A proud member of the reality-based community
This site is a member of WebRing. To browse visit here. Sunday, February 22, 2004 Ralph Nader is going to run for president, he confirmed in his interview on Meet the Press. It was probably inevitable that he would. But he appears to be distancing himself from the Green Party, probably perceiving, along with a lot of other people, that the Greens are seen as a bunch of wackos. Whether or not that is correct, it is certainly how the Bush campaign would position them. As an independent, Nader has the opportuntiy to hammer Bush without having to defend the Greens. In fact, running as an independent allows himself to put his agenda forward without having to defend anyone else's, a far more attractive position than he has ever held before. You have to give the guy credit for speaking his mind even if you're not going to vote for him. I am not going to vote for him, partly because I don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and partly because I do not believe he could govern effectively after what he is saying about some of the people he'd have to govern with. But by golly, he said some things that badly needed to be said, in the same unambiguous language Howard Dean used. My favorite quote is this: "George Bush is a giant corporation masquerading as a human being." That explains the bumbling, fumbling delivery (the usual corporate delay between being notified of anything and taking action on it), the repeated mis-statements and odd word choices (his database obviously needs to be re-indexed), and his outright lies and subterfuges (no explanation should be necessary for that analogy). Another quotable moment: "If Bush doesn't trust the American people with the truth [Nader was speaking specifically about the war here, but the comment applies to other areas as well], why should the American people trust Bush with the presidency?" He did mis-state one issue, saying that Bush should be impeached for lying about the reasons for war, that Clinton had been impeached for a far more trivila reason. No, Mr. Nader, Clinton wasn't impeached for messing around with Monica; he was impeached for lying about it—the same reason that Bush ought to be impeached. I particularly liked his outspokenness about our current relationship with Iraq. Tim Russert asked, "What would President Ralph Nader do today about Iraq? Would you pull all our troops out immediately?" Nader responded:We owe a responsibility to the people of Iraq. We entrenched Saddam Hussein in 1979 along with the British. We armed them, we gave them credits, we sold them onto U.S. export license by corporations--sold materials for chemical and biological warfare in the 1980s under Reagan and the first Bush administration. Can you imagine that? And, of course, then he invaded Iraq and he was no longer our boy, he was our adversary, and one day President Bush number one could have overthrown-- with all the international support that he had, he could have overthrown Saddam Hussein. Instead he told the Kurds and the Shiites "rise up and overthrow the tyrants." They got about 75 percent of the country under their control, and President Bush number one held back our military forces while Saddam Hussein slaughtered these people. Amen, brother! What needs to happen now, I believe, is for John Edwards to start listening to Ralph Nader, and to echo every damn thing Nader says. In fact, it wouldn't hurt for him even to credit Nader with saying it. He just needs to use his own superb public speaking abilities to then say, "But I'm a better choice for president because I can work with the people who run Washington DC, not antagonize them." That won't endear him to Nader, whose primary message is about opposing the people who run Washington. But a combination of his own skills and Nader's blunt honesty might just do the trick. I'm not one of the "Anyone But Bush" adherents, though I'd rather see Ralph Nader running the country than George Bush, any day. But I don't believe he can be effective, precisely because of his "take no prisoners" confrontational style, and I would hate to see his candidacy result in another four years of Bush. Nader did at least leave the door open for a possible withdrawal, if he saw that his presence might result in a victory for Bush. And perhaps his campaign might actually be an advantage in some ways for the Democratic nominee and a negative for Bush. If Nader were not running himself, his support for the Democratic candidate would allow the Republicans to tar that person with everything Nader was criticized for in the 2000 election. If Nader's presence diffuses the anti-Bush vote, it will also diffuse the Republicans' target-shooting. And it can't hurt for one more person to be loudly proclaiming the facts. posted by Liz @ 10:19 AM | The template is set to display 10 posts. To see all the posts for this month, click on the month name in the Archive section RSS Feed PERSONAL Send email toliz at life-as-a-spectator-sport.com Home I'm a mother, grandmother, a computer professional, Democrat, Christian. I welcome politely worded comments and email, my spam filter throws the rest away, so don't bother to flame me WHY 'LIFE AS A SPECTATOR SPORT' "If you're lucky not to live in the gutters of a slum, but still can't afford to take vacations in the Alps, you're part of that enormous middle class who lives life through the medium of the television, further separated from "real" life by air conditioner, by automobile, by dishwasher, microwave and ice-in-the-door refrigerator, by automatic washer and dryer, and all the other appliances and conveniences that make it possible for America to live life at second hand. I'm not sure why Americans decided that televised drama was better than the real thing, that cardboard microwave food containers were an adequate substitute for real dishes, and their contents for real food, or that cooking, dishwashing and face-to-face conversation wasn't worth the effort and time it required. Someone fed this nation a plastic crate of out-of-season tomatoes and told us it was life and we took them at their word, and we're so much the poorer for it that it's hard to know where to start to list the shortcomings." I wrote this a couple of years ago, but I have to admit it's much less amusing than I thought it would be to see the artifical construct falling apart. THE NON-ELECTRIC HOME Cleaning, 1 Cleaning, 2 Cleaning, 3 KNITTING BLOGS Extravayarnza Knitting Heretic Mind of Winter Pie Knits Persistent Illusion See Eunny Knit The Keyboard Biologist Taleweaver's Ramblings TECHnitting Wendy Knits FINISHED PROJECTS -------FINISHED IN 2006------- Peruvian Cap Tutti-Frutti Socks Shelley's Socks Carol's Socks -------FINISHED IN 2007------- Chain Link Socks Baby Surprise Jacket Valerie & Friend Baby Bonnet Rainbow Baby Socks Girls Pixie Hood Mitred Square Heart Red & White Socks Coffee Cup Pot Holder Nubbins Dishcloth Garterlac Dishcloth Suede Booties Kate's Socks Norwegian Sweet Baby Cap Half Thumbless Mittens Red Mittens for Akkol -------FINISHED IN 2008------- SELF-RELIANCE AND THE FUTURE -- Blogs and websites -- Causubon's Book Club Orlov Food Storage Made Easy From the Wilderness In the Wake Listening to Katrina Survival Topics The Modern Homestead The Oil Drum Notes from a Hillside Farm -- Mailing Lists -- 12vdc Power Living on the Land Rainwater Refrigeration Alternatives Old Ways of Living POLITICAL BLOGS and SITES The political sites have moved BOOKS I'M READING How to Grow More Vegetables, etc. Small Scale Grain Raising ARCHIVES February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 August 2008 July 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002 February 2002 Feedjit Live Blog Stats
Ralph Nader is going to run for president, he confirmed in his interview on Meet the Press. It was probably inevitable that he would. But he appears to be distancing himself from the Green Party, probably perceiving, along with a lot of other people, that the Greens are seen as a bunch of wackos. Whether or not that is correct, it is certainly how the Bush campaign would position them. As an independent, Nader has the opportuntiy to hammer Bush without having to defend the Greens. In fact, running as an independent allows himself to put his agenda forward without having to defend anyone else's, a far more attractive position than he has ever held before. You have to give the guy credit for speaking his mind even if you're not going to vote for him. I am not going to vote for him, partly because I don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and partly because I do not believe he could govern effectively after what he is saying about some of the people he'd have to govern with. But by golly, he said some things that badly needed to be said, in the same unambiguous language Howard Dean used. My favorite quote is this: "George Bush is a giant corporation masquerading as a human being." That explains the bumbling, fumbling delivery (the usual corporate delay between being notified of anything and taking action on it), the repeated mis-statements and odd word choices (his database obviously needs to be re-indexed), and his outright lies and subterfuges (no explanation should be necessary for that analogy). Another quotable moment: "If Bush doesn't trust the American people with the truth [Nader was speaking specifically about the war here, but the comment applies to other areas as well], why should the American people trust Bush with the presidency?" He did mis-state one issue, saying that Bush should be impeached for lying about the reasons for war, that Clinton had been impeached for a far more trivila reason. No, Mr. Nader, Clinton wasn't impeached for messing around with Monica; he was impeached for lying about it—the same reason that Bush ought to be impeached. I particularly liked his outspokenness about our current relationship with Iraq. Tim Russert asked, "What would President Ralph Nader do today about Iraq? Would you pull all our troops out immediately?" Nader responded:We owe a responsibility to the people of Iraq. We entrenched Saddam Hussein in 1979 along with the British. We armed them, we gave them credits, we sold them onto U.S. export license by corporations--sold materials for chemical and biological warfare in the 1980s under Reagan and the first Bush administration. Can you imagine that? And, of course, then he invaded Iraq and he was no longer our boy, he was our adversary, and one day President Bush number one could have overthrown-- with all the international support that he had, he could have overthrown Saddam Hussein. Instead he told the Kurds and the Shiites "rise up and overthrow the tyrants." They got about 75 percent of the country under their control, and President Bush number one held back our military forces while Saddam Hussein slaughtered these people. Amen, brother! What needs to happen now, I believe, is for John Edwards to start listening to Ralph Nader, and to echo every damn thing Nader says. In fact, it wouldn't hurt for him even to credit Nader with saying it. He just needs to use his own superb public speaking abilities to then say, "But I'm a better choice for president because I can work with the people who run Washington DC, not antagonize them." That won't endear him to Nader, whose primary message is about opposing the people who run Washington. But a combination of his own skills and Nader's blunt honesty might just do the trick. I'm not one of the "Anyone But Bush" adherents, though I'd rather see Ralph Nader running the country than George Bush, any day. But I don't believe he can be effective, precisely because of his "take no prisoners" confrontational style, and I would hate to see his candidacy result in another four years of Bush. Nader did at least leave the door open for a possible withdrawal, if he saw that his presence might result in a victory for Bush. And perhaps his campaign might actually be an advantage in some ways for the Democratic nominee and a negative for Bush. If Nader were not running himself, his support for the Democratic candidate would allow the Republicans to tar that person with everything Nader was criticized for in the 2000 election. If Nader's presence diffuses the anti-Bush vote, it will also diffuse the Republicans' target-shooting. And it can't hurt for one more person to be loudly proclaiming the facts.
We owe a responsibility to the people of Iraq. We entrenched Saddam Hussein in 1979 along with the British. We armed them, we gave them credits, we sold them onto U.S. export license by corporations--sold materials for chemical and biological warfare in the 1980s under Reagan and the first Bush administration. Can you imagine that? And, of course, then he invaded Iraq and he was no longer our boy, he was our adversary, and one day President Bush number one could have overthrown-- with all the international support that he had, he could have overthrown Saddam Hussein. Instead he told the Kurds and the Shiites "rise up and overthrow the tyrants." They got about 75 percent of the country under their control, and President Bush number one held back our military forces while Saddam Hussein slaughtered these people.
The template is set to display 10 posts. To see all the posts for this month, click on the month name in the Archive section
RSS Feed
PERSONAL
WHY 'LIFE AS A SPECTATOR SPORT'
"If you're lucky not to live in the gutters of a slum, but still can't afford to take vacations in the Alps, you're part of that enormous middle class who lives life through the medium of the television, further separated from "real" life by air conditioner, by automobile, by dishwasher, microwave and ice-in-the-door refrigerator, by automatic washer and dryer, and all the other appliances and conveniences that make it possible for America to live life at second hand. I'm not sure why Americans decided that televised drama was better than the real thing, that cardboard microwave food containers were an adequate substitute for real dishes, and their contents for real food, or that cooking, dishwashing and face-to-face conversation wasn't worth the effort and time it required. Someone fed this nation a plastic crate of out-of-season tomatoes and told us it was life and we took them at their word, and we're so much the poorer for it that it's hard to know where to start to list the shortcomings." I wrote this a couple of years ago, but I have to admit it's much less amusing than I thought it would be to see the artifical construct falling apart.
THE NON-ELECTRIC HOME
Cleaning, 1 Cleaning, 2 Cleaning, 3
KNITTING BLOGS
Extravayarnza Knitting Heretic Mind of Winter Pie Knits Persistent Illusion See Eunny Knit The Keyboard Biologist Taleweaver's Ramblings TECHnitting Wendy Knits
FINISHED PROJECTS
SELF-RELIANCE AND THE FUTURE
POLITICAL BLOGS and SITES
BOOKS I'M READING
How to Grow More Vegetables, etc. Small Scale Grain Raising
ARCHIVES
February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 August 2008 July 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002 February 2002
Powered by BLOGGER Template made possible by BLOGSKINS.
