Nader says Primary Challenger will Steer Debate in the Correct Direction

Nader if a fucking turd, fuck that asshole and the mess he caused us when he could not get enough money from Bush. He sold us all out.

You are full of fucking feces you disgusting slime!!!!

You don't even know what the goddamn fuckin' fuck you are fuckin' talking about piece of smelly shit.

Why don't you fuckin' crawl into an outhouse and smother yourself in pee-pee and poo-poo until you are dead.

Oh wait, make that radioactive pee-pee and poo-poo because that's probably the kind you fuckin' like if you think Nader is such a villian you dumb-ass dumb-fuck!!!

RIGHT ON EMILEZ !!! LOVE YOUR MIND!!!

"CONSERVADEMS"!

Yes, cheeta1. It was those conservadems who sabotaged the dem majority in congress, just passed.

But how, do your tell the real progressive dems from those merely wearing the veil?

So essentially you wasted your vote. Like it or not a democrat or a republican is going to win the presidency. Voting for a third party candidate is just stupid. Pick the better of the two evils and hope for the best. I would have thought people like you would have learnt the first time during Gore Vs. Bush that voting for third party candidates can backfire in the worst possible way.

That isn't always true. I live in kansas, so voting for a democrat here would be a wasted vote because the state will never go blue in a national election. Heck, it is also a waste to vote republican, as you already know that person will win the state. If you vote for a 3rd party candidate, at least it bumps up their rating and if they get 5% of the national vote they are eligable to receive public campaign funding.

One who votes for who he or she truly wants to represent them does not waste his or her vote. One who is convinced through fear into voting for someone they don't really want to vote for has wasted his or her vote.

I can see now that I'm going to need to put together a corporate blog ownership list......just for my own reference.

I don't mind reading stories from corporate-owned blogs, but it is handy to know who's connected to who and what biases might be in the story or selection process.

How is politico right wing? Wasn't it started by Dems who used to work for the Washington Post?

I would like to sell her a blog. I need money . She seems kind of right wing to me . Because it seems to me she avoids takeing stands journalists should take.

Great comment. ^'d

If Obama has republican policies then why are the republicans opposing him? You make no sense.

Nader is smart but his alligance is to himself, his conversation only continues to divide the progresives and non republicans; his time was over when he torpedoed the 2000 and 2004 elections. He helped bring this terrible economic collapse, the attack on medicare, yea he is taking money from the right wing. His paid job is to divide the people over a stupid position like abortion and you still listen because you can't see that this problem is bigger then one group. If like minded people don't stick together we will fall, divided fighting over little battles instead of wining the war first. We all want a progresive goverment but Nader wants us to remain divided, he is a hired gun for the right wing; judge him by his actions not what he says!

I'm happy to see people voted up your comment. When I say things like that I often get voted down for it. Perhaps I am too blunt, or perhaps the left is too sensitive because of all of the baseless attacks against Obama from the right? I don't know... Anyway, I agree with you. Voted up.

To make people on the left support him even though Obama is not really a liberal? I'm not sure, but don't forget that the attacks from the right are crazy nuts and it's probably a bad idea to use it as a benchmark for anything in reality.

A solid progressive candidate would be wacked to death . If we want democracy realize it will not come by changeing butts on the musical chairs in Washington. All the butts get bought or butchered. Yes I am bitter. Everyone should be bitter. If I was elected I would do the correct thing with fearless contempt and disreguard for the evil that would be planning to kill me. And I would die happy if the next guy in office would be the same as me . Angry and progressive. Persevere. Find a way. CARPE DIUM ! X MARINE

You should be informed that big money likes to fix fights. And where would the drama and the money come from if you did not advertize and promote the BIG FIGHT as if it might have an uncertain outcome.

Only an ignorant person would blame Nader for Bush.

Well then I must be one ignorant fuck because I most assuredly DO blame Nader for the Shrub. I had great admiration for the man prior to 2000. Now I can't stand the sight of him.

You don't think the Democratic Party shares any of the blame?

Sure I do... As I also believe the Supreme Court bears much of the blame... And Al Gore and some of his attorneys at the time bear some as well... The republicunts, the shrub & his brother Jeb.. That bitch Katherine Harris... And the list can go on and on... But Nader was the catalyst for all of this to take place... If he would have stepped back from his enormous ego for just two fkn seconds then the right would not have had all the variables necessary to pull off the stunt that overthrew the will of the people.

First, I voted your primary comment in this specific thread down. Yes, it was I.

Second, I suggest that you watch a documentary titled, "An Unreasonable Man." Yes, the movie is about Ralph Nader... No, it does not really say that he was at fault or not at the end of the movie, it lets you decide for yourself.

I would like to point out though that Nader was a scape goat for Bush's "victory" in a number of ways.

1) The number of votes that Gore "lost" by could have been made up if any single one of all of the liberal third party candidates dropped from the race. Nader happened to have the most votes of the third party candidates, but if any one would have dropped out then those votes would have almost certainly gone to Gore and the difference would have been enough for Gore to win. The only reason why people are so upset and are blaming Nader for Gore's "loss" is because Nader, having the most votes of the third party candidates, was a convenient target.

2) Despite the fact that Bush was our "elected" president for eight years, he initially did not win the popular vote, Gore did. However, because we continue to use an outdated system to count votes, the electoral college, instead of just counting every single vote as a single vote, Bush "won."

3) Bush "won" the 2000 election by the skin of his teeth, in a state governed by his brother, where thousands of ballots were discarded because of the issue with hanging chads. On top of that, the National Supreme court voted 5-4 along party lines to discontinue the Florida recounts and proclaim Bush the victor of the 2000 presidential election. It also did not hurt that Bush's first cousin, who was a FOX News analysis, called FOX and reported that there was a clear winner long before the votes in Florida were even tallied up. Unfortunately, news is news when it is fresh, and the other news agencies ran with the initial report of FOX, creating a public image that Bush had won the election, even though he had not, that was incredibly difficult to overthrow.

4) Given the legitimate questions of potential voter fraud in the favor of Bush, what in the blue fuck makes you think that if Nader had resigned from the election, that Bush's team would not have pulled some further bullshit to rig the election to make up for those votes that would then be going to Gore?

You have not said a single thing of which I am not already aware... I not only have seen "Ralph Nader: An Unreasonable Man," but I own it. I have also listened to Nader's arguments as to why he stayed in the race. My opinion of him remains... I'd suggest you review my post just preceding this one, which appears to have overlapped with your diatribe against me and your voting me "down". That's cool though, I voted your response "up".

Keep up the fight. My opinion of Nader is not a fight that is important to me... Yet unlikely, all the same, to be changed.

His ego? If he had just put his ego aside and not ran...the same could be said of Bush and Gore.If they had just stepped back from their egos Nader would be President.

See how silly that sounds? The people responsible for Bush's second term are the voters and no one elses.

Ok, I acknowledge that I wrote a bunch of stuff that was redundant in retrospect. The thing is though, all politicians have an ego that is comparable to what Nader presented. It is part of being a politician. Blaming him for that seems akin to blaming the coyote for eating your rabbits when a proper fence was never put up to protect the rabbits.

I was not speaking of the Shrub's second term... Nader did not run in the 2004 election... He ran in the 2000 election. And the difference between Nader, Bush, and Gore is that Nader knew good and god damned well that he didn't have a chance in hell of actually winning the election... Not even a snow ball's chance in hell... That, for me has all kinds of implications... Now he is coming back around and suggesting further disastrous approaches to the 2012 election! There is FAR too much at stake to have a primary challenger to the sitting democratic president... And he would suggest giving the election to the republicans which is what would surely happen.

Argue it anyway you want to... Thing is that this is an old battle, and does not need to be refought... You have your opinion, I retain mine...

I guess you subscribe to the false idea bush won the election.He didn't.It was proven.He didn't win in 2004 either.

Well, then you would be guessing wrong. Bush stole both elections. It was a disgusting travesty of democracy... and we, the American people, stood by and let it happen...

Sure they do... but that doesn't mean that I have to like it. For me, politics also has a pragmatic component... obviously one can argue the benefits and the downsides of this... but, we have a two party system... and we have urgent issues that are being pressed from a well oiled and sinister machine... i don't have the patience to attend to Nader's particular ego when all he can be, at best, is a fly in the ointment, so to speak...

Is Obama perfect? No. But, i'd prefer him over any republicunt out there... have you been watching the news recently? From one end of this country to the other those crazies are tearing down and dismantling everything--and i do mean EVERYTHING--that we have fought so hard for over the past 80 years.

Obama does not have an easy job. But, he is doing a fairly good one by me... i'd give him a 7 out of 10, maybe a 7.5 on a good day. There are times when i'm mad as hell at him... and other times when my heart swells with pride that he is our president. i felt the same way about Clinton... but would give him no higher marks than Obama... and while i was too young to vote for Carter... what i do recall of him, and have read and watched since, i would give him a solid 8 out of 10. What i mean by this is that our democratic president is the president of the entire nation... i will not always like what he does... and i will have a few things that i disagree with him on... but, i am old enough, and wise enough, to see the options available... and they ain't that sweet...

So, in terms of holding Obama's feet to the fire... damn straight, we should most certainly do that, but ... i think it is best that we not jump from the kettle into the fire as well--or drop him into it... sure, hold him accountable... but, never forget what is at stake. i will most assuredly vote for Obama in 2012. On the other hand, i will not be donating much to his re-election campaign because there are some things that i'm pretty disappointed in him over... and that is how i will show my displeasure... but when the time comes, i will march into the voting booth and cast my ballot for Barak Obama... just as i will continue to drive around with the Obama/Biden sticker on my cars bumper.

I completely agree with you in regards to Obama, I just think that holding one guy responsible for doing what should be natural in the (as honest as it can get) business of politics is akin to scapegoating. Sure, you can be mad at him, but when it comes down to it the election results would very likely have been the same had he dropped out (meaning that an illegal ruling would have decided the outcome of the election after a potential case of voter disenfranchisement).

Also, though I admit that we have a two party system, I personally think it is a Goddamn Greek tragedy that we primarily have a two party system. I am of the opinion that we need a lot more political diversity (serious diversity mind you, not this bullshit like the teabaggers) partially to bring new ideas and concepts to the table but also because I think that there would be a lot more meetings on a middle ground if two teams were not pulling the proverbial rope from polar opposite ends.

Then the question would have to be whether you honestly believe that Obama's having a primary challenger in 2012 will get us to that multiple party system you desire?

If you believe that it will... Then, hey, follow your beliefs.

If, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as I have, that such would be counterproductive and lead to only further entrenchment of the Teabaggers and the republicons then following Nader down the path of pushing for a primary challenger would be quite foolish indeed.

It is not like Obama is not already taking heat from all sides, and as the political season heats up... It is not like the temperature is going to be reduced on him.

We Dems can be our own worst enemy sometimes, which is pretty fkn sad, given what's at stake and the encroachments the right is making on long held bastions--liberal advances that have provided the underpinnings of us becoming the greatest nation on earth.

No that's not quite true. If Nader was not in the race Bush would be nothing more than a memory instead of a nightmare.

I watched that documentary and I still blame Nader. It was his ego. He made his statement but that wasn't enough, people knew the race was close and even asked him to step aside but he refused. It was Nader's ego that gave us Bush, deal with it.

Then by all means keep doing what you're doing and keep getting what you're getting.

Very well said Gene. I too agree that the stakes are too high to primary the President and I was around when Carter was primaried. He was a man ahead of his time, he tried to reduce America dependence on oil. If people had listened to him back then we wouldn't have to worry about what the price of gas will be tomorrow.

Another question to ask is who currently in the Democratic party is qualified to run against him right now? Not Hillary, she is happy where she is and says she does not plan to run again. So to primarying him for the sake of holding him accountable weakens him and hurts the Democratic party.

I too haven't like everything he has done. But also being pragmatic know that there isn't one President in American history that did everything everyone like or accomplished everything they campaigned on, because realty hits when you have to lead. Especially under these circumstances, with the opposition he is up against. He has actually done a lot more than people have given him credit for, you just don't hear the positive things he's done, just the negative.

I blame the MSM for alot of this. Just take this whole issue with Trump. As soon as he opens his slimeball mouth the press are all over him. It is absolutely disgusting why the media is covering him and the royal wedding rather than the difference between Ryan's budget and the President's budget or even the People's budget. We also have the debt ceiling hanging over our heads as well, and instead of reporting on these very important issues, they cover fluff and lies.

Now is the time for the Democratic Party to unite and fight these new GOPers who want to take the country back to the 1800s.

Crooked politics and a Federal Supreme Court decision that should not have happened gave us Bush. Gore won the election, whether or not Nader would have backed out. Had Nader dropped, more hanging chads would have been conveniently "discovered," and we would be talking about how some other third party candidate should have dropped their political run for the presidency rather than actually addressing the issue that Bush stole the election.

Hey, I voted for Gore, and if I had to vote in the 2000 election again, I would still vote for Gore. But I'm not going to be pissed at one guy who was running for president when he was a single, and in all reality an insignificant factor, in the outcome of the 2000 election when there were a lot of very important factors for Bush coming from Bush's side. On the whole, I blame Bush, not for winning the election, but for stealing it.

If you're going to vote me down, don't be a pussy (not directed at GeneSurber or anyone in particular, I'm just commenting to whomever likes to vote other people down without presenting your own opinion). Stick up for your opinion and actually claim the action.

I feel that the DNC is republican. It is far to the right by my standards. I oppose selouts and fakers . If you are not ready to die to set humanity on a commonsence road to mutual assured prosperity and progress in science and exploration while protecting the integretty of our planet's life support systems then you are ripe to be bought and plucked from the tree of life and crushed like a cool juicey plum. Most dem candidates look like easy plums to me. While most rebublican candidates look like prunes. And most if not all republican officeholders look like old baked prunes. X MARINE If you want a liveable future for humani ty prepare to fight a real fight for it. And when you vote support someone who will damn the torpedos and move straight ahead with a people's agenda.

You win the thread for the moment . But consider that all our candidates since Carter have been to easy ready to give up everything to republicans on demand. We need better candidates.

Election fraud by big money interests.

How do you hold his feet to the fire without threatening his reelection? I'm game for some ideas if you got them.

Well said.

You keep letting him know what your not happy about, you put pressure on him by protesting. But remember he cannot do this alone. You have to make sure that the people you vote into the Congress and Senate are progressive. He was dealt the biggest mess this country has even been in except maybe for the Great Depression. Did he get help from the Republicans in trying to solve these problems? No, instead they have spent his whole presidency so far trying to vilifying him and block everything he has tried to do. Then he gets blamed for everything that happens. And progressives who think that he has given too much away need to remember the country is a melting pot of ideologies and no one will ever get everything they want. But to claim that he is selling out to Republicans is wrong on so many levels. Just because he is willing to compromise when no one else is, shows me that he is the only grown-up in the room.

Thank you.

Forget his feet. Go for the people around him who push in the wrong directions . Push back. Clear the field. Hold the ground at all cost. Give him room to decide to be on the side of the humans. AAAUUUGGGHHHAAAA !!!!!!

The republicans are not allowed to act in good faith . Thier masters will not tollerate it. With out that good faith you cannot make any honest deals . You can only be tactical in this situation. He did better than I thought he could. Better then I thought anyone could. But we are still speeding down the slippery slope to hell. So we better get something done.