I guess even Republicans deserve a bit of good news once in a while, however small:
Ralph Nader said Sunday he will run for president as a third-party candidate, criticizing the top White House contenders as too close to big business and pledging to repeat a bid that will “shift the power from the few to the many.”
“Shift the power from the few to the many,” huh? Gee… I thought that’s what I’d been doing this past half decade or so, along with a few million of my neighbors in the netroots community? Way to give us the finger, Ralph.
No, I guess instead of dedicating our lives to blogging for little or no money, creating new media infrastructure from scratch with zero resources, and struggling to build a new progressive movement that has empowered millions, actually won a few elections, and has started to change the way politics is conducted nationwide… the real way to shift the power from the few to the many is for a single, cranky, dried up, arrogant, old white guy to go on national television and declare that he is running for president. You know… for us. Because apparently, we’re too stupid to do it for ourselves.
There was a time, decades ago, when I dreamed of a viable third party that might duplicate the success of the Greens in Europe, but then, there was a time when I once looked up to Ralph Nader, consumer protection crusader, as a genuine American hero. I was young. What the fuck did I know?
Over the years, my understanding of electoral politics matured into a deep appreciation for the nuances of our two party system, long before Nader’s tragic 2000 campaign destroyed what little credibility the American Green Party had left. There is a genius to our system, that for the first time in history not only legitimized dissent, but institutionalized it. Yes our system is profoundly conservative at its core in that truly big, abrupt changes are exceedingly difficult to achieve, but this institutional sluggishness is not insurmountable and it has served to maintain the political and economic stability on which past generations have built our nation into the most prosperous and powerful on earth. And when cranks like Nader critique the Democrats and the Republicans as providing little or no choice to voters, they focus solely on the competition between the two parties while ignoring the competition within them.
It took thirty or more years for the forces of the far right to firmly seize the reins of the Republican Party and the institutions that support it, and it will take at least another decade or two for our “people powered” progressive movement to do the same with our party. That Nader can’t see the slow motion political revolution unfolding before his eyes reveals him to be as much a part of the ossified political establishment as the politicians he reviles… his third, futile campaign a last gasp of the status quo fighting to retain its own relevance. The old crusader appearing before the old media, challenging the declining power of the old guard; it is a scene that would be comic if it weren’t so tragic: Nader cast as Lear, railing against a storm of political change that threatens to sweep both him and his foes into the dustbin of history.
I didn’t see the broadcast, but was he wearing a pair of those Groucho glasses when he made the announcement?
Just ignore the son of a bitch. We’ll get 10 votes from disaffected Republicans for every whiny purist we lose to N—r.
Nader is nothing but a pathetic self centered old geezer. In 2004, he received a whopping .38% of the vote. Why he feels the need to embarrass himself further is beyond me.
meh. his tired little act doesn’t jive with reality….more people are voting in Democratic primaries than ever, and certainly more are voting in the Dem primaries than the GOP ones.
and Obama’s on track to have one million small donors helping his campaign. I’ll take that over warmed over leftist bullsh*t from a tired, union busting, moneygrubbing hack like Nader.
http://www.gregdewar.com/2008/.....resid.html
I thought Ralph was the epitome of the global warming alarmist. WHy do you liberals have issues with a “crusader”?
Rush Limbaugh just said he was going to donate 4 million
to Nader for his run. What a fine patriot. GO RALPH
It’s good to hear from Nader. He reminds me, in the big picture, how little difference there is between the R’s and D’s.
Ralph will once again split the minority vote. Oh well.
D’s on this blog shouldn’t care that he’s jumped in. Everyone’s been saying it’s going to be a landslide for the D’s, so if Nader takes away 1% or so of the vote, it won’t matter one bit.
If I see anyone here complain about Nader entering, I’ll know you really think it’s going to be closer between the D nominee and the R nominee than you’ve admitted.
If Hillary is the nominee, I vote Nader. Straight up. No Chaser.
…I guess netroots better make sure it’s gonna be Obama.
I justify voting for Obama because he’s running on Nader’s 2000 platform.
That’d be great if the Democrats could focus their vicious hatred for Nader toward the Republicans. It’s weird, against the Republicans, Democrats are complacent, but when Nader is around, boy do the Democrats get fired up…
Nader is no Perot. Perot single handedly handed the election to Clinton in 1992. No Perot, no Clinton.
I haven’t been able to find any follow-up to this:
As of Friday, they still refused to say anything:
Hey, Ralphie. . .listen up!
Man stands in his own shadow, and wonders why it is dark.
“Because apparently, we’re too stupid to do it for ourselves.”
Yes, apparently, people are too stupid to pick the candidate of their choice, that you have to try to sue Ralph Nader off the ballot.
Ralph Nader uses his runs to start court challenges to repressive ballot access laws and restrictive debate inclusion rules.
Yes, that does shift power to the people. Suing him off the ballot does not.
I couldn’t care less about Progressive interest groups funded by millionaires like George Soros, since I’m a moderate, like most Americans. You don’t have to worry about my vote helping McCain win, because I don’t necessarily view Obama as better than McCain, neither do I think either are bad for the country.
I did a write-in vote for him in 2004 because I was angry Democrats sued him off the ballot.
If Obama or McCain want my vote, they need to agree to allow Nader in the debates, and not interfere with his ballot access drive. If one of those candidates fight for this, I will support their campaign.
Some of us also know from experience that there are things that won’t change from the intra-party politics you’re talking about.
fish- there have been viability requirements to get into debates. Nader will not pass them, and will not be allowed to participate.
k,
I don’t think Nader would get enough support to pass fair rules for debate inclusion, but Perot should have been in the 96 debates, but wasn’t because the two parties control the debates. At any rate, these things need to be challenged in court.
People don’t realize that the reason there are no viable third parties is not a ‘winner take all system’, but repressive obstructions put up by the two parties. The political system was different in the 19th century before all sorts of obstacles started to be put in place.
If Nader was interested in more than personal ego, he would work to be part of the process and not just drop into the midst of a presidential race. Where has he been? And if he could not make any impact in the past 4-8 years, what prupose other than ego stroking does he serve now?
“I was young. What the fuck did I know?”
Now you are old and still just as dumb.
“If Obama or McCain want my vote, they need to agree to allow Nader in the debates, and not interfere with his ballot access drive. If one of those candidates fight for this, I will support their campaign”.
You would vote for a Obama, a Democrat or McCain, a Republican this election of all elections IF one or the other agree to let a third time, third party, fringe candidate take place in the debates? Your claim to be moderate should be taken with a grain of salt. That’s a fringe viewpoint, bigtime.
i am so looking forward to the debates this summer among mcpain (71) ralph (74), mike gravel (77), and john b. anderson (86). let’s talk about vietnam 4 evah!
I want to know why we have to pay $500 million for our basketball team when Oklahoma gets away with paying $120 million for our basketball team.
Because they’re now partially owned by the Swiftboat sponsor, qnd he’s better than you.
qnd=contraction of conjunction “and” and q.e.d……
“Yes our system is profoundly conservative at its core in that truly big, abrupt changes are exceedingly difficult to achieve, but this institutional sluggishness is not insurmountable and it has served to maintain the political and economic stability on which past generations have built our nation into the most prosperous and powerful on earth.”
As frustrating as our system is to people in a hurry to change the world, it makes things harder for would-be Hitlers to seize control of our government. I didn’t say impossible, only harder. It could happen here, too, as the last 7 years demonstrates. We have our own goose-stepping militarist totalitarian party. Fortunately, the checks and balances are still feebly functioning effectively enough to prevent a mass roundup of liberals and our deportation to concentration camps equipped with gas chambers. And don’t kid yourself for one second that rightwing extremists wouldn’t do that if they could. When we joke about killing wingers, we’re kidding; when they joke about killing liberals, they’re not kidding.
Liberals must arm!
If there’s one thing we should learn from history, it’s that human nature has genocidal impulses that are a lot easier to contain if you have guns stashed under the mattress. The Jews probably couldn’t have stopped the Holocaust with small arms, but there would have been a hell of a lot fewer SS guys getting amnesty from the Allies after the war.
It bothers me a lot that people who committed incomprehensible crimes not only weren’t executed, but most had been released by 1955, and got to live out their lives as free men and women. For example, some of the doctors who performed “medical experiments” on inmates of Auschwitz and Dachau served only a few years behind bars. The best thing to do with monsters is put a bullet in them when they kick in your door. You’ll probably be outnumbered and their hired thugs probably will get you, but with a good semi-automatic, you can make sure some of them won’t be going home to their families.
Nader is living proof of one of Limbaugh’s “Undeniable Truths of Life”: To be a librul, you have to believe that oppression comes from corporations, and freedom comes from government.”
Nader is a fucking idiot… he should be a big hit with mainstream democrats…
In the not too distant future, Nader is going to have a hell of a lot of explaining to do to St. Peter.
Nader is a tired old man who will be going to his reward one of these days, and ought to be thinking about getting himself right with the Lord. He has a lot of work to do.
@28 “oppression comes from corporations, and freedom comes from government”
At least I get to elect my government.
Redneck and his wingnut ilk would have us believe that submitting to corporate tyranny is preferable to living under a democratically elected government.
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
Spoken like a true fascist. Pay your gambling debt, you dishonorable lying welshing piece of shit.
Nader is running for the sake of Nader and nothing else. He is as self serving as any politician that uses his office to further his career or for financial gain. If he gets more face time he’s worth more money on the blab circuit.
Goldy, I never thought you could sound like Edmund Burke, but this is a pretty good imitation. I am somewhat impressed.
Nader will be irrelevant.Most of his one half of one percent or less of the total votes will come in big cities in states where we are winning by 20 or 30 points. Don’t lose any sleep over it. He also just might make a few good points we need to hear while also serving to keep Obama looking moderate to the independents.
-Tom
Nadar a bad guy!
Really?
What is important to you libruls, your so called ideals or your allegiance to the party of the KKK?
How come Nadar didn’t run for the nomination?
Commie Jews control the Dimwith party and won’t vote for an Ayrab, even one who sucks up to them like Nader!
I really look forward to Obama trying to defends keeping troops in Iraq for months while Ralphie chants, get out now!
Wait till he tries to hang Israeli Apartheid around the first “black” President’s neck!
And hay, can YOU imagine the health care debate? Raplhie will castigate Hillary AND Obama for not going full bore to “single payer” socialized medicine!
Next thing, Sharpton will team up with Ralphie and be his veep! They will accuse Barack of being a phony because NON of HIS ancestors were slaves! ‘Passing for Black. Barack?” will be the war cry!
Meantime, John McCain, the only manly man in the race, the only one to have SERVED his country, the only one with ancestors who came over on the Mayflower, will be above it all! His running mate? Christie Todd Whitman! A womanly woman and a manly man!
BTW, for you libtard. Maggie Thatcher was anything BUT a dyke! Her motto ..”For King, Kountry, and Kitchen,” stands for itself.
I hope Obama makes an appeal to Ralph Nader, and tries to bring him into the fold. Even if it failed, it would prove Obama is ready to reach out and have a dialogue with all Americans.
Libruls should arm themselves with torn off arms and chase the fucking Sonics right outta town with the bloody stumps.
I wonder how many conservatives are alive because Ralph Nader forced air bags and seatbelts down the throat of the automobile industry.
Yeah, that communist life saver, Ralph Nader. Every time a so-called “conservative” name calls Ralph Nader, they are just showing their ignorance of what the man accomplished for the common man. His work has saved more lives than any conservative politician, ever. How many people would have died in car accidents without Ralph Nader’s work on auto safety?
Get a clue by reading a history book, neo-con lovers.
I watched part of it, but my mind kept tuning him out. All of his criticsms seem to be about Democrats, and he had little or nothing to say about the criminal enterprise currently in power and the Republican establishment that shills for them. It’s amazing. As Atrios points out, in 2004 Ralph Nader got .38% of the vote nationwide and I’ll bet he falls short of that this time.
Look at all the HorsesASSHoler hate of Nader. And it’s coming from most of the more stable of the 16%ers except headless simplesemperton lucy @23.
This is sooooooo telling.
Did you hear Tim Conway is doing a new “Dorf” video?
It is called “The FCC lobbyist does Senator Dorf, and Dorf makes preferential rules for her client.”
Sounds like a quite realistic plot line.
Busdrivermike: It’s not about us whom think right and how we react to Ralph. Yes, he’s saved lives. But it’s your side and the blind hatred you 16%ers have for him.
What a crock!
See Prick, that’s the difference twixt Dem’s and Republicans. We’ll castigate, criticize and replace dem’s with better dem’s. While you fools fall right in the goose-step line with your leaders, and march right off the cliff before you’d ever admit your mistakes. Zieg heil!
Hey PuddingDick
Go ahead, laugh it up all you want until November. Because you and I both know your side will be lucky to have 40 Senators to create a fillibuster come next Congress. You probably think you will be able to do a 1994, again. But this time, Americans understand Republican priorities a bit better. You see your reflection in the well, but you do not look back to see the voter about to put the gun to the back of your head. You, and your ilk are so fucking done, and so fucking blithe about it. That is the most entertaining part of it all.
Nader is as irrelveant as his pimps on the Right.
Pud- not all disagreement is hate. I think he is wrong to run and has a narrow egotistical view of his role. That’s not the same as hate. I did not see hate in Goldy’s post either. Strong disagreement, perhaps, but not hate.
You, on the other hand, are employing your favorite tactic. You exagerate and mischaracterize what is said by some, attribute it to all, and then say it proves how wrong we are. Then you wait for someone to take the bait.
What’s up with the mailer that Obama is putting out in Ohio? I swear, everytime he talks, it’s fucking out of both sides of his mouth.
Obama was the first presidential candidate to officially declare his support for NAFTA expansion moving through Congress. He said:
“I believe that expanding trade and breaking down barriers
between countries is good for our economy and for our security, for American consumers and American workers.”
And then he sends a mailer out to constituents using a retracted news article that even Newsweek, the magazine who retracted the quote saying it wasn’t what Clinton said, calls it “misleading”.
To quote:
Obama is not a new kind of politician.
Fuck you Obama.
err, sorry, got newsday confused with newsweek.
Bottom line – Is this the change we can believe in? Same old politics, same old lies, same old tactics. – Backtrack Obama
slingshot,
I don’t think Nader should be in the debates because I agree with him on everything, but because the election process should be more open, and there are enough people who would support him, if they didn’t think he was a spoiler.
In fact, its not so important that Nader is in the debates this year, as its important the debates are turned over to an independent non-partisan commission which has fair standards ( opendebates.org ).
If a fair debates commission rules that Nader doesn’t meet meaningful criteria for entry this year that’s fine with me. But first we have to set up fair standards. And we need the Republican and Democratic candidates to support fair standards.
Also, the some peoples idea of whether Nader is fringe or not hinges on what issues they focus on. Nader is supports a lot of things that I do that the two parties don’t.
If you want to know my politics, I supported Perot, I think whether Perot was moderate or not speaks for itself.
Since we are the party of diversity I want to see a lot of different candidates running for president. We should have a candidate for the greens,socialists, comminists and everyone in between. The facist repubs can keep their “one size fits all” candidate. We are better than that.
@ 49 and 50- remember the cast of thousands (OK 8-10) in the initial debates for the two parties. And at least on the D side it did not look like an old white guy country club. And there was diversity of opinion- Kuchinich and Paul for example. Those who are left made it through the process, however flawed. To assert the process has been closed is foolishness.
Ralph Nader is running solely to feed his ego. He knows he has no chance of winning. In 2000 he drew 2% of the vote, in 2004 he drew 0.3%. Maybe Ralph’s aiming for sub 1/10th of a percent of the vote. Let’s ask Peter Steinbruck if he plans to abandon the Dems to support Nader again this time.
k,
yes it is funny that someone in the two party primaries that polls less than 1% is assured better debate access, than a third party candidate thats polling around 8% in the general election.
this is about politics not being controlled by two machines. and it isn’t so much about particular fringe candidates like kucinich or paul (or nader) , as offering an opportunity to make have elections not dictated by party machines, not only at the presidential level but at the local level. that will go a much longer way to removing the influence of money from the process than bad campaign finance reform laws.
Surely you do not think Obama, or McCain for that matter, were selected by the respective machines? The “machines” may settle for them, but they were not the initial preferance.
So old,really old, Ralph is gonna ruin it for the democratic candidate. So some don’t think John (An islamofascist in every pot)McCain has much of a chance without his help. If he does this sucessfully, how will the republicans reward him?
To me he has little credibility. I’ll give the seat belt thing, but his work against the covair was a smear job.
One major reason I want to see a democratic president, don’t care which one,is who puts up the next supreme court nominee.
Those who are left made it through the process, however flawed…
You are exactly right. The system is flawed. We as democrats need to fix the system. The two party rule is nonsense. We should be at the forefront of creating a third,fourth.. ect. What are we scared about anyways??? Perot got just as many democrat votes as repubs. In fact I would argue that more democrats voted for Perot than repubs judging by the comments on this board. We need more choices for enviromentalists,minorities, socialists, liberals and progressives. Come on, we are democrats, the party of diversity.
@48: Dustin – give it UP! The Hillary whining is really getting loud. She hasn’t won a state in what – -13 contests now? How can a candidate with a huge advantage in name, money and endorsements run such a lousy campaign – and that qualifies her to be the nominee or be president.
By the way – that is the same mailer that went out over two weeks ago – Hillary didn’t have a problem with it then.
The clinton campaign is behind on everything.
If Hillary wins the nomination, though, I wil vote for her. She is much better than Mclobbyist – even if she can’t explain her own health care proposal.
As to Nader – anyone who beleives a word of his pathetic mantra (the D’s and R’s are the same) needs to remember this:
He said that Al Gore was the same as GWB. He caused Gore to lose (although Gore won the popular vote, and actually won florida if there was a real recount of the whole state).
Just remember: the Iraq war – due to Nader.
spying on americans – due to Nader.
All the political influence peddling, the environmental destruction, the oil prices, the coporate lobbying – all due to Nader saying Gore was = GWB.
Anyone who votes for Nader is proxy voting for a republican and supporting republicans screwing up this country even further.
k,
I can’t say they were the machine favorite, although I don’t think either are unacceptable. I don’t necessarily have faith that either Obama or McCain can do much despite their rhetoric. Obama’s pledge for change is fine enough, but he has to convince people that he’ll put forth proposals that Republicans will agree to also.
But, imo the influence of money on the process is largely due to the way politics is structured. It happens time and again in Congressional races that if a candidate is not willing to accept money from interest groups, the party runs someone against him who will. Then they continue to pander to moneyed groups to get campaign cash. I also think the extreme polarization engendered by two party politics is negative. A lot that passes is also smoke and mirrors, like McCain-Feingold, which barely did anything progressive to reform the process, or a budget surplus that never was a surplus; but this never gets reviewed roundly because there isn’t a broad enough debate.
I know from having worked in the Reform Party, that many Congressmen and Senators communicated at the time that they wanted to switch parties, to jump ship to a third party, but didn’t because it would be political suicide, because of all the obstacles.
If there were fair ballot access rules, it would go a lot more towards creating a government people want.
I just think people should know about some of the legal obstacles the two parties put in place that kill outside challenges.
Hey Dusty!
Thanks for the laugh, you peerless prognosticator.
@49: Supporting perot doesn’t tell me your politics – it tells me you will support a certifiably insane person for president.
Nader doesn’t deserve to be in on any debates. He had 0.3% support last time and no party. He is getting senile and selfish. His claptrap about the republicans and democrats being the same is just plain wrong – we have seen what the republicans do:
they are corrupt (Abramoff, gonzalaex, Safavian et al) and inept (Brownie, the economy, the FDA, EPA the FCC, the FEC and so on)
they start unnecessary wars
they lie about torture and illegal spying
they protect big drug companies, oil companies and insurance companies.
No viable democrat will stay in Iraq like MccAin wants to..a dn no demcorat would have started an unnecessary war. Period (well
correctnotright.
If he doesn’t have enough support, then you don’t have to worry about him being on the ballot. If 0.3% of the country makes a difference in the election, and you’re worried about geting that 0.3% then we have a bigger problem.
If we started on a discussion of the failures of Democrats and Republicans, I would argue both are corrupt, and a Democratic president lied about the reasons we went into Kosovo, as well as violating the Constitution in going against the vote of Congress.
@58: Redfish
Must be nice to see the world through rose colored lenses – ol’ Ralph Nader is somehow an agent of change – but Obama and McCain are the same?
Maybe you should actually pay attention to the issues. there are some HUGE differences between the republicans and democrats:
Obama is against Nafta – McCAin is for it.
McCain wants to be in Iraq for 100 years – Obama has consistently been against the war and wants out in 6 months.
McCain claims to be agaisnt lobbyists – but his advisors are almost solely lobbyists. Obvamas main advisors are NOT lobbyists – the closests to a lobbyist is Tom Daschle – more of a political advisor and a better majority leader than Harry Reid.
the environment – not close – McCAin will give us more big oil.
Helath care – not cloase – Hillary and Obama both have much better helath care plans and economic plans.
Tax cuts for the rich – McCain has you covered – democrats oppose.
budget deficits – vote republican.
Even if Nader was elected (which he will never be – sionce no one in their right mind would vote for him) he would not be able to work with congress…what kind of president would he make – a lousy one – the same way he campaigns.
there has never been a clearer choice – and Nader was wrong on 200 too.
@62 wrong in 2000 also.
correctornot.
look, on most of these things im not necessarily with nader, i support centrist approaches, and obama doesn’t cut it more than mccain.
but to adequately discuss the differences between the parties we first have to get out of rhetoric like “mccain wants to be in iraq for 100 years”. mccain accepts that on the same basis that we still have bases from the korean war.
on the war, both obama and mccain have to and will approach the issue from a rational perspective, of how soon it makes sense to move troops out, based on opinions from the state department.
You exagerate and mischaracterize what is said by some, attribute it to all, and then say it proves how wrong we are. Then you wait for someone to take the bait.
Yep, that sounds like Stupes!
@64: Redfish – Sorry – if you have been paying attention to what McCain has said and done you would see major differences between Mccain and Obama (or Clinton):
McCain said going into Iraq would be easy (many times). He was a cheerleader for the war.
He has supported Bush and pandered to the right wing.
He went to Baghdad to show how safe it was with a flak jacket and and marine escort and clearance force.
Obama has been against the war from the beginning – see his speech in 2000 and compare it to Hillary’s, for instance.
If this race is close (and it might be) and a few thousand idiot Nader supporters throw it to the republicans again….then the Naderites are ceeding the direction of the US to republicans and are complicit in their policies.
I blame Nader for the mess our contry has been in over the last 7 years – remember – Nader claimed that Gore was not an environmentalist and that Gore and GWB were the same!
Do you believe for a second that Gore would have invaded Iraq?
that gore would have met in secret with Enron and the oil companies?
that gore would have approved of torture or illegal wiretapping?
Yes – Nader disgusts me – it is all about his ego and not about what is best for the country. He lied in 2000 and he has NO credibility now.
Nader won’t get near the support because Obama is anti-war and that was one of Nader’s big deals last time. Plus – the GOP will be defeated by such a wide margin this time – he’s not worth worrying about. I won’t spend ANY energy worrying about him. I’ll spend my time and money helping Obama and the Dems take complete control of the federal government.
@11 “Perot single handedly handed the election to Clinton in 1992.”
Wingnut bullshit. Clinton would have won even if Perot had never been born.
“Some conservative analysts believe that Perot acted as a spoiler in the election, primarily drawing votes away from Bush and allowing Clinton to win many states with less than a majority of votes. However, exit polling indicated that Perot voters would have split their votes fairly evenly between Clinton and Bush had Perot not been in the race, and an analysis by FairVote – Center for Voting and Democracy suggested that, while Bush would have won more electoral votes with Perot out of the race, he would not have gained enough to reverse Clinton’s victory.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.....2#Analysis
The perfect US government would be:
1. The House of Representatives controlled by the Republicans.
2. The Senate controlled by the Democrats.
3. A weak president from either party.
Such an arrangement would probably work well in minimizing the damage that government can do.
correctnotright;
I do think that Gore’s President, Bill Clinton would have gone into Iraq. Tony Blair, Clinton’s New Labour friend, who worked with Clinton to go into Kosovo, supported the war in Iraq. And yes, Clinton was bought out by corporate interests also. In the end the fight over Iraq policy fell into predictably partisan camps, with Democrats disagreeing with Bush and Republicans agreeing with him, even though many Democrats voted for it. If a Democrat in office started the war, and I believe they could have, then we would just have opposite camps.
I’m not a psychic so don’t know what Gore himself would have done. But I don’t think Bush ‘lied’. I think one of the reasons he had to go in unilaterally was because some foreign diplomats had financial interests in Iraq and were corrupt. I do think that some bad policies of the US helped pave towards the war, and Obama opposes some of these, like Free Trade. It doesn’t mean I think Obama is perfect on this.
My position on the two candidates war stances is just this; everybody knows that we can’t get out of Iraq leaving it less stable, but everyone is willing to try to further the goal of getting out of Iraq (Bush supports this too). So in the end, rhetoric and political arguments about time tables, are just rhetoric and political arguments. I would hope too, btw, that Obama wouldn’t leave Iraq instable, before the democracy there is secure, as much as I would hope, that McCain is committed to putting pressure on the Iraqi government and is prepared to leave.
If I decide between McCain or Obama it will depend on how they campaign, which one can present to me a platform more suited to working with the other side, and moving towards progress. To me, this doesn’t necessarily mean Obama. I don’t buy all the sound-bite arguments against McCain.
I support Nader’s effort to have fair participation in the election, unobstructed. My point about the close race that depends on 0.3% of America, is that if it really comes down to that, then neither candidate really deserves the election more than the other; the vote could have changed depending on the day it was held and whether it was raining. There’s a reason half of America disagrees with you, and if you win by 0.3%, and cheer that it reflects a problem. We need to change politics in this country so that the winner will have a clear mandate from the public by a larger margin. If Obama can do that good for him, but he shouldn’t worry about Nader.
According to KING 5 News, opposition is building in Oklahoma City to raising their sales tax to refurbish the old cow barn Clay Bennett wants to play basketball in.
If he gets kicked out of there, I suppose he take his tin cup on the road and try a bustling metropolis like Kankakee, Great Falls, or Last Gas For 500 Miles. Maybe they’ll give him a grain silo to play in.
@36 No, I don’t think Obama should offer the Veep spot to Nader. In fact, I’ll be disappointed if Obama returns Nader’s calls. He shouldn’t give that guy the time of day.
@37 We don’t have to chase Bennett out of town. He can’t wait to leave. He’s already got his bags packed and is standing on the platform at the Greyhound depot.
@47 Two words: McCain’s deposition. You guys are toast.
@70 Bush left us with nothing but bad choices in Iraq, and given a choice between leaving an unstable government or fighting there for 100 years, the vast majority of Americans will prefer to leave. McCain’s Hundred Year War isn’t gonna sell. And why should voters reward the Republicans who created this damned mess by electing another Republican? That makes no sense, and they won’t.
Nader is sooo yesterday …
Nader thinks his S— don’t stink! He should be salivating over the fact that Hillary’s up to her pant-suit in alligators; check out the net for her Chinese Laundery List (false names/false addresses of donors), Swiftboating (ALP committee), 120 pages of the Barrett Report missing that showed Clinton’s useing the IRS and Justice Dept. to get back at people, 3 FEC filings against her and the Paul vs Clinton campaign Fraud trial that is gearing Feb. 24th. Like Nader is going to save us from the culture of corruption! Hell no! McCain and his bride have their own past chaseing them. Obama is the best out of that bunch of cheaters who are the cream of the crap!
@70: Redfish
How can you be so off-base?
When we led into Kosovo – we had allies, we were supporting human rights and we did the right thing without entagling ourselves in a ground war.
Iraq was manufactured by bush – the intelligence was hyped and misinterpreted and bush led the propaganda war in the aftermath of 9/11. We twisted the arms of other countries to support us and lost international credibility – we gained credibility in Kosovo.
I supported going after bin Laden – in Afghanistan.
If you think clinton or gore would have gone into Iraq – then you have NO ability to analyze history and SHOULD vote for an idiot like Nader
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA. May the Ball begin!
correctnotright.
The peace treaty we exited Kosovo with was a treaty the Serbs proposed before the war. The war started, because Albright and others wanted to issue the Serbs an ultimatum which amounted to NATO occupation of Belgrade. But, we were told the Serbs were not supporting autonomy and that the outcome was a victory for NATO. The US Congress also passed a resolution against the war, and Clinton still went in, defying the will of Congress. This is different from the situation in Iraq, where the Congress supported Bush. The war efforts there were also going terribly until Milosevic started acting like an idiot and pushing refugees to the border. Today, Kosovo still remains a problem, which is why you had a lot of rioting there and the burning of the American embassy. Serbia was a culprit, but so was the KLA equally responsible, which, btw, has been linked to terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda. We went into that war dishonestly, and unconstitutionally, and inflamed the conflict there. Serbs hate us.
And Clinton continued airstrikes into Iraq throughout his presidency. Many people thought we should have ousted Hussein in the first Gulf War, and that this prolonged conflict in Iraq was due to us not solving the problem. Clinton in his own term spoke against Hussein obstructing investigators and trying to build WMDs. Clinton and Tony Blair were allied on both Iraq and Kosovo. Tony Blair supported the war in Iraq.
Please don’t tell me its so obvious Clinton would have not gone into Iraq. At most, he would have tried to get more international support than Bush did.
busdrivermike and correctnotright – There’s no need for me to stop because the contest isn’t over.
Obama lost points with the exact crowd he needed to convert in order to seal the deal – Latino voters in Texas. What he needed to do going in to that debate was win over the 35% voting block of latino voters, and surveys are showing he failed to do it – as CNN puts it:
In March 4th states, she is FAR ahead in Rhode Island, much more ahead in Ohio, and increased her lead in Texas in a poll that was completed after the recent debates. He leads her in one March 4th state – Vermont.
California was called early because of the huge latino votes that were underrepresented in the pre-election polls, and watch them break decisively in her favor if he doesn’t pull out a huge latino break in the next Ohio debate. Since NAFTA is one of the themes that the debate is going to be greatly centered around (NAFTA is hugely popular amount Latinos in Texas), it is not going to happen.
So, I know you delusionals on this board thing Obama has shit wrapped up – I completely disagree, and until Oprah sings, it ain’t over.
redfish supports Nader. That makes him a Republican.
“I don’t think Bush ‘lied’.”
Wrong. On Iraq…
http://www.publicintegrity.org.....038;id=945
A litttle more…
http://www.google.com/search?q.....tartPage=1
State Of The Union Address says:
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA. May the Ball begin!
Did you clear that comment with Hillary?
She may get a little pissy about being thrown out of the campaign so early.
Roger Rabbit says:
@11 “Perot single handedly handed the election to Clinton in 1992.”
Wingnut bullshit. Clinton would have won even if Perot had never been born.
Rabbit drinks the Clinton koolaid. Anyone in their right mind can look at the numbers and figure it out for themselves. Clinton only became president because of Perot. What is funny is how you lefties think he took votes from the left….heehehehe. We all know how much you lefties love Corporate billionaires from Texas. hahaahahahahahaha
OK ALL YOU RIGHT WING WHACK JOBS TELL ME ONE TIME THAT OBAMA REACHED ACROSS THE ASILE AND WORKED WITH THE OTHER SIDE.ITS A WONDER HE DOESNT BEAT HIMSELF TO DEATH WITH HIS LIPS.OH AND HOW COME HE IS BLACK DID HE FLIP A COIN.
I think Obama will get the Dems’ nomination instead of Her Highness, though. There’s a good chance that Hillary’s aspirations to be prez will be ended in just a few weeks! What a thought!
Jane Balough’s Dog,
Why not ask Roger who he voted for back in 1992? I bet you’ll be surprised with his answer. He has stated before on this blog that he voted for Perot back in 1992. Odd that he’s attacking Perot’s candidacy now, dontcha think?
In fact there is a lot of scholars who say that not only did Perot take almost all his votes from GHWB but that he actually suppressed turnout for the right. There is evidence that not only would GHWB would have won, but it would have been a landslide.
81 dj
Funny think about Texas. Delegates in each CD are apportioned according to their voting patterns over time. Heavily Latino areas in Texas by and large went for Bush in 2004 (it is thought because they thought they’d beneift if they went his way), while the urban centers (more heavily black) voted Democratic. Because of that, the former are apportioned fewer delegates and the latter are apportioned many more delegates. What I’m saying is that a heavy Latino vote for Hillary in Texas may not get her anywhere in the race for the nomination.
But is Hillary ahead in Texas?
http://www.americanthinker.com.....inton.html
FAR ahead in Ohio? Maybe not so much…
http://nation.ittefaq.com/issu.....ws0281.htm
But here’s my favorite, DJ…Hillary FAR ahead in Rhode Island?
http://ap.google.com/article/A.....gD8UO8UIG0
Yeah, Hillary’s so FAR AHEAD in RI that she has a whopping 36% of the vote. Uh-huh.
Oh, and never let the facts get in the way of your ignorant opinion.
89 JBD
There is evidence that not only would GHWB would have won, but it would have been a landslide.
If you have “evidence,” bring it.
Goerge Bush was a very unpopular man in late 1992.
Politically Incorrect says:
Jane Balough’s Dog,
Why not ask Roger who he voted for back in 1992? I bet you’ll be surprised with his answer. He has stated before on this blog that he voted for Perot back in 1992.
Donks are natural born liars. But who knows, the way they cheat he may have voted once for Perot and couple times for Clinton.
If you have “evidence,” bring it.
Goerge Bush was a very unpopular man in late 1992.
02/24/2008 at 6:55 pm
That is what the liberal media would want you believe. After the Gulf war George Bush had some of the highest approval ratings ever for a president. I can remember the liberal mantra…”worse economy in 50 years” Where did I hear that before… hmmmm. Of course it was all lies. But what else is new.
PU- he is black in no small part because bigotted assholes like you label him
@80 You have a short memory. Clinton intervened in Kosovo based on irrefutable evidence that the Serbs were committing mass killings. You are also wrong in stating that Congress supported Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Setting aside Bush’s lies about WMDs, the congressional resolution authorized use of force as a last resort. Bush violated both the letter and spirit of that resolution by immediately invading Iraq.
@85 You’re the koolaid drinker, mutt. I quoted facts. You spew off-the-wall bullshit.
@87 Yeah, it just bugs the shit out of GOPers that they won’t get to run against Hillary.
2000 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2004 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2008 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2012 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2016 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2020 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2024 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2028 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2032 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2036 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2044 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2048 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2052 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2056 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2060 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2064 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2068 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2072 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2076 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2080 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2084 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2088 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2092 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2096 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2100 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2104 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2108 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2116 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2120 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2124 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2128 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2132 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2136 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2140 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2144 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2148 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2152 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2156 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2160 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2164 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2168 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2172 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2176 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2180 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2084 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2088 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2092 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2096 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2200 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2204 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2208 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2216 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2220 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2228 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2232 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2236 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2240 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2244 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2248 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2252 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2256 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2260 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2264 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2268 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2272 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2276 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2280 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2284 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2288 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2292 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
2296 GOP bumper sticker: It’s Clinton’s Fault
Hell, the Flat Earthers will still be running against Clinton 500 years from now …
@92 “Why not ask Roger who he voted for back in 1992? I bet you’ll be surprised with his answer. He has stated before on this blog that he voted for Perot back in 1992.”
That’s correct. I voted for Perot in ’92 and Dole in ’96. In other words, I never voted for Bill Clinton. In retrospect, though, I feel he was a pretty good president — and light years better than Current Occupant.
Wow! This thread is already up to 100 posts! That’s more than the sucky little rival blog gets in six months.
Daddy Love @ 90 – But are those the most recent polls?
Rhode Island Feb. 21 Clinton 50% Obama 38%. That poll you cite is old (the Brown U poll back from Feb 10).
In Texas, the last major poll to be conducted in English and Spanish: Feb. 14 Clinton 54% Obama 38%. The last poll I’ve seen in English only ended Feb 22 and showed Clinton up 48% – 43%. I agree in your analysis on how the delegates are awarded, even if he passes her in delegates in TX, the media always spins the “winner” as the popular vote award – remember Nevada? That’s half of the ground game.
Decision Analyst is not in my list of surveyors (Rasmussen, ARG, ABC News, Constituent Dynamics, Opinion Research, CNN, IVR, Zogby, etc) as they tend to concentrate only in metro areas, compared to other majors like ARG and Rasmussen, who do a better swatch across the state. The only major polling place I’ve seen that has called it higher for Obama is ARG on February 14th, at 42% Clinton vs 48% Obama. All other polls taken before or after have called it for Clinton.
And yes, back to OH, latest poll for Rasmussen (feb 21 vs the feb 20 one you cite) in OH is 48% Clinton to 40% for Obama. In Ohio, Clinton is viewed favorably by 81%, Obama by 70%. Those figures have changed little over the past week. In Ohio, 51% view the Economy as the #1 issue, vs 18% the war in Iraq, which also explains why he isn’t doing as well – she does much better in a state with demographics as such.
Roger Rabbit says:
@87 Yeah, it just bugs the shit out of GOPers that they won’t get to run against Hillary.
The Republicans are rooting for Hillary. Obama will win over McCain, but McCain will win over Hillary. Obama is OK with me as long as Hillary is out of the race.
K JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION WHAT HAS THE EMPTY SUIT DONE.IF HE IS AFRICAN AMERICAN WHERE IN AFRICA WAS HIS FATER BORN.JUST ASKIN
K NO NAME CALLING IM DEEPLY HURT BY YOUR ATTACKS YOU ARE WELCOME TO OPINION BUT NOT TO YOUR OWN FACTS.THANK YOU NOW FUCK OF AND DIE AND TAKE ROGER WITH YOU.
ROGER @102 YOU THINK THE COMMUNITY ORGANINZER FROM 20 YEARS AGO WILL BEAT McCAIN.HAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR
@101: where have we heard all this talk for Clinton before?
The only states she has won convincingly are Arkansas and NY. As the election gets closer Hillary and Bill fade, and Obama picks up steam. Hillary has lost the last 13 states and democrats want a winner who will run a clean campaign and not fritter away a lead to McCain.
Losing the last debate won’t help her.
98
Stop your crying. No one gives a shit about that overhyped clod. His only claim to fame is he actually got to become president as a democrat. Well that and getting a BJ in the oval office. roof roof. heheheehe
@104 Only a wingnut misspells a big word like “off.”
Re: 25, They would only hurt themselves.
SeattleJew: See Comment #43.
Waaaaa haaaaa haaaaa haaaaa haaaaa.
@105 A department store mannequin could beat McCain — at least the mannequin is still breathing.
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
107 – 109 I see the Wingnutz (TM) are drooling again.
Correctnotright@57:
Yes, you see what PuddyFacts do? They set the record correctly and Puddy commends your correct use of them.
“He said that Al Gore was the same as GWB. He caused Gore to lose (although Gore won the popular vote, and actually won florida if there was a real recount of the whole state).”
Correctly said to a point. Certain papers said Bush won while others said Gore would have won. All said including Gore himself, “Gore screwed his pooch”!
No one gives a shit
Doofus certainly gives a shit about shit.
He eats it!
Eat shit cur! LMAO!!!
The dems are pissed about Florida because they couldn;t pull a “king county” and steal the election. hahahaha Eat shit donks.
K@46: Yes, I attribute it to all.
Know why? When someone like Larry Craig comes along it’s:
Well Puddy is he wrong? do you agree with him?
When a donkey does wrong – nary a peep from the faithful HorsesASSHolers. So my assertion of attribution to all of you stands, by not taking a stand.
Clueless Idiot proves my point every day.
Re: 113, Pat Buchanan got 90,000 votes in palm beach county (a democrat county) Now you can look at that two ways, either 90,000 elderly Jewish democrats voted for Pat, or 90,000 democrats were to stupid to vote, made a mistake and should have their voting privileges taken away and voted for Buchanan who’s name was next to Al Gores. The Butterfly Ballot was designed and approved by the democrat government in Palm Beach County.
Redfish@70 wrote: “And yes, Clinton was bought out by corporate interests also.”
Correct – In an earlier 2008 PuddyStudy I posted the review of Clinton’s 22MM job creation where democrat economists said the jobs were of the $7 variety because Clinton was beholden to Wall Street interests.
116 – Ahhhh poor baby Stupes – we Dem voters won’t dance to his silly tune.
Let’s hear it Stupes, bark some orders. Command me to denounce HL.
LMAO!!!
Pud @ 116- I refuse to allow you to tell me what I believe.
The Oscar for best documentary was awarded to “Taxi to the Dark Side,” about an innocent 22-year-old Afghani taxi driver who was detained by American troops and died under torture while in U.S. custody.
Of the 3 American soldiers prosecuted in this murder, one received 2 months confinement and the other two were sentenced to no jail time at all.
The U.S. military attributed the man’s death to “natural causes.”
According to Wikipedia, the Discovery Channel attempted to suppress this documentary by purchasing the broadcast rights with the intention of never broadcasting it. However, after HBO announced plans to air it in September 2008, Discovery Channel reversed itself and announced it will broadcast the film in 2009 — after the election, and after Bush has left office.
RE: 120, I thought that is what liberals did. Here is a story in the New York Times about that glassy eyed Obamatrons that cheered when Obama had to take a break and sneeze.
The other day a Texas crowd cheered his sneeze.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02.....ref=slogin
@116 “When a donkey does wrong – nary a peep from the faithful HorsesASSHolers.”
This is a liberal blog, dumbshit. If you want a wingnut circle jerk, try Stefan’s sucky little blog.
K – With post #123 The Prosecution Rests.
What a crock!
Re: 121, You’re kidding! Hollywood gave an Oscar to an anti military documentary where the film maker tried to slime some American Soldiers by accusing them of torture (that was never proven),Unbelievable, just unbelievable.
Rabbit, that is what Hollywood does and only people with really small brains give a shit what Hollywood does.
@118
Wingnut Bullshit: “Clinton’s 22MM job creation where democrat economists said the jobs were of the $7 variety because Clinton was beholden to Wall Street interests.”
Reality Check: During Clinton’s 8 years in office, the U.S. average wage rose a total of 16.92%, i.e. an average of 2.1% a year. During Bush’s first 5 years in office, the U.S. average wage rose a total of 4.0%, an average of 0.8% a year.
U.S. average wage data from Washington State Office of Financial Management (stated in 2005 dollars, adjusted for inflation):
2005 $40,146
2004 $39,901
2003 $39,246
2002 $38,944
2001 $38,858
2000 $38,711
1999 $37,442
1998 $36,483
1997 $35,006
1996 $34,003
1995 $33,397
1994 $33,030
1993 $32,906
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/trends/tables/fig102.asp
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Awww shucks, pudwhacker just got caught blowing smoke out of his ass again.
@1124 We’ve never made any pretensions about what this blog is, puddinghead. Unlike wingnut blogs, we don’t pretend to be impartial. Like I said, this is a liberal blog, dumbass!! I assume you’re here to pick fights with liberals. You came to the right place to get your lying wingnut ass kicked!!! See #126.
re 125: Yer a loser and an idiot. You and your ilk are already marginalized. Back in the corner, up on a stool, dunce cap on at a rakish tilt.
@1215 Don’t forget to click your heels together, stiffly extend your right arm (palm down), and shout “Seig Heil!” when you write that, rob.
@121 You’re a pathetic excuse for a human being, rob.
Click here for rob’s school yearbook photo. http://tinyurl.com/yrmg6v
Puddinghead is being awful quiet about those wage statistics I shoved up his lying ass. He must be running for cover.
RE: 129, So I have to be a follower of Hitler in order to denounce the worthless druggies in Hollywood?
Here is a little history for your little brain. Hitler used the German film industry to gain pudding head followers like you and Crate N Barrel and like you and Crate N Barrel they were to weak minded and fell for it.
Getting insults from you losers is like getting a bad fake story in the New York Times. I wear it with pride because that is all you got.
Pelletizer: I ain’t quiet. I was busy.
Atlantic Monthly article. I posted it three times Pelletizer. Can you find it Pelletizer?
Headless Crate Creighton Baril N’Barrel Lucy:
Bloviating again 24/7? You’ve been outed by Puddy.
Oh come on now—what difference will the Nader candidacy really make?
Why did wages go up Pelletizer? The Fed statistics tell the story.
Also Pelletizer why did the average number of people go up in poverty during the Clinton Years?
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/trends/tables/fig201.asp
…Ralphie just longs for the glory days back in the 60s and 70s when he was a leftist god whose name made the papers all the time. All that attention is hard to give up, you know?
Going to the Fed Data:
1999 Per capita personal income $27,939.
1998 Per capita personal income $26,883.
1997 Per capita personal income $25,334.
1996 Per capita personal income $24,175.
Need to see more Pelletizer?
Nader won’t make any difference in this race. He did give 2000 to Bush–he took nearly 100,000 votes in Florida. Butterfly ballots and hanging chads wouldn’t have meant a damned thing in Florida if Nader hadn’t run. He also probably made the difference in New Hampshire where the difference between good and evil was a mere 7,000 votes–guess what, if Gore had taken New Hampshire, we would never have invaded Iraq and tromped on the Constitution and peed on the average Joe and . . . So, Nader is justifiably the target of considerable pissoffedness from the left. Now, however, all he is doing is destroying his legacy, proving to his rightwing critics that all he ever cared about was his ego. Ralph, you really fucked yourself.
@660 correctnotright says:
I am a firm OBamite BUT it does no one any good whgen folks distort Se. McCains and Sen. Obama’s positions:
McCain OPPOSED the invasions as done by Bush. He said it was doen badly and needed a lot more troops and better aliies.
Obama has been against the war from the beginning – see his speech in 2000 and compare it to Hillary’s, for instance. True and that is one reaosn this should be agood campaign.
Do you believe for a second that Gore would have invaded Iraq? Yes.
that gore would have met in secret with Enron and the oil companies?
that gore would have approved of torture or illegal wiretapping? no.
RE: 131, Did you take that picture from your child porn collection rabbit?
Mor of the same: Correcr tnot right si not always correct
Obama is against Nafta – McCAin is for it. sort of. Obama, a very rational man, has said we can nto withdraw now because the harm doen would be wrse than the benefit.
McCain wants to be in Iraq for 100 years McCain is being misquoted.
McCain claims to be agaisnt lobbyists – but his advisors are almost solely lobbyists. No, McCain has never said he is against Lobyists, he has said he is against the elvel of influence they have. He also has a remarekably clean record. Thats aid,, Obvamas main advisors are NOT lobbyists – the closests to a lobbyist is Tom Daschle – more of a political advisor and a better majority leader than Harry Reid. is a bit of an overstatement. But BHO has been pretty good on thisn issue too.
the environment – not close – McCAin will give us more big oil. where the fuck do you get that?
Helath care – not cloase – Hillary and Obama both have much better helath care plans and economic plans. true
Tax cuts for the rich – McCain has you covered – democrats oppose. again you are tight here but I believe he is being a Panda bear
budget deficits – vote republican. McCain ahs been a pretty good budget hawk.
SJ @ 141
You are hard to figure out. Mostly, you seem to want to be labeled iconoclastic. Gore would not have invaded Iraq. I don’t even think it would have been a topic of discussion in his administration. McCain would have done the same as Bush, but with more forces and that makes him wiser? Don’t think so. The Middle East is something that this nation has never figured out, and I don’t hold that against us. Cauldrons are something a guy best not jump into.
Terrorist @ 139
Congratulations. You’ve just demonstrated that you don’t understand the difference between average wages and per capita average income. The former will always be larger than the latter. See if you can figure out why.
RE: 144, No one knows what the Goracle would have done. His boss, Bill Clinton was for it though.
Clinton has long been critical of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and called it a “big mistake” as far back as November of 2005.
But like his wife, the former president supported giving President Bush the authority needed to go to war.
“I supported the President when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” said Clinton in 2003 while delivering commencement remarks at Tougaloo College in Jackson, Miss.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit.....on-re.html
@137 So you admit wages went up 2 1/2 times as fast under Clinton than Corporate America’s trained monkey? Wonder why that is, hey? Geez, you’d almost think Republicans don’t give a damn about workers.
@142 I thought sure you’d recognize it — I got it from your mother. No wait — you don’t have a mother. I got it from a friend of your late Uncle Adolf.
@139 Per capita presonal income includes things like capital gains and dividends, puddinghead. I thought you were talking about wages. When did you decide to chagne the subject? After you got your ass kicked?
change
RE: 148, you’re right. My mother is dead. You just picked it out of your collection of Nazi Child Porn. Why else would you have it?
Poor little rabbit sitting under the Freemont Bridge playing with his little rabbit penis looking at Gay Nazi Child Porn. Yep, sounds like a liberal to me.
Goodnight all, time for bed some of us have to work tomorrow to keep you pigs at the trough in benifits.
Thanks for playing.
@139 (continued) Well let’s see. During 1996 – 1999 personal income rose 15.6% and wages rose 10.1%, so believe it or not, under Clinton the capitalist class did even better than workers! Clinton was good for BOTH the Owner Class and the working class!
Hey puddy, why did you omit the personal income figures for 2000 – 2005? Whatsamatter, do they suck? As I recall the country went into recession in March 2001 (2 months after Corporate America’s trained monkey seized power) and investors lost their asses in the 2001-2002 market downturn. So maybe the personal income figures went BACKWARDS under your chimp?
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
@140 If stealing Florida hadn’t been enough, they would have stolen a couple more states, so I don’t think Nader made much difference.
@144 “McCain would have done the same as Bush, but with more forces and that makes him wiser? Don’t think so.”
Actually, if one insists on invading Iraq, then yes more forces would have been wiser. Gen. Eric Sinseki told the Busheviks it would take 500,000 troops to occupy Iraq — and got sacked for telling the truth. One of the consequences of inadequate troop strength was that our generals couldn’t seal the border with Iran, with the predictable consequences. Even without that problem, the number sent was far less than needed to keep Iraq’s facts separated and prevent civil war, resulting in tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths. Way to fuck up a war, wingnuts!!!
@151 Your mother can’t be dead, becaue you didn’t have a mother in the first place. You were hatched. God knows which reptilian species were crossed to produce you.
@151 “You just picked it out of your collection of Nazi Child Porn. Why else would you have it?”
As you know, porn of all types is readily available on Al Gore’s invention. Now be a good little nazi and beat your drum.
@153 You have to work tomorrow? Awww, isn’t that toooo bad!!! You must have one of Clinton’s minimum wage jobs that pudcracker was talking about. I can stay up all night because I don’t have to work. Why should I work? I quit working because Republican congressmen want me to flip stocks, not work. That’s why they tax shit out of wages. Yes, I can understand why people like rob complain about taxes! Under Republican government, the Earned Income Credit isn’t what it used to be.
Goldy, damn! You’re far dumber than I thought. Keep it up. Run yourself straight into the poor house. Keep up the swearing too, you are really winning hearts and minds. You’ve jettisoned mainstream Democrats, and that’s why you don’t have a radio show or a livelihood.
I love it. Dustin James is still smoking the Hillary crackpipe.
Remember, I said it was over for her after Super Tuesday, and everyone said that she could still win.
If Dustin James were one of the Wicked Witch of the West’s flying monkeys, he would be arguing that she was still alive because her clothes were still on the ground after she got melted by the water.
“Nuance’s of the two-party system”??? Are they the same as the nuances of the politburo? If you don’t believe in democracy, just say so and cut the bullshit.
HORSE-PUCKY!!!!!!!!!!!! HILLARY IS LAME! DARK HORSE TAKES THE PURSE BY A MILE!!!!!!! NOT A NECK TO NECK! OUT OF THE SHOOT IT”S OBAMA MOVING UP THE BACK STRETCH THE WINNER!!! HILDABEEST LOSES!
Dingleberry Delusional Joe and Pelletmaker Pelletizer: First off you never looked up the Atlantic Monthly (left-wing) article I’ve posted over and over where the economist wrote about the Clinton jobs. So you have no basis in fact.
Oh but I do understand the difference between wages and income. THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO DIMENSIONAL wages THINKING AND THREE DIMENSIONAL personal income THINKING. You two are TWO DIMENSIONAL while Puddy is THREE DIMENSIONAL. First Pelletizer placed the wages values on the board. Since Wages are only a part of life, and on $7/hr you can’t exactly have capital gains and dividends with the low average per capita income you all SCREAMED WAS SO GOOD UNDER THE CLINTON ADMIN AND SUCKS UNDER THE BUSH ADMIN, I fiugred I’d compare apples to apples.
With those $7 wage jobs 22 million people were receiving they weren’t making it. They weren’t buying stockes and bonds and they weren’t enjoying captial gains. Also if you looked at the Pelletizer link it specifically said the increase was due to certain people having benefits others didn’t “In the mid- and late 1990s, software and other high tech industry wages, along with stock options, helped increase Washington’s average wage.” Well they did the same in all high tech sectors while the little man took it in the shorts.
Ralph Nader was a representative of the american people (back in the day). When he first ran for office what you may not know is that C.I.A. told him not to run or else he would disappear. Fearful for his life he dropped out of everything. I for one wished he told them to F— off.I for one agree we need other independent parties to run and debate either republicans and democracts. Both of those parties control too much and will not allow independents a chance to prove themselves.
Pelltizer, I didn’t post the other years because Mrs Puddy called me to bed. And when Mrs Puddy calls Puddy to bed, Puddy leaves you and your 16%er friends like a bad penny.
Isn’t it amazing how Pelletizer uses the values to try and make his argument work but Puddy always finds the antidote?
The values asked by Pelletizer.
2006 $36,629
2005 $34,685
2004 $33,072
2003 $31,466
2002 $30,795
2001 $30,562
2000 $29,843
So Dingleberry Delusional Joe and Pelletizer did you find the article about the Clinton $7 hr jobs yet?
see above caption #164
Terrorist @ 164,
Now you’ve dropped the qualifiers. The rabbit cited average wages. You cited per capita average income.
I’m guessing that you still don’t grok the difference, despite the emphasis I’ve just added above.
As for one economist’s opinion regarding Clinton’s $7/hr jobs, I’d prefer to stick to the facts. Having a degree in Economics myself, I don’t need another Economist to tell me what to think about it.
Delusional Don Joe: I made the original postulation based on a left-wing publication.
Pelletizer changed the equation. I never used the word wages. Pelletizer did. He does that a lot to try and make his puny arguments. I brought it back to a full discussion. Because during Clinton’s time 22,000,000/281,421,906 (US 2000 Census) = 8% of the population (not including illegal aliens). Population in 1990 was 248,709,873 + illegal aliens
If you have issues reading and comprehending… so be it.
I am responding to your rant about Ralph Nader, “Nader Runs, Nation Ralphs.” I picked it up on Yahoo opinion. Contrary to your opinion, Nader actually picks up where Job left off. His voice is an angry voice in the corporate wilderness. Those who supposedly admired him at one point now throw a lot of dung his way. I’m sure he appreciates all the negative support by the way. Did you even see “An Inconvinient Man?” Nader contends that the parties are most alike in the fact that they are owned, lock, stock and barrel by the corporate interests who fund them. The two parties have successfully marginalized Nader for their corporate masters. This is payback for all the consumer good that Nader has done. This angry old white man as you call him, has done so much good for our nation and its citizens, and for no pay by the way. You only think that you are part of some vast grassroots democracy movement. You must realize that once the big telecom giants decide that your so-called grass roots movement is any kind of real threat, all the little blogs out their including yours will be charged out of existance. Can you really afford to make any kind of serious cash payments for your website? And you know what? Ralph Nader will go out and fight for your rights too. Oh heck, I could go on and on, but why? You and your ilk will believe what you want any way. By the way, do you have to use so much profanity? You marginalize your self by doing so.
@170:
Ralph Nader supporters are idiots – period.
Anyone who claims the democrats and repulbicans are the same has not been awake over the last 7 years of:
Iraq
torture
illegal wiretapping
Science fraud
corruption (K street project – all republican, all Abramoff)
Katrina
Nader is an ego-based fool who plays into the republicans hand and ends up supporting the corporate interests he supposedly is against – check out his contributors and supporters in the 2000 election he helped to throw to GWB.
Nader supporters: Idiots on crack.
Terrorist @ 169
So, despite the fact that you were talking about $7/hr jobs, you weren’t really talking about wages, because you didn’t actually use the word “wages”? This is how you excuse your attempt to blame the Rabbit for changing the subject? I’d say that it’s not possible to get more pathetic than this, but, we’re talking about you.
And, no, you did not bring the discussion back to reality. All you’ve done is demonstrate your own inability to grasp the meaning of various economic facts. Please, do yourself a favor, and try not to discuss Economics. Let those who know what they’re talking about do the talking. On Economic issues, you would do well to simply shut up and listen.
I didn’t expect any less from the likes of correctnotright. When you resort to name calling I say again, you marginalize yourself. Don’t you get it? You will only make your comments on blogs such as this for as long as the telecommunications industry wants you to. Its like grafitti artists, the cities don’t crack down too much on them, because grafitti is a good outlet for little people such as them. Blogs are just computerized grafitti for those such as yourself. You really don’t have any power. If you don’t realize that by now, I feel very sorry for you.
The telecom industry as well as many other corporate interests own the Democratic and Republican parties. The two parties, who kowtow to these same corporate interests, team together to keep out any one who is not a “team” player, ie: Ralph Nader, Dennis Kusinich, Ron Paul, John Anderson, all the way back to William Jennings Bryan. Come on, get a real dialogue going. Support a third party now. By the way, I’m just an individual who is tired of being a slave to the corporations. Aren’t you?
How about this. Instead of just talking about change, how about making some real change. How about a nation wide one day strike.How about a nation wide one day refusal to purchase any thing. That would scare the crap out of every corporate interest there is.Hows that for an “idiot on crack?”
@126
Clinton didn’t have to contend with 9/11 and what that did to the economy. Gee and what happened in 2005 again.????
Katrina, Rita……..
Rabbit busted again.
@ 174
Well, that certainly explains why the best year over year percentage wage growth under Bush (2004) ranks sixth for the entire period. You’re going to blame all of that on 9/11?
Are you just a jaded cynic? Nader represents true democracy in this country. We need more political choices and a wider range of ideas in the marketplace. Who cares if he crashes the party? It’s (or should be) his right as an American to do so and our right to vote for him. F*** the status quo and jerks like you who reinforce its legitimacy.
@175 I’m no economist, but this is my take.
Just as the economy was beginning to recover from the burst tech bubble, 9/11 happened. Our economy, while still recovering from the mini-tech recession, and 9/11, starts to recover again, then Katrina/Rita…
My point is that our economy is robust. To be able to endure large hits like 9/11 and Katrina/Rita, and still grow…
Both sides can go find data to support their point of view, I only contend that our economy is much stronger than reported on a day to day basis.
Hey JohnK – I ask again – have you looked up who has contributed in 2004 to your big hero Nader? Do I need to get the big republican contributors names to blow away your pathetic argument – or will you actually do your own research?
Platitudes about Nader just don’t cut it – he lied in 2000 and is now an embarassment – you didn’t answer my questions about the differences between dems and republicans did you?
Yeah – I am sick of corporate influence – and voting for Nader will end up promoting MORE coporate influence.
When was the last time a third party actually took the white house? Does 0.3% in the last election seem like a good bet to you to change the nation?
Look – Nader is a loser and supported by the republicans to draw votes from viable democrats – who are as or more progressive than Nader and don’t have an ego-problem the size of Montana – as Nader does now.
re133: What do you mean by : ‘strong minded’? Usually when people tell me that, they mean that they are impervious to persuasion with facts because their minds are already made up.
@ 177
My point is that our economy is robust.
Our economy was robust enough to overcome the disastrous effects of the monetary policies of the late 1920’s (primarily through the New Deal, I should add). Crowing about our economy’s ability to overcome 9/11 and Katrina isn’t really all that impressive.
Read David Cay Johnston’s Free Lunch, then get back to me about supporting right-wing policies that screw the middle class.
To bring this back on topic, I agree with Goldy. We really don’t need Nader to tell us that the Economic policies that have been in effect since the beginning of the Reagan era have screwed the rest of us. All we need to do is ask the same question Reagan asked us back in 1980. Are we better off now than when Reagan took office all those years ago? The answer for the vast majority of us is, no.
@180
“Are we better off now than when Reagan took office all those years ago? The answer for the vast majority of us is, no.”
Well I guess it suck to be you!
I personally am doing much better today than in 1980.
Hard not to really….
How’d you manage to blow that one?
@ 181
Well I guess it suck to be you!
Whatever makes you think I was including myself in the “vast majority of us”?
As for how the vast majority of people managed to not be better off today than they were in 1980, I suggest you read Johnston’s book.
Or, you could simply continue to argue from the position of ignorance in which you presently find yourself.
I wrote:
‘Whatever makes you think I was including myself in the “vast majority of us”?’
Before our resident dipshits take that further out of context, I suppose I should have written:
‘Whatever makes you think I was including myself in the “vast majority of us” who have not done well?’
@183
“All we need to do is ask the same question Reagan asked us back in 1980. Are we better off now than when Reagan took office all those years ago? The answer for the vast majority of us is, no.”
You did.
@ 184
I said, “the vast majority of us,” which, if you understand the English language, rather clearly implies that there are “some of us” for whom the condition does not apply.
But, you’ll latch on to this rather than discuss the original point, because you know full well that you’ve just lost the argument.
@185
“But, you’ll latch on to this rather than discuss the original point, because you know full well that you’ve just lost the argument.”
I wasn’t aware that we were having an argument, a discussion or even exchange of ideas maybe…. but… if you say so….
Then you agree that the policies of the 90’s, which would be included in the time since Reagan have left the majority of Americans worse off?
@ 186
In order for us to actually have an exchange of ideas, the ideas need to be flowing in both directions. We haven’t seen very many ideas flowing from your direction, well, unless we deem your bragging about your personal wealth to constitute a sharing of ideas.
Then you agree that the policies of the 90’s, which would be included in the time since Reagan have left the majority of Americans worse off?
No. I’d say that we are worse off despite the efforts in the 90’s to reverse the damage that was done during the Reagan/Bush I years, and that’s primarily due to the continuation, indeed expansion, of that same stupidity by Bush II.
Sorry DJ.
You just play the party line, and then, when I put your own words back at you, contradict yourself.
YOU SAID
“To bring this back on topic, I agree with Goldy. We really don’t need Nader to tell us that the Economic policies that have been in effect since the beginning of the Reagan era have screwed the rest of us. All we need to do is ask the same question Reagan asked us back in 1980. Are we better off now than when Reagan took office all those years ago? The answer for the vast majority of us is, no.”
Your statement includes the 90’s…
I simply then asked “Then you agree that the policies of the 90’s, which would be included in the time since Reagan have left the majority of Americans worse off?”
You can’t have it both ways there Don-0-
Or is it your contention that 76-80 the economy was great, 80-92 were terrible times for the economy, 92-00 the economy was suddenly great again, 00-08 terrible economy….
That about it?
Never mind.
Let me sum up your answer in advance.
Democrats good, Republicans bad.
The truth is that both parties pander to big business and vice versa.
You can’t have it both ways there Don
I don’t recall asking to have it both ways. I’m merely looking at the data and drawing connections between the policies and the data. Your inability to follow that discussion isn’t my fault, nor can you cover up the fact that you’re starting from a position of ignorance by claiming that I’ve, somehow, contradicted myself.
Go read Johnston’s book. In fact, it’d probably be a good idea for you to read both of Johnston’s books on the general subject of tax policies.
By the way, I don’t recall ever saying that Democrats = Good and Republicans = Bad. If that’s a reasonable conclusion to be reached based on the data, then so be it. You, on the other hand, seem to want to dismiss the data and the very real connections that can be made between the data and the underlying policies because the conclusion is one you find unpalatable.
Delusional Don Joe:
Let’s see you work at a casino picking up receipts. That’s a powerful reminder to everyone about your economic “prowess”.
Again, Pelletizer tried to frame the discussion on his terms. I didn’t create terms. He chose wages. I chose personal income. Youa re the one with the problem. It’s not my argument, it’s a democrat economist. You choose to ignore the argument cuz it doesn’t fit your commentary. Facts are facts.
See you lata delusional one.
Terrorist @ 190
Let’s see you work at a casino picking up receipts.
I’m not sure what you hope to achieve with such a blatantly ad-hominem argument about my knowledge of Economics. Do you expect me to counter such a frivolous claim by revealing my identity?
Nice, try, sport, but that ain’t gonna happen. I’ll simply note that, by invoking this ad-hominem rhetoric, you’ve lost the broader argument.
I’ll also point out that you haven’t answered my question. When you posted about $7/hr jobs, do you honestly believe you were not talking about wages? If so, what, pray tell, did you think you were discussing?
Lastly, I’ll also note that you still haven’t fully explained the difference between per capita average income and average wages (hint, it’s not just the numerator in the fraction), nor, for that matter, have you provided any justification for choosing one measure over the other as a reasonable indicator for the point you want to make. Indeed, you haven’t even adequately stated the point you’re trying to make.
But, please, keep calling me delusional. Believe it or not, that actually enhances the quality of you rhetoric.
Oh so Delusional Joe, when I implement the same argument style and you claim “I lost the argument”. You are delusional. I’ll remember this when one of your 16%er friends does the same.
Joe, I didn’t have to make a point. Clinton said: “It’s the economy stupid.” I throw up stuff from democrat economists. That’s all I have to do. You first need to read his analysis. Also you both skip over the part of Clinton being beholdne to Wall Street interests over the little man. I bet you didn’t even look for it. So you can either choke on it (which you and Pelletizer did) or you could wither on the vine.
So why am I arguing these points with you? Maybe you are LOST? When I placed the comment on the board I used the argument used by the democrat economist that the Clinton economy didn’t help poor people but Wall Street. Of course you being a 16%er didn’t know corporate profits grew an average of 15% percent per annum from 1992 and 1997. And I know more than you think. Momma alwyas said don’t show all your cards. So you’ll just have to keep guessing.
One thing is for sure. I NEVER guess on my networks. See ya.
When I placed the comment on the board I used the argument used by the democrat economist that the Clinton economy didn’t help poor people but Wall Street.
I’m pointing out that your efforts to bolster the argument you thought you were making only served to demonstrate the fact that you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about–so much so, that one rally wonders whether or not you grasped even the basic points in the Atlantic Monthly article to which you referred.
Look, if you really want to understand wages and income, I suggest you read through the various articles at:
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/.....index.html
Indeed, make bigpicture.typepad.com one of your regular haunts. You’ll learn some things. It’d be good for you.
While you bounce around through some of the articles and links there, you might just find charts like the ones you’ll find here:
http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us.....andard.cfm
You know, data that show how poverty declined during the Clinton years.
Really, do you think one article in the Atlantic Monthly is going to counter reams of Economic data and analysis that says otherwise? Are we supposed to bow down to that one article merely because it was published in the Atlantic Monthly?
Talk about delusional. Get an education, sport. Understand Economics before you start trying to craft Economic arguments (or parrot someone else’s argument that you don’t understand).
And that would be a good thing – how?
prosperous and powerful… to fuck up the climate for the rest of the world, to squander non-renewable resources in the geological blink of an eye and to destabilize entire continents and foist dictatorships on any country of geopolitical strategic importance, to foist an economic system on the rest of the world that rests on competition instead of cooperation, and the list goes on.
as someone said earlier in a comment to this post, characterizing the middle east as a cauldron we never were able to figure out – I beg to differ. we are the ones stirring the embers and blowing on the flame, and pouring gasoline in the fire. who is benefiting from that cauldron? the US military-industrial complex, that’s who. oh, we figured it out all right.
really, how has the human race as a whole benefited from all this grand power and prosperity?
grow up.