Ralph Nader: "Why aren't the Democrats landsliding today's Republicans?"

[Better Believe It]

( The following is not copyrighted material. BBI)

Tuesday, January 3. 2012
The Politics of Lowered Expectations
By Ralph Nader

Ezra Klein, the bright, young, economic policy columnist for the "Washington Post" believes that Obama came out ahead last year in the "administration's bitter, high-stakes negotiations with the Republicans in Congress."

He cites four major negotiations in 2011 with the Republicans that Obama won. Obama won the game of chicken played in February by the House Speaker John Boehner and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell to avoid a government shutdown. He won the battle to raise the customarily supported debt ceiling on government borrowing. He avoided an embarrassment after he had to concur in the formation of a "Supercommittee" on deficit reduction when Congress couldn't come to an agreement. And he won all of a two-month extension of the social security payroll tax cut and extension of unemployment compensation benefits.

If those were "high stakes," I wonder what microscopic instrument would detect any lower stakes. Obama keeps "winning battles" that he could have avoided. But what about taking the offensive on some really significant matters? For example, when he caved in December 2010 to the minority Republicans and agreed to extend the deficit-producing Bush tax cuts on the rich, he didn't demand in return a continuation of the regular bi-partisan approval of lifting the debt limit. So over weeks in 2011, he had to mud-wrestle the Republicans on the debt limit - to the dismay of finance ministers across the world - and won only after conceding the bizarre creation of a Supercommittee to order its own Congress to enact budget cuts. That Supercommittee gridlocked and closed down.

Finally, if he does nothing, the $4 trillion over 10 years that are the Bush tax cuts expire automatically on January 1, 2013 - after the election. On the same day, the spending trigger automatically kicks in which cuts over ten years $500 billion from the bloated Defense budget and another $500 billion from other departments, but not from social security and Medicare/Medicaid beneficiaries.

This is an Obama victory? What makes Mr. Klein so sure Obama won't cave again? He has all this year to do so. His own Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has often said that there's now way he would go for any further defense cuts. Also, Obama was ready in 2011 to raise the Medicare eligibility age in return for the deal on debt ceiling. He was saved from this folly only by the stubbornness of Boehner and his clenched-teeth sidekick, Virginian Eric Cantor from the arguably most passive Congressional district in the U.S. Boehner and Cantor wanted more.

Here are some high stakes fights where the Republicans defeated the White House and blocked major substantive advances. They stopped the wide-ranging energy bill, and stifled Uncle Sam's authority to bargain for drug discounts that taxpayers are paying to the gouging drug companies for the drug benefit program for the elderly. They kept the coal industry King Coal on Capitol Hill, preserved crass corporate welfare and tax loophole programs, and blocked the able nominee to head the new agency to protect against consumer finance abuses. They also cut budgets for small but crucial safety programs in food, auto safety, and children's hunger.

Republicans preserved the notorious nuclear power loan guarantee boondoggles, a bevy of Soviet-era weapons systems nestled in the arms of the military-industrial complex and mercilessly beat up on the work and budget of the cancer-preventing, illness-reducing Environmental Protection Agency. That's just for starters.

Obama and the majority Democrats in the Senate dug this hole for themselves when they failed to curtail the filibuster in January 2009 and 2011 by majority vote. They doomed themselves to the numerically impossible hurdle of needing 60 votes to pass any measure and avoid filibusters.

Putting themselves on the defensive, while dialing business lobbyists for the same campaign dollars as the Republicans, the Obama crowd, of course, could not advance what they promised the American people. They went silent on raising the federal minimum wage to $9.50, promised by candidate Obama in 2008 for 2011. At $9.50, it would still have been less than the federal minimum wage in 1968, adjusted for inflation. Hardly a radical proposal.

Obama went silent on the card check, promised unorganized American workers in their losing struggle with multinational corporate employers. While bailing out the criminal gamblers on Wall Street, he could have pressed for a stock transaction sales tax that could have raised big revenue and helped dampen speculation with other peoples' money such as pension funds and mutual fund savings.

He could have pushed seriously for a visible public works program producing domestic jobs in thousands of communities for improved public services. He could have directly challenged the Tea Partiers with cuts in corporate welfare, but he did not, except for ending an ethanol subsidy. He could have made a big deal of cracking down on corporate fraud on Medicare and Medicaid that totals tens of billions of dollars a year. However, once on the defensive from his own self-inflicted weak hand, he was always on the defensive.

Obama may be in a superior tactical position vis-a-vis the Congressional Republicans, as Mr. Klein posits, but is this all there is left of the touted movement for hope and change in 2008?

President Obama is deemed by his fellow Democrats to have won the financial battles, but the Republicans won the rest. How can the expectation levels of this two party duopoly sink any lower?

Let's face it, if today's Republicans are the most craven, greedy, ignorant, anti-worker, anti-patient, anti-consumer, anti-environment and coddlers of corporate crime in the party's history, why aren't the Democrats landsliding them?

For two answers try reading John F. Kennedy's best-selling Profiles of Courage, 1955, or if you favor the ancients, Plutarch's Lives (circa 100 A.D.).

http://nader.org/index.php?/archives/2341-The-Politics-of-Lowered-Expectations.html#extended

[baldguy]

1. Because assholes like Nader keep promoting the RW meme that both parties are the same.

[Better Believe It]

4. I didn't know that right-wing Republicans (RW) are promoting the idea that they are like Democrats

Thanks for the information.

[baldguy]

18. That's how the GOP has maintained power even though they've been the minority party for 40 yrs.

The GOP is generally corrupt; the Dems generally are not. But the people that actually care about corruption usually vote Democratic. The GOPs supporters: so-called evangelical Christians, corporatists & racists, don't care about corruption - they care about POWER.

If they can paint the Dems as even a tiny bit corrupt then Dems get fewer votes, either they sit out or are deluded enough to vote GOP - but RW supporters still vote for the GOP no matter what.

[getdown]

30. if that corruption theory holds

wouldn't this bother Dem voters?

"while dialing business lobbyists for the same campaign dollars as the Republicans"

The system of finance and influence in Congress must change or nothing will.

[baldguy]

39. Dems are generally less corrupt than Republicans. Generally.

While a Democrat might steal candy from a baby, a Republican would steal the baby. I would've thought this was obviously apparent to everyone who has been paying attention?

[getdown]

44. so why ignore the lobbying point?

they may be babies, but they ain't trading malt balls on the hill

[ellisonz]

9. +1000

Fuck Ron Paul and Fuck Ralph Nader too.

[deacon]

20. Ralph is a jerkbag coward. Afraid to confront the GOP party. A yellow belly. n/t

[BlueToTheBone]

23. You bet me to it oh and BTW Fuck Yourself Nadir! n/t

[HuckleB]

71. +1,000,000,000,000

[Suji to Seoul]

75. Beat me to the punch. Thank you. When you have people saying

Republicrat or Democan, it's because of assholes like Ralphie.

When he said Bush and Gore were the same and let his ego destroy 2000, I lost it with him.

When he said Gore would have invaded Iraq too, I dismissed him completely.

I may agree with him politically, but he is a right-wing enabler and a megalomanic on top of it. Asshat!

[uponit7771]

123. +1

[redqueen]

127. Precisely. (nt)

[Angry Dragon]

2. In my opinion if Nader cared about the Democratic Party

he would not have run in 2000

[BlueToTheBone]

25. He's a repuke...why would he care about the

Democratic Party?

[JoePhilly]

3. Nadar crawled out of his hole today?

I did not expect to hear from him until February 2nd.

[Ikonoklast]

8. The Undead cast no shadow.

Or come out during the day.

FUCK RALPH NADER.

[treestar]

12. lol

[SixthSense]

5. I got slammed a few days ago for pointing that out

"Obama and the majority Democrats in the Senate dug this hole for themselves when they failed to curtail the filibuster in January 2009 and 2011 by majority vote. They doomed themselves to the numerically impossible hurdle of needing 60 votes to pass any measure and avoid filibusters."

However, you will notice that when they want to do really evil things (e.g. NDAA) there is bipartisan support and not even a whisper of a filibuster. Draw your own conclusions...

[Charlemagne]

128. Read this ^^^^

[ProSense]

6. Because

Ralph Nader isn't a Democrat!


Fuck Nader!

[Odin2005]

7. Fuck Nader.

[SidDithers]

10. Fuck Nader...nt

Sid

[Better Believe It]

11. How long do you think we'll have to wait for an intelligent rebuttal of Nader's article?

Written by someone who has actually read the article!

That might just be asking for too much.

Well, I read the article and there isn't a whole lot to disagree with .... facts are facts .... now those facts might piss off some people but if they can't be challenged and refuted how can anyone attack them?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

14. Good question.

[ProSense]

15. Here:

"How long do you think we'll have to wait for an intelligent rebuttal of Nader's article?"

The title makes no sense: "Why aren't the Democrats landsliding today's Republicans?"
There isn't an election and one can't determine landslides from polls 10 months before the election


"Written by someone who has actually read the article! ...That might just be asking for too much. "

I couldn't get pass the title, and yes!

[randome]

21. I think he meant on the issues.

I've been wondering much the same thing. Why was Gore vs. Bush so close that the Republicans could finesse the process and the Supreme Court to make the election come out the way they wanted?

It's so clear that the Republicans have no class whatsoever. So how do they manage to hold onto power?

I don't think it can all be blamed on hate radio, although that's probably in the mix somewhere.

[ProSense]

28. I

"I think he meant on the issues."

...couldn't get pass the title. Still, Nader isn't dealing in reality. He thinks the Democrats should be doing better among Americans based on something, but he has never been able to get a significant number of people to vote for him.

So he missing/lacking something.

Obligatory: Fuck Nader.

[randome]

29. I'm missing something, too.

Democrats are smarter, kinder and more open to the values America was founded on. And yet the Republicans have just as much strength. What's wrong with this picture? Nader doesn't know but neither do I.

[getdown]

32. They have better

Kool Aid

[ProSense]

38. Which

"They have better Kool Aid "

...is why they say: Fuck Nader!

[getdown]

40. wait

Dems have better Kool Aid ?

so confuzed ...

Dems who hate Nader shoot themselves in the foot

[ProSense]

46. Sure

"Dems have better Kool Aid ?"

...they do. "Kool Aid" is code for "damn I'm supporting Nader who can only make nonsensical statements from the sidelines."





Oops, I should write jokes while drinking this tasty "Kool Aid"

[Electric Monk]

74. Couldn't get pass(sic) the title. nt

[ProSense]

88. Yikes!

Fuck Nader!

[ProSense]

36. Actually

"Democrats are smarter, kinder and more open to the values America was founded on. And yet the Republicans have just as much strength. What's wrong with this picture? Nader doesn't know but neither do I."

..it's Nader who is "smarter, kinder and more open to the values America was founded on" but can't seem to convince more people to support him.

[Logical]

87. That wasn't it!

[LanternWaste]

93. Of course you couldn't.

"I couldn't get pass the title..."

Of course you couldn't.

[Summer Hathaway]

16. Nader, being an asshole

is not worth having his ravings refuted by anyone, that's why.

[ellisonz]

47. +1

[TheKentuckian]

69. That makes it pretty easy then, call someone an asshole and avoid the content of

their argument.

How very convenient.

[Summer Hathaway]

72. Church Lady?

Is that you?

[TheKentuckian]

109. So you simply don't do content. Why not say so instead of hiding behind assholes?

[Summer Hathaway]

112. Huh?

"Hiding behind assholes"?

No, I don't 'do content' when asked about jerks like Nader. As I said, he doesn't deserve a rebuttal to his lunatic ravings - any more than the local lunatics who stand on street corners and scream that the end is nigh, repent and be saved.

Some folks just ain't worth the time it takes to type a reply - Nader being one of them.

[Johonny]

79. +1

[JoePhilly]

17. Maybe nader has no interest in the Iowa GOP Caucus.

What is his view of those folks?

Well?

[Better Believe It]

33. If you read his comments on the Republicans in the article you would know the answer!

He's not especially fond of the Republican Party .... in fact he's been a far sharper critic of the Republican Party than President Obama .... in my not so humble opinion.

[Robb]

26. There are a few facts in there

...but it's hard to see straight through the bullshit. "Obama went silent on the card check" for example is an absurd statement, given the regulatory way he's enacted most of the provisions of EFCA without having to go through Congress.

He's the best President in decades for unions, and we know it. Despite Republican attempts to paint him otherwise. And, apparently, now Nader.

[Better Believe It]

42. The heart of the EFCA was card check and it has not been implemented by the White House.

The labor movement was very critical of President Obama's unwillingness to push for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act when he had big majorities in the House and Senate.

Because of Obama's refusal to push hard for EFCA only 51 Senators even voted to end a fake Republican "procedural filibuster" against the bill and several Democratic Senators indicated their opposition to the legislation!

Many union leaders and members felt betrayed and said so openly.

[Robb]

45. Incorrect.

Please Google "backdoor card check." It was in all the newsletters. Mine, at least.

[brentspeak]

55. Do you subscribe to only RW newsletters?

Because there are no pro-union organizations I can find which are touting whatever it was Obama was supposed to have done via card check.

[Major Hogwash]

98. Nader is unsafe at any speed.

He's nuts. He's crazy. He's loony tunes.

And that's why the unions won't repeat 1 single thing he says about unions.
Because since Nader couldn't get funding in 2008 for his lunatic fringe campaign, he went to the GOP for money in order to run.

Yeah, like the GOP was ever for unions!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

101. "He's the best President in decades for unions"? Did he make an effort to turn back NAFTA?

Of course, maybe he'll do that in his second term.

How about the "free trade" agreements that he signed? Do they count for anything? They certainly didn't benefit union workers.

[Robb]

102. Count the union endorsements. Then visit the following link:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-obama-skirts-congress-again-to-fill-nlrb-posts-20120104,0,7957979.story

[AnotherMcIntosh]

105. Who else are they going to endorse? Gingrich? Romney? Paul?

[getdown]

34. but that would require

thought

[Major Hogwash]

37. Why do you only quote articles about losers like Nader?

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[sabrina 1]

60. Did you really expect that?

I just watch and laugh at the predictability of it all. And it makes me understand why this country is so screwed. We live in a country deliberately divided so the pretext of a two party system can continue. And where I used to think there was hope to change things, I now just watch in awe and see these comments from democrats 'fuck this one and fuck that one' and it all become clear.

Which is why the only place worth putting in time is with the OWS movement. There are not going to be any changes using the current broken system. It's all a game as these comments demonstrate.

Use it as entertainment and you won't be disappointed, but expect actual serious discussion, as we used to have, and you will be. Sorry

[ronnie624]

76. Word.

But please don't stop posting. I find your messages eloquent and meaningful.

[sabrina 1]

78. Thank you that is very nice of you to say.

I will be spending a lot more time working with the OWS movement though from now on. Many DUers are doing so also as they are actually accomplishing things and the more people who join them, the more they can accomplish. I have always liked your posts also. Hope to see in the streets where the real action is

[whatchamacallit]

107. It's more than disappointing, it's dispiriting

The mob behavior of party stalwarts does little to inspire support for "our side".

[woo me with science]

108. Yup. nt

[joshcryer]

65. Pay me to write articles, and I'll happily do it.

[davidpdx]

90. I have a buck fifty in bottles and cans

Will that do?

LOL

[bigtree]

92. here's one

fuck nader

[treestar]

13. Blame the Republicans for their use of the filibuster

Why is he blaming Obama and the Democrats for Republican misuse of the filibuster?

Why is he asking about elections between Dems and Repubs when now the primaries on are only about Repubs? How can they landslide (hate using that as a verb) yet? They can't until Nov.

[Better Believe It]

51. The fake Republican "procedural filibusters" could have been stopped by the Democrats.

They and the White House choose not to.

If the Republicans win control of the Senate and White House in 2013 they will not permit Democrats to engage in such phantom filibusters on legislation they strongly want passed.

Just as in 2005, Democrats will cave under the threat of a Republican constitutional option (nuclear option) and agree not to "filibuster" against Republican presidential appointments and this time around key Republican legislation.

Republicans will play hardball.

The Democrats have played bi-partisan compromise or as some people call it "unconditional surrender" to Republicans.

