double zed

Would somebody please cover up her chastity belt?

Jeez!

Please put McCain on the same stage as Obama. Do it.

I was happy to see this as the top story on HuffPo. The “lobbyists on the bus” is such a great story that everyone will immediately understand it. Very good strategy.

I think McCain’s done. Stick a fork in him. The MSM will not be able to ignore his lobbying scandal forever. It’ll take awhile for them to catch on, like it took a long time for them to catch on to Rudy’s true nature & situation, but now that it’s in the open, McCain’s a goner.

I love this photo so much.

Yes, more of this indeed. It’s doubly good here in that McCain’s “strength” is proving to be built on a foundation of sand.

it do protrude,ya dont think it was an incomplete gelding do ya?

clay foot Spartacus

Sing with me kids:

The doors on the bus spin round and round, round and round, round and round;
The doors on the bus spin round and round, all through the town.

EPU’d

St.McBush’08™: “I did not have relations with that lobbyist…“

Personally, I wish Obama would decline to comment. There are plenty of surrogates and others to attack and allow him to stay on the high ground.

it took a long time for them to catch on to Rudy’s true nature & situation

I propose the “caught on” to Rudy because he had lost his bid and there was nothing “in it” for them to continue to ignore it.

I think you give them too much credit. The media will ignore and downplay McCain’s scandals until the election… …or the GOP finds a “better” candidate to run.

One must be teh careful wearing silk charmeuse cut on the bias…in light colors especially

Get on the Gus bus!

Would somebody please cover up her chastity belt?

Is that a chastity belt or a lobbyist’s money belt?

family jewels sort of

I think McCain’s done. Stick a fork in him.

I wonder if there’s a connection to McCain having forks sticking out of him and professional concern troll Ralph Nader crawling out of the woodwork again?

Is that a chastity belt or a lobbyist’s money belt?

Or…is it both?

It’s Harry Reids balls.

Mystery solved.

Didn’t Bush have one of those on his back in a debate?

Looks to me like she got hold of Rush’s panties.

You know, the ones that are always in a bunch…

Your’e assuming that the MSM will do the right thing. Don’t forget that the MSM exists solely to preserve the status quo. They will rally around the “maverick” to insure their pampered and priviledge position in the pecking order will be preserved. Democrats have to run not only against the GOP but the military/industrial/media complex.

The only thing Nader’s reappearance has anything to do with is Nader’s ego. By the by, he’s older than Don Juan McCain…pass it on.

Personally, I wish Obama would decline to comment. There are plenty of surrogates and others to attack and allow him to stay on the high ground.

We aren’t talking about the sex scandal, which he shouldn’t comment on. This is about a lobbyist influence scandal, which is not only 100% appropriate to talk about but has already been a part of Obama’s campaign rhetoric during the primaries. This is right in his strike zone. (baseball analogy, sorry).

Not to mention Nader’s formative years were spent in a madrassa;)

-G

NYT is first break in MSM & that meant that others had to respond. Smugby’s point that MSM piled on Rudy when he was losing is a good one, but pretty soon (May-June time frame) it’ll seem that McCain’s losing in the general, and give MSM latitude to pile on him.

fell off my perch,on that one
hahahahahahahahahaha

((( TSF )))

I thought it was a GPS for McCain …

Nader is a non-issue, for everyone but the media. He will draw very few votes and is irrelevant. The media will continue to give him a platform because it serves their interests.

I do not worry that he is any threat in any way to the Democratic supernova that is coming in November.

Yep. 74 in February.

or an on/off switch

The only thing Nader’s reappearance has anything to do with is Nader’s ego. By the by, he’s older than Don Juan McCain…pass it on.

Rant*** This man angers beyond all reason. A lot of my relatives voted for him in 2000 I am still pissed at their stupidity./Rant***

Frankly I think it is another ploy of his to get more money from the goopers. In 2000 the pumped him with money and I can see them doing the same thing again. He is just a greedy egotistic bas**rd.

Well, to follow your analogy, they don’t follow the actual strike zone as defined in the rules anymore. I think he would be better off considering it between the knees and the waist, until there is absolute evidence, adopting the “I can only speak for myself and have take Senator McCain’s word,”. There are plenty of people to press the issue.

However, the media will cover him, and they will cover the fact that the only people he trashes are Democrats.

I made this comment the other day in regard to a TBogg post about McCain’s involvement in the Keating Five incident:

To me, this is the money quote of the scandal:

From an article entitled “Pluck, leaks helped McCain to overcome S&L scandal”…

http://graphics.boston.com/new…..dal+.shtml

By Walter V. Robinson, Globe Staff, 2/29/2000

In 1989, Keating himself left no doubt that the campaign funds he lavished on the five senators were designed to produce results, when he declared to reporters: ‘ “One question, among the many others raised in recent weeks, had to do with whether my financial support in any way influenced several political figures to take up my cause. I want to say in the most forceful way I can: I certainly hope so.” ‘

Does he really expect people to believe that we should not be concerned with his close associations with lobbyist if he didn’t understand through this quote that nobody does something for nothing in this business. The fact remains, if you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

if he had good intentions..he would back Obamas anti corporate leanings,and spur him on

Exactly !!!

Your statement has to be repeated continuously until it gets through Ralph’s thick skull …

Are you saying that Senator Obama should not mention McCain’s ties to lobbyists (lobbyists that serve in most of the important positions in his campaign) because the NYT implied a romantic relationship with one lobbyist (a lobbyist who does not work in his campaign)?

Nader is a non-issue, for everyone but the media. He will draw very few votes and is irrelevant. The media will continue to give him a platform because it serves their interests.

I do not worry that he is any threat in any way to the Democratic supernova that is coming in November.

