General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHas Ralph Nader commented on Obama's Executive Order raising the minimum wage?
He wrote an open letter last year.
Dear President Obama,
June 25th marked the 75th anniversary of the federal minimum wage law in the United States, known as the Fair Labor Standards Act. When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed this legislation, his vision was to ensure a fair days pay for a fair days work and to end starvation wages.
Seventy five years later, there are 3.6 million Americans working for pay at or below the federal minimum wage. More extensively, thirty million low wage workers are making less today, adjusted for inflation, than they did 45 years ago in 1968. They are working for a minimum wage that does not even reach the federal poverty line for a family of three and they cannot afford basic necessities like food, housing, transportation, and health care.
<...>
Not to mention that increasing wages could help spur on a lagging economic recovery. The Wall Street Journals story on June 24, Slow-Motion U.S. Recovery Searches for Second Gear, discussed how the slow pace of recovery has left businesses and consumers wary. The Economic Policy Institute, in examining Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Congressman George Millers (D-Calif.) legislation to increase the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016, estimated that increasing the minimum wage above $10 per hour would provide $51 billion in additional wages during the phase in period for consumers to increase their spending for their livelihoods.
When Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act into law, he showed courage in the face of the Great Depression as well as considerable opposition and criticism from businesses. Is it not time, after four and a half years, for you to leave your mark, to show Americans what type of President you want to be remembered as, and to be a leader on this issue? Millions of workers throughout the country deserve a minimum wage that, at least, catches up with 1968.
http://www.timeforaraise.org/2013/06/27/ralph-nader-to-president-obama-its-your-sole-decision/
President Obama went one step more and included workers with disabilities, who have been excluded since 1938.
BOOM: Obama signs order to raise minimum wage for federal contractors...disabled workers included!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024489919
I want to thank our President. Doubly.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024497604
Cha
(297,149 posts)please proceed.
He still has time.
sheshe2
(83,745 posts)pkdu
(3,977 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,232 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)That's so 00's
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,232 posts)dlwickham
(3,316 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,232 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,232 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Tarheel_Dem
(31,232 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)with new or renewed contracts.
Like I said. Good not great.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)The mechanism for the minimum wage increase is to require that wage in contracts.
One party can't unilaterally change an existing contract. Obama can't just add it. He'd have to renegotiate every contract.
Big deal? Not really. Government contracts aren't that long. When you read about a "ten year contract", it's usually something like a 3-year contract with 7 possible 1-year extensions. The government can use one of those extensions for the minimum wage hike - each extension has some renegotiation.
A new law supersedes the rates in the contract, but Obama can't create a new law.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)The only way to get a higher federal minimum wage is to get legislation through Congress. That means we need more Dems and less Greenwaldian libertarians like Rand Paul in Congress. Too bad he isn't up for reelection.
People can't have it both ways...they can't cheerlead for people like Rand Paul while supporting a minimum wage increase.
That makes no sense.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)If you think Democrats like you who insult the intelligence of Democratic voters like me is a winning strategy... think again. I've walked hundreds of miles and knocked on thousands of doors in every kind of weather to get out the vote and if I approached any independent with the attitude that you display towards your FELLOW DEMOCRATS, the door would be slammed in my face.
Go blast your blather to someone else.
I am fucking sick and fucking tired of these fucking marginalization tactics.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I was attacking libertarian politicians like Rand Paul and their enablers..
...like the libertarian idiot who votes libertarian, but cries when his boys block unemployment aid:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024488493
Claiming Rand and his minions don't support minimum wage is not a baseless accusation.
It's a fact.
I bet many of the idiots who vote libertarian also want a higher minimum wage.
There's no fixing that kind of stupid.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Greenwald is not a libertarian. This is not a libertarian track record no matter how you want to spin it. Libertarians DO NOT raise money for Democratic candidates. They just don't. Libertarians do not advocate for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They just don't. Libertarians do not advocate for public health insurance. They just don't. Libertarians do not advocate for public financing of elections. They just don't.
