Nader should blackmail Dems to take Kucinich as VP

[cryofan]

He could take a bunch of money from the GOP and Freepers, then show up at the convention and promise to take a dive/not run, but only if Kucinich gets the VP nod.

Now THAT is Old Skool politics. They still play that game over in Europe, and that is one reason why most of the EU has a higher standard of living than most of the USA.

I think I will send Nader a check with a note attached suggesting said Old Skool blackmail scheme.....

[Dookus]

1. well

since the outcome in either case is handing bush a victory, I'd just as soon not go for the blackmail option.

[aquart]

4. But it would be in keeping with his developing character.

[Bluzmann57]

2. Isn't that illegal?

It should be if it isn't. There's too much shady B.S. now, we don't need any more.

[ProudLefty]

3. IMHO, that is quite

naive.

If you do send Nader a check, you must also send yourself a "Bush/Cheney 2004" bumper sticker in order to remain consistent.

[aquart]

5. Bush/Nader 2004

Bumper sticker.

[Crunchy Frog]

10. I want to get one of those! n/t

[Guava Jelly]

15. like this

[sabbat hunter]

6. terrible idea

that idea is awful.
dennis kucinich, i would hope would turn down nader flat. and if he didnt i would drum him out of the democratic party.

this party should not be subject to blackmail.

bottom line is kucinich has many good ideas, but he would not bring anything to the democratic ticket, in fact he might weigh it down.

with him on the ticket the repubs would say the democratic party is one of extreme liberals, a thing that would not play well with a majority of america.

lets face it folks, the majority of the country is not conservative or liberal, but moderate. it is a country that wants change, but a slow change.
the changes that kucinich advocates would scare many americans and thus would cost us the election, and have another 4 years of bush.
as progressives that post here, we must advocate change, but also realize that this change will not happen rapidly.

the old skool politics that you speak of are awful. blackmail is not the way to win elections.

peace
david
:hippie:

[cryofan]

14. Old Skool politics is how it is done in the civilized countries in the EU

Certain of the multiple parties there cut deals in order to share power. That sounds better than the kind of crap we have going on here.

[sabbat hunter]

19. sharing power

the reason that in many cases parties share power in europe is because they use a parlimentary form of government and no one party can form a majority without other ones. (one of the exceptions being england)

having small parties have such a large say in the government is not necessarily a good thing. look how unstable it makes governments. (italy and israel being prime examples of this) do you really want to have such an unstable government, where a small party controls whats going on? dont forget a small party on the right can end up doing the same thing that a small party on the left can.

peace
david
:hippie:

[cryofan]

20. you are 100% wrong

First, all of the EU countries have more political parties that exert more power than does the USA. And if you are into reading social sciences studies or articles based on them, you know that for the majority of people, most of the EU have a better quality of life than do MOST of Americans. Therefore this so-called "unstable" govt WORKS BETTER THAN OURS. Defacto!

Now, as to your point that b/c America does not have parliamentarian system, then therefore a 3rd party cannot influence political outcomes.

Ummm...I think that is OBVIOUSLY WRONG, seeing as how Bush is only in office BECAUSE OF A THIRD PARTY, and furthermore, his predecessor, Clinton, probably only got into office because of a 3rd party.

You do not have to have a parliamentarian system in order to have 3rd parties that influence political outcomes. Nader proved that in 2000. Now he is either going to do it again, or, like the smaller parties in the EU, he is going to cause change in the system using the potential electoral power of his candidacy.

GO, RALPH!

[sabbat hunter]

25. shrub in power

while it can be said that in 2000 nader syphoned votes from gore, what really turned the election was the poor campaign that gore ran and the butterfly ballots in florida.

the butterfly ballots were confusing, to even educated voters. my parents friend is a lawyer who worked on many local campaigns here in ny, and even he is not sure if he voted for gore or buchanan by mistake.
if gore ran a good campaign then he would have been able to capture his own home state. as far back as i can tell, no candidate for president has won without winning his own home state.

bottom line is what you are suggesting is blackmail, one that would cause the democratic party to lose in 2004 and cause 4 more years of shrub.

once again in europe it is a different system, you need a majority in their respective legislature. because of the electoral system you dont need a majority popular vote (as we were shown in 2000)

but since in europe you need a majority in parliament, that means you have to form coalition governments with smaller parties.