Agree. I think even 99.5% of progressives will not support his campaign (his ideas, yes…but why not go out and support progressive Congressional candidates rather than ones ego). It would be interesting, however, to look at who is providing him with $$$. THAT could be worth publicizing.

if he had good intentions

As if… Not for years, or if ever when he was running for office.

the MSM-esp. TV and at least 2 of the newsweekly magazines still have a man crush on st john. Look at those from “the village”-tweety, timmah, the editorial page of the NYT to just name a few. As long as these opinion makers have their stage, no bad news about st john will be allowed. You can almost see timmah and tweety drool whenever they throw their softball questions to him. BTW, since all of these lobbyists are “volunteering” their time and skills in the st john campaign, doesn’t he have to declare their unpaid salaries as campaign donations? If that is in fact the case I have 2 questions. 1. Is he in fact required to list both them and what their salaries are, like they do when flying on corperate planes? 2. Wouldn’t their salaries go over the individual donation limits? Bonus question. If he is taking govt matching funds, would the lobbyists time/skills even be permitted? Just asking

Prolly some Wyoming- based concern called Chick Deney … *g*

Maybe you can find out on his really cool website.

McCain/Schiavo 2008.

-G

Personally, I wish Obama would decline to comment. There are plenty of surrogates and others to attack and allow him to stay on the high ground.

I disagree. Obama can’t just stop campaigning against McCain.

While I agree that he should stear clear of the romatic affair accusations, that lobbyists are in effect running his campaign is fair game. He should attack McCain hard on that alone.

Well it’s no secret that he was funded by Republicans in both 2000 and 2004.

Obama V McCain will be reminiscent of Ali V Cosell, only more lopsided …

Funniest comment yet!!!

I didn’t know that. Got a link?

Constitution;
An agreement under which we are governed. Attorneys operate under “the rule of law” which emanates from the constitution as a body of common law decisions and the Statutes which I regret I am not in command of.
The pain for me is that as we read the Bill of Rights and the Articles of the Constitution we cannot justify the actions of our elected representatives.
The “Corporate Culture” has overlain the political culture and the government. Justice has been slain by corruption. Expediency has been used to implement the abuse of our rights.
A corporate fascism has grown to control our democratic process. Casually ridiculing these events does not address the crimes against the American people.
In the criminal justice system, when an alledged crime is commited it is charged or investigated by a grand jury of a District Attorney. When high crimes and misdameanors are alleged a similar investigation is called for. Nixon was impeached and removed from office for far far less than has occurred under the Bush/Cheney administration.
To whom do we turn for justice if not the legal community?

After Gore’s treatment by the MSM in 2000 I’m skeptical of your take. I actually think the NYT’s story helps McCain by consolidating his support with the extreme right wing. There’s nothing to rally them like the meme of “liberal” media “attacks.” How much of the MSM is talking about the corruption of the political process by lobbyists and McCain’s involvement?

IT IS MERELY THE SCRIPT HANDED TO THEM BY THE BIGGEST WAR PROFITEER GR..it butters their bread,and pays their bar bills nicely

Ralph gives Republics cover by shouting that there’s no difference between Democrats and Republics. They will keep running him until they either lose or he is dead.

damn i cant see…war profiteer is GE!

I try to take the high ground and focus on McCain’s whatever-gender carousing with boy lobbyists or girl lobbyists but every time that photo appears her funny part that sticks out through her crepe silk cling-on nightgown distracts me. I can’t help it. I can’t figure out what it is. Is it too much of something or too little of something else? Lordy me! Get me a cool glass of water…..

EDP, Are you in Iowa City? Thought our rotten fruit could use a workout on March 9 against Evil-Doer Rove.
http://www.gazetteonline.com/a…../1006/NEWS

Well here’s one from 2004.

Same was true in 2000.

he is vile…misanthrope

This is Nader’s claim to qualify him for the presidency?:

There’s no ticket of admission for active citizenship. Anybody can get through that gate, and anybody can ask that basic question that gets the ball rolling.”

In 1965 Ralph Nader asked a question that shocked America. In his book Unsafe at Any Speed he asked why thousands of Americans were being killed or injured in car accidents when the technology already existed to make our cars safer. The automobile industry resisted Nader’s suggestions furiously, but public outcry forced government and industry to apply new safety standards, and to include devices like shoulder harnesses and air bags which have saved thousands from death or injury.

Ralph Nader didn’t stop there. His concept of full-time citizenship led him to form groups such as Public Citizen which have exposed corporate and governmental negligence and corruption and won important new protections for Americans as citizens and consumers.

More than 30 years after he began his crusade for automobile safety, Ralph Nader continues his efforts to make government and business accountable to the people, and to make all Americans aware of their rights and of their own power to defend them.

This page last revised on Feb 02, 2005 09:50 PST

Last revised is mighty current though! ;~)

Gore ran a bad campaign. Gave MSM the excuse it was looking for.

There is no law against lobbyists serving in campaigns. To make a point of the fact is, in affect, an accusation that he is a corrupt tool of lobbyists. It may be a valid charge, but there are plenty to make it and search for evidence. Since Obama is campaigning on changing the old style politics and putting an end to character assasination, I think he would be better off leaving it alone. Again, there are plenty to make/prove any charges, but it leaves him open to accusations that he’s no different than any other negative campaigner. I don’t see any advantage in him personally engaging. You are, of course, entitle to think otherwise.

I am in Iowa City, but I must admit, I planned to just give Rove the cold shoulder.

They’re not, and that’s why it’s important that Obama does.

If Nader was motivated by anything other than pure ego, where has he been for the last four years while this administration was performing a lobotomy on the American spirit and deliberately botching the surgery they were doing on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. If he was half the activist he used to be, he would have been crusading to save rule of law and Habeas Corpus. Those things are much more important than a Corvair ever was. A real leader would have been making speeches pointing that out, among other things! But no, this guy just turns up like the proverbial bad penny whenever there’s an election for President to give him a soap box to stand on. Total BS!

McCain has a real problem with adhering to ethical restrictions on avoiding influencing closed hearings and investigations.

He did it with the Keating investigation, and then just a decade later, he tries to interfere with a closed ex parte hearing at the FCC by writing letters telling the Commission to rush a decision for Paxson. He was told this was inappropriate, and went ahead and did so, and then was admonished by FCC Commissioner Kennard for meddling and attempting to influence the Commission.