That you attempt to smear a person who advocates for all of the above as a Libertarian Rand minion, is insulting to anyone's intelligence.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more#
* repeatedly calling for the prosecution of Wall Street (here, here and here);
* advocating for robust public financing to eliminate the domination by the rich in political campaigns, writing: "corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture" (here and here);
* condemning income and wealth inequality as the by-product of corruption (here and here);
* attacking oligarchs - led by the Koch Brothers - for self-pitying complaints about the government and criticizing policies that favor the rich at the expense of ordinary Americans (here);
* arguing in favor of a public option for health care reform (repeatedly);
* criticizing the appointment of too many Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street officials to positions of power (here, here and here);
* repeatedly condemning the influence of corporate factions in public policy making (here and here);
* using my blog to raise substantial money for the campaigns of Russ Feingold and left-wing/anti-war Democrats Normon Solomon, Franke Wilmer and Cecil Bothwell, and defending Dennis Kucinich from Democratic Party attacks;
* co-founding a new group along with Daniel Ellsberg, Laura Poitras, John Cusack, Xeni Jardim [sic], JP Barlow and others to protect press freedom and independent journalism (see the New York Times report on this here);
* co-founding and working extensively on a PAC to work with labor unions and liberal advocacy groups to recruit progressive primary challengers to conservative Democratic incumbents (see the New York Times report on this here);
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)a current minimum wage of $9.10 an hour indexed to inflation. So the 'big changes in DC' are not so big for us, our Democrats will of course fight for and then vote for giving the rest of the country what our minimum wage workers already get.
I have DeFazio, Wyden and Merkley representing me in Congress and they are Democrats. Interesting fact about the US Congress, there are two Independent members, Bernie Sanders and Angus King. The rest are either Democrats like me or Republicans. There is not one single solitary Libertarian seat in the Congress. Not one. When I see unhinged yapping about 'libertarians' who don't exist, I assume that the yapper is attempting to create a fuzzy narrative around Republicans they sort of like. A yapper who is trying to tell people that the enemy to defeat is not Republicans in Congress, but rather 'libertarians' is not informing the rank and file voter well. You tell folks to avoid libertarians, well they do that already, not one is in Congress.
Those of you who like to pretend that Republicans are not Republicans do not gain my trust at all. Those of you who wail that Democrats who elect nothing but Democrats are 'libertarians' are full of something, but is sure is not the direct honesty I look for out of Democrats. Call Republicans Republican. If you still want to vote for them, that's your issue, but dressing them up in cute cuddly names to present them to the world as 'not Republicans' is not a tactic I support at all.
When a voters looks at a ballot, their choices will be Democratic and Republican, yet what you say is 'don't vote libertarian'. As if Libertarians are the main competition, as if any of them are elected to office.
I don't get it. Republican is the worst thing that can be said about a politician. I assume that's why you don't like to call them Republicans.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)...are, for example, the folks who give Obama no credit for being the most pro-LGBT president in history. They give Obama no credit for anything and their goal is to actually get Republicans elected. They masquerade as Dems, but they're really not.
Those yappers are NOT to be trusted.
At. All.
I brush them off, like dirt off my shoulder:
Tarheel_Dem
(31,232 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)You know? Write him and tell him that.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)is that of a professional shit-disturber, and nothing more. Professional shit-disturbers like him are always quick to pounce on Obama, (rather than Republicans) when things are not going as smoothly as they like, but they strangely get quiet once things start to turn around and Obama adopts ideas that the Left generally supports.
RN may as well become a Republican.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Instrumental in the passing of the following legislation:
National Automobile and Highway Traffic Safety Act (1965)
Clean Water Act
Clean Air Act (1970)
Co-Op Bank Bill (1978)
Law establishing Environmental Protection Agency (1970)
Consumer Product Safety Act
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
Mine Health and Safety Act
Whistleblower Protection Act
Medical Devices safety
Nuclear power safety
Mobile home safety
Consumer credit disclosure law
Pension protection law
Funeral home cost disclosure law
Tire safety & grading disclosure law
Wholesome Meat Act
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act
Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act
Wholesome Poultry Product Act
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) 1970
Safe Water Drinking Act
Freedom of Information Act
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
Founded or sponsored the following organizations:
American Antitrust Institute
Appleseed Foundation
Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest
Aviation Consumer Action Project
Buyers Up
Capitol Hill News Service Center for Concerned Engineering
Center for Auto Safety
Center for Insurance Research
Center for Justice and Democracy
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Center for the study of Responsive Law - 1969
Center for Women Policy Studies
Citizen Action Group
Citizen Advocacy Center
Citizen Utility Boards
Citizen Works
Clean Water Action Project
Clearinghouse for Professional Responsibility
Congress Project
Congress Watch
Congressional Accountability Project
Connecticut Citizen Action Group
Consumer Project on Technology
Corporate Accountability Research Group
Critical Mass Energy Project
Democracy Rising
Disability Rights Center
Equal Justice Foundation
Essential Information
FANS (Fight to Advance the Nation's Sports)
Fisherman's Clear Water Action Group
Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights
Freedom of Information Clearinghouse
Global Trade Watch
Government Purchasing Project
Health Research Group
Litigation Group
Multinational Monitor
National Citizen's Coalition for Nursing Home Reform
National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest
National Insurance Consumer Organization
Ohio Public Interest Action Group
Organization for Competitive Markets
Professional Drivers (PROD)
Professionals for Auto Safety
Public Citizen
Pension Rights Center
Princeton Project 55
PROD - truck safety
Public Citizen's Visitor's Center
Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGS)
Resource Consumption Alliance (conserve trees) 1004
Retired Professionals Action Group
Shafeek Nader Trust for the Community Interest
Tax Reform Research Group
Telecommunications Research and Action Center
The Visitor's Center
Trial Lawyers for Public Justice
http://www.boston-terriers.com/nader-bio.htm
ProSense
(116,464 posts)LOL!
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)of others worked hard to achieve for many years, in some cases facing opposition from Obama himself until we persuaded him. Yet you and others list these things as his accomplishment, I have been chided for pointing out that people in uniform and those discharged lead the fight against DADT and that they should be included in our thanks. 'No' say the list makers 'it was all Obama'. 15 years some protested that vicious law. Some were arrested, dishonorably discharged, you name it but some on DU refuse to give them so much as a thank you. Some here have even attacked Dan Choi.
Major accomplishments never belong to one person. Not Barack, not Ralph, not me, not you.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"You know Pro, I have seen a list of Obama's accomplishments that include items millions"
...is responsible for policy and signs bills into law.
Nader has never been an elected official. This ("Instrumental in the passing of the following legislation:" is bogus to claim as an achievement.
That would be like the NRDC claiming that the administration's new rule for trucks is one of its "accomplishments." It would be like any of the organizations fighting to help pass the health care law claiming that it's one of there "accomplishments."
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Nader's best days were 40 years ago and he's still living off of that reputation despite accomplishing so little since that time.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)He probably has done more than anyone on this board dissing him. Just saying.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There was a time Ralph did good. Then the cash started flowing.
Today Ralph spends a lot of time attacking Democrats. He spends no time attacking Republicans.
That disparity is a tad odd, shall we say.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)He's an equal-opportunity basher, because -- and many would agree with him -- he believes the GOP has become more evil and the Democrats have become more spineless and corrupt.
Feel free to disagree with his opinion. But at least know what the hell he says.
