Do we really have such a short memory? The last time I checked, it is Ralph Nader who has spent his life serving this country and trying to get people to realize that they have a responsibility to participate in this democracy not the democratic or the republican candidates running for office. No, they just want you to be lazy and dull thinkers and vote for them based on their rhetoric and not their service.

Instead of engaging in a fruitless blame game why don’t we demand civic responsibility and get try to improve the abysmal voter participation numbers?

But the real reason I came is to ask if anyone knows where I may acquire a full transcript of the recent GP debate. One of the men on the stand offered an incredibly foolish assessment of the current immigration issue. Since I heard it on NPR, I’m lacking a hard copy. If anyone knows where I can find it, please email me: richard@blogusablog.com.

However, if I was a Green, I’d probably support McKinney. You’ve done the Nader thing before, might as well try something that’s new and promising.

Paulie, did you fail arithmetic?

No, but you failed the DSM-IV

Nader is a relentless fighter on the legal front. Don’t forget that before his presidential campaigns this man was a tireless legal fighter for consumer protection, occupational safety, clean water acts, clean air, and so many other battles that he fought and won for the American people. The legal system and the federal government bureaucracy were the two areas that Nader excelled at fighting in.

So all third party folks should be very grateful for the work that Nader is doing now not for himself but for ballot access, fair and equal election laws, and to break the two party hold on American politics.

That said, I am very happy that Cynthia McKinney is running as a Green for President, and if she gets the nomination she will be an experienced and charismatic champion for the poor and underprivileged, staunchly opposed to the war, and would bring to the campaign a congressional record that she can be proud of.

McKinney seems like a good choice this year.

If the KKKlinton regime hadn’t sent jack-booted thugs to capture an illegal immigrant (Elian Gonzalez), the Cuban immigrant community might well have made up those 600 votes.

Heck, if the democrats had nominated a credible candidate, rather than one to claim to have invented the internet, the algorythem, and global warming, the election could well have been very different.

Let’s put the blame for Gore’s loss where it belongs, not on free elections.

PEACE
Steve

The Democrats nominate crappy candidates, those crappy candidates lose, period. Look at ‘04.

2000: The Democrats spew hate at mr. nader, but Mr. Nader only cast one vote. It was people wanting something better that vote him that the Democrats hate. They don’t want anyone to want anything better, they just want you to be grateful for whatever they give Leftists. And the truly outrageous thing abt the whiny Democrats is that in fact Pat Buchanan’s ‘00 scam candaicy drew only a 100k or so votes, but in three states, the few people that voted for Buchanan cost Bush a win in that state.

Anyone who suggests wanting something better defacto leads to something worse, is a hack or a flack.

No, but you failed the DSM-IV

Pelosi doesn’t have enough votes to be effective against the warmongering republicans.

The Democrats have a majority. All spending originates in the House. Pelosi is speaker. If they want to end funding for the war, they can. They haven’t.

They could also investigate torture and other adminstration abuses of power. Pelosi knew about torture before it became public. She and the Democratic majority in the House have done nothing.

They have the power to initiate impeachment. Pelosi took it off the table.

Hillary Clinton voted for the war, for the patriot act, for more war funding, and has talked about going to war with Iran and refused to rule out a nuclear first strike.

There’s nothing to spoil.

Add the lib & green vote instead of subtracting.

And you would have less votes than the Democrats or Republicans. You can do this for any of the elections since the Greens have been running Presidential candidates. By your definition (not mine) that would be a spoiler.

Besides, the Greens and Libertarians disagree on many important issues, and if they wanted to compromise away their principles they would not be in alternative parties.

Now, I happen to see a way that Green and Libertarian ideas could be compatible, laid out by Roderick Long here:

http://praxeology.net/blog/2006/11/24/greensleeves-was-all-my-joy/

This view is not shared by most Greens or most Libertarians.