That’s twice. And then, when the FCC came out with the “wrong” decision, McCain and the Republicans, like a bunch of tantrum-throwing brats, threatened to strip the FCC of any power over limiting religious broadcasters from purchasing and running any proigramming they wished on non-commercial frequencies…INCLUDING 24-hour religious proslytizing and full-on commercials!

Shiny, tight dresses are never a good idea. Seems we are just never going to know what that “something” is in front. :)

I doubt that Fox will ever pile on any Republic, but maybe you’re not considering them part of the MSM.

oyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy shortrideVP

wow, I have to say, when obama first hit the trail I wasn’t certain he was a progressive, I wasn’t certain he was ready to take on these corporatists

but it really looks like he gets it, it really looks like he’s taking a page from edwards and I wouldn’t be surprised if edwards is not and advisor of barak

unless there is a self destruct, it looks like we have the our candidate

let’s hope he can overcome the base turning out en masse, let’s hope he can withstand the barage that is sure to come in the general

and rest assured, there WILL be dirt that the republicans are going to unleash

that dirt will probably not even be true, but they will spew it, they will give it credibility by repeating it and I hope barak’s advisors know what to do when it happens

I believe this primary season might be over

Nope. Faux is propaganda arm of Rs.

Obama must have some incredible advisors. He has run an almost perfect campaign and has now really stepped up the message with precise plans and programs. I don’t think his campaign will get blind-sided by anything.

i really want the Clintons to be in the background,they have had their chance to be more progressive,it wasnt in the cards,if it was in their hearts

I wonder when the MSM will start questioning Obama about Specter’s Spygate probe of the Patriots? After all, Congress seems to have nothing better to do these days so it’s important to know where candidates stand on professional sports irregularities.

The media “piling on McCain?” Why isn’t any MSM talking about McCain’s involvement in the Keating 5? He has a pattern or influence peddling but are careful to avoid the topic. The MSM “likes” the maverick because he will insure with his election that the interests of their corporate masters will be preserved and the pampered and priviledged positions of the high salaried pundits/newsreaders and bloviators will be insured.

He was a grass roots organizer…in the inner city.

I think the ground swell will continue to grow and we will see amazing change next year.

since all of these lobbyists are “volunteering” their time and skills in the st john campaign, doesn’t he have to declare their unpaid salaries as campaign donations?

No. If that were so, then the value of all volunteers’ time for all campaigns would have to be treated the same way.

I think one of the beliefs that a solidified Republican base supporting McCain and his 100 years war is a good think may be folly.

Remember the GOP is bleeding support and self indentification.

They have been low in the polls and people do not seem to be rewarding negative campaigning.

The more the Limbaugh/Coulter Republicans embrace McCain and his 100 years war, the more detrimental it is to him.

I repeat, in 2006 George W. Bush campaigned for his Party and told America in explcit terms that “If the Democrats win, the terrorists win” and it didn’t work.

-G

bingo…an expensive prostitute

Since Obama is campaigning on changing the old style politics and putting an end to character assasination, I think he would be better off leaving it alone.

McCain pretends to be a “maverick” who listens to the people instead of lobbyists, so pointing out that lobbyists are actually on the Straight Talk express bus is absolutely not “character assassination”. I must say that is a ridiculous characterization of this legitimate issue.

It didn’t work because Bush forgot to mention that the terrorists were gay. The Republics will not making that same mistake this year.

Thanks! At least his VP said the money should be returned.

It’s twice as funny when the MSM sagely nods its collective head when Conrad Black “explains” that e is not being paid by McCain. So it is OK?
Exactly, wrong. He is being paid by his lobby business to do this.
that’s worse.

it is a very important issue,wheres the integrity?

Obama addressing McCain’s lobby entanglements over decades is legitimate. It is a fact that needs to be aired and McCain has some serious explaining to do not excuses to make. I think Obama can use his skills to expose McCain as a fraud without using my lay terminology.

McCain pretends to be a “maverick”.

Bush pretends to be a Christian, among other things, so it seems like McCain is a worthy successor.

And whatever happened to “Phase 2″ of the 911 investigation?

Now that’s one of the first fair criticisms of Nader I’ve read here today.

he can fillet him,and never break a sweat

Obama is well withing his rights to hit McCain on his sleazy ties to lobbyists.

Fire away. It is McCains’ media engineered strength.

Hit him hard.

-G

how quickly you forget,i said that at the end of the last thread ,and you responded…he is looking for gooper $$$$$$$$$$$$$

with a velvet glove…he has the style

Also, as a rejoinder to any GOP-ers who hate Obama’s message of hope ask them why they have been praising Ronald Reagan for 30 years because ‘he made America feel good again’.

-G

where has he been for the last four years while this administration was performing a lobotomy on the American spirit and deliberately botching the surgery they were doing on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. If he was half the activist he used to be, he would have been crusading to save rule of law and Habeas Corpus.

Ann,

Nader writes regularly for Counterpunch and Common Dreams. His essays have been on a wide range of subjects, but he’s addressed the subjects you’ve brought up rather well.

My experience since 2004 has been that many former Nader supporters are now working hard WITHIN the Democratic Party to get our people elected. I’m a former Green who grew tired of my votes not counting or being counter-productive, and am actively recruiting Greens, Republicans and Independents into the Dem ranks.

Nader’s ego has become a problem, for sure, but he HAS BEEN fighting. His columns don’t get the play on the left they deserve because of what I call Green Hatred Disorder.

“It didn’t work because Bush forgot to mention that the terrorists were gay. The Republics will not making that same mistake this year.“

And want to be married. And move in next door to take your gun away.

That would be Charles Black who is the unpaid lobbyist campaign consultant for McCain.

Conrad Black is the media mogul who got himself caught and convicted by Patrick Fitzgerald for some fraud.

