Hell Hath No Fury Like a Modern Liberal

Abookamongstthemany

Warning: Opinion piece ahead. If you can't handle other people's opinions without foaming at the mouth, please exit to the right.

http://counterpunch.org/colby02262008.html



Hell Hath No Fury Like a Modern Liberal
Ralph Nader vs. the Fundamentalist Liberals
By MICHAEL COLBY

We live in scary times. And no one scares me more than the faux-liberals of today. They are a most intolerant mob that has become so dislodged from logic that they'd rather gaze reverently at the false packaging of hope than seriously contemplate the issues of the day. They love bandwagons and hate activism. They strive for insular popularity while trampling the populace. And, in the true spirit of fundamentalism, they loathe dissent and flog the dissenter with the kind of glee that is seemingly borrowed from Jimmy Swaggart's beating of the ungodly unbelievers.

Oh yeah, hell hath no fury hot enough for the fool who holds a mirror up to the nonsense of modern liberalism. Just ask Ralph Nader.

Nader, as we all know by now, committed the horror of horrors in the eyes of the liberal fundamentalists Sunday by announcing--gasp!--that he's exercising his Constitutional rights by throwing his hat in the ring of presidential politics. But, given the reaction from the rather slovenly liberal not-so-intelligencia, you'd think that he announced that he wants to suspend the Constitution and, instead, fly planes into tall buildings.

My goodness, imagine if all this liberal bluster was saved for things like taking it to the streets and stopping the war, or demanding universal health care, or cracking down on the subprime criminals on Wall Street, or impeaching the president who has brought us all of these not-so-nice policies. But that would require real action. And the fundamentalist liberals don't have time for action--just rhetoric, blame and all the Obama Kool-Aid they can fill their confused kidneys with. It's easier that way.

Remember, it's these same liberal fundamentalists who have time after time denigrated the anti-war crowd for "going too far," much as they've also wagged their blogging fingers at those who dared to demand real solutions to health care, tax injustice, workers' rights, the Bush debacle (impeachment) and energy policy.

Sadly, it's a symptom of the fundamentalist liberals that is becoming all too familiar: They don't believe their own rhetoric. How else can you explain their rabid condemnation of Bush AND the condemnation of the impeachment movement? Or their understandable yelps against the current health care crisis but their seeming acceptance of the nonsensical "solution" being rhetorically weaved by Obama/Clinton? Or their preaching of tolerance but their vile invectives toward a man's right to speak and/or seek office? If Nader's right to seek office can be so easily ridiculed, where will they stop? Sorry, but that's not the liberalism I studied.

Worse, my perusal of the myopic blogging universe has revealed that most liberal commenters blasting Nader's announcement have almost completely ignored the issues that Nader has cited in announcing his candidacy. Remember, Nader made it clear that he wasn't going to run if someone like Edwards was going to be the Democratic nominee because he saw eye-to-eye with Edwards on things like health care, reining in corporate control of our democracy, stopping the war immediately and demanding workers' rights now--not tomorrow after all the jobs have been effectively shipped to China. But the good liberal fundamentalists didn't choose the substance of Edwards, instead choosing either the "hope" of Obama or the same old shit of Clinton. And so Nader moved to fill a rather large void in the issue spectrum.

Nader did NOT say on Sunday that there was "no difference" between the Democrats and the Republicans, as many liberals are trying to say he said. Instead, he said there was a difference, just as there is a difference between the Obama/Clinton positions and his positions. And then he went on to articulate those differences, just as he's done on his website (http://www.votenader.org).

It's sadly comical to me to see the fundie liberals bash Nader while he's calling for universal health care but give Obama a pass for leaving more than 15 million Americans uninsured in his so-called solution. Or bash Nader for his role in "causing" the Iraq war but giving Clinton--and a majority of her Dem colleagues -- a pass for actually voting for it. Or blaming Nader for the entirety of the Bush years while refusing to acknowledge the real blame that rests at the feet of the fundamentalist Dems who have done little but play along for eight years--remember, it was only ONE Dem (Feingold) who opposed the Patriot Act.

For the Dems, the solution to the Nader candidacy is not to call for a repugnant and chilling rebuke of his Constitutional rights but to strengthen their own issue resolve so that the Nader option wouldn't be necessary. But they're refusing to do so, instead zeroing in on a candidate--Obama--who is mostly hype and hope and very, very little substance or resume. It's Obama--not Nader--who is in bed with the nuclear industry and its lobbyists. It's Obama--not Nader--who won't say a peep about reining in Wall Street. It's Obama--not Nader--who won't promote universal health care. It's Obama--not Nader--who won't even mention the Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians. And it's Obama--not Nader--who doesn't have a track record for standing up and speaking up even when it's not very popular to do so.

Earth to the liberal fundies: Skip the Kool-Aid, try the reality sandwich.

And thanks for offering a necessary option, Ralph.

Michael Colby is the editor of Broadsides.org and can be contacted via mcolby@broadsides.org.

soulsinging

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

My goodness, imagine if all this liberal bluster was saved for things like taking it to the streets and stopping the war,

most americans, liberals included, initially supported the war. this is where nader supporters are out of step with mainstream america. most americans feel war is occasionally necessary and are fine with afghanistan or other "just" wars. it is only after iraq was exposed as a nightmarish blunder that liberals turned on it.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

or demanding universal health care,

i think even many mainstream liberals are skeptical of the government's ability to administer such a program and are concerned about where we'd get the money.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

or cracking down on the subprime criminals on Wall Street,

most people would agree this is a good idea, but few people can agree on how to do it. i've never heard nader propose a comprehensive scheme to address corporate crime, just say that he opposes it.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

or impeaching the president who has brought us all of these not-so-nice policies.

mainstream liberals feel this is a waste of time. i agree. plus, i think most feel that despite bush's gross incompetence, they're not sure he's done anything illegal and they certainly can't prove it. im in the latter camp. bush is a puppet and i think he was as much duped by cheney as we were. impeaching him serves no purpose.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Worse, my perusal of the myopic blogging universe has revealed that most liberal commenters blasting Nader's announcement have almost completely ignored the issues that Nader has cited in announcing his candidacy. Remember, Nader made it clear that he wasn't going to run if someone like Edwards was going to be the Democratic nominee because he saw eye-to-eye with Edwards on things like health care, reining in corporate control of our democracy, stopping the war immediately and demanding workers' rights now--not tomorrow after all the jobs have been effectively shipped to China. But the good liberal fundamentalists didn't choose the substance of Edwards, instead choosing either the "hope" of Obama or the same old shit of Clinton. And so Nader moved to fill a rather large void in the issue spectrum.

im with nader on this one. i was an edwards supporter all the way. i ended up not voting in the primaries becos he withdrew before he reached my state :( and he would have destroyed mccain with enough room for nader to get 10%

Abookamongstthemany

soulsinging wrote:

most americans, liberals included, initially supported the war. this is where nader supporters are out of step with mainstream america. most americans feel war is occasionally necessary and are fine with afghanistan or other "just" wars. it is only after iraq was exposed as a nightmarish blunder that liberals turned on it.



i think even many mainstream liberals are skeptical of the government's ability to administer such a program and are concerned about where we'd get the money.



most people would agree this is a good idea, but few people can agree on how to do it. i've never heard nader propose a comprehensive scheme to address corporate crime, just say that he opposes it.



mainstream liberals feel this is a waste of time. i agree. plus, i think most feel that despite bush's gross incompetence, they're not sure he's done anything illegal and they certainly can't prove it. im in the latter camp. bush is a puppet and i think he was as much duped by cheney as we were. impeaching him serves no purpose.



im with nader on this one. i was an edwards supporter all the way. i ended up not voting in the primaries becos he withdrew before he reached my state :( and he would have destroyed mccain with enough room for nader to get 10%

Ugh, soulsinging. I'm am not going to sit here and debate what 'mainstream' anybody wants when it's all spectculation based on media reports and unreliable polls which all contradict each other anyway....and we have no way of objectively knowing what issues are important to who. If you want to disagree and say how it isn't your view of how things could work, fine. But try not to speak for everyone else.

soulsinging

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Ugh, soulsinging. I'm am not going to sit here and debate what 'mainstream' anybody wants when it's all spectculation based on media reports and unreliable polls which all contradict each other anyway....and we have no way of objectively knowing what issues are important to who. If you want to disagree and say how it isn't your view of how things could work, fine. But try not to speak for everyone else.

you have better reports than polls? polls are not always as unreliable as you think. nader is out of step with america.

that still does not justify the outrage at him running. i never said he shouldn't or couldn't run. just said people ought to be sure they're voting for him or anyone else for the right reasons. the writer has a good point that it is ridiculous that liberals are upset about this. i just think the article is wrong in acting like there is some huge liberal consensus on the issues that only nader represents, and anyone who votes for obama is some sort of hypocrite or lazy liberal. it's the same sort of politicking that occurs on the right when the republicans run right to get the evangelical base. it's a powerful bloc, but it isnt necessarily representative.

Abookamongstthemany

soulsinging wrote:

you have better reports than polls? polls are not always as unreliable as you think. nader is out of step with america.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. I'm pretty sure I've seen you address how moronic it is to base your opinion on polls. And how they are unreliable. They are, afterall, brought to us most often by major news networks. You seem to think you have a finger on the pulse of what everyone wants...yet I see you at odds with people here(as in the entire pit) very often. And I am too, of course....but not enough to come close to rivalling you.

soulsinging wrote:

that still does not justify the outrage at him running. i never said he shouldn't or couldn't run. just said people ought to be sure they're voting for him or anyone else for the right reasons. the writer has a good point that it is ridiculous that liberals are upset about this. i just think the article is wrong in acting like there is some huge liberal consensus on the issues that only nader represents, and anyone who votes for obama is some sort of hypocrite or lazy liberal. it's the same sort of politicking that occurs on the right when the republicans run right to get the evangelical base. it's a powerful bloc, but it isnt necessarily representative.

There probably isn't some 'huge liberal consensus' that all agree with everything Nader says. But I definitely view his platform as the closest to truly representing the issues the left take on and care about. And I see him taking on issues the other guys continuously ignore (these being the issues that keep people like me from supporting a person like Obama). I think the author did have some strong points about issues that libs couldn't scream enough about when it was Bush they were wailing against but now suddenly have became much more open minded towards these things when they see them in their own man. I'm not going to claim I can somehow magically know what truly represents us as a whole. I'm just arguing the things liberals traditionally take on here and elsewhere...when it's not election year.

soulsinging

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. I'm pretty sure I've seen you address how moronic it is to base your opinion on polls. And how they are unreliable. They are, afterall, brought to us most often by major news networks. You seem to think you have a finger on the pulse of what everyone wants...yet I see you at odds with people here(as in the entire pit) very often. And I am too, of course....but not enough to come close to rivalling you.

where have i said anything like that about polls? im being accused of making rude generalizations more times than i can count. the closest i ever came was saying people shouldn't get swept up in bandwagons. i have great faith in sociological survey methods, including polls.

the reason i am at odds with people here so often is becos 1) the pit and pearl jam fanbase generally tend to be VERY far left and 2) im not a blind ideologue and see the ridiculousness of the ideologues on both sides. liberal utopia is as ridiculous as the people on the right who believe we'd have a golden age if we just enacted the bible. im a centrist. most centrists stay out of the train becos the extremists on both sides that form a plurality on here scare and browbeat them.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

There probably isn't some 'huge liberal consensus' that all agree with everything Nader says. But I definitely view his platform as the closest to truly representing the issues the left take on and care about. And I see him taking on issues the other guys continuously ignore (these being the issues that keep people like me from supporting a person like Obama). I think the author did have some strong points about issues that libs couldn't scream enough about when it was Bush they were wailing against but now suddenly have became much more open minded towards these things when they see them in their own man. I'm not going to claim I can somehow magically know what truly represents us as a whole. I'm just arguing the things liberals traditionally take on here and elsewhere...when it's not election year.

this is why i say nader is out of step. it's a basic bell curve. the vast majority of americans fall in the middle 85% or so of political views and don't care for either extreme. even then i would say the curve is skewed just by the sheer numbers of the hard right evangelical vote. the "left" in america is much more moderate than the left as you envision it. that middle section is not separated by much aside from a level of faith in government's ability to fix social problems or what problems it should be fixing. but a "hard left" platform like nader has is no more acceptable to the majority of americans than a hard right one would be.

my2hands

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Warning: Opinion piece ahead. If you can't handle other people's opinions without foaming at the mouth, please exit to the right.

http://counterpunch.org/colby02262008.html



Hell Hath No Fury Like a Modern Liberal
Ralph Nader vs. the Fundamentalist Liberals
By MICHAEL COLBY

We live in scary times. And no one scares me more than the faux-liberals of today. They are a most intolerant mob that has become so dislodged from logic that they'd rather gaze reverently at the false packaging of hope than seriously contemplate the issues of the day. They love bandwagons and hate activism. They strive for insular popularity while trampling the populace. And, in the true spirit of fundamentalism, they loathe dissent and flog the dissenter with the kind of glee that is seemingly borrowed from Jimmy Swaggart's beating of the ungodly unbelievers.

Oh yeah, hell hath no fury hot enough for the fool who holds a mirror up to the nonsense of modern liberalism. Just ask Ralph Nader.

Nader, as we all know by now, committed the horror of horrors in the eyes of the liberal fundamentalists Sunday by announcing--gasp!--that he's exercising his Constitutional rights by throwing his hat in the ring of presidential politics. But, given the reaction from the rather slovenly liberal not-so-intelligencia, you'd think that he announced that he wants to suspend the Constitution and, instead, fly planes into tall buildings.

My goodness, imagine if all this liberal bluster was saved for things like taking it to the streets and stopping the war, or demanding universal health care, or cracking down on the subprime criminals on Wall Street, or impeaching the president who has brought us all of these not-so-nice policies. But that would require real action. And the fundamentalist liberals don't have time for action--just rhetoric, blame and all the Obama Kool-Aid they can fill their confused kidneys with. It's easier that way.

Remember, it's these same liberal fundamentalists who have time after time denigrated the anti-war crowd for "going too far," much as they've also wagged their blogging fingers at those who dared to demand real solutions to health care, tax injustice, workers' rights, the Bush debacle (impeachment) and energy policy.

Sadly, it's a symptom of the fundamentalist liberals that is becoming all too familiar: They don't believe their own rhetoric. How else can you explain their rabid condemnation of Bush AND the condemnation of the impeachment movement? Or their understandable yelps against the current health care crisis but their seeming acceptance of the nonsensical "solution" being rhetorically weaved by Obama/Clinton? Or their preaching of tolerance but their vile invectives toward a man's right to speak and/or seek office? If Nader's right to seek office can be so easily ridiculed, where will they stop? Sorry, but that's not the liberalism I studied.

Worse, my perusal of the myopic blogging universe has revealed that most liberal commenters blasting Nader's announcement have almost completely ignored the issues that Nader has cited in announcing his candidacy. Remember, Nader made it clear that he wasn't going to run if someone like Edwards was going to be the Democratic nominee because he saw eye-to-eye with Edwards on things like health care, reining in corporate control of our democracy, stopping the war immediately and demanding workers' rights now--not tomorrow after all the jobs have been effectively shipped to China. But the good liberal fundamentalists didn't choose the substance of Edwards, instead choosing either the "hope" of Obama or the same old shit of Clinton. And so Nader moved to fill a rather large void in the issue spectrum.

Nader did NOT say on Sunday that there was "no difference" between the Democrats and the Republicans, as many liberals are trying to say he said. Instead, he said there was a difference, just as there is a difference between the Obama/Clinton positions and his positions. And then he went on to articulate those differences, just as he's done on his website (http://www.votenader.org).

It's sadly comical to me to see the fundie liberals bash Nader while he's calling for universal health care but give Obama a pass for leaving more than 15 million Americans uninsured in his so-called solution. Or bash Nader for his role in "causing" the Iraq war but giving Clinton--and a majority of her Dem colleagues -- a pass for actually voting for it. Or blaming Nader for the entirety of the Bush years while refusing to acknowledge the real blame that rests at the feet of the fundamentalist Dems who have done little but play along for eight years--remember, it was only ONE Dem (Feingold) who opposed the Patriot Act.

For the Dems, the solution to the Nader candidacy is not to call for a repugnant and chilling rebuke of his Constitutional rights but to strengthen their own issue resolve so that the Nader option wouldn't be necessary. But they're refusing to do so, instead zeroing in on a candidate--Obama--who is mostly hype and hope and very, very little substance or resume. It's Obama--not Nader--who is in bed with the nuclear industry and its lobbyists. It's Obama--not Nader--who won't say a peep about reining in Wall Street. It's Obama--not Nader--who won't promote universal health care. It's Obama--not Nader--who won't even mention the Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians. And it's Obama--not Nader--who doesn't have a track record for standing up and speaking up even when it's not very popular to do so.

Earth to the liberal fundies: Skip the Kool-Aid, try the reality sandwich.

And thanks for offering a necessary option, Ralph.

Michael Colby is the editor of Broadsides.org and can be contacted via mcolby@broadsides.org.

i havent seen any liberal "outrage" at Nader running... certainly not to the level this writer is seems to be claiming... i fully support his run, i would prefer multiple choices and support anyone running for president... and i love his platform and what he stands for

also, the whole obama "hype" thing... perhaps the writer of the article is missing the reason for the hype... the american people believe in hope and collective progress... and have been starving for a message of inspiration from their leadership... a message of what we can do, as opposed to doom, gloom, and fear at all times...

i say the obama "hype" is authentic and that he will be the most progressive president in US history... not as progressive as I would like, but certainly the most progressive in our history... a ship needs to change course before throttling to full speed ahead... and this ship needs to make a U turn in my opinion

other will disagree that it is authentic, thats fine, one of us is right though... and i will take my chances on this one

my2hands

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

But try not to speak for everyone else.

to keep it real...


thats what the author of the article does throughout the piece...


on a side note... i was wondering if nader has ever held office? or has he ever ran for office? house, senate, local?



i think it is great that obama is getting this much scrutiny from the left by the way, he should be combed from head to toe... keep it coming... my final vote hasnt been cast

Abookamongstthemany

soulsinging wrote:

where have i said anything like that about polls? im being accused of making rude generalizations more times than i can count. the closest i ever came was saying people shouldn't get swept up in bandwagons. i have great faith in sociological survey methods, including polls.

the reason i am at odds with people here so often is becos 1) the pit and pearl jam fanbase generally tend to be VERY far left and 2) im not a blind ideologue and see the ridiculousness of the ideologues on both sides. liberal utopia is as ridiculous as the people on the right who believe we'd have a golden age if we just enacted the bible. im a centrist. most centrists stay out of the train becos the extremists on both sides that form a plurality on here scare and browbeat them.

I thought you said you were liberal in the other thread?

soulsinging wrote:

this is why i say nader is out of step. it's a basic bell curve. the vast majority of americans fall in the middle 85% or so of political views and don't care for either extreme. even then i would say the curve is skewed just by the sheer numbers of the hard right evangelical vote. the "left" in america is much more moderate than the left as you envision it. that middle section is not separated by much aside from a level of faith in government's ability to fix social problems or what problems it should be fixing. but a "hard left" platform like nader has is no more acceptable to the majority of americans than a hard right one would be.

I'm saying that the majority of people don't trust the govt AND in comparison Nader has a strong record of working, struggling and getting out there and fighting for the people. I agree with what SundaySilence said in my Nader thread about people actually supporting Nader's platform and ideas for progress if they were given the opportunity to actually hear them without the media's usual spin on it.

So you're saying polls are cool with you and represent an accurate snapshot of public opinion? Then I think you're out of touch with what Americans really want.....here are a few polls addressing your claims of this country being mostly conservative, not wanting a UHC program funded by the govt and guaranteed coverage for all, that people view the govt as simply out of touch with the needs of the people and not corrupt....and so on.

UHC:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/polls/main2528357.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/poll-shows-many-republicans-favor-
universal-healthcare-gays-in-military-2007-06-28.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01cnd-poll.html?_r=1&oref=slogin



on troop withdrawl and ability to win the war
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18312789/

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/13/iraq.poll/index.html



war funding
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/02/4251/

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2005/03/b474349.html



conservatively minded country?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-09-poll_x.html

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/PollVault/story?id=3425157&page=1

This polls shows people favor Dems over Reps to do the best job on almost every issue except homeland security, military and moral values. Also that 79% say corruption in the government is an extremely important issue.
http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm



impeachment:
http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_arg_pardonimpeachment.php

corruption:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=1487942

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-09-gallup-poll_x.htm

Abookamongstthemany

my2hands wrote:

to keep it real...


thats what the author of the article does throughout the piece...


on a side note... i was wondering if nader has ever held office? or has he ever ran for office? house, senate, local?



i think it is great that obama is getting this much scrutiny from the left by the way, he should be combed from head to toe... keep it coming... my final vote hasnt been cast

He gave his opinion of their support and of their contradictory stances that seem to mostly be made of hot air. Twas his opinion of the decisions made by liberals. He can have his view and you can have yours. If you wish further discussion with this guy then contact him. I thought it was funny as hell and share some of those views. If you want to ask me about any points in particular from the piece, I'll be more than happy to tell you what I think.

