Strange choice for Vice President slot
flywallyfly
Posts: 1,453
Rather odd that Nader's Vice presidential candidate didnt support Nader's previous runs for president :
“I’m not that enthusiastic about his campaign primarily because I think we’ve already been there a couple of times,” he said, referring to Nader’s bids as the Green candidate in 1996 and 2000. “I would like to see somebody else run.”
I rather like Gonzalez but I dont understand why he teamed with Nader even before reading this article, especially if he was lukewarm at best at nader's previous runs.
=============================
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/naders-running-mate-was-not-such-a-fan-in-04/
Nader’s Running Mate Was Not Such a Fan in ‘04
By Ariel Alexovich
Back in June 2004, Matt Gonzalez, the young president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, spoke candidly to a group of the nation’s top college journalists as part of a prestigious writing competition.
As a prominent Green Party member, Mr. Gonzalez was asked how he felt about Ralph Nader taking another shot at the presidency. And what he said back then could make things a little awkward on the trail now that he’s Mr. Nader’s 2008 running mate.
One of the students, Jesse Abrams-Morley, wrote this about Mr. Gonzalez’s remarks:
“I’m not that enthusiastic about his campaign primarily because I think we’ve already been there a couple of times,” he said, referring to Nader’s bids as the Green candidate in 1996 and 2000. “I would like to see somebody else run.”
Gonzalez said he would favor activist and former California gubernatorial candidate Peter Camejo, though he added that he might change his mind if Nader, now running as an independent, starts pushing more policies Gonzalez supports.
Mr. Abrams-Morley won first prize in the news category that year. Now Mr. Gonzalez might just have a headache.
Speaking by cell phone Friday as he waited in the security line at Dulles Airport near Washington, Mr. Gonzalez said he remembered talking to that bright group of students. “If they wrote it, I said it,” he admitted. He explained away his comments as just “opining to students an uncertainty.”
There were a lot of factors up in the air in 2004, he said, including how Mr. Nader’s candidacy would affect the Green Party candidate, and whether what ended up being a Nader-Camejo ticket should be a Camejo-Nader ticket.
By the time Election Day ‘04 came around, though, Mr. Gonzalez already had endorsed Mr. Nader in The San Francisco Examiner and he happily cast his ballot for his current running mate, he said.
Digging up this old story is evidence of a thriving free press, said the progressive Mr. Gonzalez. “Politicians should always have to eat their words.”
“I’m not that enthusiastic about his campaign primarily because I think we’ve already been there a couple of times,” he said, referring to Nader’s bids as the Green candidate in 1996 and 2000. “I would like to see somebody else run.”
I rather like Gonzalez but I dont understand why he teamed with Nader even before reading this article, especially if he was lukewarm at best at nader's previous runs.
=============================
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/naders-running-mate-was-not-such-a-fan-in-04/
Nader’s Running Mate Was Not Such a Fan in ‘04
By Ariel Alexovich
Back in June 2004, Matt Gonzalez, the young president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, spoke candidly to a group of the nation’s top college journalists as part of a prestigious writing competition.
As a prominent Green Party member, Mr. Gonzalez was asked how he felt about Ralph Nader taking another shot at the presidency. And what he said back then could make things a little awkward on the trail now that he’s Mr. Nader’s 2008 running mate.
One of the students, Jesse Abrams-Morley, wrote this about Mr. Gonzalez’s remarks:
“I’m not that enthusiastic about his campaign primarily because I think we’ve already been there a couple of times,” he said, referring to Nader’s bids as the Green candidate in 1996 and 2000. “I would like to see somebody else run.”
Gonzalez said he would favor activist and former California gubernatorial candidate Peter Camejo, though he added that he might change his mind if Nader, now running as an independent, starts pushing more policies Gonzalez supports.
Mr. Abrams-Morley won first prize in the news category that year. Now Mr. Gonzalez might just have a headache.
Speaking by cell phone Friday as he waited in the security line at Dulles Airport near Washington, Mr. Gonzalez said he remembered talking to that bright group of students. “If they wrote it, I said it,” he admitted. He explained away his comments as just “opining to students an uncertainty.”
There were a lot of factors up in the air in 2004, he said, including how Mr. Nader’s candidacy would affect the Green Party candidate, and whether what ended up being a Nader-Camejo ticket should be a Camejo-Nader ticket.
By the time Election Day ‘04 came around, though, Mr. Gonzalez already had endorsed Mr. Nader in The San Francisco Examiner and he happily cast his ballot for his current running mate, he said.
Digging up this old story is evidence of a thriving free press, said the progressive Mr. Gonzalez. “Politicians should always have to eat their words.”
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I know! When I read that, I just felt proud and found even more to admire about this man.
Thanks flywallyfly! Nice post!
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
If more politicians answered questions this way it be terrific.
He just took somethng that could have been awkward (and exactly what the paper was trying to stir up) and made it an after thought.
I just don't get how his response is different than any other politician side-stepping a trap question, bringing up free press as a diversion instead of actually answering the question.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
no offense, but on this issue, you seem to have a serious problem with the basic math... or an understanding of how our federal government works.
the US Senate currenty has 49 Democratic Senators and 49 Republican Senators. It has 2 independents, Joe Lieberman (pro-war) and Bernie Sanders (left leaning)... up until that election the Republicans held a 55-44 advantage, a clear majority, with a republican controlled executive branch. hello mccfly.
There is NO DEMOCRAT MAJORITY. IT IS A DEAD HEAT. maybe you missed Obama's bill to end the war in opposition to the surge plan? the one that passed the house and the senate. the one that set a specific date of march 2008 to end the war and withdraw our troops. (what was that, a fairey tail dream i had?) The one that was VETO'd by the President. now, do me a favor, and show me the 66 senators that would have voted to overturn the Veto? take your time, go ahead and show me 17-20 republicans that would have voted to overturn the veto? and that is completely leaving out the fact that they didnt have the votes in the house to get the veto override to the senate for the final step.
jesus h christ.
*** REPEAT THIS ALL DAY IN YOUR HEAD ***
CURRENT US SENATE
REPUBLICAN: 49
DEMOCRAT: 49
INDY: 2
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5651979&postcount=13
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5651949&postcount=10
I think you might need to work on your reading comprehension skills. The article you used was a fluff piece from the USA Today paper, not an article from the NY Times. The article you used took your money points directly from Nader's mouth, not from investigation. That was the entire point -- that Nader wont release his tax returns like the other candidates so we HAVE to take him at his word about the $25,000 figure. After lying about his stocks i dont really believe anything he says financially anymore.
Plus I wasnt criticizing the source but rather YOU using it after all of your constant badgering about how mainstream media sucks ass.
--- "Nader said the stocks he chose were 'the most neutral-type companies.' 'Number one, they're not monopolists and number two, they don't produce land mines, napalm, weapons,' he said." (Washington Post, June 18, 2000) Nader's Fidelity Magellan fund: 777,080 shares of Raytheon, missile manufacturer (plus five other aerospace/defense corporations).
--- Nader: "I'm quite aware of how the arms race is driven by corporate demands for contracts, whether it's General Dynamics or Lockheed Martin. They drive it through Congress. They drive it by hiring Pentagon officials in the Washington military industrial complex, as Eisenhower phrased it." (The Progressive Magazine, April 2000) Nader's Fidelity Magellan fund: 2,041,800 shares of General Dynamics.
--- "The corporations are planning our futuresSThey are making sure [our children] grow up corporate. The kids are over-medicated, militarized, cosmetized, corporatized. They are raised by Kindercare, fed by McDonald¹s, educated by Channel One." (The Washington Post, Saturday, June 17, 2000) Ralph Nader's Fidelity Magellan fund: 15,694,800 shares of McDonald's.
--- "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." -- Ralph Nader Testimony before the House Budget Committee. June 30, 1999 Ralph Nader's Fidelity Magellan fund: 15,266,900 shares of Bristol-Mayers Squibb.
--- "Both parties are terrible on antitrust. Look, we have Boeing now, one aircraft company, manufacturer after the McDonnell Douglas merger." (Ralph Nader, Burden of Proof, CNN, 8/9/00.) Ralph Nader's Fidelity Magellan fund: 2,908,600 shares of Boeing.
--- "Equally damaging, Nader said, was the Justice Department¹s failure to effectively challenge such recent mergers as British Petroleum with Amoco and Exxon with Mobil. 'The combining of these giant oil companies concentrates the oil industry¹s economic power in fewer hands and gives these merged companies greater opportunity to manipulate prices,' Nader said. 'Oil company profits are up an average of 300 percent in the first quarter of 2000 compared to the first quarter of 1999.' (Nader 2000 press release, June 28, 2000) Nader's Fidelity Magellan fund: 24,753,870 shares of BP-Amoco. 28,751,268 shares of Exxon-Mobil.
http://www.bushwatch.com/nader2000.htm
First of all this thread has absolutely nothing to do with Nader's stock portfolio. There have already been quite a few threads on the subject and I'm sure you posted in most of them.
We get it. Nader stocks are hypocritical, Obama flip flops, and McCain is too old.
How bout we work together and focus on the issues. Everyone has the right to support who they want for whatever reason they want. If you candidate wins, guess what, you don't get a prize. So let's stop trying to disuade people from voting for their candidate by slinging mud.
I am serious with that post. If you read the entire thread the portfolio post is just in response to an accusation by Kabong. I know what the thread is about because I posted it.
I agree but you kinda need some information about candidates to make your choice. Getting the facts out is much different from attempting to dissuade people from voting for their candidate. It's not mud slinging when its factual and relevant.
do you know how federal government works?
perhaps you should look up 'filibuster' this has been posted several times
also, pelosi has the power to prevent bills from going to a vote
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i've posted this before and used the new york times as the source, which you questioned previously, so i looked up another source, which was the usa and they said the same thing. most of my badgering has to do w/ television, while print media sucks a lot, i think it's not as bad as tv news. like i said, the usa today prints stuff you won't find anywhere else in the mainstream media most of the time
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
what did i accuse?? i said nader lives off of $25,000 a year and gave you 2 newspapers that reported it. you say we can't believe it b/c we have to take only his word, yet that is all you are providing
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
?
He did end up supporting Nader that year and obviously feels differently about Nader just the same as I do now.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde