Hey Ralphie!! You still think there is no difference between the two parties???

[madinmaryland]

Did you hear Obama's Inaugural Address yesterday? Sounds to me there may be some serious differences between Democrats and Republicons!!

[wryter2000]

1. I hadn't thought of that

I hope I never, ever, ever have to hear that come out of that man's mouth again.

[riqster]

2. Yes, he does.

Ralph is like Dubya, facts have no impact on his beliefs.

[roguevalley]

3. Since Obama just limited lobbyists today, I would say yes, there

is a difference. Ralph just limited his credibility forever with me, an ASPIRG gal from way the hell back.

[elocs]

4. Happy to give you Rec #5.

My salute to Ralphie: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

A 21 puke salute. Well earned Ralphie.

[noiretextatique]

5. ralph was right

it took 8 years of bush, inc to awaken people who had been voting against their best interests for years. hopefully those folks won't get nostalgic for fascism anytime soon.

[NNN0LHI]

33. It wasn't the fascism that bothered them. They had no problem with that

It was the being broke that did it.

Don

[johan helge]

45. It was the Nader voters that voted against their best interests

Nader wasn't right - he said that there was no significant difference between Bush and Gore. Without Nader, Bush would never have happened.

[noiretextatique]

60. bush was (s)elected, not nader

i was referring to the people who voted for bush...and and his father, and reagan. what if nader hadn't run....sure that's a great fantasy. but what actually happened is this: SCOTUS stopped the recount and effectively appointed bush president. too bad some people still don't understand what SCOTUS did was treason. what katherine harris and jeb bush did was disenfranchisement.

nader didn't break any laws, and neither did anyone who voted for him.

and he was right...it took 8 years of the village idiot to convince a lot of stupid people to vote for their best interest vs. voting against abortion and affirmative action and whatever the scapegoat non-issue du jour concocted by the GOP and its minions on hate radio.

[johan helge]

62. Without Nader, Gore's victory in Florida would have been so clear

that SCOTUS couldn't have stopped him. Yes, "it took 8 years of the village idiot to convince a lot of" Nader voters to vote Democratic.

[noiretextatique]

64. the lengths you people go to...

you know damn well obama could not have won if bush hadn't been such a failure and turned off a lot of idiots who had been voting republican...not green.

if katherine harris and jeb bush hadn't disenfranchised people, coincidentally people were mostly african-american...gore would have won florida. if SCOTUS didn't take the recount case, and if SCOTUS didn't created a blatantly partisan law for bush to win...gore would have won florida.
what i am talking about is criminal behavior that resulted in election theft and a rw coup.

what you are talking about is participation in a democracy, which is not disenfranchisement or treason.
yet another "democrat against democracy."

[johan helge]

65. This isn't difficult.

Several things can be true at the same time.

- Many 2000 Bush voters have learnt something these eight years. The same can be said of many 2000 Nader voters.

- Gore would have won in 2000 had it not been for voter disenfranchisement, batterfly ballots, SCOTUS - and Nader. Had just one of these things not been there, Gore would have won.

The Repubs are criminals and the Greens are not. And Bush could not have won in 2000 without the help of both.

[noiretextatique]

74. i disagree about nader and the greens

the key issue, at least to me, is the criminality of the GOP in orchestrating an election theft and coup. in a democracy, like it or not, third party candidates can run, and people can vote for them. but i have a huge problem with disenfranchisement and a coup by judicial fiat. you argue that nader made it possible, but there is no way to prove that. because what ultimately did gore and the rest of us in was the treasonous SCOTUS decision. as we know by now, if SCOTUS had not intervened, gore would have been declared the winner of florida.

[johan helge]

75. Republicans breaking the law is worse

than Greens being stupid. But both things have to be said.

No one knows for sure what would have happened if Nader had not run. But the probability that Bush would still have won, is small. And even if Nader didn't affect the result, he did help Bush.

[Romulox]

6. Which party opposed the $3 Trillion give away to Wall Street?

OK. Well, which Party stood up and said "No!" to a war of choice in Iraq?

OK, fair enough. Which Party opposes the War on Drugs?

Oh. Well which Party opposes the for-profit prison industry?

That sucks. Well which Party opposes "free trade" and globalism?



The answer to each question I've asked is, "Not the Democrats, and not the Republicans." :hi:

[leftstreet]

7. You'll need this...

:hug:

[bvar22]

9. FACTS are such nasty things.

:thumbsup:


NOW we have Your Children’s Money too !!!
And there is not a fucking thing you can do about it!
Now THIS is “Post-Partisanship” !
Better get used to it!!
Hahahahahahahahaha!

[Jim Lane]

13. Fact: The majority of the Democrats in Congress voted AGAINST the Iraq War Resolution

You might also recall that it was only when the Democrats reached majority status in Congress that the minimum wage was raised.

Of course, Ralph Nader doesn't live in Iraq and will never have to work for minimum wage, so what does he care.

[Romulox]

20. Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton voted FOR it. So why are you blaming Ralph???

:wtf:

[Jim Lane]

22. Because, without Ralph, the odds are there wouldn't have been an IWR to vote on in the first place

If Nader hadn't run, some of his voters would've wasted their votes in some other way or would've stayed home, some would've voted for Gore, and some for Bush. Gore voters would've outnumbered Bush voters by enough to swing Florida and possibly New Hampshire. With either state going blue, Gore would've been inaugurated.

A President Gore would not have proposed the Iraq War Resolution and would not have invaded Iraq.

In the 2006 Senate primary, I voted against Clinton, primarily because of her support of the IWR. It's ridiculous, however, to pretend that Democrats in Congress initiated the "regime change" plan, spread lies to justify a war, browbeat fearful politicians into going along with it, or gave the actual order to invade. All those misdeeds required the power of the presidency -- power that Nader helped deliver to Bush instead of to Gore.

No one can say with certainty where we'd be today if Bush hadn't become President, but I feel comfortable in saying we'd be much better off.

If unrepentant Nader voters look at the awful legacy of Bush, and can blot out that picture simply by shouting that the Democrats aren't perfect, well, fine. Let them do whatever helps them get to sleep at night.

[Romulox]

23. We're all defined by the choices we actually make, not the choices we might have made.

I would've been a Saint too, if someone hadn't placed all these temptations in front of me! ::think:

[Snotcicles]

38. Chances are even greater that had Nader won, there would have been no IWR to vote on. nt

[Jim Lane]

51. And if pigs had wings they'd be pigeons.

If Nader had run in the primaries, there are a lot of us who would've voted for him. If he had the widespread support necessary to win the general election, he could've won the Democratic nomination.

[PVnRT]

43. Plenty of Democrats voted for Bush in 2000. What about them?

[Jim Lane]

52. No one of them caused Bush to become President

Yes, some registered Dems voted for Bush, and some registered Republicans voted for Gore. So what? I obviously disagree with everyone who didn't vote for Gore, but none of them swung the election.

Let's take Joe Blow Democrat in West Virginia who voted for Bush -- the first Republican vote of his life -- because he feared that Gore's environmentalism would hurt the coal industry. Joe made a mistake. But if Joe had switched his vote to Gore, Bush would still have carried West Virginia and would still have become President.

On the other hand, if Nader had not run in the general election, or had campaigned almost exclusively in the non-swing states, Gore would have become President. By the nature of that proposition, I can't prove it, but the evidence convinces me.

Anyway, there's probably not much point in our continuing this discussion here. By now, most DUers' opinions about Nader (some pro, some con) are set in stone. Nader's not listening to us, anyway. He'll run again in 2012. He'll get his half a percent of the vote. It won't matter. In 2000, there were many more people who believed his baloney about "no difference" between the parties, but most of them will never make that mistake again.

[JackDragna]

68. Nader voters don't owe us anything..

..any more than any of the other leftist 3rd parties that ran in 2000 owe us anything. Gore ran an utterly abysmal, weak-willed campaign that shouldn't have even been close. On top of that, Democrats disgraced themselves during Bush's presidency by capitulating on important issues, buying into jingoism and generally selling out the country to corporate interests. Nader's opinion, at least as it refers to Democrats at the national level, is pretty much spot-on.

[hfojvt]

73. nice media script there

"Gore ran an utterly abysmal weak willed campaign"

Hey, no problem, the M$M started a "war on Gore" in August of 1999 and Nader piled on, but what the heck, let's blame it on Gore instead.

"Capitulating on important issues" is partly a result of lack of public support. The pubic elected more Republicans in 2002 and 2004 at the national level. Unfortunately, LIHOP was pretty effective, and, of course, Nader enabled LIHOP.

Nader voters owe something to themselves and to their supposed ideals.

[SammyWinstonJack]

10. !

:thumbsup:

[anonymous171]

12. Nader is useless, get a new icon. nt

[DutchLiberal]

17. You forgot to mention gay marriage, the death penalty, militarism etc.

But I'm sure it would fall on deaf ears.

[Romulox]

21. Don't forget opposes UHC! nt

[salguine]

28. Thank you.

[johan helge]

46. No one says that the Democrats are perfect

but at least they oppose the Republicans instead of helping them.

[Romulox]

57. Except on the TARP, you mean. And the "War on Terror". And FISA. And the War on Drugs...nt

[johan helge]

61. Yes, the Democrats are not perfect

- but what can be said about a party that has the same effect as voter disenfranchisement of liberals?

[zonmoy]

48. Exactly the reason for my post below.

I suspect that obama will end up being very little true change and a hell of a lot of smoke and mirrors.

[DemBones DemBones]

67. Well said. Nader speaks a lot of truth about the

current state of the two major parties or, as Gore Vidal said, the two wings of the Corporate Party. Will the Democratic Party return to its core beliefs under Obama? We just don't know at this point.

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. If anything, the election of Obama would seem to confirm Nader's much hated thesis

If you "heighten the contradictions," you 1) get to the real economic questions rather than symbolic pseudo-issues, and 2)people will, once the real economic conflicts are exposed, vote in their own self-interest rather than based on symbolic diversions.

:shrug:

[Jim Lane]

11. So the events of the last eight years have supposedly VINDICATED Nader?

As I understand you, the brilliance of Nader's strategy was that, by succeeding in keeping Gore out of the White House, Nader brought about an unnecessary war (costing thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives), a wealth transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars to the wealthy, and a serious erosion of Constitutional principles, among other achievements. This, in turn, helped bring about the election of a Democrat in 2008.

Um, wouldn't it have been simpler if about one percent of Nader's voters in Florida had just voted for Gore? Then we get the election of a Democrat without all that collateral damage.

Sorry, but I'm one longtime admirer of Nader who wrote him off after 2000. He has destroyed what was a shining legacy. At this point, there's simply nothing he can do to make up for it.

So fallen! so lost! the light withdrawn
Which once he wore!
The glory from his gray hairs gone
Forevermore!

. . . .

Then, pay the reverence of old days
To his dead fame;
Walk backward, with averted gaze,
And hide the shame!

      -- from "Ichabod", by John Greenleaf Whitter

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. I said nothing about vindication

:shrug:

[Romulox]

18. Err. people in President Obamas cabinet voted for/supported the Iraq War. But you don't blame them.

And you don't blame Obama for picking them.

You blame Nader?

:crazy:

[Jim Lane]

24. Primarily, of course, I blame Bush, but there's plenty of blame to go around

Biden, Clinton, Powell, the lapdog media, etc. See my response in #22 for why Nader comes in for a share.

The real issue I was addressing, though, isn't allocating the blame for the Iraq War (identify all the miscreants and assign percentage shares of culpability, please make sure the percentages add up to 100). The more important question as to Nader is: Now that we have the benefit of eight years of hindsight, what can we say about whether Nader made the right decision in 2000 (by running in the general election instead of the Democratic primaries, attacking Gore, and campaigning in swing states, despite the foreseeable danger that his actions might be one cause of a Bush Administration)? That other people screwed up even worse than Nader did doesn't get him off the hook for his own choices.

Note the precipitous falloff in Nader's support from 2000 to 2004. The obvious explanation is that the overwhelming majority of his 2000 supporters came to realize that his allegation of no real difference between the two major parties -- a central theme of the Nader campaign -- was grossly mistaken.

[Romulox]

41. If you blame Biden and Clinton, then you need to blame Obama for appointing them, too.

Nader should be WAAAY down on your list.

[Jim Lane]

50. Obama's selection of Biden and Clinton in 2008 had ZERO to do with our invasion in 2003

You want Nader "WAAAY down" on the list? Sorry, but that's not how causation works. If Biden and Clinton had both voted against the IWR, it would've passed anyway. If Obama had, in 2008, picked Russ Feingold for VP and Dennis Kucinich for Secretary of State, his choices would've had even less impact on the 2003 invasion.

On the other hand, if Nader had made different choices in 2000, I think it more likely than not that there would've been no invasion.

By the way, I don't agree with all of Obama's choices, but I also don't think he should appoint only people whose records he considers perfect. Naderites often seem to believe that, if you vote for a candidate who isn't perfect, then you're morally responsible for anything bad that your candidate does. It's not a surprising extension to suggest, as you do, that Obama is morally responsible for anything bad that any of his appointees does or has done.

The opposing point of view is that politics is practiced in a real world populated by fallible human beings. If you vote only for candidates whom you consider perfect, you'll often be wasting your vote. If, as an executive, you appoint only Cabinet members whom you consider perfect, you'll be greatly narrowing your field of selection.

[Romulox]

59. Lame. You want to cherry pick just who is morally culpable for their actions, and who is not.

"if Nader had made different choices in 2000, I think it more likely than not that there would've been no invasion."

And if Al Gore was more popular with the American people, Ralph Nader wouldn't have made a difference in the outcome.

So maybe we should blame Al Gore for the Iraq War, while holding Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton (who actually voted for the war) harmless? Sound good? :crazy:

"but that's not how causation works."

:rofl:

[Jim Lane]

66. Clearly we won't convince each other, but I'm curious about your view on one question....

Do you have a prediction for 2012?

I gave my prediction -- Nader will run again, and will again get approximately half a percent of the vote, and will again be largely ignored, and will again make no visible progress toward pushing American politics to the left. Given that he won't get anywhere near the share of the vote he received in 2000, it's highly unlikely that he will again achieve his goal of punishing the Democratic Party by denying office to its nominee.

Oh, and I predict that he will again enable his supporters to feel morally pure. That particular outcome is unimportant to me, compared to the other predictions, but I include it for the sake of completeness, given that it apparently matters a great deal to some people.

[madinmaryland]

71. How can't predict four years from now, but I would doubt Ralph will run.

One, he will be near 80. Two, given the things Obama has done in the first four days, gives me hope that Ralphie would not even consider running.

[noiretextatique]

44. blame the real culprits: SCOTUS

they stopped the recount which would have put gore in the white house. instead, they installed bush, inc.

[anonymous171]

14. Agreed. nt

[cali]

26. pseudo-issues? Oh, you mean issues that almighty YOU doesn't give

a shit about.

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. Breathe, friend

It'll serve you well.

The post was descriptive, that's all. So calm down.

[mmonk]

15. Obama and Republicans, yes.

But it took both parties to get to this road. The big thing though is the economy was being run at its most extreme in Republican ideology and I hope people will finally reject the more extreme Friedman/Norquist blended cult with 19th century economic theory once in for all.

[bvar22]

25. Throw Rubinomics into pile of "Bad Ideas",

and I'll come to the bonfire.

The unfortunate thing about Rubin is..........He's baaaaack.

[mmonk]

31. Unfortunately true, but some others are there also that hopefully can reign

in his bad tendencies.

[DutchLiberal]

19. Ralph Nader said the difference is 'minimal'. And he's right.

On all the major issues, Democrats and Republicans agree. The differences are there to rally the electorate, so politicians will ensure the people vote for them and they'll stay in power.

[cali]

27. uh, no. they don't agree on many major issues.

you have to be completely in denial to think they do. Or in crazy, fucked up Nader world.

[salguine]

30. Well, let's put it this way...I'm 42 years old, and have lived under every president

since LBJ, and in my lifetime, organized labor has gotten weaker, environmental problems have gotten worse, wages have stagnated, healthcare remains a dream for an increasing number of Americans, a college education is farther out of reach for an increasing number of Americans, the list goes on and on.

The simple fact is, the Democrats really haven't done any more for me or any other average American than the Republicans have, in terms of the abovementioned issues. They may not have bent over backwards to hurt them, like Republicans do but they haven't fallen all over themselves to make my life better. Scream "hater" if you want, but it's the simple truth.

[zonmoy]

49. put your money where your mouth is and show us the differences on major issues.

[cali]

69. torture. shutting down gitmo and the black sites. abortion rights

gender equality- as in equal pay for equal work. gov't transparency. And that's just what he's actually done in the last couple of days.

you have to be brain dead not to see the differences.

[zonmoy]

72. my reply to your claims

on torture

http://www.americantorture.com/2008/11/ominous-signs-on-obama-torture-policy.html

With Obama's win comes great promise on the anti-torture front. According to Rush Holt, a New Jersey Democrat who chairs the select Appropriations subcommittee that recommends intelligence funding:

While an executive order will not remove the need for legislation on the issue, it is a way for President-elect Obama to put an immediate halt to our government’s use of torture during interrogations and to prevent secret detentions. By exercising his authority and acting quickly, he will begin to restore our moral leadership on the issue and repair some of the harm that has been done to our international reputation.
Will Obama follow through on his August 2007 pledge to "close Guantánamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions"? As post election euphoria fades, a picture has slowly emerged of what Obama's policies on torture will likely be. In a word: troubling.

Early warning signs came from AP reportage of plans for new, unnecessary "terror courts" and a NYT piece on "preventive detention of terrorism suspects". More ominous news came from the Wall Street Journal. According to a “current government official familiar with the transition" interviewed by that paper, "Obama may decide he wants to keep the road open in certain cases for the CIA to use techniques not approved by the military, but with much greater oversight.”

That also covers shutting down gitmo and black sites. how do you know he isn't simply hiding the evildoing rather than fixing it.

abortion rights and gender equality are merely distractions to keep people from noticing the increasing loss of equality between the rich and powerful and the poor and powerless.

Transparency I will believe that when not only are all the bush cabals crimes laid out in the open including all democratic co conspirators and all black ops that created the mess that bush created.

obamas right wing cabinet picks for me is the major proof that he is going to do little more than window dressing and smoke and mirrors instead of real change.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/obma-j19.shtml

Also we should probably compare the democrats actions to what they claim they want to do. They always claim to be for the least powerful but always seem to side with the wealthiest when their claims are put to the test.

[Jim Lane]

29. The differences are "minimal" to a man who'll never work for minimum wage, need an abortion....

etc., etc.

It's true that the U.S. are Democrats and the U.S. under Republicans show a lot of similarities, as compared with, say, Sweden or Zimbabwe. But the differences are far from minimal to the scores of thousands of Americans who are losing their jobs every month -- or to more than 4,000 military families.

[Duer 157099]

34. Try to catch the rerun of last nights The Daily Show n/t

[nickw]

35. Daily Show Clip

Here it is: http://www.hulu.com/watch/53993/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-changefest-09---obamas-inaugural-speech#s-p1-sr-i1

Here's my theory - we're seeing Obama as we wish he was. He's a bit of a centrist, which may not be exactly what I want, but is so, so much better than what we've had to put up with for 8 years.

[OneBlueSky]

36. I think Ralph looks at things from a loftier perspective . . .

and sees that, when it comes to fundamental beliefs, the differences between the parties are indeed minimal . . .

for example, in Obama's inaugural address, he made a point of defending "our way of life," which is pretty much what any Republican would do . . . when he is able and willing to stand up and explain that 5% of the Earth's population consuming 25% of its resources in a wasteful and profligate orgy of consumerism is simply not sustainable and has to change, then I'll concede that the differences are real and substantive . . .

until then, Obama's "change" is more about strategies and tactics than about the desired outcomes . . . nothing wrong with that, mind you, and I support what he's trying to accomplish as a necessary first step . . . but strategic and tactical change doesn't address the real root causes of what ails us as a nation . . . someday -- maybe soon -- we'll have to address that as well . . .

[PVnRT]

37. While Ralphie is an egotistical ass,

there is something to be said for both parties' willingness to protect the corporate elite at all costs.

EDIT: typo

[LanternWaste]

39. Although there may some some similarities...

Although there may some some similarities on position A or position B (but that would merely be cherry-picking to better validate one's already decided-on opinion, I would imagine), I think it's safe enough to emphatically state the the differences in the two platforms far outweigh the similarities.

Environmentalism, treatment of our veterans, treatment of the poor... the list of differences goes on and on.

But then again, I don't have a fist raised in the air, railing against the "machine" simply to be perceived of as a trendy cynic...

[depakid]

40. Back in the 1990's and early 00's -when Ralph was talking about the dimes' worth of difference bit

Clinton and the DINO's went on a frenzy of irrational trade, deregulatory and prison idustrial policies- right alongside Republicans.

Looking back in context of the time- how has that all worked out?

NAFTA?

Re-appointing Greenspan?

Accounting, financial, energy & telecommunications deregulation?

Draconian mandatory sentencing?

Ralph pretty much got it right, don't you think?

[madinmaryland]

54. Would Al Gore have followed the DLC path of Clinton?

I kind of doubt that.

[depakid]

63. Unfortunately, he seemed to be saying so during the campaign

both through statements and omissions.

Don't get me wrong- Gore would have been a great president (though he'd have been a 1 termer if 9-11 occurred) but the political dynamics were such that many in the base had had ENOUGH far right policies hoisted on them from both sides.

It created a vacuum- which someone filled- and if it hadn't been Ralph, it could easily have been someone else. Perot, for example filled that role in 1992 (with respect to NAFTA- which of course, he was right about. Remember those charts and the "giant sucking sound?")

[calimary]

42. One other thing, too. Stirring oratory this time, instead of the singsong drone of an old

buzz saw.

God. We fell asleep with the TV on one night and I woke the next morning to bush making some speech and it was like somebody'd let a sick chainsaw loose in the bedroom. OY!!! My EARS!!! I rolled over, pulled a pillow over my head, and hid. God, I HATED that twangy singsong voice. Go back to "Hee Haw" Hell, george. AND STAY THERE. NOT ANOTHER WORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:puke: :banghead: :puke: :banghead: :puke: :banghead: :puke: :banghead: :puke: :banghead: :puke: :banghead: :puke: :banghead: :puke: :banghead: :puke: :banghead: :puke: :banghead: :puke: :banghead: :puke:

[zonmoy]

47. I suspect that right now we are getting the dog and pony show of change

but that the change will prove illusionary when we get down to the business of both fixing the real mess the criminals in power created and holding said criminals to account for their crimes.

[libodem]

53. Fuck Ralphie

effing right-wing apologist. Take some more donations from 'em.

[Better Believe It]

55. So Ralph Nader took donations from who ..... Republicans?

Is that what you're suggesting?

[libodem]

56. True dat - believe it or not

[Better Believe It]

58. And how about the millions of dollars Republicans donated to finance Obama's Campaign?

I bet you don't have a problem with that! :)

[DavidDvorkin]

70. Those Republicans wanted Obama to win

The Republicans who donated to Ralphie did it to contribute to Gore losing.