Now if you're going to tell me the whole country is a certain way and I just don't see it then I'm going to want some proof. Especially when you claim
what will or won't work based on this on this view. This is also soulsinging's opinion but to further discuss our differences here, I'm going to need a little more than 'because this is what I think' since it's not about what he thinks but rather the nation as a whole.

I don't think Nader has held any office...at least that I know of.

soulsinging

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I thought you said you were liberal in the other thread?

i lean liberal. but i recognize stupidity and futility when i see it.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

UHC:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/polls/main2528357.shtml
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/poll-shows-many-republicans-favor-
universal-healthcare-gays-in-military-2007-06-28.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01cnd-poll.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

universal health care is one issue. and the democrats are addressing it. you may not like obama's plan, but UHC is coming, regardless of who gets elected. i still havent heard nader's actual plan for it or how he intends to pay for it.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

on troop withdrawl and ability to win the war
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18312789/
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/13/iraq.poll/index.html

yes... 5 years after we went into iraq with wide national support and rah-rah patriotism only to find out it was a huge mistake. this shows most people know a fuck up when they see it, not that people support nader's "we'll never fight a war again no matter what happens and i'll disband the military to build a flower brigade" approach. i also note one of them says americans side with the dems against bush, not side with liberals against all wars.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

war funding
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/02/4251/
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2005/03/b474349.html

a pair of polls conducted by clearly biased groups shows that americans don't think the war is worth what it's costing. bias aside, that's kind of a no-brainer given the above.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

conservatively minded country?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-09-poll_x.html
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/PollVault/story?id=3425157&page=1
This polls shows people favor Dems over Reps to do the best job on almost every issue except homeland security, military and moral values. Also that 79% say corruption in the government is an extremely important issue.
http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

exactly. homeland security, military, and moral values are pretty big issues. you're overstating the case by saying "every issue." it has long been CW that dems are favored for at-home social policy and republicans for security. nothing new here. but this shows that if even dems part ways with nader on security, military, and values, then the fact that people favor republicans on those issues shows they are a LONG way from nader's views on a lot of important issues. i never said americans disagree with nader on everything. also, the fact that dems get the edge over republicans in some areas does not mean they agree with nader's far left views, since by your own argument, dems aren't really liberal anyway. this would be like saying that since people prefer republicans to dems on moral issues, there's a clear mandate that the country wants pat robertson in office.

have you seen the polls on american views on evolution vs creation science? check those results and try to tell me this country is liberal leaning.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

impeachment:
http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_arg_pardonimpeachment.php

the first two are meaningless. one clearly says it's not scientific. the other has a built in sample bias. the pollster one is more credible and i'll admit im surprised it's as close as it is.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

corruption:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=1487942
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-09-gallup-poll_x.htm

corruption is not a liberal or conservative issue. nobody in this country trusts the government. they both blame the other side. liberals say it's corporate influence, conservatives say it's crooked dems pandering to unions and minorities. you take that poll after every scandal and you'll get consensus. but people clearly aren't swayed by it. otherwise mccain would have beat bush in 00.

Abookamongstthemany

soulsinging wrote:

universal health care is one issue. and the democrats are addressing it. you may not like obama's plan, but UHC is coming, regardless of who gets elected. i still havent heard nader's actual plan for it or how he intends to pay for it.

Just pointing out how earlier you seemed to say even liberals were not sure about UHC....showing that maybe you were a little more out of touch than you think.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5229476&postcount=30

soulsinging wrote:

yes... 5 years after we went into iraq with wide national support and rah-rah patriotism only to find out it was a huge mistake. this shows most people know a fuck up when they see it, not that people support nader's "we'll never fight a war again no matter what happens and i'll disband the military to build a flower brigade" approach. i also note one of them says americans side with the dems against bush, not side with liberals against all wars.

Still the shift is in a more liberal direction on the war and uber patriotism, wouldn't you say? Not the same direction the Rep candidates are taking at all. And your bit on Nader's flower brigade was cute but an exaggeration and does little to seriously add to our discussion.

soulsinging wrote:

a pair of polls conducted by clearly biased groups shows that americans don't think the war is worth what it's costing. bias aside, that's kind of a no-brainer given the above.

Again, a more liberal stance. Just fighting off the claim that the country is so conservative. And most polls are going to be presented by media with their own agendas and interests.

soulsinging wrote:

exactly. homeland security, military, and moral values are pretty big issues. you're overstating the case by saying "every issue." it has long been CW that dems are favored for at-home social policy and republicans for security. nothing new here. but this shows that if even dems part ways with nader on security, military, and values, then the fact that people favor republicans on those issues shows they are a LONG way from nader's views on a lot of important issues. i never said americans disagree with nader on everything. also, the fact that dems get the edge over republicans in some areas does not mean they agree with nader's far left views, since by your own argument, dems aren't really liberal anyway. this would be like saying that since people prefer republicans to dems on moral issues, there's a clear mandate that the country wants pat robertson in office.

No, my point was taking on your claims of a conservative country as a reason why Nader would never be accepted. I think that's not the case. And like I've said given the chance to hear Nader's stances they might like what they hear and be a bit more open to his ideas than you wanna give credit for. They may see solutions in his plan that they hadn't thought of before and like them. It's all speculation.

The issues that polled the most important were liberal issues not homeland security, defense or moral values.

From that poll: What issues will be the most important in this year's election?

Extremely/
Very Important
%
.

The economy 89
.

The situation in Iraq 87
.

Education 81
.

Corruption in government 79
.

Health care 79
.

Energy, including gas prices 79
.

Terrorism 77
.

Social Security 73
.

The federal budget deficit 73
.

Moral values 69
.

Medicare 69
.

Taxes 69
.

The environment, including global warming 62
.

Illegal immigration 60

soulsinging wrote:

have you seen the polls on american views on evolution vs creation science? check those results and try to tell me this country is liberal leaning.

No, but I would like to. You gonna post em or what? There seems to be a trend of not mixing your religion with your politics this year. I won't deny that many are religious but I don't see it as a deciding factor esp seeing how low abortion/gay rights faired in the above poll.

soulsinging wrote:

the first two are meaningless. one clearly says it's not scientific. the other has a built in sample bias. the pollster one is more credible and i'll admit im surprised it's as close as it is.

Bias is everywhere...especially the mainstream. Just look at how they treat Nader. They don't even give people a chance to look at his platform before they say how he doesn't stand a chance.

soulsinging wrote:

corruption is not a liberal or conservative issue. nobody in this country trusts the government. they both blame the other side. liberals say it's corporate influence, conservatives say it's crooked dems pandering to unions and minorities. you take that poll after every scandal and you'll get consensus. but people clearly aren't swayed by it. otherwise mccain would have beat bush in 00.

The Dems are pandering to the same influences as the conservatives. That's the problem and where Nader has an edge and issues to be brought out that would never reach the light of day given the other two parties. In my Nader thread you claimed people view the govt as out of touch and not corrupt. I was proving that wrong. I never claimed it was on one side. You should know from all my complaining that I'm very much aware of that fact.

my2hands

i wonder why nader has not run for an office he could win... a senate seat or something like that?


serious question there

my2hands

Inside Nader's stock portfolio

A recent financial statement shows the Green Party candidate invests in companies he rails against -- including Dick Cheney's former employers.


- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Jake Tapper

Oct. 28, 2000 | MADISON, Wis. -- Supporters of Green Party candidate Ralph Nader are angrily lining the streets on the way to a rally for Vice President Al Gore. They hold up Nader signs, looking scornfully at the motorcade that passes by.

Lefties like to bash Gore for being a tool of corporate America. More specifically, Gore incurs their wrath because the trust of his mother, Pauline, owns stock in Occidental Petroleum which, according to Nader running mate Winona LaDuke, "is working to exploit oil reserves under U'wa land in Colombia." The U'wa are an indigenous tribe in Colombia, and became the champions of an anti-Gore rally at the Democratic National Convention.

"As I listen to the vice president espouse his views on campaign finance reform, I look at his investment portfolio and have to ask how that might influence public policy," LaDuke has said, slamming Gore erroneously for "own[ing] substantial stock in Occidental Oil Co."

If LaDuke is looking for Occidental stockholders to criticize, she might want to look a little closer to home. In the financial disclosure form Nader filed on June 14, the Green Party presidential candidate revealed that he owns between $100,000 and $250,000 worth of shares in the Fidelity Magellan Fund. The fund controls 4,321,400 shares of Occidental Petroleum stock.

The Rainforest Action Network -- whose members no doubt include myriad Nader Raiders -- has slammed Fidelity for "investing in genocide," and called for the fund to divest its Occidental holdings.

"The Occidental projects are so beyond the pale about what's reasonable and moral in this modern era," says Patrick Reinsborough, grass-roots coordinator for the Rainforest Action Network. Reinsborough says that his group has been primarily targeting Gore and Fidelity Investments in general, Fidelity Magellan being part of the Fidelity Investments mutual funds network, as well as the one with the largest quantity of Occidental stock. "We have called upon Ralph Nader -- as we would call upon any citizen -- to either divest from Fidelity or to participate in shareholder activism," Reinsborough says. "Gore has much more long-standing links to Occidental Petroleum."

But even if Fidelity were to divest its holdings in Occidental, it holds shares in so many companies Nader has crusaded against, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Nader's participation in the fund is supremely hypocritical. The fund, for example, owns stock in the Halliburton Company, where George W. Bush's running mate, Dick Cheney, recently worked as president and COO. The fund has investments in supremely un-p.c. clothiers the Gap and the Limited, both of which have been the target of rocks by World Trade Organization protesters, as well as Wal-Mart, the slayer of mom-and-pop stores from coast to coast.

Nader spokeswoman Laura Jones says that only the candidate himself can answer questions about his personal investments. Nader could not be reached for comment.

In a June interview with the Washington Post about his millionaire earnings -- much of which he has donated to his public interest groups -- Nader said the stocks he chose were "the most neutral-type companies ... No. 1, they're not monopolists and No. 2, they don't produce land mines, napalm, weapons."

But this is not true. The Fidelity Magellan fund owns 777,080 shares of Raytheon, a major missile manufacturer. And this isn't the only example of his rhetoric not matching up with his financial investments.

"I'm quite aware of how the arms race is driven by corporate demands for contracts, whether it's General Dynamics or Lockheed Martin," Nader told the Progressive in April. "They drive it through Congress. They drive it by hiring Pentagon officials in the Washington military industrial complex, as Eisenhower phrased it." The Fidelity Magellan fund owns 2,041,800 shares of General Dynamics.

"Both parties are terrible on antitrust," Nader told CNN in August. "Look, we have Boeing now, one aircraft company, manufacturer after the McDonnell Douglas merger." In a June press release, Nader expressed disappointment in the Clinton administration's Justice Department to challenge the merger of British Petroleum with Amoco, or Exxon's merger with Mobil. The Fidelity Magellan fund owns 2,908,600 shares of Boeing, 24,753,870 shares of British Petroleum-Amoco and 28,751,268 shares of Exxon-Mobil. The fund also owns stock in Shell, Sunoco, Texaco and Chevron -- on whose board Bush advisor Condoleezza Rice serves.

Nader has slammed Gore for being too cautious in his healthcare proposals, and for deferring to big pharmaceuticals. Before the House Budget Committee in June 1999, Nader testified that "Bristol-Myers Squibb markets taxol at a wholesale price that is nearly 20 times its manufacturing cost. A single injection of taxol can cost patients considerably more than $2,000 and treatment requires multiple injections." The Fidelity Magellan fund owns 15,266,900 shares of Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Does this bother an activist like Reinsborough? "Sure," he says. "Absolutely." He lauds Nader for engaging in "shareholder activism," but says that such activities "aren't democracy. It's one dollar, one vote."

Corporate-bashing is in vogue on the American left, and Gore is certainly doing his fair share of it on the stump, railing against HMOs, insurance companies and big pharmaceuticals. Some have seen this as Gore trying to shore up support on the left, mimicking Nader disingenuously and unconvincingly.

After all, as Nader said to the Washington Post in June, "The corporations are planning our future. They are making sure [our children] grow up corporate. The kids are overmedicated, militarized, cosmetized, corporatized. They are raised by Kindercare, fed by McDonald's, educated by Channel One."

There is a difference between Gore and Nader on this point, at the very least: Nader has hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in a fund that owns 15,694,800 shares of McDonald's stock. Gore does not.


http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/28/stocks/print.html

soulsinging

my2hands wrote:

i wonder why nader has not run for an office he could win... a senate seat or something like that?

serious question there

he doesn't really want to be elected and have to actually try putting his pipe dreams into action, only to watch them fail. he knows damn well his platform is unelectable and unworkable, so he runs to "raise awareness" of issues he thinks are important. if he ran for a small office and got elected, people would see he can never deliver on the promises he makes and the bubble would be burst.

Commy

soulsinging wrote:

he doesn't really want to be elected and have to actually try putting his pipe dreams into action, only to watch them fail. he knows damn well his platform is unelectable and unworkable, so he runs to "raise awareness" of issues he thinks are important. if he ran for a small office and got elected, people would see he can never deliver on the promises he makes and the bubble would be burst.

pipe dream?

like what, holding companies accountable for their actions? or universal health care? those kind of pipe dreams?

If Nader gets 5% of the national vote he recieses matching federal fundng for the next election,that is why he is doing this, to give us back our democracy. A one party system is the definition of fascism,and we're pretty damn close at this point. He's trying to give us options.

soulsinging

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

They may see solutions in his plan that they hadn't thought of before and like them. It's all speculation.

clearly. seeing as how the left couldn't even manage the support to beat bush last time around in the midst of all the same issues being touted now, im pretty comfortable with my position. getting out the antigay conservative vote turned the election. perhaps, if those preferences don't lie, the tide is turning away from the old nationalistic values voters... we can only hope that is the case. but i still think we're a long way from a nader platform.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

No, but I would like to. You gonna post em or what? There seems to be a trend of not mixing your religion with your politics this year. I won't deny that many are religious but I don't see it as a deciding factor esp seeing how low abortion/gay rights faired in the above poll.

it was posted here a while back, i was hoping my lazy ass wouldn't have to dig it up. but here's one. note that even among the liberal contingent, an alarming number of americans are still superstitious fucking morons

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-07-evolution-debate_N.htm
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx
http://pewforum.org/surveys/origins/

im currently working on a seminar paper on religion, law, and politics and it's pretty disturbing some of the shit we read. if my faith in the american people was low before, it's almost nonexistent anymore.

soulsinging

Commy wrote:

pipe dream?

like what, holding companies accountable for their actions? or universal health care? those kind of pipe dreams?

If Nader gets 5% of the national vote he recieses matching federal fundng for the next election,that is why he is doing this, to give us back our democracy. A one party system is the definition of fascism,and we're pretty damn close at this point. He's trying to give us options.

i hope he gets it. the more, the merrier.

but yes, pipe dream. a magical universal health care (WHAT IS HIS PLAN? no one has shown it to me yet... im for free cake for everyone at every meal too, just dont ask me how i plan to do it). no war fought ever again. pipe dream. magical corporate accountability... what is his plan? again, have not seen it.

Urban Hiker

I think Michael Colby has it right.
These faux-liberals out there are the same people driving hybrid SUV's and patting themselves on the back for being so Green. :rolleyes:

They can have Obama, I'll take Nader.

BTW - has anybody read 'Wolves in Sheep's Clothing'? Which from the cover looks like it could be titled 'Donkey in Elephant's Clothing'.

I just added it to my "to read" list and would love to hear thoughts on it. Please PM.

Commy

soulsinging wrote:

i hope he gets it. the more, the merrier.

but yes, pipe dream. a magical universal health care (WHAT IS HIS PLAN? no one has shown it to me yet... im for free cake for everyone at every meal too, just dont ask me how i plan to do it). no war fought ever again. pipe dream. magical corporate accountability... what is his plan? again, have not seen it.

Nader would tax things we dont' like-pollution for example. Also the stock market, where billions change hand every day. The recenue created would be considerable, enough to pay for health insurance for the entire country. He'd legalize hemp to give farmers more of a chance, and I could go on. His platform is very sound, he's got a lot of good ideas.

Abookamongstthemany

my2hands wrote:

Inside Nader's stock portfolio

A recent financial statement shows the Green Party candidate invests in companies he rails against -- including Dick Cheney's former employers.


- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Jake Tapper

Oct. 28, 2000 | MADISON, Wis. -- Supporters of Green Party candidate Ralph Nader are angrily lining the streets on the way to a rally for Vice President Al Gore. They hold up Nader signs, looking scornfully at the motorcade that passes by.

Lefties like to bash Gore for being a tool of corporate America. More specifically, Gore incurs their wrath because the trust of his mother, Pauline, owns stock in Occidental Petroleum which, according to Nader running mate Winona LaDuke, "is working to exploit oil reserves under U'wa land in Colombia." The U'wa are an indigenous tribe in Colombia, and became the champions of an anti-Gore rally at the Democratic National Convention.

"As I listen to the vice president espouse his views on campaign finance reform, I look at his investment portfolio and have to ask how that might influence public policy," LaDuke has said, slamming Gore erroneously for "own[ing] substantial stock in Occidental Oil Co."

If LaDuke is looking for Occidental stockholders to criticize, she might want to look a little closer to home. In the financial disclosure form Nader filed on June 14, the Green Party presidential candidate revealed that he owns between $100,000 and $250,000 worth of shares in the Fidelity Magellan Fund. The fund controls 4,321,400 shares of Occidental Petroleum stock.

The Rainforest Action Network -- whose members no doubt include myriad Nader Raiders -- has slammed Fidelity for "investing in genocide," and called for the fund to divest its Occidental holdings.

"The Occidental projects are so beyond the pale about what's reasonable and moral in this modern era," says Patrick Reinsborough, grass-roots coordinator for the Rainforest Action Network. Reinsborough says that his group has been primarily targeting Gore and Fidelity Investments in general, Fidelity Magellan being part of the Fidelity Investments mutual funds network, as well as the one with the largest quantity of Occidental stock. "We have called upon Ralph Nader -- as we would call upon any citizen -- to either divest from Fidelity or to participate in shareholder activism," Reinsborough says. "Gore has much more long-standing links to Occidental Petroleum."

But even if Fidelity were to divest its holdings in Occidental, it holds shares in so many companies Nader has crusaded against, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Nader's participation in the fund is supremely hypocritical. The fund, for example, owns stock in the Halliburton Company, where George W. Bush's running mate, Dick Cheney, recently worked as president and COO. The fund has investments in supremely un-p.c. clothiers the Gap and the Limited, both of which have been the target of rocks by World Trade Organization protesters, as well as Wal-Mart, the slayer of mom-and-pop stores from coast to coast.

Nader spokeswoman Laura Jones says that only the candidate himself can answer questions about his personal investments. Nader could not be reached for comment.

In a June interview with the Washington Post about his millionaire earnings -- much of which he has donated to his public interest groups -- Nader said the stocks he chose were "the most neutral-type companies ... No. 1, they're not monopolists and No. 2, they don't produce land mines, napalm, weapons."

But this is not true. The Fidelity Magellan fund owns 777,080 shares of Raytheon, a major missile manufacturer. And this isn't the only example of his rhetoric not matching up with his financial investments.

"I'm quite aware of how the arms race is driven by corporate demands for contracts, whether it's General Dynamics or Lockheed Martin," Nader told the Progressive in April. "They drive it through Congress. They drive it by hiring Pentagon officials in the Washington military industrial complex, as Eisenhower phrased it." The Fidelity Magellan fund owns 2,041,800 shares of General Dynamics.

"Both parties are terrible on antitrust," Nader told CNN in August. "Look, we have Boeing now, one aircraft company, manufacturer after the McDonnell Douglas merger." In a June press release, Nader expressed disappointment in the Clinton administration's Justice Department to challenge the merger of British Petroleum with Amoco, or Exxon's merger with Mobil. The Fidelity Magellan fund owns 2,908,600 shares of Boeing, 24,753,870 shares of British Petroleum-Amoco and 28,751,268 shares of Exxon-Mobil. The fund also owns stock in Shell, Sunoco, Texaco and Chevron -- on whose board Bush advisor Condoleezza Rice serves.

Nader has slammed Gore for being too cautious in his healthcare proposals, and for deferring to big pharmaceuticals. Before the House Budget Committee in June 1999, Nader testified that "Bristol-Myers Squibb markets taxol at a wholesale price that is nearly 20 times its manufacturing cost. A single injection of taxol can cost patients considerably more than $2,000 and treatment requires multiple injections." The Fidelity Magellan fund owns 15,266,900 shares of Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Does this bother an activist like Reinsborough? "Sure," he says. "Absolutely." He lauds Nader for engaging in "shareholder activism," but says that such activities "aren't democracy. It's one dollar, one vote."

Corporate-bashing is in vogue on the American left, and Gore is certainly doing his fair share of it on the stump, railing against HMOs, insurance companies and big pharmaceuticals. Some have seen this as Gore trying to shore up support on the left, mimicking Nader disingenuously and unconvincingly.

After all, as Nader said to the Washington Post in June, "The corporations are planning our future. They are making sure [our children] grow up corporate. The kids are overmedicated, militarized, cosmetized, corporatized. They are raised by Kindercare, fed by McDonald's, educated by Channel One."

There is a difference between Gore and Nader on this point, at the very least: Nader has hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in a fund that owns 15,694,800 shares of McDonald's stock. Gore does not.


http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/28/stocks/print.html

I'll post my reply here, too.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5230866&postcount=9