Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Cue the Tirades

1

i'd like to know why he sits out some races and enters others. what's the logic there? somebody should ask him. oh, and dan savage calling him a "moaning prig" is spot on, according to a big-league health care activist i know quite well who has had dealings with him--just for gossip's sake, that.

Posted by ellarosa | September 25, 2007 9:47 AM
2

Ugh. He runs when running will fuel his monomaniacal ego. http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040308&s=chait030804

Posted by kk | September 25, 2007 9:56 AM
3

Idiot!

Posted by monkey | September 25, 2007 10:03 AM
4

Does the Secret Service visit your house if you make a joke about offing a presidential candidate? Or just a standing president?

Posted by David Schmader | September 25, 2007 10:03 AM
5

Ok, I’m bracing to be flamed here, but I’m thinking about voting for a third party candidate in 2008, not Nader but someone else (or maybe not even voting at all in the federal races).


I’ve voted Democratic since I was 18 and what good has it done on the federal level? When I was younger and Clinton was president, I was able to look the other way over DADT, the failure of healthcare reform, welfare “reform,” the infamous Defense of Marriage Act, and on and on, because “hey, at least they’re not as bad as the Republicans, right?


Now we’re all aware that our political system is totally broken, but the total failure of the Democratic Party to stand up to Bush and stop his insane and evil agenda is really the last straw. They have (had) the backing of two thirds of the country and now nothing to show for it, except a resolution condemning free speech and their own supporters, of course.


After Republicans, the people who hate and despise Democratic voters the most are the Democrats! Most Congressional Democrats do not share progressive values and are interchangeable with their Republican counterparts.


Both parties are for the war and both parties want to maintain the status quo. On every issue that matters, the Dems are blowing it. The war will continue under the Democrats. Healthcare “reform,” if anything happens at all, may result in us simply being required to buy health insurance we can’t afford anyway (instead of just removing the age requirement for Medicare - DUH!). Our jobs will continue to be shipped abroad. Gays will make no advancements on the federal level except for the remote possibility we might be allowed serve openly and be cannon fodder for the out of control military.


Can anyone make a compelling case for voting for the DC Democrats? I may just boycott the federal election altogether since that’s what a real opposition group does when there are no real choices.

Posted by Original Andrew | September 25, 2007 10:04 AM
6

I'm with Andrew. And I may vote for Nader just out of spite for the Democrats horrible record over the past decade or so.

Don't hate me, hate the idiots that can't get my vote.

Posted by seattle98104 | September 25, 2007 10:07 AM
7

Seriously, if HRC is the nominee I'll be thinking along a similar tack as 5 and 6. Not saying I won't vote for her, but she'll have to earn it, and it's not looking good.

Posted by Levislade | September 25, 2007 10:21 AM
8

seattle98104: I don't hate you but I hate your reasoning: "If I don't get my way exactly, I'm going to ditch-out therefore helping the people who I claim to be against." Because of that kind of reasoning we've had Bush instead of Gore. Period. We've already argued this and we found out there is a difference.

Posted by poster girl | September 25, 2007 10:22 AM
9

seattle98104 - Can't I hate you both?

Seriously though, the Dems do suck, and their inability to take any effective action against the war after gaining control of congress is outrageous. On the other hand, before you vote for a 3rd party (or don't vote, which is about the same thing), think hard about whether or not the R's actually do suck worse. I think you'll find they do. If nothing else (and yep, there's not much else), all the Dems have promised to restore habeaus corpus, and all the R's have promised not to.

Posted by Providence | September 25, 2007 10:25 AM
10

Levislade: "If I don't get the exact right democrat who I think is the coolest, I'm going to tacitly let the Republicans win. That'll show The Republicans er someone..."

Posted by poster girl | September 25, 2007 10:25 AM
11

Hey Everyone! Let's not vote! Or Let's vote for Nader again! It'll be great! It will only really effect the poor people and minorities! And we can all be real counter-culture. It's fun being a rich white kid and vote for Nader.
Doesn't my hair look really cool?
It sad about the polar bears but I think my Dad gave some money to some environmental groups so it's cool.

Posted by Stan Fish | September 25, 2007 10:32 AM
12

I don't know whom you're quoting, but that's not what I said. I said that the Dem nominee, like any politician, will have to earn my vote. I don't expect to agree with him or her 100%, but being somewhere in the ballpark would be nice. Why have this whole process if, in the end, we're all just voting for one letter, R or D?

I agree there's a difference, and I think that if there were a Dem president we might actually get something done, rather than being foiled at every turn, but I'm not encouraged by the spinelessness the Dems have shown despite being in the majority in both houses.

Posted by Levislade | September 25, 2007 10:36 AM
13

poster girl @ 8,

The point is that the Dems have the power and they've done nothing - N O T H I N G - except for repeatedly, stabbing us in the back. Would the Republicans ever treat their voters this preposterous way? NOT IN A MILLION YEARS.

They've completely embraced Social Darwinism and Reaganomics. They're not spineless and weak, that explanation is too simple and misses the obvious: They're just as right-wing as the Republicans except for a few specific wedge issues, which they refuse to stand up for anyway. It's marketing more than anything else.

I can't with good conscience continue this pathetic charade.

In a democracy, people get the government they deserve, and if the American people are so hateful, ignorant and shallow that they elect someone like Fred Thompson (shudder) or Rudy Giuliani, then so be it.

Posted by Original Andrew | September 25, 2007 10:37 AM
14

@13: Clinton tried to get gays in the military and universal health care back in '92 and '93. Duh. Then he got creamed by Newt in '94 and we've been stuck with Republicans ever since. Clinton didn't sell us out--these policies, although popular with Seattle liberals (including me) were largely DESPISED by the American people. So your solution is, umm, pretend that the American people are liberal and elect another Repubican??

Posted by kk | September 25, 2007 10:58 AM
15

And saying the Democrats currently have power is just plain ignorant. They have the House of Representatives, but it takes 60 votes to control the Senate (which the Democrats do not have), and they have neither the Presidency nor the Supreme Court. So they have half of one of the three branches. And you wonder if it makes any difference? Do you think Hillary would appoint another Roberts or Alito to the Supreme Court? Don't you understand the enormous assistance the Clinton White House was able to give to Congressional Democrats--that they were neutered once Bush took over? Do you think in 2016 after another eight years of Republican rule you'll look back with a smug smile and say, "Sure am glad we didn't elect Hillary!"??

Posted by kk | September 25, 2007 11:09 AM
16

go away ralph, sorry. we have kucinich.

kucinich is cooler anyway, and far less dangerous as far as stealing votes.

Posted by Cale | September 25, 2007 11:13 AM
17

The problem with the 60 vote argument is that the Republicans did not have a 60 vote majority when they still controlled the Senate until this past year. And the Democrats never thought of doing the stalling tactics that the GOP is now willing using.

The reality is that the current bread of Democrats are largely corporate driven and cowardly. This is not your father's Democratic Party. Your father's & grandfather's Democratic Party had balls and used them.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | September 25, 2007 11:14 AM
18

@13 are you kidding? The Republicans have made an art out of seriously fucking over their whack-job religious right base. Those people are fuming mad because they don't have prayer in school or abortions sent back into the alley. The Bushies delivered the cash with gov funding of "faith-based initiatives", but for the most part, the fundies hopes and dreams are far from fulfilled.

Posted by Westside forever | September 25, 2007 11:16 AM
19

kk @ 14,

Go ahead and mock me if you want, but I've yet to hear anyone tell me exactly why I should vote for the current crop of despicable Beltway Democrats.

As I mentioned, I've been a loyal Democrat my whole adult life, but I've finally had enough of their bullshit.

What have they done lately that you're proud of?

Posted by Original Andrew | September 25, 2007 11:20 AM
20

@15 “it takes 60 votes to control the Senate (which the Democrats do not have)…”

Either that or the balls to tell the R’s to go ahead and filibuster, instead of caving. Call their bluff, let the R’s go on for weeks about how important it is to keep fighting the unpopular war—let them commit, slow, ritual hara kiri, and knock off whatever chances Romney, Giuliani, etc. have.

Cowards.

Posted by BB | September 25, 2007 11:20 AM
21

To the Stranger's Ed Board:

You might want to ask your golden boy, Green Party activist and failed candidate Joe Szwaja, who he is going to support and vote for for pres in '08.

I have a feeling that this Nader supporter and Aaron Dixon recruiter and supporter would love nothing more than to work for and vote for Nader again.

If values not directly applicable to the city still matter when it comes to city council candidates, and judging from all the press Burgess has received you think they do, I think that it's shameful you are supporting someone who has, and continues to, actively support Green Party candidates in partisan races.

If you want more "progressive" candidates, that's great, do it in the Democratic primaries. That Szwaja is unrepentant for his campaigning for Nader, which has led to the unmitigated disaster that is the Bush presidency, is deplorable.

This guy felt the need, in '06, when the Democrats did not control a single branch of the federal government, to put his resources into running someone against Maria Cantwell!! WTF!? And this was before the McGavick campaign imploded and people believed it was going to be a very close race. So while Democrats were working our tails off to get back control of the Congress, Szwaja was working to take out one of our vulnerable (at the time) Democratic senators! Ugh. End of rant.

Posted by xiu xiu | September 25, 2007 11:27 AM
22

@ 19 & 20, WTF is wrong with you people? From Wikipedia: Senate Democratic leadership allowed a filibuster on July 17, 2007 on debate about a variety of amendments to the 2008 defense authorization bill H.R. 1585, the Defense Authorization bill, specifically the Levin-Reed amendment S.AMDT.2087 to H.R.1585. The filibuster had been threatened by Republican leadership to prompt a cloture vote.

Posted by kk | September 25, 2007 11:31 AM
23

Yeah, fat lot of good it did getting Maria Cantwell re-elected. I'll never vote for her again.

Mike McGavick would have had an identical voting record.

Posted by Original Andrew | September 25, 2007 11:31 AM
24

Not voting and voting for a third party are not the same thing. Not even close. "Boycotting" an election is a totally ridiculous concept. It's no different from just not caring enough to show up, which just send the message that you are not a demographic that politicians need to care about.

So, whine all you want about the Democratic candidates, but get your ass to the polls on November 4th to vote for a 3rd party if that's what you want to do.

Posted by Julie | September 25, 2007 11:39 AM
25

@23: Last Friday, Cantwell voted "To provide for a reduction and transition of United States forces in Iraq." http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00346 You really think McGavick would have joined Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe as only the third Republican to do so? If that is what you think, then maybe we all are better off having you not vote.

Posted by kk | September 25, 2007 11:58 AM
26

@23

Are you kidding me? So you want to give Senate control BACK to the Republicans?

No difference between McGavick and Cantwell?!? Seriously???

I could go on for hours on how retarded you are for thinking that McGavick and Cantwell would have identical voting records. I will instead write just two words: habeas corpus.

Posted by xiu xiu | September 25, 2007 11:59 AM
27

The Courts! The Courts! The Courts!
not just the Supreme, but every federal district court that sets up which cases go forward and how they're decided. Every wacko case the Roberts court decided this term was pushed ahead by judges appointed by Bush and rubber stamped by a Republican congress. And a justice department that supported or stood aside when these cases progressed.

I guess if your a rich, white, straight male you can still be complacent and fussy about %100 agreement with every candidate. Everybody else has lost some of their rights(or will this term)in the past six years.

Posted by anna | September 25, 2007 12:04 PM
28

Maybe Nader won't take significant chunks of votes if the Democrat candidate doesn't suck.

Posted by Gomez | September 25, 2007 12:07 PM
29

Word Gomez, word.

Posted by seattle98104 | September 25, 2007 12:21 PM
30

Word to the wise, calling someone "retarded" and telling them not to vote is not a compelling way to make your case for voting Democratic.


I was with you a few years ago. I was pissed as hell at the Nader voters, etc, but does anyone have a lucid, cogent, non-snark argument for continuing to vote for a Democratic Party that does not represent me or my values?


Hint: Attacking me personally is not going to help.

Posted by Original Andrew | September 25, 2007 12:38 PM
31

You should do a straw poll with Nader in the running to see how many of us assholes are lurking in the shadows potentially "siphoning" votes from Oballary.

Posted by seattle98104 | September 25, 2007 12:40 PM
32

Nader?

...

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

(gasp)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 25, 2007 12:47 PM
33

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating voting for Ralph Nader ('cause I think he's turned into a self-aggrandizing, washed up jackass), however I don't see the point in voting for right-wing Democrats. They've crossed the line, and I just can't stand them anymore.

Posted by Original Andrew | September 25, 2007 12:49 PM
34

@ 22…your post is nonsensical. There was a filibuster, the D’s didn’t have the votes to stop debate, whereupon they had 2 options: 1) cave, or 2) let the R’s continue to filibuster, and raise holy hell about the R’s refusing to allow a vote on the war.

They caved.

Posted by BB | September 25, 2007 12:50 PM
35

I voted for Nader twice--in 1996 to protest the center-right policies of Bill Clinton (knowing Clinton would win anyway) and in 2000 when the hope was that the Green Party could get 5% and make a long term difference (and knowing that WA state at least was likely to go for Gore even with a 5% or higher Nader vote). I even gave him a couple of hundred dollars, more than I've given any candidate before or since.

[Gore voters may now demonize me for my actions. Go ahead, you know you want to.]

But the reality is that Nader is an egomaniacal, moralizing twit who would make a poor president. The reality is that he cannot win. The Green Party is a mess of political amateurism and will never become a major party in this country (and Nader has repudiated them in every way that matters anyway). The only possible effect of voting for Nader is to make the election of a Democrat less likely. And while the Democrats are disappointing, they're a better bunch this time around than they usually are, and the alternative is a near-fascist GOP that is made up of people who support torture, want to gut the constitution to grant dictatorial powers to the president, want to expand this war and probably start new ones, and is worse than all but the most compromised Democrats (*cough* Lieberman) on issues across the board.

Given the American electorate, the Democrats are running about as far to the progressive side of things as they can. If the housing collapse starts to bring down the entire economy, there might be room for a populist resurgence in 2008 that some of the top Democrats could ride to power, but absent that incremental change is the political reality.

I doubt Nader could even get on the ballot in enough states this time to matter. But if he does, please don't vote for him.

Posted by Cascadian | September 25, 2007 12:56 PM
36

Cascadian @ 35,

You make some very good points, but aren't you tired of voting for The Least Horrible Candidate?


We can safely say that a Hillary Clinton presidency is going to be a constant disappointment and will continue the current pattern of right-wing appeasement.


Don't you wish that we had someone inspiring who actually worked to make this country a better place and fulfill its potential? That's never going to happen if we keep voting for the current jackoffs. How else can we break the cycle?

Posted by Original Andrew | September 25, 2007 1:04 PM
37

Yes, I'm tired of voting for the least horrible candidate, but it's better than voting for a more horrible candidate.

I didn't think W. was going to be the disaster he has. I thought he was an idiot, but I figured his presidency would look like his father's. That was a poor assumption, but with that assumption the differences between Bush and the Gore who was running for president in 2000 (not the current one) was distressingly small on a host of issues.

Now we know the real differences, and the GOP candidates are all running on Bush's policies even if they're avoiding Bush the person. The Democrats have become more progressive, though they're still a far cry from where they should be. But absent a national crisis like the Great Depression, it's unrealistic to expect sweeping change in a single election cycle.

The first step in sweeping change is to stop making things worse. This election, that means voting the Republicans out of power. The next step is holding Democrats accountable so that they pursue better policies and not just a less damaging version of the status quo. We can do that by speaking up for candidates when they do the right thing (as with the blogger ad supporting Richardson on the war), supporting campaigns with the implicit understanding that successful election means acknowledging and fighting for our interests, and continuing to organize after the election of a Democratic president for progressive positions. In the Clinton years, activist groups failed to keep the pressure up, and we got center-right government in return. We can't make that mistake again. Then again, we won't even have the opportunity to make that mistake if the Republicans get reelected. Start with throwing the bums out, and then move on from there.

Posted by Cascadian | September 25, 2007 1:41 PM
38

The DEMS have alll this power --- what the fuck --- I thought Bush was a Republican.

What the fuck, I thought the DEMS in congress have a shaky one vote margin in the all imprtant Senate.

ALL this power, yeah, yeah. You are following the Republican spin doctors down the trail to more political hell ..... and so stupidly assumptive vs. real politic.

Posted by Andrezel | September 25, 2007 1:43 PM
39

The notion that the Democrats control both houses of congress and therefor should be able to do what they want is completely wrong.

They have a comfortable majority in the House, but not a veto-proof majority. So the best thing they can do is prevent the most egregious of Bush's policies. They cannot force Bush to do anything that he can veto. The don't have the votes. Therefor, they must cooperate, at least on some level.

The senate really only has a Democratic majority in theory, not in practical reality. They have the slimmest of majorities, and only because 2 independents are caucusing with the Democrats. Lieberman, now an independent, sometimes votes with the Democrats, but is a solid Bush supporter on the war. And Tim Johnson (ND) suffered a stroke and has been unable to vote on anything since shortly after being reelected. So as a practical matter, the Democrats don't have the votes to counter anything regarding the war, even by a simple majority. And Cheney breaks a tie. If Johnson recovers enough to resume his seat (which he's expected to do soon), and Lieberman can be persuaded to stop being a total asshat, then we might get somewhere.

I'm not saying I love everything the Democrats are doing. At times, they are spineless. But right now, this minute, they have very little real power, particularly in the Senate.

And while it wasn't exciting, the Democrats did manage to hold enough investigative hearings to drag Gonzales' name through the mud for months, eventually forcing him to resign. Not pretty and not exciting, but slow progress nevertheless.

Posted by SDA in SEA | September 25, 2007 2:22 PM
40

BB @ 34: The Democrats had a filibuster, and then they HAD a vote on the war. See post @ 25. (Umm, the Democrats lost that vote.) I hate to tell you this, but when all the Republicans voted for war last Friday, most of the country did not rise up in anger demanding to throw the bums out. Those Republicans pretty much know where their constituents are on the issues--that's how they keep getting elected. Your error is in assuming that Americans want liberal Democrats in power. It should be pretty obvious by now that as a whole they don't. Your choices for president that Americans will elect generally are moderate Democrats or right-wing Republicans. Trust me, I don't like those choices either. But I do think there's a difference, and that it's head-in-the-sand-silly to pretend there isn't. I think we should have a gay black president. But I'm not going to fuck over my kids by letting the Republicans control the White House just because there's no gay black candidate on the ballot. And I don't think attacking moderate Democrats helps the progressive cause. I think that votes for Nader in 2008--just like in 2000--hurt the progressive cause by enabling the election of right-wing Republicans.

Posted by kk | September 25, 2007 2:23 PM
41

Anyone who thinks Nader shouldn't run because he'll pull votes from Democrats is a fucking shithole pansy. Fuck off you anti-democratic pieces of shit. If you want your party to win maybe you should consider election reform (http://fairvote.org/). But hey, don't think about it too much because the fucking dems and repubs will never fucking pass it because they're skerred of losing their seats.

Like the democrats are worth fucking anything. If you didn't god damn notice they haven't done shit with their majority. But hey, I GUESS WAR IS ALRIGHT.

Most any politician is a piece of shit coward greedy asshole. The sooner you figure that out the sooner you'll think about voting for someone not affiliated with da two party system.

I may hate republicans but I hate democrats more because of they're gutless liars.

Posted by Sam Hill | September 25, 2007 2:35 PM
42

Anyone who thinks Nader shouldn't run because he'll pull votes from Democrats is a fucking shithole pansy. Fuck off you anti-democratic pieces of shit. If you want your party to win maybe you should consider election reform (http://fairvote.org/). But hey, don't think about it too much because the fucking dems and repubs will never fucking pass it because they're skerred of losing their seats.

Like the democrats are worth fucking anything. If you didn't god damn notice they haven't done shit with their majority. But hey, I GUESS WAR IS ALRIGHT.

Most any politician is a piece of shit coward greedy asshole. The sooner you figure that out the sooner you'll think about voting for someone not affiliated with da two party system.

I may hate republicans but I hate democrats more because of they're gutless liars.

Posted by Sam Hill | September 25, 2007 2:36 PM
43

Calling Dr. Fnarf. Calling Dr. Fnarf.

Posted by lisa | September 25, 2007 3:34 PM
44

@ 35, our stories are the same sir, and i for one, wish i could take back my 2000 vote for nader more than anything. what a waste. not that i think it cost gore the election (WA was solidly in the gore column) but because my assumption that gore and bush were fundamentally the same has proven to be so, so wrong. i feel like an idiot in hindsight, but that's youthful idealism for you.

i guess i don't really care if nader runs in '08 or not. anyone who decides to vote for him will confirm retard status, and my hunch is that he won't do any better than the 0.38% he managed to garner in 2004. he's not even assured the green nomination this time, so may not even have that (dubious) party organization to back him. he'll just be another fringe candidate ignored by 99% of the voters.

i just think it's sad that someone who had such a great legacy and reputation, has decided to throw it away because of a giant case of megalomania and flawed logic.

Posted by chris | September 25, 2007 3:49 PM
45

Sam Hill,

I don't think Ralph Nader should be prevented from running, even though it's a bad idea for everyone. I do think that if he runs people should vote for the Democratic nominee instead.

If Nader really was interested in changing things as an elected official, he had ample opportunities to run as a Democrat over the years. He's from the state that elected Lieberman. Why didn't he run in the Democratic Senate primary in Connecticut the year Lieberman was nominated? Why didn't he run the very next time once it was clear that Lieberman was a disaster? He could have at least helped organize progressive citizens of his state behind another candidate, while still carrying on his other advocacy work. He could be out there working with the grassroots for public campaign financing, liberal ballot access laws, the elimination of the electoral college, a constitutional amendment declaring that corporations aren't people, or any number of other things that would advance his stated reform agenda. But that would require putting his principles above his ego, and after several years of seeing Nader at work I think that's beyond his capacity.

Posted by Cascadian | September 25, 2007 4:34 PM
46

Do the Republicans suck worse then the Democrats? Who in their right mind cares. Why not argue if rotten milk tastes better or worse than Santorum caked in Peter North’s Pubes. KK, Providence, etc, how refreshing you all are trotting out the “Lesser of two evils” turd for public consumption. Bush 1, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton, what a tandem that has done well for the country, just look where we are today. A vote for a party given a mandate to end the war, who funds and expands it: is a wasted vote, is a waste of a stamp put on a ballot, is a waste of time standing in line to vote. I am not being dramatic or hyperbolic when I say a vote for Clinton in a vote for genocide in Iraq. Genocide, does this word not mean anything to liberals n this country? Grow a spine, believe in yourself, agitate, do not be pimped by the likes of the Democrats, and KK, and Providence. Its seems to me it is important to vote and note vote for a Dem or a Repug, so the rational, the human of our population can get a real sense of who we are. What is the approval rating of congress right now? 11%

Posted by GJ | September 25, 2007 6:18 PM
47

Yes, the Republicans suck worse than the Democrats. Don't be an idiot.

Posted by Cascadian | September 26, 2007 11:22 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).