Jack and Jill Politics - Latest Comments in Pat Buchanan Award

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

heartsandflowers — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 03:29:00 -0000

Nader got so many people engaged in what was to have been a progressive movement but after the 2000 and 2004 elections he just walked away. He didn't want to build a coalition, he wanted to be head guy in charge. He has done a lot of good things like with getting auto safety standards upgraded - but that was years ago! I didn't want to label him an election spoiler but he is certainly trying to fit the bill.

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

Ms.Martin — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:46:00 -0000

Some call it "politics", some call if fake.

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

RhondaCoca — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:04:00 -0000

And people are right to note that his statement is nearly identical to that of Geraldine Ferraro's. He said that the only thing that separates him is his skin color and implied that he's gotten thus far through white guilt. Ain't that something? Arguably the two most bigoted comments and they both came from "progressive" leaders (Nader and Ferraro).

Yea, basically.

"Nader may also be trying to appeal to those voters who had a problem with Barack's Father's Day speech."

Nope.

"If Nader type can insinuate that Barack is "selling out" to help fan the flames of some opinions among Black people that, in fact, Barack is, well, then...."

Not really because I wasn't happy with that move by Barack but I don't side with Nader on this. He probably wanted to say this for a while. I think that I know what he trying to get at then I do not. The wording was poor and the comment offensive overall.

It is one thing to say that Obama has't address certain issues (some should got research before they make such comments) but its another so mention his race in that fashion and this idea of "talking white". I guess that everyone's true colors are showing.

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

jon — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:25:00 -0000

oops, sorry about that. that was suppsoed to be a comment in the "Bill Clinton's Miffed" thread. not sure what happened there.

in this thread, I just meant to say ...

"pathetic, Ralph".

sheepishly,

jon

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

jon — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:23:00 -0000

Awwwwwww ... poor Bill ....

"The wiki speaks truth, Bill. Read it and weep."

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

Craig Hickman — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:22:00 -0000

donna l.,

Thank you for saying that better than I could have.

Nader may also be trying to appeal to those voters who had a problem with Barack's Father's Day speech.

Just a thought to add to the mix.

Could be a stretch, but desperate times....

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

donna L. — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:57:00 -0000

I think Ralph's formulation was specifically worded and its timing unmistakable. There is a meme I've seen oft repeated in the past few days in response to the FISA amendment that Obama is a "phoney." These comments almost always contain the sentiments: "You see -- I knew it. I warned you about him!" followed by "Now I'll never vote for him!" There is obviously room for dissent on the FISA deal, but the overriding tone of much of the commentary has been over-the-top hysterical.

Well, I wonder who else these good progressives are going vote for now?

Surface Nader. He is trying to exploit a very fragile moment in the democratic coalition and more shockingly, I think he's attempting to tap into the unconscious racial distrust underlying some of the more rabid reactions to the FISA compromise.

"Progressives, we can't trust this black man who doesn't even care about his own people. You can vote for me and still be pure of heart!"

Hasn't the country already been through enough of this divisive nonsense from the Clintons for the past several months, not to mention the last 8 years we've endured due to Ralph's 2000 spoiler candidacy? We desparately need the democrats to win this election. Obama will be our nominee and he will win this unless we allow demagogues to fuck with our heads. My response to angry and bitter progressives is, are you willing to throw the only real chance we have to put this country on a better track because Obama is not a 100% PERFECT in your eyes? Ralph is more than willing to race bait and is actively working against Obama, knowing full well that siphoning democratic votes benefits McCain. In my opinion, that effectively makes him the enemy of progress, no matter what good things he's done in the past.

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

AnthonyMason2k5 — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:33:00 -0000

The funny thing is that on a whole lot of issues Nader has a more progressive (and dare I say it) and stronger platform than BO. From domestic spying, presidential power, social inequality, america's military, healthcare, public campaign financing....you name it and Nader is a tre progressive. Unfortunately, this is a country that voted and reelected G-Dub, AKA the Worst President in History. I can only hope that BO is a step in the direction of what Nader America would look like.

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

PTCruiser — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:04:00 -0000

What Nader said was flat-out wrong and he owes Obama an apology but he is not an enemy. Obama's response was appropriate and to the point. Nader has been warned and won't make the same mistake again. Obama put him in his place.

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

rikyrah — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:34:00 -0000

town,

they were both hilarious.

But, #2 is the true 'nightmsre' for some folks.

Hilarious, though.

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

Craig Hickman — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:10:00 -0000

truthseeker,

It's the second time I've seen Barack be so blunt about Nader. He respects the guy. He thinks he ought to take his narcissism elsewhere.

From where I sit, Nader is trying to capitalize on the criticism by Black people about Barack's Father's Day speech.

If Nader type can insinuate that Barack is "selling out" to help fan the flames of some opinions among Black people that, in fact, Barack is, well, then....

I see him.

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

Craig Hickman — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:06:00 -0000

ptcruiser, you know exactly what I meant. I meant exactly what I said.

I don't agree with you.

And that's that.

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

B-Serious — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:35:00 -0000

Nader strikes me as a narcissist. IF he truly cares about his issues, then why does he wait untill the 11th hour to run for President? He is a third party candidate. He needs all the time and attention he can get.

Given the lack of resources and attention, Nader should have begun his 2008 campaign in November of 2004. He doesn't have the luxury to run an 8 month campaign like the two major parties. A serious Nader would plan ahead for success, not wait to play the spoiler. But he doesn't do that. If he's serious about the issues then he should take his candidacy just as seriously. This is his third time around and I've yet to see anything from him that makes me beleive he honestly thinks he can or even wants to win. If he wants to make an impact, why not have a backup plan? Why not run for Senate or the House? Why not run for mayor? Don't speak about it, be about it.

He's not stupid. He's been through the process before. He's doing the same thing he did in 2000 and 2004 and expecting a different result. Why would he expect a different outcome? What's his deal?

He doesn't like the Democrats? Fine by me. Why not organize a true threat to defeat the Dems at the local, state and national levels. That's what a third party SHOULD do, not rest on moral victories that do little more than help sustain the greater of two evils.

If he cares about an issue then he should have a bottom line . . . he should be results-oriented. Where are his results? What's more important . . . Nader's issues or Nader's vanity campaigns?

And people are right to note that his statement is nearly identical to that of Geraldine Ferraro's. He said that the only thing that separates him is his skin color and implied that he's gotten thus far through white guilt. Ain't that something? Arguably the two most bigoted comments and they both came from "progressive" leaders (Nader and Ferraro).

He wanted attention. He's foul.

I remember having conversations with a college buddy back in 2000. He was sure that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush. HE WAS DEAD WRONG!

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

Chaz — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:16:00 -0000

Nader is hot air. This isn't about any past elections, just the opportunism. He said this to get some attention.

I think Obama sized him up well earlier this year, “[M]y sense is is that Mr. Nader is somebody who, if you don’t listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you’re not substantive. He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work.” This in the NYT Feb 24, 2008.

That is how I've always seen him. Why target Obama who has policies specifically for fighting poverty and dealing with issues that are important to blacks when McCain is no where near that? Why attack the candidate who is so close to your own stance? Because he wants the attention. This has little to do with the issues and everything to do with Nader's self important gamesmanship.

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

TruthSeeker — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:57:00 -0000

Craig,

Obama has a deadpan way of stating things that is just hilarious. I'm kinda surprised he was that candid about Nader.

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

PTCruiser — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:45:00 -0000

"And that's that."

I don't exactly understand what you mean, Craig. Am I supposed to keep my opinions to myself on this issue or refrain from making any effort to change yours.

If it is the latter, then that is okay. If you mean the former, well, no, that is not that.

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

Anonymous — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:14:00 -0000

Town,

TOO.FUNNY.

So sad that it's true!

Against Race Politics

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

Craig Hickman — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:05:00 -0000

So, who is this Joan Walsh?

She is certainly not the same Joan Walsh shilling for Hillary a month ago.

Is she?

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

Craig Hickman — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:04:00 -0000

ptcruiser, once again, we don't agree .

And that's that.

::

truthseeker, that was funny wasn't it?

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

PTCruiser — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:04:00 -0000

"Obama on Nader: 'He's become a perennial political candidate'..."

Yes, but there is a big difference between Nader and what he represents and, say, the late Harold Stassen, the Republican once known as the "Boy Wonder."

Norman Thomas was a perennial presidential candidate too and I did never saw any harm in him running. In a democracy it is always good to have more than two candidates running for public office. Thomas and Nader always spoke truth to power.

I understand why Obama cannot do the same but I wish that folks took a longer view about this process.

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

PTCruiser — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:57:00 -0000

Ralph Nader is not part of our enemies and he is most emphatically not our enemy. I don't care for what he said but I understood the point that he was trying to make whether I agree with him or not. Nader is not enemy and we need to keep this in mind as we move forward.

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

TruthSeeker — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:54:00 -0000

Obama on Nader: "He's become a perennial political candidate."..

Ha ha ha ha ha!!

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

Craig Hickman — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:54:00 -0000

Barack just said that Ralph is just trying to get attention because his campaign hasn't gotten any traction.

"It is what it is."

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

Craig Hickman — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:51:00 -0000

Nader made himself part of the enemy on this.

He'll be on the ballot in crucial states.

As for 2000, if Al Gore had won New Hampshire, a state he really ought to have won....

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

jed — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:51:00 -0000

Note that Nader asked, "Is it because he wants to talk white?", he did not say that Obama IS talking white.

Why is Nader not pressing McCain on those issues? Because the Republicans make it no secret that such issues are low priority for them.