This article, for example, from The Nation in 2013, is critical of Democrats, but certainly isn't letting Republicans off the hook. It is worth an open minded read:
http://www.thenation.com/article/173240/why-are-democrats-so-defeatist#
Excerpt:
In the last Congress, Democrats were up against the cruelest, most extremist, most corporate-controlled Republican Party in historya party far too extreme for the likes of Senator Robert Taft or Ronald Reagan. Last fall, the House Democratic Caucus issued a list of sixty outrageous Republican votes. If these bills had not been blocked in the Senate, the legislation would have been very unpopular with most voters.
The list cited GOP votes to protect massive tax breaks for the wealthiest, end the universal Medicare guarantee, jeopardize Social Security, oppose measures that would protect seniors from abusive financial practices, attack womens health and safety, weaken consumer protections, undermine the Pell Grant program for low-income students, favor corporations shipping jobs overseas at the expense of American workers, slash the food stamp program, weaken protections to ensure that every voters vote counts, and allow big oil companies and speculators to drive up gas prices along with a raft of brazen anti-environmental bills that would have despoiled our air, water and soil.
House Republicans even blocked bills to help veterans, including one that would have guaranteed our soldiers pay during any GOP-led government shutdown. One can easily imagine how the party of Franklin Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson would have eviscerated Republicans who took such an arrogant plutocratic record into the elections of their eras. Todays Democrats are of a decidedly different ilk.
* * *
Early in 2012, I asked a number of high-ranking House Democrats the same question: If you believe that on their record this is the worst Republican Party ever, why arent you landsliding them? Their replies, preceded by wistful smiles, ranged from citing the difficulty of regaining gerrymandered districts to big-money support for the Republican Party. But the most candid response came from a high-ranking Democrat, who blurted, Because wed raise less money. In other words, the Democrats are so beholden to their own big-money contributors that they cant fight on issues that they know have overwhelming public support. Plainly, the House Democrats raised enough money. They benefited from their gerrymandering, too. On the issues, the Democrats had a huge advantage. Yet instead of confronting Republicans in district after district with the vicious Ryan budget and the Boehner Bands voting record, the Democrats displayed open defeatism.
MORE
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Your example of Ralph attacking Republicans contains minor asides calling Republicans bad things, then goes on at length about how terrible Democrats are.
As I said, he did good back in the day. That is no longer the case.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)"... Democrats were up against the cruelest, most extremist, most corporate-controlled Republican Party in historya party far too extreme for the likes of Senator Robert Taft or Ronald Reagan."
Yes that's a minor aside. Yup. Boy that Ralph sure minces his words to make the GOP look good.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If the Republicans truly are "the cruelest, most extremist, most corporate-controlled party in history", then why the fuck is there a couple sentences attacking them, and paragraphs attacking Democrats? Why spend so much more time attacking the lesser of evils?
But that's OK, Ralph will disappear again around late November. Then he'll come back out around February 2016. To launch more attacks on Democrats. Then he'll disappear again around late November. Then he'll come back out around February 2018....Nov disappear, Feb 2020 reappear, Nov disappear.......
It's almost like there's some pattern at work. Golly, I wonder why that is.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But I guess you'd rather go into crouch-and-defend mode than actually take an open mind about the content.
Okay you win. Things are just ducky. Democrats have made such great headway against GOP obstructionism. Corporations do not have enough power over the political system. Democrats should continue to turn to Big Money to drive their agenda.
I might be able to take opinions like yours more seriously if you actually talked on the subjects at hand, Like if you actually gave your opinion about whether or not Big Money has influenced Democratic positions and behavior too much. Legitimate basis for differences of opinion there.
But noooo. Instead this dissing of critics of the Democratic Status Quo always degenerates into inane American Idol personality chatter.....Ohhhhhh...Ralph is a jerk. Therefore nothing he says has any merit...Ohhhhh, even when he is calling the GOP evil, he is not supportive enough of Democrats, so therefore he must be a GOP stooge.
gimme a break.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If the entire point of the article is to talk about how awful Republicans are, then it's rather odd that the vast majority of the article talks about how bad Democrats are.
Not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is Ralph is using his successes from his "younger days" to support himself today.
Since about 1996, he's tried to make a splash every election year by attacking Democrats. Then he is fairly quiet in the intervening years. 2000 was obviously the largest one, but he did so in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012 and now 2014.
I don't begrudge the man for trying to make a living, but it's pretty obvious he's not working for himself anymore.
That isn't the subject at hand. The subject at hand is Ralph, and the fact that he hasn't said jack shit about Obama doing what Ralph asked him to do. The OP is still right up there for you to look at.
You are trying to turn this into a thread about Big Money in politics.....and very carefully ignoring Ralph's "splash pattern", and the Big Money he eagerly accepted to fund his 2000 campaign.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Nader discussions always devolve into a bunch of useless circular arguments that go round in circles.
But I get sucked in (yet again) because I get soooooo pissed by this larger tendency (old and new) to demonize anyone who does not fall into the pattern of HAPPY UNTHINKING WARRIOR FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
Regarding the Op...I don't know whether or not Nader has given his seal of approval to Obama's little gesture to the idea of a livable wage....Nor do I really care.
What i do care about is this framework that has evolved in which people are demonized and marginalized if they are trying to advance liberal-progressive principles but do not fall into the lockstep of a narrowly-defined Corporate Democratic Party Agenda.
So people whose principles or strategies do not conform precisely with those of the Democratic Elite are always wrong on everything? They are to be shunned and cast out?
That's as much of an obstacle to constructive change as any teabagger or GOP.
And it pisses me off, because we keep blowing opportunities to actually be the party that stands for The People and could succeed electorally by standing up for their interests instead of kowtowing the the Morgan Goldman GE Comcast cabals of the world.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Then why are you replying to me?
I'm not demanding that Ralph line up behind the Democratic party. I'm saying his criticisms should be taken with a grain of salt for three reasons.
First, he seems to be directing his attacks against the lesser of evils. That's odd if his goal is to talk about the evil. He also doesn't follow up with a "good job" or "good start" when something positive happens.
Second, he has an odd pattern where he does this intermittently. He is not trying to draw attention to himself in non-election years.
Third, he did exactly what he is complaining about in 2000 - took "big money". The vast majority of his campaign funding came from Republican donors.
Now, it's theoretically possible that there is some logical reason for those that doesn't involve anything nefarious. But I can't find one. And claiming I'm attacking Ralph because he isn't lining up behind Democrats doesn't help find one.
I don't care enough about Nader to follow his schedule of appearances and comments. And I think he was tactically stupid in his full frontal assault on the Democratic Party in the 2000 election.
He is a gadfly. That's his role.
But I agree with 80 percent of his criticisms and observations about the Democratic Party.
You disagree and don'lt trust him.
But we both want Democrats to win. Let's just leave it at that.
blm
(113,043 posts)Don't know why, it just seems to be true in so many cases.
ProfessorGAC
(64,995 posts)It's hard to believe you seriously believe this list.
And for his next trick, faster than light travel.
GAC
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I don't know how old you are, but if it weren't for professional and amateur shit stirrers like Nader, we would be even more under the boot heels of the rich and powerful than we are now.
Nader blew it during the election of Boosh, and he is not astute in the art of conventional politics. He is in some ways an asshole. But that's part of the role of shit stirrers -- to force solutions that are getting smothered by "politics as usual."
If you take off the strange set of glasses of 'progressives" who now bash whistleblowers, activists and other "shit stirrers," you might appreciate that is what has advanced almost any positive progress over the years.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)...after making the comparison, you say that?
Ridiculous.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I'm sure you're very disappointed by that.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)He cost us a couple of elections. Screw him.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,232 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Don't like the messenger? I'm not fond of everything he has done either.
But most of his criticisms are on target, unfortunately.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4527851
Tarheel_Dem
(31,232 posts)Green Tea Party Loser Idiot #1:
Peace & Freedom Tea Party Loser Idiot #2:
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Okay you win.
Democratic politicians can do no wrong. Government is working just fine. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an electoral system totally dominated by the interests of wealthy campaign financiers. Corporations need to have more power to drive the agenda. Democrats need to keep turning to Corporate executives and Wall St. financiers to decide what poor and middle-class Americans need.
We shouldn't even question our Blessed Leaders, no matter whose bidding they do.
Thanks for sharing.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)... but when it comes to the general elections, I think it's important to actually elect Democrats instead of make a statement.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)empty contests between two parties who are beholden to the same Big Money interests.
There are issues at stake. It is not merely a matter of "making a statement"....
Tarheel_Dem
(31,232 posts)Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But I don't equate support for blind unquestioning loyalty.
Such jostling is part of the DNA of Democrats in general, and at DU. It's why the popcorn stand does so well here.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,232 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with your caustic personality.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,232 posts)NOT!!!!
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Recheck the Terms of Service. We work to get democrats elected here. It's one thing to support a candidate like Nader in the primaries, but in the generals, it's the DEMOCRATIC underground.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)We have to elect Democrats, whether we are willy enthusiastic about particular candidates or whether it is simply to prevent the GOP from taking total control. The GOP is awful.
Duh. Okay. That's the basic TOS. What else is new?
But that does not mean we blindly fall in line behind Democrats when we disagree with them -- especially when their behavior supports the same Big Money interests that support the GOP.
The business of the nation is about much more than elections.
BTW, I agree that Ralph Nader screwed the pooch in 2000. He should have thrown his support to gore in the end. He's a political bonehead sometimes..... But I totally agree with his criticisms of the system, and I totally agree with his basic purpose of opening up the system to more grass roots involvement and accountability.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)... IMO, the man committed a SUPREME error in judgement by insisting on running as a third party candidate.
He DID cost us the 2000 election, and I lay the BushCo Jr presidency directly at his feet.
I mean it when I say I do not give a goddamn what he thinks. His ego overcame whatever good sense he might have. DONE. WITH. HIM.
You're right that he's right on some of the issues. But frankly, I'd rather hear it from someone else.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I agree with much of what he says.
Al Gore and the Democrats' reluctance or refusal to make the push to "seal the deal" cost the election. It should not have gotten down to Nader's tiny sliver of the vote making the difference. (And Gore did win the popular vote. It was the rooks in Florida and the Suprme Court that really screwed it up.)
I remember that campaign, and how Al Gore's popularity jumped after his nomination speech in which he struck a definite tone of aggressive progressive populism.
But in subsequent weeks the toned it down to be more "centrist" and not seem "too liberal." Which sucked oxygen from Gore's campaign and made it more difficult to siphon off enough of those who only supported Nader because they were so frustrated with Clintonian Corporate Centrism.
It's not worth rehashing that now. But the lessons are still valid. We win when we stand up for people. Oabma won because he created the image (true or not) of standing up for people for reform and change.
The real issue is whether the Democratic actually walk that talk once elected.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,324 posts)I swear sometimes DU is like a sports forum.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Not everyone has opportunity to put an Op-Ed piece in the NYT. But I bet most didn't read another Ralph Nader screed or if they did, they rolled their eyes and moved on.
Ralph yammers on. The President gets things done.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Let's throw everyone who isn't blindly loyal to some ambiguous agenda funded by Corporate America to the wolves.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)For the sins of the multitudes. Hey, America. Look in the mirror. You elected a bunch of racist shit heads in 2010 which is why Obama can't pass jobs bills, fuel efficiency standards increases, immigration reform, minimum wage increases or anything else he'd like to have done.
Ralph is always aiming at the wrong target.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)the Party Faithful's dog whistle. I won't bother to read upthread. (yawn)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)I stay out of GD a lot, but I do want to say you are one of my favorite posters.
A Hearty K&R