice was the straw that broke the camel’s back—and I further believe Nader knew it.  So he will have my contempt forever.

Report this

By elisalouisa, January 5, 2010 at 5:02 pm Link to this comment

Frankly Ardee, where I am now is that our system as to representation doesn’t work.You may be right
about Nader, I have my reservations. Soldium’s input was also valuable. You both
are dealing with the minute details of what happened, especially Sodium, and that
is fine.  I am beyond that and see the here and now. Under Bush the CIA became
strongly entrenched in out government. Do you really think Leon Panetta knows
what is going on? This does not seem to concern you. I am not where you are as
to what is going on today. My outlook is more bleak than yours. I do appreciate
reading your posts and also Solium’s.

Report this

By Sodium, January 5, 2010 at 12:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

For ardee:


Please make sure you have not overlooked reading my earlier post of January 2,addressed to Night-Gaunt. Some of the content in that particular post has something to do with why Al Gore had canceled his scheduled meeting with the leaders of the American Muslim community in the U.S.

Being an unregistered commenter subjects my posts to sometimes unreal delay,the result of which my posts are burried by a pile of posts of registered commenters. Because of the unnessary delay,my posts lose their meaningful urgency. Because of this,I sometimes wonder whether or not I am just wasting my time which I can use more productively some place else or I can use for other contributing activities for the common good. I just keep wondering!!

Report this

By ardee, January 5, 2010 at 4:46 am Link to this comment

Sodium, January 4 at 1:24 pm

Firstly, I always look forward to your efforts here.

I have reams of documents and opinions regarding the actuality of the 2000 election. They all prove that opinions are pretty easily formed, For every one stating that Nader lost Florida for Gore there is another that shows Gore only needing to win his own state.

As I have tried to note to ITW and elisa it matters to me not one iota that people voted for whom they chose, 6 million democrats for Bush seems a lot more significant than a few hundred thousand for Ralph, but whatever.

I stand by my contentions that Nader was the best candidate, his platform the most ethical, logical and truthful and my vote will ever be cast for one with those criteria.

elisa Your past is a time when voting democratic meant voting for something substantial, that has not been true for a long time now. I wish you would do as I suggested earlier and delve into Nader’s politics, contrast them with that of Gore, or anyone else for that matter, and show me where Nader does not deserve my vote.

The whole point of Nader’s efforts were to garner enough votes to force democrats , or republicans for that matter, to consider the progressive agenda when formulating platform and policy. Who else is doing that? Do you
seriously propose that your party is not diminishing the voice of the progressive wing, the black caucus as well? Do you expect the realities of the current administration to be ignored by those of us seeking honesty and liberalism in our governance?

As for the recent detour of ITW:

The so-called “progressives” have taken a view that ANYONE supporting Israel’s existence is a dirty rotten Zionistfascist and that EVERYBODY should realize that the Arab and Moslem world is full of sweet, maligned misunderstood gentle souls.  Just read the missives of “The Contingent”—Robert, PatrickHenry, Ed Harges, Thonggirl, and, my bud, Folktruther.

I agree with Mr. Gaunt on this one. You make an egregious assumption and , as a dyed in the wool liberal I stand upon both my record of opposing Israeli actions but certainly not its right to exist, as well as in opposition to your attempt to lump all progressive views in with some folks who are certainly in the minority opinion.

This is a digression pure and simple, an attempt to paint Nader supporters with a broad brush indeed…silly really, I seek better.

I stand upon the platform and the political body of Ralph Nader’s record. I defy either you or your democratic cohort in this debate to show me where Nader’s vision for this nation, where his plans, his specifics if you will, are worse than those of any democratic candidate.

I am simply aghast at your stance that one must vote for an established party, regardless of the record of that party, simply because it is your choice. Nader sees, and I share that vision, that both parties are lost to the people of these United States, and we would welcome you both into the fold, ahead of the curve.

“The reasonable man adapts to his surroundings,
the unreasonable man attempts to change his surroundings to suit himself;
and all progress depends upon the unreasonable man.” GBShaw

“When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule, the majority is wrong.” Eugene Debs

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, January 5, 2010 at 12:32 am Link to this comment

Actually you are confused Inherit The Wind about Progressives. First they all don’t think that way about Israel. They also know the difference between the gov’t and the general population. By-the-way do you ever write about Progressives too, not just “Progressives” I see you misrepresenting here?

How did we get there from Nader in this forum? Once thing you can say about him is that he has been consistent over the years which bodes well if he could ever be elected. I just wish he was younger. I also wish our election system was open to third parties—-it isn’t which is why none of them will ever win.

Report this

By Sodium, January 4, 2010 at 11:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Subject: Bloc Vote in Florida in 2000 Pres. Election.

Some of the immense information I have found in an old thick file of mine contain the following information known to very few,including myself who had followed the election on daily basis:

According to former Illinois’ Congressman,Paul Findley, a marginalized bloc vote had determined the outcome of the election in Florida and hence for the whole country.Just read what he says below:

” George W. Bush should thank Florida Muslims for opening his way to the White House. Responding to a National campaign,they discarded normal Democratic Party allegiance and voted as a block for the Republican from Texas,providing him with a statewide net gain in Florida of more than 64,000 Muslim votes. “

It is well known that the vast majority of Muslim Americans and Arab Americans usually vote for Democratic ticket across the board. Why then the change of hearts?

Former Congressman Paul Findley,who makes a point of maintaining close relationship with that community,gives the following reason:

” The decision followed an interview with Bush on Oct.5,during which he promised to listen to their policy concerns. Gore canceled a scheduled interview. News of their endorsement was circulated through e-mails,notices in mosques and Islamic centers,and sermons by Imams during congregational prayers on the Friday before the election. “

Now,if one rechecks ardee excellent consecutive posts,entitled “Ralph’s Fault?”,one will find that Nader had received a total of 97,000 in Florida. Please remember this total for a moment.

If one assumes that Al Gore did not cancel his schedueled interview with the leaders of the Muslims community,the vast majority of votes would have been cast for him. Let one be conservative in the estimate and figured roughly 60 percent of the Muslims’ 64,000 votes went to Gore( bloc voting usually hits,at least,80-90 percent). A simple computation will reveal that Gore would have received from the 64,000 Muslim votes 38,400 votes. Assuming that the rest of the Muslim votes of 25,600 votes were equally distributed between Bush,Nader and Buchanan,still Al Gore would have been declared a winner by,at least,the 38,400 votes he would had gotten from the marginalized Muslim community.And the 530 votes by which Bush was declared a winner for by the Supreme Court would have been a bigger joke than the joke of the Suprem Court vote of 5 to 4 votes in favor of Bush.

Now,plese,some one tells me what,if any,the 97,000 votes(slightly plus votes) Ralph got in Florida had on the thousands upon thousands of votes Gore and Bush had gotten in Florida. It is zilch,people,it is a BIG BIG ZERO,if Al Gore had done the right thing with the marginalized Muslim/Arab American voters. I,for one,would give all the credit to the shrewdness of Karl Rove,Bush’s top operative.

That is just one big mistake Al Gore has committed. There are others most of which ardee have outlined so splendidly for the minds of depth and horizon,and I wish to recite some of them for emphasis:

(1)Distancing himself from then President Bill Clinton,Gore had committed a big big blunder.

(2)African American leaders sensed the disaster coming,started calling for unity because they loved Bill Clinton to a point of calling him The First Black American President.

(3)Most likely,Arkansas and Tennessee were lost because of points (1) and (2) cited above.

(4)In Florida,so many African Americans did not even care to vote because of Gore behavior toward their HERO,Bill Clinton.

I can go on and on spelling out Gore’s campaign defenciencies and shortsighted vision,but I am running of space and I would suggest to reread all ardee constructive posts for more details.

What I have attemted to show from all of the foregoing is the following simple fact:


Report this

By Inherit The Wind, January 4, 2010 at 6:39 pm Link to this comment

Ardee—astutely you note that the Dims have moved RIGHT and the so-called “progessives” have been cut out.

Both are true.  And, as in the LBJ ‘60’s this is going to destroy the party AGAIN for another 40 years.

The so-called “progressives” have taken a view that ANYONE supporting Israel’s existence is a dirty rotten Zionistfascist and that EVERYBODY should realize that the Arab and Moslem world is full of sweet, maligned misunderstood gentle souls.  Just read the missives of “The Contingent”—Robert, PatrickHenry, Ed Harges, Thonggirl, and, my bud, Folktruther.

This is NEVER going to sell to Democrats and certainly NOT the liberal Jewish portion that have been major supporters since FDR.

OTOH, there are the Ben Nelsons and Joe Liebermans who are DELIBERATELY destroying the Health Care bill—who needs THEM?  And, in the middle, are the wimpy Reids and Pelosis, letting the Right and the Left of the Dems rip the party apart while they mostly fiddle.

But NEITHER group, nor the middle, is following the Religious Right’s path to power in the GOP.  Talk about IDIOTS!

That’s how the GOP with NOTHING to offer but more of the disaster that was 2000-2008 could win this year and take us back, yet again.

Report this

By elisalouisa, January 4, 2010 at 6:07 pm Link to this comment

So many interesting comments. After thinking it over I have come to the
conclusion that the GOP did not change on it’s own accord, it was hijacked by the
Christian right with the full blessing of the power/elite. Before anyone could do
something to stop it, it was a done deal.They needed each other and the common
denominator was Zionism but for different reasons. Together they have formed a power house which is way out of line in some ways.They are ruthless and if they had their way completely the Inquistion would look like nothing compared to what they would do; one difference, the victims would be Muslims.
Ardee, I can’t believe this, you say that ITW and I live in the past? If anyone lives in the past it is you who still doesn’t have a grip on what is actually happening. The power/elite are in control of both parties. Ralph Nader doesn’t stand a chance. He
makes good copy and gives hope to people like you Ardee. This is good for the
power/elite who want to keep guys like you in line. Let’s hear from Sodium.

Report this

By Sodium, January 4, 2010 at 9:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

For ardee,

ardee: With the help of my 40 years old son who is an Ordained Minister and whom I asked to drop by to help me out moving some heavy books and old files boxes piled at the top of one another in the basement,I finally managed in finding the file labeled,“Election 2000”. My son thought I was crazy going through all that to prove a point,and as he expressed it:“and for what? Politics!!”. I just gave him a fatherly smile and thanked him because I knew he never thought much of politics. He thinks it is for the birds. So,without his help there was no way I could move the boxes and you would not have heard from me on the topic at hand which “is not about Nader or Gore”,as elisalouisa has put it,but as I wish to put,it is about what did happen in the 2000 Presidential election,especially in the great state of Florida!!

As I have expected the “Election 2000” file is full of on-the-spot notes scribbled by me and a lot of articles written by all kind of writers,for the purpose of publicizing either Gore’s camp claims or Bush’s camp claims. There is nothing really about Ralph Nader except some short sentences in a 16 pages article,written by Alexander Rose and published in the Middle East Quarterly,dated Summer of 2001,about 6-7 months after the election.

The file,“Election 2000” is a thick one. A talented writer like Chris Hedges can write a book about the election,by just reviewing and studying the enormous variaties of notes, articles,interviews,legal aspects etc..and above all,the troubling CONSTITUTIONALITY of what took place in Florida and the subsequent decision made by the Supreme Court(by 4 to 5 votes)in favor of George W. Bush.

Because of the immense varity of the information in the file,I have faced the problem from where to start. Hence,I think the best way to help out the readers in developing a reasonable comprehention of what,in the final analysts,had a remarkable influence on the Florida’s results is to explore what had the marginalized voters had done. That is the ones that no one gave much attention to except Bush’s shrewd camp of operatives.

Please consider this post as an introduction to what I will post in the next 24 hours,as soon as I finish doing a few errands for my disabled wife.

                STAY TUNED

Report this

By ardee, January 4, 2010 at 4:00 am Link to this comment

Be truthful elisa your pretense at linking to failed to include a careful and thoughtful perusal of his archived speeches and platform, ‘fess up now. Better yet, show me where Nader’s time has come and gone based upon those speeches and platform items. I find that Nader’s position mirrors that of a now extinct Democratic Party, replaced by a shadow of its former self.

Speaking of shadows,ITW, your contention that the GOP has changed is certainly correct, it has moved rather further to the right than ever before, attempting to use the activism one finds among the radical elements of the far right. I think this policy is doomed, but , and this is a big but, the Democrats move rightward to embrace that which the GOP abandoned.

The progressive elements within the Democratic Party are silenced and exiled to powerlessness. Directly after the victories that gave the Democrats their majority, you know, the one they squandered so abysmally, flooding Congress with blue dogs, we saw Rhamm Emmanuel and Chuck Schumer immediately take the offensive, negating that strategy and the associated “liberalism” it hinted at.

I believe you both to be sincere and caring folks ( though I still believe that you, elisa, fudged on the Nader research thingie), and that you , like many here, want to see change for the better, wish for a progressive agenda and direction. Unfortunately I also believe that you both live in the past, a past in which the democrats were an actual force for good. That time has past, and I think it pretty darn obvious to anyone who watches events unfold with a non partisan eye.

The time of the two party system is at an end.

Report this

By elisalouisa, January 3, 2010 at 9:49 pm Link to this comment

So right ITW. The Republican party has changed and to my knowledge, they never
used that word. Much of the Christian Right’s philosophy fit in with the goals of
the power/elite who gladly ignored the religious aspect. As you said, they were
for big business, over-use of the military and believed “My country, right or
wrong.“Falwell was used and suggestions may have been made as to his line of
preaching. Church and state did meet in his homilies and brainwashing was there
big time although no one called it that. 
I did visit Ardee. All I can say is Nader’s time has come and gone.
Our country is entering a new phase and what comes with it may not be for the
better. Thanks to both of you for an interesting exchange.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, January 3, 2010 at 9:15 pm Link to this comment

You make an excellent argument and it got me thinking: Can either major political party change, and change radically?

Obviously, the answer is emphatically “Yes!” and, ironically, the most recent and therefore most relevant example is the fundamental change in the Republican Party over the last 46 years and especially after since the founding of the revoltingly named “Moral Majority” over 30 years ago.

I remember watching Jerry Falwell on Sunday morning TV in utter incredulity. Despite the John Birch Society and the American Legion, NOBODY could actually believe the drivel that asshole was preaching…..or could they?  Not one Republican I knew ever spoke like that or seemed to THINK like that.  Many were pro-choice, pro-civil rights, and even pro-environment. They were for big-business and the over-use of the military and believed “My country, right or wrong” but were no more racist than Democrats, of whom many were racist.

Who, in 1978, could even IMAGINE that Falwell’s antediluvian bizarre visions of “America” would ever be anything but the fringe?  I would have bet my first 10 years’ earnings it wasn’t possible.

Now, that nutty insanity that Falwell preached in 1978 IS the Republican Party!  Talk about change!

They did it, and how they did it is a matter of public record.  It comes down to two words: Diligence and Determination.  You can another word: Persistence.  They contested every podunk town school election, every rural county freeholder race, every dog-catcher.  And they never gave up.  They didn’t throw their votes away in “symbolic” “protest” votes—but they MADE candidates take them into account.

They had heroes like Jesse Helms (that prick) early on, but they had to develop more.

Reagan, a “compromise” to them, came in 1980.  Bush 41, was a temporary throwback.  But the 1994 election was The Big Victory, and the GOP has been a far right reactionary anti-American monstrosity ever since.

THAT is what is wrong with Nader’s approach: What he didn’t learn from the Far Right.

Report this

By ardee, January 3, 2010 at 5:40 pm Link to this comment

Elisalouisa and ITW

Firstly, I appreciate the tone and tenor of your posts, which is why I respond in kind. A refreshing change from the diatribes of the many who infest this forum with their rages, distortions and even lies.Listing them would be petty indeed and besides, everyone knows who they are.

I can only wish that you both would understand that there exists a growing number of people who do not believe that the solution to our current political problems lie with either major political party, nor do they, in fact, lie with any individual.

I share this view, as does Mr. Nader. Thus your insistence that Nader threw the election to Bush because he refused to support Gore gains no traction with me, nor, I dare to assume, does it with Nader himself nor those who support his views, his policies and his road map for change.

Both Democratic and Republican Parties are in the thrall of corporate interests, as puppets of said interests change from them is certainly not forthcoming. Change is what I seek, change is what Nader offers still. I wonder if you both have read much of Nader’s thoughts. I would urge you to do so; his platform is found at:

I would think you both would find damn little with which you disagree therein. ITW asks me to learn from mistakes, yet continues to mistakenly support a party and a system that brings only more mistakes. Whether Gore or Bush in the White House in 2000, just as now with Obama therein, the corporation still rules, the decisions made benefit only those entities while the vast majority suffer on.

Just as elisa fails to see the fiasco that Obama creates while bemoaning the slipping away of our control over our own government, a slippage she believes began with Bush 43 when it in fact began a rather long time earlier. Even though Reagan hastened said slippage the fascism was always there.

I know you two to be well intentioned and rational folks. I know the problem lies, not with electing one of our tweedledee party’s candidate over the candidate of the tweedledum party. The problem is awakening the electorate to the necessity of breaking out of this cyclic control of our governance that is actually a way of keeping control firmly in the grasp of the wealthiest few.

Until and unless we understand that when a candidate like Barack Obama spends 700 million dollars to gain an office that pays $400,000/yr. he is already bought and paid for, and we the people are already royally screwed.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, January 3, 2010 at 5:15 pm Link to this comment

I’m not “demonizing” Ralph Nader.  But I refuse to accept him as a demi-god or paragon either.  I think he’s an ego-driven fanatic, and, like all ego-driven fanatics, I distrust him.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, January 3, 2010 at 5:11 pm Link to this comment

OK, who are you and what have you done with ElissaLouisa?

(Just kidding!)

You’ve been making very good points and Ardee, who is very bright (despite Mandinka’s insults) is missing the point.

While Ardee refuses to engage in “speculation” calling it “science fiction”, he ignores the fundamental logic of learning from mistakes, which, by definition, implies extrapolation and speculation of alternate paths.  Paths, not “universes”.

So, let’s ask the moot question: what if Ralph Nader DID endorse Al Gore in the last few days of the election?

Would Ralph’s saying to his supporters “I know we all think d*** little of Al Gore, but George Bush is going to be…(etc.)” have swayed enough of his supporters to help Gore’s moribund campaign over the wall?

If you believe the answer is “no”, then the discussion is over.

But if, like me, you believe that the polls indicate that the answer is “yes”, and that it was CLEARLY statistically obvious that Ralph could have changed the results, then the question is open.

Does Ralph Nader have a Constitutional right to run for President? Of COURSE he does!  But that is not the question. It’s not one of legality, but of morality.

Is it Ralph Nader’s fault for Al Gore’s loss? That’s not a yes/no question either.  Clearly, Al Gore’s loss falls mainly on Al Gore and the various mistakes HE made, any and all of which had they not been made would make this discussion non-existent.

But what Ardee has vigorously refused to address is whether Ralph Nader shares ANY responsibility for Al Gore’s loss and the catastrophe that resulted from the Bush ascendancy to the White House.

If, as I believe, Ralph Nader COULD have chosen to ask his supporters to vote for Al Gore, and it would have been the edge that put Gore rather than Bush in the WH, then Nader cannot avoid HIS share of responsibility for the Bush catastrophe.  It’s not Ralph’s responsibility alone, clearly. Nor do I think any of us arguing this point would claim that.

Rather, as I have stated, Ralph Nader had it in his power to influence the 2000 election JUST enough to save the nation from George W. Bush, when Al Gore had f***ed up just enough to put it in doubt.  Nader made his choice, to PRETEND there wasn’t “a dime’s worth of difference” between Gore and Bush.

The 8 years of Bush were a catastrophe that Nader might have prevented but didn’t.  For that he MUST have and deserves his small share of guilt.  His ego won over his duty to his nation, as it usually does.

It is only a George Washington, or a King Juan Carlos, or a Nelson Mandela, who is offered or handed absolute power but still has the personal strength to reject what his ego wants for the good of his nation and for freedom.

Because he did not do this, Ralph Nader, for all his posturing, is no different than any other egotistical politician seeking power.

No, it’s not his “fault” Gore lost—it’s Gore’s, mostly.

Sure, Nader has a right to run.  Nobody disputes that.

But Nader had the UNIQUE chance to affect the 2000 election and chose not to do so for his own ego.  For that choice it is right and just to hold him responsible.

Report this

By elisalouisa, January 3, 2010 at 11:58 am Link to this comment

It is really not about Gore who certainly is no superhero and, if truth be told, it is
really not about Nader. It is about control, our government slipping away. That is
what Bush/Cheney accomplished. Cheney is still at it. Do you really believe the
changes you so seek can come about? You are a dreamer. One more 9/11(which
could very well happen even to accomplish this end) and Cheney or one like him
in sheep’s clothing may be our next President. Obama is out. The 2000 election
was a crossroad and we blew it, we are going down the wrong path and there is no one on the horizon to get us back on the right track.

Report this

By ardee, January 3, 2010 at 10:01 am Link to this comment

elisalouisa, January 3 at 1:44 pm

Apparently we have a fundamental difference in how to affect change and also in the meaning of democracy as well. You would attribute base motives to one who “dared” run against your favorite son while I read and believe Nader’s words as written or spoken. You would believe that some superhero(Gore?) would rescue us all from the evil fascism that encroaches ever further into our lives while I believe we need fundamental changes, changes that Gore has never once considered or even spoken to while Nader has made them the foundation of his platform.

Demonizing someone is really not an intellectually honest way to express yourself I think. Believe what you will about Ralph Nader’s motivations, I think his body of work speaks to those motivations far, far better than do your absurdities.

So be it.

Report this

By elisalouisa, January 3, 2010 at 9:44 am Link to this comment

Ardee:Nader’s campaign was the only way to bring progressive issue to the
fore, which was his only intent. Voting for the Duopoly, regardless of whether
the name was spelled as B U S H or G O R E brings no change whatsoever. The
proof of that lies with the current reality of your so-called “progressive” in the
White House.

As to whether the name Bush or Gore could bring change you assume we are
talking about change for the better. How about change that brings on a more
Fascist type government, where we loose what rights we have? Change that
means perpetual war? Change that guarantees our ever present drive for world
domination? How about change that brings about tax cuts for the power/elite?
Change that downgrades our school system and social programs? If you really
had done your homework in 2000 you would have known that such change
would be the result of a Bush/Cheney win. I put Ralph Nader in the politically
astute category, very politically astute and therefore he could foresee such
happenings, he is a traitor to our cause and I use the word “our” guardedly.
As to the political situation now, things are worse than they seem. The
Bush/Cheney regime allowed further deterioration of the financial system with
the power/elite gaining complete control. I keep bringing up Senator Paul
Wellstone and for a reason. He would have been the perfect Democratic
Presidential candidate in 2004. Wellstone had balls(sorry but that’s the perfect
word) and stood up to these guys. They took care of him but good. That is what
we are dealing with. So now we have Obama who is in with the big guys. That’s
how he got there, not because of his principles.  In case you haven’t noticed
John Q. Public no longer has a say in what goes on. Either Ralph Nader is part
of the power/elite or he is a sham. I lean toward the former. There are times,
when at a crossroad, change can be accomplished. Those crossroads have
come and gone, we are entering a tunnel, a dark tunnel where the light at the
end cannot be seen.

Report this

By ardee, January 3, 2010 at 4:49 am Link to this comment

elisalouisa, January 2 at 2:42 pm #

Ardee: We are talking past each other. You are correct in what you say, as far as it goes. However,each potential catastrophic situation requires a reappraisal as to
action taken. We cannot follow the usual line of thinking. The fact that
Bush/Cheney were up for election changed everything. The old rules did not
apply, the important thing was that we had to keep these two mad men out of

Perhaps in 2004 one might say with certainty that Bush/Cheney were insane, but the picture was far from clear in 2000 I think. The real point, yet again, is that it matters not which party dominates the Legislature or the White House, not any longer and not for some time.

Nader’s campaign was the only way to bring progressive issue to the fore, which was his only intent. Voting for the Duopoly, regardless of whether the name was spelled as B U S H or G O R E brings no change whatsoever. The proof of that lies with the current reality of your so-called “progressive” in the White House.

If ed-tru-lib has successful surgery to remove his head from his rectum perhaps his posts will be worth reading, currently they are not.

Report this

By ed_tru_lib, January 2, 2010 at 6:17 pm Link to this comment

Bravo to John, Mandinka, ellalouise, and any others for taking the time to say they see through nader’s pathetic bullshit, and the ludicrous, (though all too typical of nadernuts) “arguments” of poor lil ardee, and note correctly how nader elected Bush in 2000, tried to do it again in 2004, and only failed because there were far fewer ardees in America than there had been in 2000, and would do it again tomorrow while his mindless supporters whined about his “right to run.”

Sarah Palin has a right to run too. So will Carrie Prejean when she’s old enough-both would pull FAR more votes than nader, but lil ralph would be happy to exercise his “rights” again to elect them, and lil ardee will be there to cheer him on.

Report this

By John777, January 2, 2010 at 4:49 pm Link to this comment

It seems surreal that intelligent people are still arguing about whether or not Nader’s decision to run for president—knowing he had no chance of winning—guaranteed the ascension of Bush/Cheney, and therefore, by extension, contributed to the disasters that followed out of his arrogant decision, especially the bloody war in Iraq, a war that resulted in the deaths of thousands of servicemen and women, even more Iraqis.  Those deaths, and the destruction of a country, to me, are the main reason for excoriating Nader as contributor and catalyst.  Despite pleadings from even some of his former champions, that he withdraw only in Florida, he stood unbudging. He thus became an ally of the criminals Bush and Chaney, the crooks in Florida, the Supreme Court—and, yes, ignored, the New York Times that editorially asked Gore to stop his protests against the results of the fraudulent election, “for the good of the country,” giving Republicans their most powerful rallying cry while democrats remained crucially quiet. So there he is, Nader, smug, petulant, full of himself—forever an immoral spoiler.

Report this

By mandinka, January 2, 2010 at 4:38 pm Link to this comment

I think the topic is who cares what nader has to say. He’s never won an election, never had a job and spent his entire life litigating nonsense.
If we have global warming issues nader’s ilk should be the 1st to leave the planet he’s just breathing the good air and expelling CO2

Report this

By elisalouisa, January 2, 2010 at 10:42 am Link to this comment

Ardee: We are talking past each other. You are correct in what you say, as far as it goes. However,each potential catastrophic situation requires a reappraisal as to
action taken. We cannot follow the usual line of thinking. The fact that
Bush/Cheney were up for election changed everything. The old rules did not
apply, the important thing was that we had to keep these two mad men out of
office. That was the only thing that mattered. I have since relocated to be closer to family but at that time I belonged to a political group that was antiwar, etc. There
were political thinkers in this group much more astute than I but with the same
political outlook. Everyone of us felt betrayed when Nader chose to run. We all
could foresee the consequences. That is the important thing, the bottom line.
Republicans know this and they stick together for the most part to achieve their
ends. Just take a look at who prevails. That should tell you something; with all due respect.

Report this

By ardee, January 2, 2010 at 9:41 am Link to this comment

elisalouisa, January 2 at 1:13 pm

With all due respect, the thread title is not the same as the topic as evolved. ITW chose to make it about the “spoiler"issue and Sodium rightly attempted to inject a spotlight on the crux of the matter….

“The fundamental question remains: what impact,if any,Ralph Nader had on the result of the election in Florida? Any other attempt to deviate the question to other derivatives of it is just useless,as long as the fundamental question remains unanswered,with an acceptable degree of certainty. “

I see by your post you are one of the spoiler set, so be it. I have read and listened to Nader’s speeches and policy discussions for quite a few years now, further, I have heard him discuss his reasons for entering politics in the first place. All I have read, all I have heard make me a fan of Nader, of his efforts, of his reasoning and of his reasons for running.

You may adopt whatever opinion you so choose, though I think you have not done your due diligence. I wonder if you even read the two part paste I offered?

For the last time I will repeat my main points:
1. Nader has a constitutional right to run for office, any office for which he qualifies.

2. Nader, and his supporters see the problems in this nation as more than the juvenile “elect Democrats” mantra. We see a system rife with corruption and thus understand that the election of some superhero with a big D on his chest is no solution, only a panacea.

Nothing illustrates the truth of this better than the actions of our current President who, in far, far too many ways emulates George W.Bush.

3. Six million democrats voted for George Bush yet you and others ignore both that small factoid as well as the fact that Gore failed to carry even his own state, thus ensuring his own demise without any outside help.

Bottom line, do your research and understand two things; Nader’s candidacy was legal, was inspired by his desire to make important changes in fact, and that my vote is not owned by any party, it is given to that candidate who best expresses my own vision for the direction of this nation.

I believe, and very strongly too, that this entire Nader as spoiler barrage is a product of the Democratic Party machine excusing a sad little campaign by Gore, the disappearance of a seated Democratic President who refused to assist his own VP or was not wanted in the campaign. It is simply not going to fly. Look around at the abysmal incompetency of our Democratic majority today.

Report this

By elisalouisa, January 2, 2010 at 9:13 am Link to this comment

Ardee to Night-Gaunt(May I interject?)
I think the actual topic is whether an American citizen has the right to exercise
a guaranteed constitutional right to run for office, to use the public forum of a
national election to espouse his vision for this nation.
That is not the actual topic Ardee with all due respect.. Title of the column is
“Nader’s Utopia: The World According to Ralph.” Sometimes our choices are not
that great and we must face that fact that we cannot achieve our goal(s) by the
choices available. During such times one must decide what course would be
best to achieve a lesser goal and avoid disaster. This brings us to a very
unpopular word in this time, namely, sacrifice. Nader had the opportunity to
save this country or at least maintain a status quo. He knew much of what
would be if Bush/Cheney came into power. He could have stopped that by
sacrificing himself for the good of the country. As I continually mull this
situation over I have come to the conclusion that: either we really did not know
who the realy Ralph Nader was or Nader had a late middle age crisis as to who
he was,  or someone got to him by whatever means. Giving Ralph some slack I
lean toward the latter.

Report this

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide