There is no other reasonable explanation, Ralph Nader is a rabid NeoCon.
I really really hope that he gets hit by a bus, thus ending his campaign to destroy the US and everybody that we'll take down with us.
Seriously, if this guy thinks that running will help advance the causes he purports to believe in, than he is so stupid that it is indistinguishable from malice. Not surprisingly, his running mate is Matt Gonzalez, another guy who is so stupidly, zealously liberal that he is shooting himself and everybody else in the head. Liberal isn't even the right word for it, being liberal is a good thing, these guys are just fucking zealot asshats. Like all zealot asshats, they need to go.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I'm glad your blog is back. Have I mentioned how we should hang out?
Sometimes it seems to me that liberalism is partially about individuality and ego, while conservatism is about authority and conformity.
This is why the right fell in behind John McCain (even though he's a tad too liberal for the bunch) but the left squabbles amongst themselves until the bitter end, with Nader making things totally hopeless.
I'm a Berkeley/Santa Cruz guy, of course I like the liberals. But the republicans are organized, and you gotta respect that. We could use some decent organization and god ol' fashioned browbeating on the left: I'm thinking if as little as 3% defect to Nader, we're fucked. We should start shooting people.
I am very proud of the fact that I have ALWAYS hated Nader.
And Jeff, if the Democrats became more like Republicans, then they would BE republicans. Read "Don't think of an elephant". Lots of people smarter than us have done much analsis on the topic.
I find that oversimplistic. You can be more organized and disciplined in your approach without changing your views and policies.
Josh is exactly right. The problem is that Democrats have started behaving like Republicans. Hillary Clinton is a perfect case in point. She has been running a campaign straight out of the Karl Rove text book, and it is disgusting.
The Democrats as a party have shifted significantly towards the right over the past couple of decades in a depraved attempt at marketing themselves to more conservative voters, and they've largely gotten themselves to the point where people go "why would I vote Democrat, when I can vote Republican and get the real thing?". Which they have in droves.
This election is the first real chance that we've had in a long long time to change the tenor and overall direction of the Democratic party.
Besides, it is actually a good thing to have a diversity of opinion, operating like the Borg is not a good way to lead.
Well the American political system is arranged to push both parties towards the middle. That places rightward pressure on the Democrats and leftward pressure on the Republicans. That's why you have McCain as the Republican front runner, and that's why you had the first Clinton. What kind of Democrat signs NAFTA into office? The guy was pretty right-wing for a Democrat.
The second Clinton campaign is formulaic, it's true. Hillary's strategy is all about recycling stuff that works. Let's take the Clinton name, merge it with Karl Rove strategy, and throw in a woman to appease the liberals. It's synthesis, and it's falling flat against Obama, who is formulaic too, but he's tapping into a reserve of idealism, charisma, and sex appeal which hasn't been tapped in Politics for a loooong time.
Since we're talking about Nader, let's not talk Democrats and Republicans. It's about the Right and the Left. The Right is organized. The Left is tearing each other to shreds. In a nailbiter between Obama and McCain, Nader is going to tip it to McCain, absolutely.
The defining problem of the left is, do you want to be right, or do you want to win?
I kinda prefer winning. Which is why someone ought to get Nader whacked, Sopranos style.
By the way, I think I said at one point on another blog (was it Nathan's?) that I supported Hillary.
That was before she disclosed that she's incapable of distinguishing little girls reading poetry from dodging sniper fire. I switched at that point. Just, you know, FYI.
Just cuz I say something in a few words does not mean it is simple. The entire structure of the republican party and the conservative movement is based on a top down, daddy knows best. Which is good for organization. Liberal ideals tend more towards people have the right to there own opinions. Which makes them argue. And regardless of what we see on TV it is a GOOD thing that they are arguing. This is called "Competition" say it after me "Competition"
Using a lot of words does not make me any smarter, or more correct.
P.S. Never change you political leanings based on a news outrage. Base your political standings on what people DO, not what they SAY.
Josh, you're not the first person to argue that lots of debate in a public forum is desired. I agree too. So did Machiavelli, who basically wrote as much in his Discourses. I think the Hillary/Obama campaign is fantastic. But I think Nader should be shot.
I am basing my decision based on what Hillary DID. Because SAYING is, actually, something politicians do a LOT of. All politicians lie. But some of them do it more poorly than others.
That's what I said the first time, but you called it simple.
What I thought was simple was the idea that if the liberals were more organized, they'd suddenly become Republicans.
Which is obviously not true (that it is simple) as evidence of the winding around and back to that we have gone.
And nobody (well I guess you did) said "suddenly".
The circular discussion might have nothing to do with the simplicity of the idea, and a lot more to do with this great phenomenon: None of us is as dumb as all of us!
Slight detour but Nader was NOT responsible for making cars safer like everybody think, that was one John Paul Stapp, M.D., Ph.D., Colonel, USAF. All Nader did was take credit for other peoples work and make cars the same.
I just spent a few minutes reading about Dr. Stapp. Fascinating dude. Coined Murphy's Law AND his Ironical Paradox. Brilliant.
I suspect Nader's advocacy was instrumental in applying Stapp's work to civilian life and getting the right bills signed.
Which kinda comes back to Hillary Clinton's point a few months ago about how a lot of people are instrumental to pivotal times like the 60s, even people like LBJ (who signed the bill Stapp and Nader stood by).
Anyway... Nader wrote a great book and did some stuff in the 60s of good note. That doesn't mean he'd be a good president. I'd rather vote for Jerry Brown.
Post a Comment