LarryParker, on Aug 28 2008, 03:08 PM, said:
Once in a a while I drop my Administrator's neutrality
I'm
shocked that it was Ed Heisler that got me going.
Just a few points.
Al Gore did not lose the 2004 election. That's a false claim made by the Republicans. Gore won the election but the Supreme Court wouldn't permit a recount of the votes and selected Bush for President. Joseph Leiberman stabbed Gore in the back and paved the way for Bush and the Supreme Court decision. See the movie "Recount".
While about 97,000 people voted for Nader in Florida, he did not steal one of those votes. And thousands of other liberal/radical voters in Florida voted for other minor party candidates! Nothing negative is ever said about those voters or those other minor party presidential candidates!
Now here's how it works in elections. In the United States candidates are not entitled to votes that other candidates receive. They have to be won by candidates! And the Gore/Leiberman ticket simply failed to convince over 300,000 Florida anti-Bush voters to support their campaign. Now whose fault is that? Nader? Bush? Leiberman? Gore?
The fact is, in Florida, the Gore/Leiberman ticket failed to win the support of many registered Democrats in addition to over 100,000 voters who voted for minority party presidential candidates in Florida. Over 250,000 Florida registered Democrats voted for George W. Bush! And that's Nader's fault? That Democratic turnout for George Bush had a far greater impact on the Florida election result than Ralph Nader. Gore could not even carry his home state of Tennessee which was unheard in presidential campaigns until 2000!
Now in follow-up Demoratic Party disaster, the Kerry campaign spent millions of bucks and devoted major human resources to prevent people from voting for Ralph Nader with ballot challenges, anti-Nader campaign literature, rallies, etc., Now wasn't that just brilliant! If those resources had been used to attack George W. Bush rather than Ralph Nader, I think Kerry would have easily defeated George W. Bush. At times it seemed that the Democratic Party was campaigning harder against Nader than against Bush! Well, Kerry was successful. John Kerry defeated Ralph Nader for President in a landslide!
Now don't blame Nader for Bush's invasion of Iraq, the hundreds of billions spent for that war and Bush's reactionary domestic and foreign policy. Nader has consistently opposed Bush's right-wing agenda while Democrats in Congress keep voting in favor of Bush's actions.
The Democratic Party enablers in the Senate voted for the Iraq invasion, have voted for EVERY single Bush war funding bill, voted for ALL of Bush's Supreme Court and ALL other presidential appointments, passed every piece of Republican sponsored domestic legislation that has come up for a vote, voted for FISA and the list goes on and on and on. Why, they even gave up the right to filibuster against Bush's appointments! Don't forget that deal cooked up in a show of "bi-partisanship unity" with our enemies!
Don't scapegoat Nader and let the Democratic party politicians who voted with and not against Bush on these matters off so easily.
And now we are already hearing excuses being made for not passing the pro-union card check bill and other progressive legislation should Obama be elected and the Democrats retain their control of the Senate and House (which they will).
Have you heard it yet? Well, here goes.
In order to get any progressive legislation on President Obama's desk, the Democrats need to have 60 Senators, not just a 51 majority in the Senate. You see, lacking 60 votes, the Republicans will take the Senate floor and speak against progressive bills .... they will filibuster! Now the Republicans only needed a 51 vote majority to get their agenda passed because the Democrats play nice and would never .... and never did .... filibuster against Republican sponsored bills.
And what if somehow the Democrats did reach that 60 vote super majority in the Senate? Well .... sorry folks that's not enough to get anything passed. You see, some of those Democrats will side with Republicans so we might need to elect 70 or so Democrats to the Senate in order to pass progressive legislation.
Well, that will never happen. It didn't even happen during the Great Depression and FDR. But, it's a great excuse for not passing the union card check bill. It's the same excuse the Democrats used in 1994 when they had 53 votes to pass the S1 anti-scab permanent replacement bill .... they refused to bring it up to the floor because the minority Republicans "threatened" to speak and filibuster against it!
So don't pass the buck and blame Nader or any other independent non-Democratic party progressives for the actions of Democratic "Bush enablers" in Congress. It's really not our fault! We have opposed the corporate sponsors of the Republican party and George W. Bush from day one.
If you really think the Democratic Party is your party, one that truly represents your interests and that of other working people, when are you going end the corporate control of "your party"? Can't do that? Well, is that also Nader's fault? Nader tried that strategy for years and in the 80's it stopped working for him!
It appears that the big money interests are calling all the shots and both parties and you'll once again have to take whatever they give you. Kind of like what we see in most workplaces.
Got a plan to change that?
1
P.S. Larry will you be at the breakfast in the Cathedral or at the march in Willington? I hope so... me, you and Heisler! 
