Amazon.com Widgets

« Richard Dawkins | Main | Links With Your Coffee - Friday »

Run Ralph Run

Chris Matthews interviews Ralph Nader on his prospects of running for President. Run Ralph run!

Part 1


Quicktime Video 9.2 MB : 00:09:11
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.

Harball w/Chris Matthews

Part 2




Quicktime Video 5.6 MB : 00:05:24
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.

Harball w/Chris Matthews

 

Comments

ya know i feel more and more sympathetic to nader being blamed for the dems losing more and more. i do feel that if he didnt run that the dems wouldve won, but i do support his idea that this two party system is a mess and should be fixed. so i do support his cause because of that...and also because he really is a bright human being

user-pic

nader is dead on about Clinton. She has all the moral fortitude of a peon, if she runs for the democratic ticket, Ill vote for Nader or someone like him. I would rather make a statement and vote for a real candidate then participate in the fraud of democracy that is the GOP-Democrat controlled government of today.

And that was a very good interview, its rare to see an articulate man on tv. he reminded me of my grandfather somehow too, which cant be a bad thing.

I think Nader is being cast as a scapegoat by the Democrats for their failure to propose a project that would marginally have put them ahead of the Republicans. You cannot blame an individual for his rights to represent some values and convictions that are shared, apparently, by enough people and thus for putting your country in such a mess. I think the US is lucky to have someone like Nader, it is too bad US citizens don't know who Nader is and what he has done for them in the past. Nader would be a good president by any standards and in any countries (I am from Switzerland btw); I wish there were more of him .

I think Nader is being cast as a scapegoat by the Democrats for their failure to propose a project that would marginally have put them ahead of the Republicans. You cannot blame an individual for his rights to represent some values and convictions that are shared, apparently, by enough people and thus for putting your country in such a mess. I think the US is lucky to have someone like Nader, it is too bad US citizens don't know who Nader is and what he has done for them in the past. Nader would be a good president by any standards and in any countries (I am from Switzerland btw); I wish there were more of him .

when can we expect matthews to comment on Ralph's natural odors? His equiline profile? His 'nice daddy'ness?

Nader is just a delusional self absorb kook. He has been a great consumer advocate in the past, but now like a drug addict, he needs a steady supply of attention to feed his ego, and attention to feed his racket he had built with his PIRGs since the 70s.

As much as Nader wants to portray himself as a progressive consumer advocate, in reality he is a millionaire lawyer/lobbyist, who has fought against unionization of his PIRG employees. If Clinton or any of the Republicans went off attacking Microsoft but doing while holding large shares of many of Microsoft's competitors like Nader did in late 1990s. (He had over a million dollars in value along with a large investment in Magellan Funds, not the most progressive friendly mutual fund)

I think Nader as observer and commentator is fine. However, Nader as a candidate is just silly and I do hold him responsible for some of his crap he did in 2000. Politics is about coalitions, not some ego petting exercise, and maybe we would had gotten some disingenuity from a Gore Administration, but we wouldn't get a Gestapo I.G Farben friendly administration like the Bush Administration. If he wants to work for a progressive agenda, he has to realize that he isn't the progressive agenda. He is just a lobbyist who is gauging his clients and his staff. If he wants to talk about hypocrisy, he only has to look in the mirror.

user-pic

I have a lot of respect for Ralph but do think his times as a candidate have past. It would be exciting to have a new Green candidate. I wish Al Gore would have been himself more in 2000 and won the election hands down. I also wish Nader had not have run that year and given Al some wiggle room.

Hindsight is 20-20 but the path of this country would be significantly different had Al won ... and Ralph is part of that equation.

Look at all the successful democracies in Europe--you know, the ones with universal health care and many other things that we lack here--there are 3rd, 4th, and 5th political parties, vibrant and effective. We need that. What we don't need is a 3rd party candidate running for Prez--the whole idea is kind of like trying to build a house from the top story down. As my daughter's favorite T-shirt says: "Obey gravity--it's the law!"

This, by the way, goes for Ralph and for the mayor of my city (note to Norm: your guy Rocky will be here in NYC on Monday--I'm looking forward to seeing him). If you want to build an active and viable 3rd or 4th party, wonderful: you have my full support. Just start from the foundation, all right? City council, Senate, Congress, state government, that kind of thing.

In my field (technology), our "third party" is Linux. They didn't start by trying to push MS off the mountain; they just quietly built a new platform over the years and put it out there for people to use. Today, Red Hat is snubbing its nose at MS's protection schemes and pushing further and further into both the enterprise and consumer sector. That's how you build a viable third party: you build it from the ground up.

Ralph, take a lesson from the "open source society" and run for Senate, Congress, or pick your state and try Governor; you'll have my support. But President, again? You know, Cervantes was really just kidding about his windmill-tilter's nobility and wisdom...

user-pic

"Obey gravity--it's the law!"

THAT is fantastic. i want to come out of the closet and embrace that phrase as the bottom line and sum total everything that i believe. i kneel at the feet of that t-shirt, bow my head and present my shoulder to the sword. :)

A poster above said, "I would rather make a statement and vote for a real candidate then participate in the fraud of democracy that is the GOP-Democrat controlled government of today."

This is EXACTLY the kind of talk that helped put George W. Bush into office and keep him there for 8 LONG YEARS.
Back in 2000 there was a lot of people saying that there was no difference between Gore and Bush - well, do you think there is a difference now?

Torture, Spying, Costly, deadly war... these are not issues that should be considered lightly. By voting for Nader, the only statement you would be making is that Republicans like Bush can continue to destroy America.

Nader being a spoiler AGAIN? Say hello to President Thompson.

Since I live in Texas and the probability that Gore would carry Texas in 2000 was infinitesimal, I voted for Nader. It was a pure protest vote - I felt Gore had run a terrible campaign. Having said that, I regret having encouraged him now. It would be a ridiculous fantasy for Nader to believe that by running for president in 2008, he would have "a voice" that would be heard by any more people than he has anyway.

I love the "Obey gravity--it's the law!" t-shirt. Let's live in the real world for once. If liberals want to strengthen their hand in politics and are unable to even gain influence in the Democratic party, why do they think they can win in a general election? (Hell, if they are afraid of the word "liberal", how much chance do they have of convincing Joe Six-pack they can stand up to the bogey-men the GOP has convinced him are going to invade they country at a moment's notice?)

Get serious - the GOP is running a pack of dangerous, flaky lightweights. Portray them as the autocratic shitheads they are, show you can come up with realistic ideas to solve problems and restore democracy, confront their propaganda machine with well-prepared counterattacks, and win the fucking election.

It's very true about how bad unionbusting is at the PIRGs, and you can generally say the same thing about almost all the left-leaning political non-profits in the country. My non-profit gets a lot of money from the NEA of all places, yet has unionbusted in the past. It's despicable.

user-pic

reply to chris: I understand what you are saying, and maybe if I was voting again and it was 2000 again people like me would have voted differently, but you are looking it with 20/20 hindsight, and your argument is ultimately one based on fear. Dont vote for a progressive alternative or an evil republican will rule, thats your argument, but guess what, the democrats are just as good as destroying our country as the republicans, they are just not as up front about it, at are a bit more slow going about the process.

So while I understand where you are coming from, from where i stand, we HAVE TO find an alternative, because if we dont, then our "democracy" really is a fraud. Will you vote for Hillary? So we have Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton for possibly 28 years! Is that what democracy looks like?! Inheriting the Whitehouse.

First of all, nice to see another linux user is on this forum. Second of all, I'm glad this webpage eventually added the option to download the media, since otherwise it would be unavailable to those who resist the two-headed monster that is Microsoft and ALSO Mac.

I'd just like to point out that Nader doesn't use any of his so called 'personal' wealth. The man lives off of 20 thousand dollars/year. Ever see the clothes he wears? His shoes? I thought all of that was a myth or something he just did for the tv programs until I had dinner with him. These smears about him union-busting sound more like Fox news soundbites than anything else.

I for one am glad Gore didn't win. He had completely sold out to the consultants in every conceivable fashion for that election. It took a few years off, a beard, and some New School conferences where he brushed up on his early reading of Merleau-Ponty from his days at the Vanderbilt Divinity School to remember who he was and what he stood for. Now he has recovered from years of consultation and pollsters' influence. He is NOW a viable candidate in ways he was not in the least before.

If Obama doesn't win the ticket, it would be nice to see Bloomberg-Nader on one ticket, one that may have a few discrepancies within its 'single' voice, but on the other hand one that will better represent a wider range of ideas instead of a totalizing ideology.

First of all, nice to see another linux user is on this forum. Second of all, I'm glad this webpage eventually added the option to download the media, since otherwise it would be unavailable to those who resist the two-headed monster that is Microsoft and ALSO Mac.

I'd just like to point out that Nader doesn't use any of his so called 'personal' wealth. The man lives off of 20 thousand dollars/year. Ever see the clothes he wears? His shoes? I thought all of that was a myth or something he just did for the tv programs until I had dinner with him. These smears about him union-busting sound more like Fox news soundbites than anything else.

I for one am glad Gore didn't win. He had completely sold out to the consultants in every conceivable fashion for that election. It took a few years off, a beard, and some New School conferences where he brushed up on his early reading of Merleau-Ponty from his days at the Vanderbilt Divinity School to remember who he was and what he stood for. Now he has recovered from years of consultation and pollsters' influence. He is NOW a viable candidate in ways he was not in the least before.

If Obama doesn't win the ticket, it would be nice to see Bloomberg-Nader on one ticket, one that may have a few discrepancies within its 'single' voice, but on the other hand one that will better represent a wider range of ideas instead of a totalizing ideology.

I for one am glad Gore didn't win.

You must be very happy of the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, the millions of displaced Iraqis, the 3000+ dead American soldiers, a new Supreme Court which will almost surely overturn Roe vs Wade the first chance they get, the incredible debt, TORTURE, the suspension of habeus corpus, warantless wiretapping, etc.

What kind of sick fuck says he's glad that George W. Bush beat (I use that term loosely) Al Gore?

Nader didn't cause Gore to lose. Nader just represents everything that is wrong with this country, that americans are so helpless to do anything about changing anything. There are small groups of people who get upset about corporation greed, lobbying, the two party system, and these sort of things, but not nearly enough of us. And even if there were enough of us, how do "people" fight a billion dollar corporation who funds the congress?

Nader is our Don Quixote, and we are his Sancho Panza. Always watching him charge at the windmill, hoping that just once he'll take it down, but unwilling to pick up the fight ourselves.

It is frustrating to see someone with Ideas who can form a sentance about the economy or foreign policy be called an "independant kook". I fear for our future.

Michael Moore talks about Al Gore In San Francisco for a screening of SICKO.

http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=2738

Most compelling of all, however, was the picture he painted of his relationship with former Vice President Al Gore. Gore is not featured in “Sicko,” but his name came up in the Q&A on Wednesday night, and it sent Moore into a lengthy, wistful tale about his meeting with Gore at his Tennessee home a year or so ago.

Turns out “Farenheit 911” – which opens with an excruciating sequence in which, having had the 2000 election snatched from him, Gore must preside over the Senate and beat back, one by one, the protestations of members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who all refer to him as “Mr. President” in anguished and defeated tones – had a powerful impact on the Gore family. Now, as an environmental crusader with an Oscar-winning documentary under his belt like Moore, Gore was evolving into an activist, even visionary American leader.

They also talked about the devastating impact Ralph Nader had on the 2000 election (those cocksure “progressives” weren’t snickering during this portion of the Q&A, I can assure you). Moore was one of the most ardent, high-profile supporters of Nader’s that year, a fact that seemed to flood him with regret on Wednesday night. But he was awestruck by Gore’s equanimity on the subject: “I didn’t lose because you voted for Nader,” Moore paraphrased Gore as saying. “I lost because I obviously didn’t do enough to convince you to vote for me instead.”

Moore came to see Gore as a brilliant, brave, sincere and, yes, humorous politician who would be great for the country, great for the world.

“I hope he never listens to another advisor again,” Moore said, stopping just short of endorsing Gore, or anybody, for president in 2008 – although he made it pretty clear he’d drop everything to help Big Al if he does in fact run.

.... More said, HE'D DROP EVERYTHING TO HELP BIG AL IF DOES IN FACT RUN !!!!!!!!!!!!

Run, Al, Run!!!

He has a 1,000 times better chance than Ralph does. Al Gore's my man!

user-pic

It annoys the shit out of me when I hear people defending unions as if there are some divine entity. Here in Massachusetts a lot of the unions are twisted and corrupted and they cost the state millions of dollars, delays construction or other important jobs, and bully competitors from taking jobs. The cops have the law written so that they HAVE to be posted by construction work. Half the time I drive by they're sitting in their car drinking some coffee. So PLEASE stop telling me how GREAT unions are. They do more damage than they are worth.

Nader: Yeah, so, you know, in NYC ghettos corporations are killing everyone with asbestos and oth--

Matthews: SAY, what's this book about?!

Nader: Oh, that book is about...

Did anyone notice that?

Also, why does Mike Gravel have no chance of making it? I actually agree with a lot of what he says (this being based on what I've read on Wikipedia). Obama seems so-so: why outlaw semi-automatic weaponry and increase the military? That just makes the military that much more elite and civilians that much more dependent.

Hillary just fails.

So, yeah, what's wrong with Gravel?

The reason why we have two dominant parties in this country is a function of the voting system of this country, not because not enough people vote for third party candidates.

Throughout this country's history, whenever there has been a significant 3 party election, one of two things has always happened by the next election season: A) the third party falls apart B) the third party replaces and becomes one of the previous two dominant parties. Why has this outcome been so stable?

Hypothesis 1: Because people don't vote for, don't believe in, never had the idea for a third party for 200+ years.
Hypothesis 2: Because the two dominant parties intentionally ensure this outcome somehow or other for 200+ years
Hypothesis 3: Because this is a stable game theoretic outcome of our voting system for 200+ years

In this country, we have a first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all voting system. In some voting systems, if the Green party gets 3% of the national vote, then they should get 3% of the seats in Congress. In our country 3% of the national vote will get you jack nothing.

Countries that have 3, 4, 5 viable parties tend to have very different election systems than we do. If we had a parliamentary system, if the green party had 3% of the vote and the democrats had 48% of the vote they could offer the green party some policy concessions or some cabinet seats in order to form a coalition government with them to gain a majority. We don't have anything like this in a presidential race: assuming the GOP got the remaining 49% they would get 100% of the power by simple plurality even though they are outnumbered by the two remaining parties whom disagree with the GOP a great deal more than than they disagree with each other. As a result, anything that would be a third party is much better off as a faction within one of the two existing parties, and often this is exactly what happens (think of the "blue dog" democrat coalition or the christian right within the GOP).

If you wanted to design a voting system that was most likely to result in two dominant parties, it would be our system. Arguably this is one of our Constitution's greatest failures, especially since many of the founders that document hated political parties (note there are 0 mentions of parties in the constitution).

If we want third parties, we should encourage features of voting systems that would do so, such as proportional representation or runoff voting or even something more radical like approval voting. Believe it or not, some top republicans and democrats support runoff voting, such as John McCain and Howard Dean. If all the people that would vote for Nader would instead promise to vote for any candidate that was for introducing runoff voting, that percentage, although small, would be large enough to swing enough jurisdictions that any candidate would trip over themselves to do it -- you may recognize this as the strategy that special interest groups use. If you believe that the two parties are so clever and devious that they would never allow this because you believe in hypothesis 2, remember all the evidence shows that the two parties are extremely short-sighted, not long-sighted; they just want to win the next election or else they'll be weeded out like an unfit species.

Hypothesis 3 is the only one that makes sense because our voting system has remained essentially unchanged for 200+ years, while there have been a dozen generations of voters and parties over 200+ years which makes hypotheses 1 and 2 highly implausible.

I'd just like to say that I feel relieved that most intelligent people can see Hillary for what she is. Here's hoping Al Gore runs so that Hillary can go find another line of work.

I also think Nader is balls on- Kucinich, Gravel and Paul SHOULD run under/create third parties if they lose the DNC/GOP nominations.

"We the people" seem to be thoroughly disgusted with both parties. If ever a 3rd-party was going to sneak in, 2008 is it.

user-pic

If Gore had won in 2000, how different would things be today? Would we not be in Iraq? Would 9/11 have not happened? Would Gore, as president, have evolved into the environmentalist he is today? I ask these seriously, without spite or sarcasm. I am inclined to answer "no" to all of them, but I am by no means absolutely sure. It confuses me to hear democrats try and explain how drastically different they are from republicans. Its refreshing to hear Nader during this election race. His assessment of the US political situation is spot on, IMO.

Firi, the problem with Gravel is he doesn't have nearly enough money. I gave him 100 bucks just so that I could sleep easier at night, but I don't know how much chance he has against Obama and Clinton. He has far more backbone and honesty then any other candidate which is exactly why no large donor will help him out. If you like him definitely give him a donation though, because it's the only way to further his campaign.

I feel like when the dust settles, it'll be McCain,Bloomberg and Obama, and I would vote for Bloomberg just to break up the two party system.

on what basis do you conclude that we would be in iraq if gore was president? on what basis do you conclude that 9/11 would have occurred? i'm exasperated by your lazy thinking. disgusted really.

and ... nader is self-serving scum. if he was serious about anything other than himself, he'd run for lower office and build up a record. but he won't. because he's a scumbag.

Just to comment on the constitution since someone else did so already. id like to add something. I took a conn law course (law school) with a professor of history/law and the interesting thing he pointed out pretty early on is that when the constitution was written there were no parties yet. yes there were federalists and anti-federalists, but there were no cohesive and organized political parties. So when the checks and balances were written into our system, the founding fathers assumed that the people running for office would be from the people (upper class people of course, but still, from the people). So when parties formed, our system kind of failed on us. Checks and balances work only when there is real opposition within the system, instead what has happened is the parties (both of them) handed more and more power to the executive branch and his administrative agencies, to the point that congress is not responsible for much of anything, and the balance the two chambers were to provide against the executive crumbled as a result. Its ironic, we praise our system as the most enlightened, and yet it did have flaws, and it failed.

user-pic

mitch, sorry to disgust you. My thinking isn't so much lazy as it is simply uninformed. I just don't have enough knowledge to make a clear judgement is all, which is why I'm asking. My basis for the assumptions I do have are following:

A majority of Democrats in the Senate authorized the war in Iraq (some unapologetic to this day, i.e. Hillary), so what's to say they would not have done the same had Gore been president? I know he came out against the war in '02, but this was after a political hiatus and at the beginning of his own public image reformation. He's not exactly a pacifist, remember that he was one of a few democrats to support the first Gulf War in '91. In addition, as president he would have been facing pressure from the military industrial complex and the oil industry to "stabilize the region." Remember the political climate back in 2003 as well. There was vast public support for the Iraq invasion, and it wasn't all Republicans.

While a majority of senate democrats voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution, it was a slim majority: 29 for, 21 against. However, a large majority of House democrats voted against the Iraq War Resolution: 81 for, 126 against.

But if Gore had been president, there wouldn't have even been an Iraq War Resolution to vote on because Gore wouldn't have had his strings being pulled by the neo conservatives.

I don't understand the disgust for Nader and blaming him for the Iraq war. Blaming him for the Iraq war casualties is utterly ridiculous. Consider the other factors that lead to the current situation.

  1. The many individuals that voted Republican in 2000.
  2. Low voter turnout in 2000
  3. The shenanigans regarding vote counting possible selecting the incorrect leader.
  4. 911
  5. The mainstream media fear mongering and the publics willingness to accept it
  6. The faulty CIA intelligence
  7. The unquestioning mainstream media during the leadup of the war
  8. The democrats and republicans who voted for the authorization
  9. An insufficient plan for the war
  10. Years of democrat and public inaction during the war
  11. Voter relected the GOP in 2004
  12. Failure to include timetable for withdrawal so late into the war.

Finally any soldier killed was done so by either an insurgent or "terrorist" in Iraq. Where do these "terrorists" get their weapons?

The only way to assign Nader any blame is through a serious of "butterfly effect" scenerios.

It is very troubling to see Nader attacked with such mindless nitpicking. If I recall correctly, GORE won the popular vote with NADER in the race.

Can some genius explain how that constitutes NADER spoiling GORE's run?

America's only chance of getting back on track would be, in my opinion, Nader as president, or Paul as president, or Gravel as president among a VERY FEW others.

Clinton? Romney? Obama? Thompson? Gimme a FUCKING BREAK!!!!!!!!!!

adamsonar,

My opinions,

Would we not be in Iraq?

As Jo Ann has correctly pointed out, with Gore in office, there would have been no Bush and, especially, no Dick Cheney to pack the government full of neoconservatives. Lieberman's influence would have undoubtedly been much smaller than Cheney's. (Cheney has more power than any VP in US history.) The screaming for war within the Gore administration in response to 9/11 (if it had occured) would have been more than balanced by saner voices. In short, I don't think the war in Iraq would have happened.

Would 9/11 have not happened?

Given the gross incompetence of the Bush administration in responding to "the system blinking red", I think the chances that there would have been no 9/11 are reasonably good. But who knows?

Would Gore, as president, have evolved into the environmentalist he is today?

Gore has always been an environmentalist, but would not have devoted anywhere near the time to the issue as he has. Given political realities, Gore's environmental record of accomplishments would probably been modest, but still vastly better than Bush's retrograde horseshit.

"911" Changed absolutely nothing, the policy was already set.

"The faulty CIA intelligence" See office of special plans

"The unquestioning mainstream media during the leadup of the war" The wardrumming is at it again with Iran and Syra. Is the media really free?

"Years of democrat and public inaction during the war" A lot of dems are hawks

"Failure to include timetable for withdrawal so late into the war." Withdrawal?...never been part of the plan

user-pic

Yes, Scott, Gore did win the popular vote. However, the US is a Republic, and the electoral collage is what determines the winner - not the popular vote.

When Nader broke his promise to not campaign in contested/important states - such as Florida - the impact of his doing so caused the loss of an important electoral state that was actually in play. The vote differential between Bush and Gore in Florida only had to be "close enough to steal", which is exactly what the Republicans did (with the help of the candidate's governor brother, and his cousin at Fox News). Anyone with a cursory knowledge of US electoral politics knows that you don't have to win the popular vote to win the presidency. Too bad we had to learn that lesson in our generation.

user-pic

Yes, Scott, Gore did win the popular vote. However, the US is a Republic, and the electoral collage is what determines the winner - not the popular vote.

When Nader broke his promise to not campaign in contested/important states - such as Florida - the impact of his doing so caused the loss of an important electoral state that was actually in play. The vote differential between Bush and Gore in Florida only had to be "close enough to steal", which is exactly what the Republicans did (with the help of the candidate's governor brother, and his cousin at Fox News). Anyone with a cursory knowledge of US electoral politics knows that you don't have to win the popular vote to win the presidency. Too bad we had to learn that lesson in our generation.

You need a serious lesson in causality if you blame Gore's loss for the Iraq war, etc. If Americans read the newspaper instead of watching CNN (the ultimate hawk at the time), Bush would not have led America to war. You are idolizing Gore based on his new book, with its backpage reference to the Frankfurt school. That wasn't the machine of a man that ran in 2000. The deplorable number of Dems who joined in on the war is also indicative of the real causality. If Gore was so great, why was his party so ready to cave in to Bush? By way of the "sick fuck" argument, Bush's mommy is the truly guilty party, though her parents play a part as well, etc. etc. Then there is the thought of Liebermann eventually running as president after Gore ... THAT would be the future of the Democratic party? Lieberman's democrats versus the neocons would have come up with a new pretense for invading Iraq anyway. Blaming Nader is like blaming Gore's sighing during the debate for the deaths of Iraqi civilians.

Also, I never said I was glad Bush beat Gore, I am just glad the fake Gore didn't begin the Lieberman era of Democrats.

And your god, Al, in his own book, doesn't even blame his loss for the deaths of so many people, he blames the tv. Hope you are watching it right now.

Colbert gravel kucinich paul nader perot carter [conyers?rangel?] united for truth elicit fear smear blacklist.

The people know too much, democracy rising democracy now. Rage against the machine.

Honesty compassion intelligence guts.

No more extortion blackmail bribery division. Divided we fall.

Look at all the successful democracies in Europe--you know, the ones with universal health care and many other things that we lack here--there are 3rd, 4th, and 5th political parties, vibrant and effective.

There's good and bad in any system. Austria got Joerg Haider as a result and Germany got Hitler, btw, through similar circumstances.

So to claim that everything in Eurpoe is better and we should be emulating everything they do is just plain wrong.

I liked Nader's idea that we should have 1st and 2nd choices on the ballot, so that we could have voted 1.Nader/2.Gore without thinking we were throwing the election.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives