You let Nader off the hook a bit when you mentioned about what has he been doing over the past four years? it should be noted prominently as to what has he been doing over the past SEVEN YEARS!!!!!
For someone who made a name for himself as a consumer advocate he's done nothing NOTHING (!!!!!!!) since the calendar year of 2001 and bush was inaugurated.
If he was so concerned about problems in the political world then why does he only come around at election time and help enable the right hold power?
At least Kucinich went about things in a proper manner. Tried to win the nomination or, and I'd like to think this was more on his mind, influence the discussion.
I mean, Nader used to take on all the corporations and he's done freekin' NOTHING!!!
Nader had better not be permitted in any presidential debate. He is not a real candidate, his support went from meager to pitiful the past two times he ran for president - the fool does not deserve to be on the same stage with Barack Obama and John McCain. What has Nader been doing the past four years? You haven't heard about a lot of consumer advocacy from Nader once he decided to be the herpes of presidential candidates. Talk about resting on your laurels. Nader handed us George Bush in 2000, and quite possibly George Bush in 2004, and now he has the nerve to complain about the Bush administration? What was that definition of insanity?
Almost exclusively Presidential candidates on the shows this weekend. Two appearance by Clinton and McCain. Romney, Obama and Huckabee each get one show. And, Ralph Nader? Why does anyone pay him any attention? He needs some kind of 12-step program for his addiction to the spotlight every four years.
Russert once again has no candidates. No, he just has a panel of "seasoned" pundits who are going to tell us what to think. Russert's panel includes: Mary Matalin, who never has any insight beyond the GOP talking points and, let's not forget, was a leading consultant for that stellar campaign of Fred Thompson; and the biggest loser in the Democratic consultancy (which is filled with losers), Bob Shrum. In other words, there really is no reason to watch Meet the Press. I think AMERICAblog commenters and other political blogs give better analysis and commentary -- by far.
Besides the national poll from Washington Post/ABC News that we posted last night, a slew of state-specific surveys came out last night and this morning. We'll have more on these later but California is almost even on the Democratic side. According to the Field Poll, which has a long, respected history of polling that state, Clinton leads Obama 36 -34. Still 18 percent undecided.
Will any of the candidates veer from their scripts? Make any news?:
ABC's "This Week" — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass.
___
CBS' "Face the Nation" — Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Barack Obama, D-Ill.
___
NBC's "Meet the Press" — Republican strategists Mary Matalin and Mike Murphy; Democratic strategists Bob Shrum and James Carville.
___
CNN's "Late Edition" — Former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark.; Romney; Ralph Nader; Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Gov. Janet Napolitano, D-Ariz.
Seriously, who is funding this guy? What organizations is he still affiliated with, and who is funding them? He needs to be put to pasture once and for all (what's that slaughterhouse in California, again?) From ABC:
Ralph Nader has formed a presidential exploratory committee, and said in an interview Wednesday that he will launch another presidential bid if he's convinced he can raise enough money to appear on the vast majority of state ballots this fall.
Nader, who ran as an independent candidate in each of the past three presidential elections, told ABCNews.com that he will run in 2008 if he is convinced over the next month that he would be able to raise $10 million over the course of the campaign — and attract enough lawyers willing to work free of charge to get his name on state ballots.
So, are we better off now than we were before Ralph Nader helped throw the 2000 and 2004 elections to George Bush? How has his grand plan helped our country? There has been NO positive change, whatsoever, from Nader having entered either race. The only possible impact anyone can point to is that Nader may have handed the presidency to George Bush, twice. That's all Nader has going for him - the possibility that he's responsible for giving the country waterboarding, the Iraq war, the mortgage mess, skyrocketing oil prices, massive budget deficits, signing statements, Alito and Roberts, Gitmo...
I'm kind of looking forward to Ron Paul being the "what's that idiot's name, the enviro Green Party guy who lost us the election twice, oh yeah, Ralph Traitor Nader" of the Republican party. More from Markos.
Starting to look that way. The man is an egotistical idiot. He has done more than any man in America to destroy the environment and further corporate interests at the expense of the individual. Every single crime that Bush-Cheney have committed is on Ralph Nader's head. And now he may be planning to do it to us all again.
This past week was a doozy, during which I very much enjoyed attending the Take Back America conference, and for my troubles being called everything from "dangerous to our Democracy" to "Mao's secret little helper" by Republicans who think secret camps, illegal wiretaps and hush-hushing IMs from the Republican Michael Jackson are apparently equivalent to writing the Federalist Papers.
Not to mention sad-sack, power-leaking mainstream media journo-monkeys who just hate the netroots because, like, we actually base our opinions and reporting on wacky things like facts. We're as bad as the Bush Administration, splattered Joe Klein.
I provided my usual cautious response to Little Man Hate on Sam Seder's show this past Sunday.
Yet, without further ado, I will get to the didactic nature of my weekly encounters with the GOP:
1) Byron York, as many of you may be aware, is a writer of pathetically stupid books like The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy, which is neither vast, nor often left-wing and only beginning to resemble an inkling of a conspiracy. But he had to try and sell books somehow, assuming autographed pictures of his circa 80s, Don Johnson 'do don't bring in the big bucks.
In any case, he was at Take Back America, and repeated the lie that people there booed the troops during Senator Hillary Clinton's speech. But hey, he's a Republican, and they lie like he uses LA Looks on his dreamy locks. So I guess it is to be expected.
2) Rudy, Rudy, Rudy. Losing that tough-on-crime cred quickly, are we? First there was Capo Kerik on his payroll. One would have thought that would be bad enough. But I guess Kerik got lonely being the only Attica-bound member of Rudy's crew. So Rudy made sure to add the Scarface of South Carolina, and as he is a Republican, a possible pedophile for good measure.
Who knew that a man could make marrying his cousin look like one of his classier acts?
3) President Bush at 26%?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Nice legacy, Decider. You think Gordo Liddy would still think your "manhood" was leaping forth in that flight suit as he did way back when? My guess is there is some shrinkage going on. But hey, you're still three points above Nixon when he was leaving office with roughly the same approval rating as Idi Amin. So dare to dream Sergeant Shultz, dare to dream.
4) Finally, there's Ralph Nader. Not a Republican you say? Yeah, whatever. Ralphie is missing the press attention again, so apparently he is thinking about running again. Sure Ralph, you've not done enough damage to this country and tarnished your legacy completely. It sure would have sucked having a President Gore in office the past 6.5 years. (I'm suspecting 27 million Iraqis aren't loving Mr. Nader much nowadays either.)
Isn't there a reality show you could go on, maybe with fellow chump Bloomberg, and every other "Independent" who is supported by GOP money? Or a car with a bad transmission in Zambia you can go see about? Or a wax museum somewhere with an opening? Or another country where you can help elect a despot who will systematically trash everything you claim to have once believed in? I hear Russia is thinking about new elections - communism, what's old is new again, Ralphie!
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT: I have joined filmmaker Robert Greenwald in starting a new site for progressive original-content video. It can be found at Brave New Films. Please come by, join and make us a daily visit. We are adding to a missing piece of progressive infrastructure I dare say, and we need your support to make it a success.
The man lost us two elections, he deserves to be roasted on a spit.
Speaking of spoilers, there's been talk about whether Bloomberg entering the race, should he, hurts the Republicans or the Democrats. A journalist friend of mine says that Bloomberg could force Hillary, should she be the nominee, to spend money in NY and NJ, something she hadn't planned. But I think Bloomberg (and Hagel?) do something else. They give Republicans, who are mighty uncomfortable voting for a Mormon (and a flip-flopper who's simply pretending to a conservative), a reason, and cover, to walk. Sure, they'll SAY they'll vote for Romney if he's the nominee, just like voters said they'd vote for African-American Harvey Gantt against Jesse Helms. But when they get behind the curtain, Romney will be toast.
It's time to defund any organization still affiliated with Ralph Nader. He got Bush elected in 2000, probably got Bush re-elected in 2004, and now hopes to get another Republican elected president in 2008.
Nader's vote total exceeded Bush's margin over Gore in Florida (as did those of several other third party candidates) and in New Hampshire.... Nader's vote total in Florida was 97,488 where the final certified vote count had a margin of 537.
Tell me, what more could Ralph Nader do to help destroy our country? What more could Ralph Nader do to help ensure bad government and corporate excess - issues he claims he cares about - than helping elect a Republican president AGAIN (well, again AGAIN)? Nader has done more to hurt the very causes he espouses than anyone. Seriously, exactly how has Ralph "Spoiler" Nader's attacks on the Democratic party helped move the party more towards Nader's point of view? How has his tough love helped make the party a better place? How has Nader's empowerment of George Bush and Dick Cheney, twice, helped end corporate welfare? It hasn't. All Nader has accomplished has been throwing the elections to the Republicans, and their corporate buddies, without accomplishing any change at all in the party itself.
So thanks, Ralph, but no thanks. We really liked you before you went crazy.
Here's the line up. ABC has the leaders of the GOP factions. Is that intra-party battle considered a civil war? And, let's see how many times McCain contradicts himself:
ABC's "This Week" _ Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.; Sarah Ferguson, the duchess of York.
___
CBS' "Face the Nation" _ NFL commissioner Roger Goodell.
___
NBC's "Meet the Press" _ Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.
___
CNN's "Late Edition" _ White House budget director Rob Portman; former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack; former Lebanese President Amin Gemayel; Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind.; consumer advocate Ralph Nader.
___
"Fox News Sunday" _ Sens. Jim Webb, D-Va., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C.
Webb vs. Graham isn't a fair fight. Webb vs. any GOPer isn't a fair fight. The Democrats need to put him out there more.
Basically, to steal the election for Santorum by splitting the liberal vote. I want to see Rick Santorum speak out against this immediately, and then I want to see the Green Party candidate return the money and pull out of the race. Thanks to the Green Party and Ralph Nader we've had two Bush presidencies. Enough already. But this one really takes the cake - 100% of the campaign funded by Republicans? Is that what the Green really stand for? I somehow doubt it.
I've noticed over the years a decided fear of money, hatred of money, or at least discomfort of money by some people on the left.
Whether it's concern over the heads of liberal non-profits or big corporations making too much money, or snarky comments I get whenever I try to raise money off the site or, God forbid, actually take a vacation, there's a certain disdain amongst a certain segment of the left for having or spending money in any way beyond bare subsistence, and I'm trying to figure out why.
The issue came up for me, again, last night when I posted a simple photo of the beautiful sunset over Northern Virginia. The photo was taken from the sedan that CNN graciously paid for to drive me home from the airport after attending their conference. Someone made a nasty comment on the blog about how I must be doing well from all those donations to be taking sedans home from the airport. And when I explained that CNN paid for it, and that actually I didn't even get a speaker's fee for appearing at their conference (a fee that is quite common, mind you), I got even snarkier comments about how dare I expect a fee (I didn't "expect" a fee, but simply noted this wasn't a money-making trip for me).
Now, I'm happy to attribute those comments to trolls. And I'm not writing this specifically about THOSE comments. But rather, this is part of a larger trend, a larger feeling, I've noted for years amongst some segments of the left. The concept of doing well by doing good, of making a good living by being an advocate for good, is somehow anathema to large swaths of the left. And I think that's troubling.
Heck, I've even gotten nasty comments just for asking for donations - things like "all you do is write, why should we pay for that?"
Now, I'm not asking for tons of comments reassuring me that I do provide a valuable service. Rather, I'm curious what this vein of thought is amongst some on the left, how strong it is, why it exists at all, and what people think of it. I, for one, worry that it's something that holds us back. A fear of success, a fear of money, a fear of living well, a fear of becoming too much like the people we're fighting (those evil Republicans and evil corporations WITH MONEY - almost in the way that some people hate ALL religion because SOME religious people hate us). That somehow by wanting to make money ourselves, we've debased ourselves and our cause and become "like them."
And the thing is, I like money.
I was raised a good capitalist boy in a good immigrant home in Chicago, my family worked hard to put us in a nice suburban home with nice suburban schools, and the occasional family vacation out east or out west, and you know, I liked it. I liked it when I got to do my junior year abroad. I liked it when I saved up enough money to visit Europe on my own. And when I did well enough in school to get summer jobs in Paris and Buenos Aires, both in the same summer, I liked that too. This isn't stuff I'm ashamed of, it's stuff I've earned and I'm proud of accomplishing. And it's all stuff that money helped me do. But I can imagine some people on the left thinking that if you don't live like Ralph Nader, on a cot in your dingy old office, but instead enjoy the occasional trip to Paris, you're not a REAL lefty and you've somehow sold out the cause.
So, I ask your thoughts. Am I right about this? Does this current of thought exist? Why does it exist? And what are the ramifications of it? Is it a good thing? Or is it, as I fear, something that holds us back? Something that, in fact, may even be a knee-jerk reaction against our own success - the old Groucho Marx (I believe) "I'd never join a club that would have me as a member." I.e., do we have such a poor self-image that we simply expect ourselves to never be compensated for our work because, per se, our work is without value? Or do we simply think wealth - any wealth - corrupts absolutely? Or is this simply a minority view amongst the left that is, well, just a minority?
This man is just a complete media slut. Let me just remind everyone this is the same man who took money from Republicans to get on the ballot in some states. From AFP:
Ralph Nader, an independent presidential candidate this year, has called for recounts of November 2 voting results saying that amid allegations of irregularities, he wanted to ensure that every ballot was counted.
Nader, who this year drew about one percent of the vote nationally, told a press conference Wednesday he was speaking out for the 'thousands' of US voters asking for recounts and not on his own behalf.
Since he took money from Republicans, I no longer believe that anything he does is for anything other than to feed his own ego.
Two days before the election, the final CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows a dead heat in the presidential race, with President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry each receiving 49% support among likely voters in the final allocated estimate. Independent candidate Ralph Nader garners 1% of the vote, and all other candidates an additional 1%.
The poll was conducted Oct. 29-31 among 2,014 national adults and includes 1,573 likely voters, and was weighted to reflect an estimated voter turnout of 60%. The final numbers also reflect Gallup's judgment of how undecided voters will cast their ballots.
Before allocation of the undecided vote, Gallup's likely voter model shows Bush ahead by two points, 49% to 47%, while the results among all registered voters show Kerry with a two-point lead, 48% to 46%.
Another shocking victory for integrity, integrity, integrity. No thanks to the corrupt Ohio Secretary of State, An Ohio judge has ruled that Ralph Nader will not be on the ballot there because the folks gathering signatures -- the defrocked JSM Inc. that gets its money from Republicans -- has committed "widespread" and "substantial" fraud.
Sorry I haven't posted in the last couple of days. I returned from a business trip last night to find that all the Kerry signs on my street had been stolen. Again.
BC04 is running ads in KENTUCKY -- my guess it's in an effort to help Jim Bunning, the gay-bashing ideologue who has clearly lost his mind and is losing votes by the day. Bunning ducked his opponent, Dan Mongiardo, and refused to debate for months. Then when Bunning got taken to task for his cowardice, he agreed to debate -- but at the last minute he didn't show up and demanded that he be able to debate via satellite from GOP headquarters. Bunning needed to use a teleprompter during the debate.
Bunning is clearly terrified. He refuses to talk to the media unless it's a pre-arranged deal. He has beefed up security (at taxpayer expense) at his pre-packaged campaign events in places like Paducah. He actually felt compelled to release a note from his doctor to defend himself -- but the letter had a somewhat less-than-ringing endorsement: Bunning "has had several minor health issues over the years, all of which are currently resolved or well controlled." Now he's accused the Mongiardo campaign staff of "roughing up" his wife at a state fair, though thousands of people were at the fair, including the media, and nobody can substantiate the claims.
Of course, BC04 could also be spending money in a red state to help Anne Northup, the right-winger who's about to lose her Congressional seat to Tony Miller. Regardless, the incompetence of these republican campaigns and the sad state of the republican candidates is costing furious george votes where it matters. Miller's actually running as a proud, pro-Kerry Democrat. And he's winning. In Kentucky. (It may be Louisville, the most moderate district here, but it's still Kentucky.)
Not surprising, since he wants to give them all a one-way visit to Gitmo. From Reuters:
Angry with the Iraq war, more of the estimated 1.1 million Arab Americans in the four battleground states of Michigan, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania back Kerry over Bush, according to the polling firm Zogby International.
In a poll of Arab Americans in those states conducted in September after the Republican convention, 47 percent of voters favored Kerry to 31.5 percent for Bush. Nine percent favored Ralph Nader, the independent candidate who is of Lebanese descent, while 12 percent were undecided.
Four years ago, Bush won the support of 45.5 percent of Arab Americans, compared to 38 percent for Vice President Al Gore and 13.5 percent for Nader, according to Zogby data.
Pollster John Zogby: "The President did not have a good single day today. He has lost another point over the three days. Polling 44% is not good for an incumbent -- but this is very far from over. Bush seems to be making gains among 18-29 year olds. He now leads among them -- something that has not happened all year until now. I am watching closely to see if that continues. This group also has 9% undecided, which is high for this year. Neither Bush's gains nor the high undecideds are good news for Kerry.
"The President also appears to be getting stronger in the Central/Great Lakes region -- home of Ohio, Michigan, and Missouri. I will continue to watch that. As will I look closely at military families where the President has picked up a few points.
"But the President only leads among married voters by 11 points -- not enough to offset Kerry's strong lead among singles.
"Kerry continues to poll well among low income and union voters. He has improved his standing among women and is running strong among voters who have active passports -- perhaps a sign that he is making his case on foreign policy. Kerry also continues his dominance among Jewish voters. While the sub-group polled is small, the fact that the President never seems to break 20% of this group at least suggests that he might not do as well as his advisors have suggested.
"Ralph Nader continues to slip-- polling only 1.7%. He does receive 5% of Independent voters but is barely a blip on the screen among Democrats. Kerry leads among Independents by 6 points, but 16% of them are undecided.
"Lots more campaign to go. Wednesday's debate is vital because many sub-groups remain close and because so many Independents have yet to make up their minds.”
The Associated Press-Ipsos poll on the presidential race is based on telephone interviews with 1,541 adults, including 1,273 registered voters and 944 likely voters, from all states except Alaska and Hawaii. The interviews were conducted Oct. 4-6 by Ipsos-Public Affairs.
The margin of error for registered voters is plus or minus 2.5 percentage points, and the margin of error for likely voters is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
(Results from mid-September in parentheses, unless otherwise noted)
(ASKED OF ALL ADULTS)
1. Generally speaking, would you say things in this country are heading in the right direction, or are they off on the wrong track?
_Right direction, 40 percent (45)
_Wrong track, 56 percent (52)
_Unsure, 4 percent (3)
(AMONG LIKELY VOTERS)
2. Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?
_Approve, 46 percent (54)
_Disapprove, 53 percent (46)
_Mixed feelings, 1 percent (1)
3. And when it comes to handling the economy, do you approve or disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?
_Approve, 47 percent (53)
_Disapprove, 52 percent (46)
_Mixed feelings, 1 percent (1)
4. And when it comes to domestic issues like health care, education and the environment, do you approve or disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?
_Approve, 43 percent (50)
_Disapprove, 56 percent (49)
_Mixed feelings, 1 percent (1)
(ASKED OF HALF SAMPLE)
5a. When it comes to handling foreign policy issues and the war on terrorism, do you approve or disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?
_Approve, 49 percent (55)
_Disapprove, 50 percent (45)
_Mixed feelings, 1 percent ( )
(ASKED OF HALF SAMPLE)
5b. When it comes to handling the situation in Iraq, do you approve or disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?
(Results from April in parentheses)
_Approve, 44 percent (51)
_Disapprove, 54 percent (48)
_Mixed feelings, 2 percent (1)
6. If the election for president and vice president were held today and the candidates were George W. Bush for president and Dick Cheney for vice president, the Republicans, and John Kerry for president and John Edwards for vice president, the Democrats, and Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo, the independents, for whom would you vote? (If undecided, none or other.) Do you lean more toward ...
(Results from mid September in parentheses)
6a. (Among registered voters)
_Bush-Cheney (with leaners), 47 percent (51)
_Kerry-Edwards (with leaners), 47 percent (42)
_Nader-Camejo (with leaners), 2 percent (2)
_Don't know-other-refused, 4 percent (5)
6b. (Among likely voters)
_Kerry-Edwards (with leaners), 50 percent (45)
_Bush-Cheney (with leaners), 46 percent (52)
_Nader-Camejo (with leaners), 2 percent (1)
_Don't know-other-refused, 2 percent (2)
(asked of registered voters)
7. If the election for Congress were held today, would you want to see the Republicans or Democrats win control of Congress?
