We're All in This Together

Tip Jar

Change is good

Tip Jar

Learn More

Full disclosure dept.

Blog powered by Typepad

Idaho food and beverage

We can do MUCH better

« Popkey's back ... | Main | Petition still up »

Comments

No Name

Please top repeating fiction. Blaming Ralph Nader for 2000 shows a significant lack of a grasp on reality. Think smarter than that!

In 2008, insist that the Republicans and Democrats allow third party candidates into the debate TV shows owned by those two big corrupt parties. At least demand a voice for an anti-war candidate this time around! Then we'll finally see real democracy in action.

If Nader had been in the debates in 2000, he might very well have won them, as well as the election. He's a Martin Luther King-type leader for this era.

Julie Fanselow

Why are you afraid to sign your name?

Please note that I didn't say Nader alone threw the 2000 election to Bush. But his presence in the race undoubtedly *played a part* in leaving the race in the Supremes' hands.

I agree Nader should have been allowed to debate, but if you think he would've won in 2000, you're dreaming.

As for allowing third party candidates to the 08 debates, I'd be for that, too - after the primaries are done, and if third-party candidates demonstrate significant support. For now, we have the widest possible spectrum of Democratic nominees, all of whom want to end the war, though they differ as to how we get there. They'll all have ample chances to debate, and fall or rise on their merits.

MLK drew people together. I don't see that in Nader. Unfortunately, his outsized ego long ago started to eclipse his role as consumer champion.

Sisyphus

Well said Julie. I wouldn't have been so kind.

No name, I agree that the Democratic party has some reforming to do. And I'll give credit to Nader for causing that indirectly with the growth of the netroots advocating for change arising directly from Bush's radical changes in national policy. We can agree that Nader's presence in the 2000 race changed the course of history. We just disagree on whether is was a good change.

In addition it is a common mistake among those of us on the left to think that the current political climate is "anti-war". Most of us I think are against the abrupt changes in foreign policy that led the country into a discretionary war in Iraq despite warnings from the professionals in government that it would be costly, unsuccessful, and ultimately lead to a decrease in national security. The anti-war movement in general is marginalized by its stand that all war should be banned. Most of us see the removal of the Taliban and the criminalizing of al Qaeda as a measured reasoned response to 9/11. But the term "anti-war" doesn't reflect the feelings of the majority.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Linked in

  • View Julie Fanselow's profile on LinkedIn