And Obama is commenting on the lobbyists while stepping around the lady:

“It’s indisputable that his top advisers in his campaign are lobbyists, that many of them have been running their business on the campaign bus while they’ve been out with him. And he’s comfortable with that,” Obama said during a media availability in Columbus, Ohio.

Obama called that “a legitimate issue for voters” to consider “if somebody presents themselves as a reformer.”

The Illinois senator also raised the issue earlier in the day, saying in an opening statement at roundtable discussion on health care issues that McCain “takes (lobbyist) money and has put them in charge of his campaign.

But:

McCain’s ties to lobbyists have been the focus of attention since the New York Times reported several days ago that McCain aides were so alarmed by the senator’s close relationship with a then-31-year-old telecommunications lobbyist in 1999 as he was preparing for his last president that they confronted him and acted to keep her away from him at his office and political events. McCain has denied the report, which was based on anonymous sources.

Obama demurred when asked about the article.

“I have not studied that carefully and so I can’t really measure what’s going on there,” the Illinois senator responded.

{Thanks, Christy!}

and he didnt give a rats ass about 99% of Americans,funny dat

I am two hours north but did discuss it with Irish Jim. I also talked to the Public Info guy and he assured me no tax funds were involved. I also got a nice call back from the foundation and expressed my opinion on Rove in particular. Rove needs to be frogmarched… maybe after 60 minutes siegleman episode.

Really would like to have an Iowa Firepups meet this summer.

Will Ralph Win Ben Stein’s Money again?

The Pugs get three things from Nader running…one is that they get to pretend that they support “free speech” and access to the Democratic process, and Democrats don’t. And they can assert this high-ethical rhetoric while playing real-politik and siphon off Democratic votes. Third, they can come onto Democratic and progressive sites and troll as Naderites and call people hypocrites and sow dissent against the prospective or actual Democratic nominee for not being as holy as St. Ralph.

The simple rebuttal to those things is “I’m as progressive, if not more so, than Ralph Nader. I’m better than Nader, and I’m not running, because ideological purity would have a million different candidates. The “right wing” would always win as a result of such factionalism. A President is a representative, and must represent a balance of a million different views. To move ahead on implementing those views one should work within a community…not act like a prophet in the wilderness and lecture the “evil people” who are in fact unifying against embedded power-structure. But if I were running, I wouldn’t take right-wing money. It would be against my ideological fabric to be used as a tool for making political progress.”

How soon before George W. Bush launches his next military adventure in order to liberate Cyprus from the Commies?

-G

When I envision McCain and Obama in a TV face-off, it’s JFK and Nixon all over again. One smooth and to the point; the other Rumpelstiltskin in a sweat. Who do I want to be a decision maker? Why, the one with a cool head assessing the situation.

yeeeeeks.
I think I better resend that letter to the editor, too.
thanks.

I was thinking that his next target will be Cuba. After all the gov’t there is now weakened, their leader is not strong and we could create a democracy by liberating all those people – and they are, after all, brown.

one big reason i picked him over Hill

But they don’t have oil….

Maybe Bush/Cheney can invade and force the Cubans to grow switchgrass, eh?

I think it’s childish and pointless to resent Nader’s runs for the presidency. Frankly, 2000 was Gore’s election to lose, just as 2008 was Hillary Clinton’s election to lose. Don’t you get it? If Gore couldn’t beat the imbicilic Bush, as well as Nader, then he clearly hasn’t got what it takes to be President. This year if Hillary can’t beat Obama, she hasn’t got what it takes to be President.

Do you want a President who surrounds herself with advisors as terrible as Hillary’s have been?

Blaming Nader for the Democrats’ loss in 2000 is a Republican-style exercise in irresponsibility. Gore lost in 2000 because he was too chicken to be himself, and too chicken to take advantage of Clinton’s coattails. And he lost because he could not ADAPT to the brutal, unethical, no-holds-barred politicking of the Cheney/Rove machine – just as Kerry lost in 2004.

We need an adaptable, intelligent, ruthless candidate who can face down Rovian tactics while being progressive enough to deflate anything Nader has to say by embracing it.

Quit whining about Nader – it’s pathetic. The Democrats and the Republicans control the game and own the ball. Whining that the nerdy kid next door made you lose is just pathetic.

Switchgrass shigars……fashinatin’ how demawkrashy and freedom work.

-The Decider

If that were so, then the value of all volunteers’ time for all campaigns would have to be treated the same way.

Actually I have no problem with this, if indeed it is simply REPORTING the time and corporate affiliation of volunteers….with an estimated value applied to those volunteers time. It need not be a part of the campaign limitations an individual can provide in cash…but should be reported.

A $200/hr. lawyer that contributes 10 hours of their legal advice to the campaign should be required to report a $2000 donation. If they are simply working the phones…well that volunteer activity can be reported as at some standard scale (maybe $10/hour). Again, no restriction on how much can be volunteered…but reporting by name/profession/ and type of activity…YES!

I was under the impression the original question was about current law.

LOL! You mentioned that Nader writes columns for “Common Dreams” and I post a link about Nader taking Republican money (#100) from “Common Dreams”!

And Charlie Black, McCain’s top strategist, runs the lobbying firm, BKSH & Associates, which is the lobbying firm used by Mark Penn’s firm, Burson-Marsteller.

I have every right to criticize Nader for the lies he peddled in 2000 about the parties being the same. That was extremely damaging to this country.

i’d rather have republican money going to nader than going to mccain.

And there are plenty of dispossessed moneyed interests — gambling, oll, and sugar among them — who’d like the pointy edge of the spear of American “diplomacy” to enforce their property rights against the Cuban people and subsequent European investors who’ve been given clear title by Fidel. There are folks in Florida who think they still own stuff in Cuba, fifty years after the revolution.

And they vote in Florida, a crucial swing state.

Nice catch!

Drip, drip, drip: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02…..ei=5087%0A

Okay, thanks. I like yours too.

My rationale may be ridiculous, although no one has ever stated that to my face. However, I don’t think if McCain’s staff had an inordinate number of fencing instructors on it, that anyone would point it out unless it were somehow shown that fencing instructors could exercise a corrupt influence on the government through their relationship with corrupt politicians. If no one thought it possible that the relationship between lobbyists and McCain was corrupt, they wouldn’t bother with the story. So, to point it out is to imply the McCain is, or gives the appearance of being, corrupt. Plenty are doing this and I think it serves no purpose and is possibly damaging, for McCain to do so.

That’s my viewpoint. I’m sorry you don’t subscribe to it, but then you don’t exercise any more influence over the Obama campaign than I do.

Here’s the whole background on Penn & Hillary.

BKSH is actually owned by B-M.

So — McCain’s top adviser’s company is owned by Clinton’s top adviser’s company.

I agree with most of what you said with two glaring exceptions.

Gore lost because he did not properly contest Florida. He had more votes and should’ve won.

Kerry lost because Ohio was stolen, electronically and otherwise.

This isn’t whining, it’s fact.

I think McCain’s done. Stick a fork in him. The MSM will not be able to ignore his lobbying scandal forever. It’ll take awhile for them to catch on, like it took a long time for them to catch on to Rudy’s true nature & situation, but now that it’s in the open, McCain’s a goner.

What’s going to be interesting and fun to me is to compare the slow moving and sometimes ridiculously tin eared MSM with the increasingly more sophisticated and much better quality digging and writing of the bloggers on the McCain lobbying debacle.

If the MSM works 1/10 as hard as the headliners at FDL and Marcy does or adopts their digging and stories, I agree with you.

But conservatives have shown an incredible capacity to ignore behavior exactly like McBush’s including his lobbying law breaking for years. I never under estimate the Tin Ear Quotient of the Rethugs when it comes to pure law breaking, particularly in the “K streetization” of Congress.

You all do not know the mental images you’ve inflicted upon me here.
;-0 (But don’t stop.)

Your views would render all political discussion mute.

i’d rather have republican money going to nader than going to mccain.

Surely no. McNuts can have all the money he wants, from every lobbyist in washingtown as he can not win no matter what. nadir will do nothing but take votes from the eventual Dem. nominee. Any money given to him is just like giving to the gooprs.

Correction: “…for Obama to do so…”

Thanks, I missed that earlier …

Every time I see BKSH I think “baksheesh.”

makes my head spin.

Mute? Moot? Or Both?

Amen. (From Muskingum Co.)

Glad to see some general election attacking going on. I’m bored to death with the primaries- can’t get myself to read anything about the petty shit going back and forth- their positions on the issues are like two peas in a pod.

Apparently Nader’s gonna run for pres again. Let’s give ol Ralphie a warm reception- FUCK YOU RALPHIE- and thanks for George fuckin Bush.

That, too. :)

When I envision McCain and Obama in a TV face-off, it’s JFK and Nixon all over again.

The Electoral College system saved us with that election..JFK won by 0.1% of the popular vote..might not have held up with a recount..

According to Ralph, there was no difference between the Reps and Dems in 2000 and there is no difference between the two parties today …

Nuck Fader.

Blaming Nader for the Democrats’ loss in 2000 is a Republican-style exercise in irresponsibility. Gore lost in 2000 because he was too chicken to be himself, and too chicken to take advantage of Clinton’s coattails. And he lost because he could not ADAPT to the brutal, unethical, no-holds-barred politicking of the Cheney/Rove machine – just as Kerry lost in 2004.

Elections are won and lost due to many causes. And the responsibility can in 2000 can be shared amongst many factors, including the candidates, Bill Clinton’s pecadillo’s, etc. Many Nader supports point out that Gore even lost in Tennessee (although forgetting that to win that state Gore would have had to be even more “centrist” and swung to the right).

But Nader, and some of his followers still fail to accept responsibility for THEIR PART (not complete responsibility, but partial) in the loss in 2000. If 2% of the Nader voters in Florida had voted for Gore (Nader received 100,000 votes there) it would have meant that most of the underlying issue allowing the Republicans being able dispute the election would have been eliminated. And the whole corrupt Jeb Bush-Katherine Harris vote fixing would have been disabled.

The lesson that should have been learned in 2000 is that needs to make sure that one deals with each and every element to win against groups that consider themselves privileged to violate the Constitution. One can’t give them any openings, especially by supporting Third Party candidates, or believing a media “bomb” at a critical juncture in the campaign, or the use of troll postings with false surveys and conspiracy theories. One has to be ready to respond and retalite and expose.

I’d even take the step to say that if there is a concerted campaign to spread lies and distortions in the closing days of a campaign, and a blogger has evidence through its registrations that the source is coming from the right-wing…that they should expose that effort. They should note the source of the traffic and find a way to do so if it skirts the privacy policy. It’s simply too important (and where will privacy be anyways…when a fascist government controls it).

Yeah- I Ralph’s defense- that was BEFORE Bush- this is after, and a replicum is running. Ralph now has no defense.

That’s been the response of ex-Nader supporters for years. You forget that Gore ran a relatively “clean” campaign and was running not only against DeserterBoi but the MSM who looked for almost any excuse to stick it to him (earth tones, dog meds). Nader’s terrible claim that there was no difference between Bush and Gore was a selling point for many, many people who wanted to believe that by casting a vote for him they were casting a vote for sweetness, light and kumbayah-for-all.

When it became obvious that the race was going to be as close as it was, Nader should have stepped aside and cast his lot in with the Democrats/progressives who have always been his most natural constituency. Instead his ego-driven candidacy continued siphoning off ten of thousand of votes for Gore in Florida that might have changed the outcome of our history as a nation.

Nader = Pure Ego. He has no place in responsible public discourse any more spouting off his tortured logic of libertarian-progressive-socialist tripe. He’s made himself irrelevant, and has no one to blame but the guy in the mirror. Sorry Ralph, your time (and your ego’s time) has past.

Howard Dean & DNC to file FEC complaint against McCain.

link please?

And Charlie Black, McCain’s top strategist, runs the lobbying firm, BKSH & Associates, which is the lobbying firm used by Mark Penn’s firm, Burson-Marsteller.

Even worse, Penn and Black lobby for Blackwater, Bush’s “Murder Inc”. How much private work is being done by Howard Wolfson?

It seems that Charlie Black’s lobbying should not be allowed. They cannot ethically or legally use campaign resources for their own business.

Ralph is 73 years old and has run for president five time.

Hang it up Ralphie

i’d rather have republican money going to nader than going to mccain.

It depends…dollar for dollar does a Republican contribution to Nader benefit them more than the same amount to McCain? It’s an old military strategy. One can support an insurgent group on the cheap and draw off the enemies forces and equipment to deal with a crisis in one area…meanwhile they become weaker at other points of attack where those resources are more essential.

it was the gore’s job to convince people to vote for him and not nader…. that people wanted to vote for nader says more about what they thought of the clinton administration…

hard to remember, but nader was right about a lot of stuff the clinton and gore were wrong about.

ah, but nader’s attacks help make the dems honest and keep from moving so far to the right, while the right’s attacks push the dems right.

the attacks from the Rs and from nader are not the same.

Dean’s 50-state strategy worked in 2004. Maybe the DNC will prevail with the FEC, and McCain will be able to pursue a $50-per-state strategy.

… 9th time’s a charm …

The Electoral College system saved us with that election..JFK won by 0.1% of the popular vote..might not have held up with a recount..

The story on that is the Daley machine created votes for JFK by allowing “Dead Democrats” to vote by proxy…but the recount would have revealed that an even larger vote fraud effort by Republicans in the South of the State. Nixon knew that this was a far larger and coordinated scheme than Daley’s, so he decided not to ask for a recount of Illinois’ ballots.

it was the gore’s job to convince people to vote for him and not nader…. that people wanted to vote for nader says more about what they thought of the clinton administration…

hard to remember, but nader was right about a lot of stuff the clinton and gore were wrong about.

So you are voting for Nader this time, too?

hey – just a heads up for folks in NC.

tommy yum yum’s son esten is doing beautifully and they are having a benefit for him on march 1 at the Cat’s Cradle in Carrboro. it will be an all day concert and tommy says he has pulled together a band for it.

that esten is doing well is very very happy news.

The storm that hit the Bay Area this morning is hitting the foothills now.

hell no.

never have, and don’t plan to.

Cincinnati Enquirer endorses Victoria Wulsin in the Democratic primary election for Congress:

“[Wulsin] is uniquely qualified to understand the workings of the United States health care system, its failings and what changes can realistically be made to improve it.”

“[On] issues, including the economy and health care, Black had far fewer specifics to offer. His campaign also has been marred by a level of mud-slinging at Wulsin in a steady stream of campaign fliers sent to registered Democrats in the district.”

“In our view, Black’s attacks are based more on innuendo than fact. Voters in the district deserve better from serious candidates.”

“The 2nd district is large and diverse. Its residents need a representative who can appreciate and speak to the needs of that diversity. We believe Victoria Wulsin is the best candidate to represent the Democratic Party in the race for its Congressional seat.”

Nader won’t make Obama move to the lef in my opinion. He’ll just sweep away a point or so and make McBush more competitive in a few states- may actually give a state to McBush and we can have four glorius more years.

Excellent! Can’t wait to hear McCain’s explanation on this…

What a crook and liar he is.

I’m gonna try this again.

Gore lost because he did not properly contest Florida. He had more votes and should’ve won.

Kerry lost because Ohio was stolen, electronically and otherwise.

This isn’t whining, it’s fact. Piling on Nader takes away from the real causes of these defeats and therefore moves us away from effecting the reforms needed to make sure they don’t happen again.

We need more political parties, not less. And the fact we have a good shot at winning this year doesn’t change that.

Our side needs to be about expanding involvement in the political process, not contracting it. And then set out on a course that inspires people to vote for our candidates.

Me too! Living the Arab World for three years in Libya taught me that word well. Baksheesh indeed!

Excellent. Vic is a great candidate.

(((Esten and Tommy!

Piling on Nader takes away from the real causes of these defeats and therefore moves us away from effecting the reforms needed to make sure they don’t happen again.

i strongly agree with this point.

it’s fun, but not helpful.

((( Esten & Tommy )))

Excellent news, indeed !!!

We need more political parties, not less. And the fact we have a good shot at winning this year doesn’t change that.

Unfortunately, since we don’t have a parliamentary system where minority gov’ts are formed and such, the main affect of multiple political parties would be to throw Presidential elections into the House of Representatives. And folks think the “super-delegates” in the Dem Party are problematic…

ah, but nader’s attacks help make the dems honest and keep from moving so far to the right, while the right’s attacks push the dems right.

But isn’t that what the Nader supporters have said lost Gore the election? They constantly tell me, and Nader has said in his subsequent statements, that Gore lost because he didn’t win enough votes in States he “should have won” like his home State of Tennessee. I don’t see how a liberal or progressive message could have succeeded in Tennessee at that point.

If it would have worked Nader would be getting millions of votes in Red States and Blue States, not several hundred thousand. But losing even a few thousand of those votes in key States did result in Gore losing to Bush. True Gore may have done things differently at other points in his run to pick up those lost voters to Nader…or other voters. One can easily argue that Nader forced Gore even MORE to the right since Nader was siphoning off votes on the left, and Gore could NEVER go “left of Nader”.

Gore could have continued to challenge the election in Florida (but we have already seen that the Supreme Court had once decided against him, why not again, and again…).

I’m just saying that I wish that those who supported Nader would realize that their votes did play a ROLE in Bush winning and would realize that it was a failed strategy. No need to apologize. Many truly believed that there was “no difference between the parties” in 2000. I think subsequent history has shown that we didn’t know just how extreme the Republicans could go.

Understood, but where third party candidates could begin to make a difference is in local, then state elections.

The thing to remember is that the right wing does not see lobbyists in charge of McCain’s campaign as a problem. Might even be seen as a positive.

I agree with most of what you said with two glaring exceptions.

Gore lost because he did not properly contest Florida. He had more votes and should’ve won.

Kerry lost because Ohio was stolen, electronically and otherwise.

This isn’t whining, it’s fact.

That’s where ADAPTATION comes in. In 2000 it’s almost excusable because the campaing fraud was so egregious and the Supreme Court and Florida actions were so over the top ourtrageous. But by 2004 there was no excuse – Kerry should have fought those election results the way Gore didn’t in 2000.

But why DON’T the Democrats fight the election results? Because the Two-Party System of Democrats and Republicans is self-reinforcing. It’s really one big party of a ruling aristocracy. And that’s what Nader has been right about all along.

Anyone who doesn’t think the two parties are the same, ask yourself why the Dems don’t fight harder for impeachment, for electoral honesty, for the end of the occupations in the mideast.

When Obama has been elected and we still have bases in Iraq in 2011, maybe, MAYBE you’ll grok the fact that the two parties protect the very same corporate interests. Which is what Nader has been saying.

look, i voted for gore in 2000 even though i live in a safe state – so i don’t think i have anything to apologize for.

and i lived in TX while bush was gov…. so i knew he was bad news. but no one knew how bad he would be – and no one knew how lame the dems would be. i just think it’s nuts to blame the nader voters – why hate them more than the bush voters? just doesn’t make any sense to me.

I have every right to criticize Nader for the lies he peddled in 2000 about the parties being the same. That was extremely damaging to this country.

You have every right to wear your underpants on the outside, that doesn’t change the fact that the Democrats and the Republicans constitute two lobes of a single-party system.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m voting Democrat this year. But don’t also get me wrong – I think Obama is a far better candidate than McCain, but that doesn’t mean I expect Obama to pull us out of Iraq, or disassemble NAFTA. Until meaningful campaign finance reform is passed, and flying pigs deliver snowballs to Hades, the Dems will remain just as corporatist and conservative as the Republicans on the important issues.

What you wind up with though is situations like in New York State where there are all sorts of “minority/third parties” on the ballot and the result is the Dem is often endorsed by the Liberal and Green parties and the Rep is endorsed by the conservative and Libertarian and such parties so the same names show 2, 3, or four times depending.

Me too! Living the Arab World for three years in Libya taught me that word well. Baksheesh indeed!

Hmmm! Worked for Occidental Petroleum, Jim? Why else in Libya for three years? [BTW I ask because my Dad worked there in the early ’70’s for Oxy…before the Reagan bombings, etc.

Equivalent W. African word – “Dash”!

Right, so Gore would have done the same as Reagan/Bush/Bush just like Clinton …

strawman.

look, i voted for gore in 2000 even though i live in a safe state – so i don’t think i have anything to apologize for.

Selise, just want to make this clear. I didn’t say “So you are going to vote for Nader, AGAIN”. You gave a response that suggested that those that vote for Nader this time have a very well founded basis for doing so. That’s why I asked. To draw out that logic.

I personally think that it was flawed in 2000, and even more flawed today. I’m not even asking those who voted for Nader to apologize…seems that there is a real resistance in America to doing that sort of thing nowadays. All I’m asking is that people recognize that Third Party candidacies at the Presidential level DO have unintended and unforeseen impacts.

We’ve had eight years of one.

Sometimes they do create third party formation. And even fourth party formation. US History is interesting in showing that when both parties raptured from internal factionalization there was temporary chaos, with Presidents being elected with small numbers of the electorate split four or five ways, then an amalgamation of the old parties along new lines…but usually incorporating many “principles” of the older ones. The Whigs thus transformed into the Republicans before the Civil War (the old Democrat-Republican party split on the issue of slavery). The Progressivist movement resulted in the breakdown of the old Republican and Democratic parties into splinter groups around 1900. But by the end of WWI
the populist (some racist and fundamentalist, BTW) and progressive factions that had been so vibrant were restricted to State movements. And the parties themselves were representative of different principles at the State level.

Interestingly, almost all of the successful transformations occurred by caucuses already present within a party splitting away to form a new party…or by the election of State and Congressional Representatives first. Putting major resources behind a charismatic National candidate has always gone nowhere. It’s hard to conceive how any major changes could result even if such a candidate were elected. To push things through that President would have to issue scores of Executive Orders and Presidential Signing Statements, and Veto laws…without the support of any major group in Congress. That would be certain to lead to both parties marginalizing the President and perhaps impeaching him.

Oil Companies School from 78-80, of which OXY was one of five and Pool Intairdrilfrom 80-82 where I worked on the worst blowout in Libyan history at OXY 103

You gave a response that suggested that those that vote for Nader this time have a very well founded basis for doing so. That’s why I asked. To draw out that logic.

that helps, thanks. i misunderstood.

nader is not my choice – and never has been. but that doesn’t mean i think the people who voted for him in 2000 didn’t have some very good reasons for their votes. i think they did. i can even sorta understand some people voting for bush – if you just listened to his campaign rhetoric, he was not so very far from the mainstream.

those are votes i disagree with – bush way more than nader. but i don’t think those votes qualify a person for condemnation 7 years later.

2004, on the other hand is an entirely different matter. imo, people who voted for bush have a lot to answer for. there’s just no rational way i can see a person doing that out of good will towards our fellow human beings. to me that was a malevolent act – one that requires serious atonement.

but i just don’t see the nader votes in 2000 in the same light. in many ways, clinton was really, really bad. and people feared that gore would be another 8 years of the same.

it’s different now, but remember what it was like then – clinton had caused the deaths of half a million innocent iraqis – with a policy that gore did not reject. gore had gone to kyoto and basically told the world to go fuck itself. and the neoliberal policies forced down the throats of people (especially in latin america) via the imf were truely evil. people who were paying attention were seriously concerned about the dems and gore – especially after he chose lieberman as his running mate. and imo, they had every reason to for their concern.

there are lots of people i disagree with – many of them right here at fdl. but i don’t mock them and i don’t condemn them… because 1) i recognize they are intelligent people of good will who might actually be right. maybe i’m wrong. and 2) i don’t think the limits of rational debate begin and end with what my views are. i try to recognize that different people have different view points.

that doesn’t mean there aren’t limits – of course there are. imo – torture is outside the pale, and there are lots of things (most things that represent our fundamental values) we agree on. the decision to vote for nader was a tactical decision – it wasn’t based on a different set of values (as, i think, votes for bush in 2004 were).

i consider people who voted for nader in 2000 my natural allies – i think we share similar values. and i think that shunning them until they’ve done some kind of atonement is both wrong and counterproductive. (again – different story for the bush 2004 voters).

let me try one more comparison – i think voting for nader in 2000 was not an immoral act… but if it was, it comes nowhere close to voting for the war. so how come we treat people who voted for nader in 2000 worse than people who initially supported the iraq war – so long as they are democrats? just does not compute for me.

imo, there’s something else going on here. maybe some weird kind of defense mechanism because we personally identify as Democrats and therefore see nader and his supporters as the enemy.

and you know… the future is always uncertain…

………

does that help?

one more idea that may be helpful… is one i learned from doing actions at the ftaa and the rnc.

when lots of people get together to act, there’s going to be a lot of different views on the best tactics. so what do you do? how does a large and diverse group act together is that kind of setting?

well, what i found, and liked, was the idea of ally solidarity. for me that means that my allies are those who share my values, and i will work in solidarity with people who’s tactics are very different than my own – so long as the means used are not, imo, immoral. i can disagree with the tactics, i can refuse to participate – but i will support my allies to take part in those actions – so long i don’t think the means they use are immoral.

i just don’t think voting for nader in 2000 was an immoral act.

i can see why people may think it was stupid and counterproductive (although i’m not completely convinced of that).

not sure there’s any more i can say that would explain where i’m trying to come from… but if you like, ask me more questions on a later thread… and i’d like to know more about what you are thinking.

thanks for the discussion.

” Piling on Nader takes away from the real causes of these defeats and therefore moves us away from effecting the reforms needed to make sure they don’t happen again.
——
i strongly agree with this point.

it’s fun, but not helpful.”

I agree with the above as well. Plus the Dems blurred the distinction with the Repugs in a lot of ways (corporate influence, business-oriented, NAFTA, et. al) so it wasn’t too much of a stretch for Nader to say that there wasn’t any difference between Dems and Repugs. We (Dems) created a situation where the self-serving Nader could get some traction. With Obama’s netroots-based funding, we may have a way to fight that perception. Plus the Repugs have mucked it up so much that there’s a clear difference this time. But we have to make sure that we’re electing progressive Democrats, not Repug-lite (like Harold Ford, Lieberman, etc.)

Voting for Nader in 2008 is like loading a .44 mag, and blowing your foot off.

IF you want to say “President McBush,” vote for Nader. EOT.

“It didn’t work because Bush forgot to mention that the terrorists were gay. The Republics will not making that same mistake this year.“

And want to be married. And move in next door to take your gun away.

And want to invite your children over to help them burn an American flag while they pray to Allah.

Yeah, I think we’ve seen that page of the Republican playbook before.

i’d rather have republican money going to nader than going to mccain.

Great point!

According to Ralph, there was no difference between the Reps and Dems in 2000 and there is no difference between the two parties today …

Nader is very simply and completely wrong and to be wrong on such an issue completely disqualifies him from ever being president or dogcatcher.

We need more political parties, not less. And the fact we have a good shot at winning this year doesn’t change that.

We have a winner-take-all electoral system. To split up either the Left or Right into various parties would be like unilateral disarmament against the Republicans. The Left parties would never unite and never have enough to defeat Republicans EVER. There’s only room for two parties (Left and Right, Democrats and Republicans).

Our side needs to be about expanding involvement in the political process, not contracting it. And then set out on a course that inspires people to vote for our candidates.

We can expand involvement if we fix the system to enable a wider range of candidates to be able to compete and win. The Internet is helping on that score. Inspiration can come from many sources as Reagan and FDR indicate. It has nothing to do with the number of parties. Improving the system might inspire more confidence and more participation.

How about we decide whether we should have winner-take-all or proportional delegate selection primaries for the Democratic party and make that national instead of the crazy hodgepodge we have today? Look at our present situation: Hillary needs to catch up and could win some large states, but they have proportional delegate selection, so it hardly matters.

How about we get rid of caucuses which enable peer pressure and silliness? The PBS show of the Iowa caucus really was upsetting. That’s not a good way to decide who should win.

How about we get rid of electronic voting machines, so people will actually know their votes are recorded correctly and counted correctly. That way they won’t feel their time spent in line isn’t wasted.

Getting more Internet involvement of roots will probably shift our party’s elected officials a bit to the Left, so that might bring more responsive government. The Pelosi/Obama initiative to put more of government on the net for everyone to see and comment on could be really terrific. I seem to remember a story about the mayor of Baltimore doing the same and the city of New York doing something like that. Apparently it worked for them and we definitely need more transparency and ‘inside’ information about the federal government’s activities.

We don’t need ‘3rd parties’ to improve things.

Until meaningful campaign finance reform is passed, and flying pigs deliver snowballs to Hades, the Dems will remain just as corporatist and conservative as the Republicans on the important issues.

Howard Dean started the ball rolling and it’s going to continue. Raising money from more individuals via the net is going to decrease the hold corporate money has on campaigns.

The real roadblock of increasing prices for political ads in the media (t.v., newspapers, radio, magazines) might also decrease as the Internet becomes a more major pipeline for entertainment, news and political discussion. The more people shift away from traditional media which costs $$$$$$ the more there’s a chance for low-cost advertising for campaigns. That would open the door for many more candidates who previously couldn’t even begin to think about running for office.