for the most part in america, the third parties act as spoilers not as helpers.


nader acted as a spoiler in 2000 (this is coming from someone that voted for nader in 2000, in a safe gore state) and all he can do this year is act as spoiler again, causing the democratic candidate to lose and shrub to remain in power, putting neocon judges on the court, over turning roe v wade, etc.


look at england, it is basically a two party system. there is a smaller third party in their parliament, but both the labor and conservative parties have been able to establish majorities without coalitions

i think it is bad if a small minority exerts too much influence. look at the troubles israel has because the extremists in that country exert a lot of influence in order to get a majority coalition in the knesset.

i say "No, Ralph, NO!"


peace
david
:hippie:

[leyton]

16. ditto

Those few progressives who Kucinich would bring to the ticket would be far outweighed by the number of moderates who would be driven away.

Besides, Kucinich is not a good complement to Kerry. Kerry is (despite what some say around here) fairly liberal, so his VP should be someone who would attract more moderate voters, preferably in the south or southwest. Or his VP ought to complement his personality and be a charismatic, upbeat guy (which Kerry really isn't most of the time). Kucinich is neither of these things - at least to me he isn't. I find him too liberal for my tastes and I find his peronality offputting.

[DemBones DemBones]

7. What good would that do? As John Nance Garner,

Harry Truman's VP, said, the vice presidency is worth about as much as a "warm pitcher of spit."

Most VP's have little power -- Cheney the obvious exception that proves the rule, as the cliche has it -- and it's not just Kucinich as a person that is needed, but Kucinich's dedication to achieving his platform goals.

The Democratic Party should embrace some of Dennis Kucinich's platform goals as their own.

Because most voters have chosen to vote for the candidate they think can win against Bush rather than the one whose ideals they support, the Party leadership doesn't realize that there is considerable support for most of Kucinich's platform. They are beginning to understand that NAFTA is a problem but I don't think they get it about the war in Iraq or the PATRIOT Act yet. And that only mentions three of Dennis's top ten issues.

[cryofan]

13. It would do the USA a WORLD of good to put a progressive a heartbeat away

...from the Presidency.

Visibility and exposure of America to Progressive ideas, these are things that may come from Kucinich's VP appointment.

[w4rma]

18. "a heartbeat away..."

Well, I don't want anyone assassinating the Pres, so I don't think your reason is a good one.

[Voltaire99]

8. Good point, Cryofan. Nader should use leverage to push Dems left

What does it say, after all, if Nader's running makes Kerry vulnerable? Nothing more or less than that the Democrats have a NASCAR problem: too much catering to the center-right, and not enough attention to liberals and progressives.

Personally, I would like to see Nader use leverage, if not for getting Kucinich on the tickety, which would be nice, I admit, then for shaping the platform: educating Kerry on the need for reform in trade and corporate regulation, for instance.

[Crunchy Frog]

11. Yes, maybe Nader could blackmail Kerry

into agreeing to sit down to a bunch of hours long lectured by Ralph, where he can be instructed about everything Ralph thinks he needs to address.:eyes:

[Crunchy Frog]

9. Do you really believe that Kucinich

would like being exploited as a blackmail tool like that. I have far too much respect for his sense of honor and integrity to think that he would ever agree to being used in such a fashion.

I'm surprised that you seem to have such a low opinion of him.

[cryofan]

12. quit putting politics on a pedastel

Of course such a deal would be done in a "smokefilled room."

[MurikanDemocrat]

17. I'm glad Kucinich has higher standards than you do

[LWolf]

21. No, thanks.

[Cuban_Liberal]

22. I would personally volunteer to go to Boston, just for the privilege...

of tossing his ass into the street, as soon as he entered the door. :evilgrin:

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. Doubt Dennis would take it under those circumstances

[cryofan]

24. this negotiation would be behind closed doors

DK might never even know for sure.

I am actually not sure that getting DK in the VP slot would even be the best thing that NAder could do with his power (and he DOES have power: have you seen how the elite media is pushing him!? He is all over the elite political media).

Perhaps the best thing he could do would be to force the Dems to come out of the convention with a mostly tax funded universal health care system.