[treestar]

106. Baloney

Pure, unadulterated baloney.

The WH cannot stop filibusters. If it could, it would do it.

[TheKentuckian]

110. That is true, the blame here goes to Reid and our caucus.

[slay]

19. K&R for truth

and to piss off all the Nader haters.

[Scurrilous]

22. @#$% Ralph Nader. n/t

[izquierdista]

24. I like Ralph

Because he pisses the rest of you off when he makes cogent and pertinent observations.

[getdown]

35. them are

big werds

[ellisonz]

48. That we should change the Senate rules? n/t

[ProSense]

52. How

"That we should change the Senate rules? "

...sad is it to believe that Nader is brilliant?

[ellisonz]

56. It's downright fucking ignorant.

I think Ralph Nader prays on those with short memories and little understanding of the Federal Government. He is a snake-oil salesman.

In U.S. politics, the "nuclear option" (or "constitutional option&quot allows the United States Senate to reinterpret a procedural rule by invoking the argument that the Constitution requires that the will of the majority be effective on specific Senate duties and procedures. This option allows a simple majority to override the rules of the Senate and end a filibuster or other delaying tactic. In contrast, the cloture rule requires a supermajority of 60 votes (out of 100) to end a filibuster. The new interpretation becomes effective, both for the immediate circumstance and as a precedent, if it is upheld by a majority vote.

Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the nuclear option is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion by Vice President Richard Nixon and was endorsed by the Senate in a series of votes in 1975, some of which were reconsidered shortly thereafter.[1] Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.) first called the option "nuclear" in March 2003.[2][3] Proponents since have referred to it as the constitutional option.[4][5][6]

The maneuver was brought to prominence in 2005 when then-Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstances.

The nuclear option is not to be confused with reconciliation, which allows issues related to the annual budget to be decided by a majority vote without the possibility of filibuster.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

Ralph Nader shall henceforth be know as "Radioactive Ralph - Snake Oil Salesman at Large."

This is a Republic, not a Democracy: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=10&page=transcript

Federalist #10 and #51

[smokey nj]

91. By not changing Senate rules, Democrats left Republicans in possession of the weapon they've used

to hold the country hostage. Before the 2010 mid-term elections, it was the only weapon they had.

[ellisonz]

96. You don't got it...

Once you use the nuclear option that's it. We wouldn't be able to use it to obstruct them either.

[smokey nj]

99. I get it just fine.

[TheKentuckian]

111. The Supreme Court indicates it to be close to humbug status anyway.

As does Bush's reign of terror.

It is time for elections to have consequences and accountability. Kill excuses.

[sabrina 1]

61. He sure is powerful. Lol. And he was right all along as has become

crystal clear.

[getdown]

68. what just because

he called for people to fight the corporate takeover of their government and every aspect of their lives ?!!!

[FarLeftFist]

27. Because most people have no idea WTF is going on in politics and will blame the President for everyt

EVERYTHING!

[getdown]

43. i don't blame him for anything

that isn't in his control

[FarLeftFist]

50. I'm referring to Nader wondering why the D's aren't having a landslide.

[getdown]

54. It's a good question

How could anyone vote R at all anymore? Why are Dems creaming them?

[FreakinDJ]

31. I used to say "Fuck Ralph" - but not any more

he is spot on

[getdown]

41. how'd that happen?

(whatever folks think, it seems his writing is always VERY clear)

[ellisonz]

53. Ralph Nader is a tool for the right.

Changing the Senate rules would only backfire, do you not remember the whole debate from Bill Frist over the "nuclear option" or has that slipped your mind?

Ralph Nader doesn't have a leg to stand on so he makes shit up as he goes along.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

[Better Believe It]

57. I do remember that debate in 2005. Democratic Senators caved in to Republicans.

In 2005 when Republicans threatened to use the Constitutional Option to end phantom "procedural filibusters" in order to get Bush's Supreme Court nominations passed by the Senate Democrats agreed to not "filibuster" George W. Bush's far right-wing nominations to the Supreme Court!

Wasn't that Democratic agreement with Republicans just wonderful .... for Bush that is.

So explain to me what exactly "backfired" against Republicans when they made that threat?

They got what they wanted!

Isn't that right?

[ellisonz]

66. It wasn't a question of caving or not caving.

It was a matter or preserving the institutional integrity of the Senate in accordance with the principle of checks and balances. It also wasn't SCOTUS nominees.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) reached out to a number of colleagues on both sides to compromise by winning confirmation of some of the disputed nominees (Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, and Priscilla Owen) while preserving the judicial filibuster on William Myers and Henry Saad.[56] Their efforts succeeded on the evening of May 23, 2005, one day before the cloture vote. They announced an agreement by seven Republican and seven Democratic Senators to avert a vote on the nuclear option while preserving the filibuster for "extraordinary circumstances."[57] The block of senators who agreed to the compromise included Republicans John McCain, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John Warner of Virginia, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Susan Collins of Maine, Mike DeWine of Ohio, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island; and Democrats Nelson, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and Ken Salazar of Colorado. This group was quickly dubbed "the Gang of 14" in various blogs and news outlets. McCain, Chafee, Collins, and Snowe were already on record as opposing the nuclear option, leaving the Democrats two votes short of defeating an attempt to trigger it (they would have needed 51 votes to override Vice President Dick Cheney's tie-breaking vote).

The bipartisan group was large enough to deny Frist the 50 votes he needed to trigger the nuclear option, and also large enough to reach cloture on a Democratic filibuster. It states, in part:
“ ...we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII. ”

Democrats in the Gang agreed not to filibuster the judges listed in the agreement (save in "extraordinary" circumstances) and Republicans in the Gang agreed not to vote for the nuclear option. The definition of what constituted an "extraordinary" circumstance was left up to the individual senator. For example, Graham and DeWine let it be known that they did not consider nominations to the Supreme Court to fit the definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Gang_of_14

They compromised, which is the foundation of our government, and to destroy the Filibuster would result in the tyranny of a simple majority over a minority.

[Better Believe It]

94. Fake filibusters need to be destroyed. Senators should be required to filibuster in a filibuster!

Instead, Democrats agreed to not engage in a procedural phantom filibuster against Bush's Supreme Court picks!

[ellisonz]

95. No such agreement was made on SCOTUS picks was made. n/t

[Better Believe It]

119. Do you believe that agreement did not apply to Bush's Supreme Court nominees?

The Democrats did not engage in a procedural filibusters against Bush's two extreme right-wing appointments to the Supreme Court because of the "gang of 14" agreement.

[spanone]

49. they are, ralph.

[book_worm]

58. I bet you were one of the 'progressives' who voted for Nader in 2000

who felt that Gore wasn't pure enough and helped give us George W. Bush. Well done, BBI!

[getdown]

63. yeah

why weren't Democrats landsliding Republicans then, too!!!

[Bobbie Jo]

67. In the ballpark...

but I bet he didn't vote for Nader either.

[JackRiddler]

116. Gore won in 2000. Nader had no effect.

Gore won the popular vote. Gore won Florida. The results were falsified and the recount that would have given it to Gore was stopped by Supreme Court decision.

This was a coup d'etat. Anyone who spends their energy condemning Nader is trivializing the stealing of the election and the establishment of an illegitimate government that then launched wars of aggression.

[CanSocDem]

120. Simply put.

I can't understand why it is so hard to understand.

.

[JackRiddler]

122. It's the difference between blaming a gadfly...

and confronting a coup d'etat in power. Under American conditions, the latter was not very dangerous to the individual, but it did challenge liberal assumptions about "democracy." It hurts to admit a group of criminal bullies crashed the process, seized the prize (rather easily), and then started some wars to get everyone behind them. It's easier to beat up Nader.

[Motown_Johnny]

59. Because the far left would rather attack the center left than deal with reality

Come on Ralph, you know the type. Look in the mirror.

[joshcryer]

62. The *authoritarian* left would rather attack the moderate left than deal with reality.

[getdown]

64. what he said

[Rincewind]

70. Fuck Nader

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

73. Hey Ralph

I thought you were busy worrying about your Cisco Systems stock.

[cherokeeprogressive]

77. It takes 51 votes to change the Senate rules. Nader is right, and Harry Reid has no guts.

We had enough votes to put the filibuster issue to bed. Nader is right about that.

Article One, Section 5 of the United States Constitution: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings..."

[sabrina 1]

80. Lost opportunity.

What a waste of a majority it was.

[joshcryer]

85. Harry Reid has triggered the nuclear option before.

It just hasn't taken it far enough because they're afraid, very afraid.

[BootinUp]

81. What am I supposed to use this for? Toilet paper? nt

[JackRiddler]

117. Are you insane, it's on a screen. How will you flush it?

[BootinUp]

118. as much as i hate to stoop to symbolism

picture it on paper and then I think the point and the mental image should be crystal clear.

And yes, I probably am a little insane and it comes out when people post Nader Op-Eds as if we all can learn something from them.

Any more questions Mr. Riddler?

[CanSocDem]

121. I have a question.

"...Nader Op-Eds as if we all can learn something from them."

Where, exactly, do you get your 'learnin'....????

Not from history, clearly...or from actual experience.

'Inquiring minds want to know.'

[Scuba]

82. Despite Nader being an asshat, his point is valid...

... Democrats should be cleaning up in Washington and cleaning up at the polls. Neither is happening.

[quaker bill]

83. .... Because they don't agree with Ralph???

Of course Ralph is so very good at getting votes. (Do I need the sarcasm thingy here?)

[mmonk]

84. Thanks for posting and taking the obligatory heat.

The very real problems we all face in this unnecessary straight jacket are pointed out. I personally am not interested in politics anymore. I'm only interested in economic justice these days and strategies to fight for it as I try to survive.

[TheKentuckian]

86. They have no desire to. They want to be as close to being the Republicans as possible and still have

a distinct fundraising and voting block.

Landslides come with an expectation to actually accomplish something, in 08 when we won by a significant amount for modern times we had to go hard bipartisan to do as little as possible but that old dog doesn't hunt too long.

[BklnDem75]

89. Once again, Nader is an urban legend

Comes out for a year, spreading as much garbage as possible then disappears for 3 years. Waiting to spread more garbage as another election draws near. During those 3 years, not a peep is heard from him.

Fuck Ralph Nader. Even the Green Party rejected that asshole.

[Major Hogwash]

97. The Republicans funded his last campaign because he's a freak.

He is the one-eyed, slack-jawed monster that crawled out from the black lagoon.

[paulk]

100. Nader makes some good points in the article

not that many people here will read it, if the replies are any indication.

and not that I'm a fan of his, either...

[Johnny2X2X]

103. Differenes

While Dems are less corrupt than Republicans there is a difference. Republicans are expected to be corrupt and wear it on their sleeves with pride. Their party and voters actually think it's a good thing for Republican leaders to only listen to special interests and big business. Dems on the other hand don't want their leaders engaging in corruption so when they do they look like hypocrites and there is a price to pay.

The more corrupt you are the more Republicans will like you, which is why Mitt Romney will be their nominee.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

104. So, the "Democrats [are not] landsliding today's Republicans" because some posters hate Nader?

If they are truly sincere with such animosity, they would drive without buckling their seat belts.

[leeroysphitz]

113. Nader bad! Errrrrr...

[TheKentuckian]

114. A good compromise is to go kind of regressive with the whole deal.

1) Make it block all business until the fillabuster ends. Make it have some consequences.

2) Go Mr Smith Goes to Washington with it, I'm talking pee bottles and up all night.

It can stay at 60 with some controls in place. Hell, we can probably lift the number. I'd also like to compel full attendence in some way. It won't take too terribly long to force some sense.

[bluestate10]

115. Saint Ralph. Where has he had his head stuck? nt

[uponit7771]

124. "...they failed to curtail the filibuster..." WOW! Ignorant on many fronts! Obama is NOT congress or

...Harry Reid.

Nader is trying to set a height record on his shark jumping

[Tarheel_Dem]

125. It's amazing that Ralph doesn't see the irony. Why didn't he landslide them?

I can't imagine that Ralph or his supporters think this guy is still relevant, or even cognizant.

[CreekDog]

126. Well why didn't Nader "landslide"?

Why didn't Nader "win"?