Party Crashers 08

I really appreciate this piece. It actually does less injustice to Matt and Ralph than any other "journalistic" propaganda sponsored by the fascists running both parties. If the media's coverage of Rev. Wright doesn't indicate to people how out-of-touch with reality the Democrats are, then I don't really know what else to say/do except punch my ballot for Ralph and Matt in November! Stay strong Matt!

Let me pose a hypothetical. Let's say Bush starts ramping up a war with Iran. Then Clinton, who has promised to obliterate Iran, and Obama who has said he would keep the facilitator of that policy, David Petraeus, in command, both feel the pressure, in the run-up to the election, to mollify the hawkish spirit in the American character and both say they support bombing Iran but would just do it differently than Bush.

Will anti-war progressives then be happy that they have an alternative in the race to turn to? Or will they be content to stick with two pro-bombing candidates and just bite their tongues? Any thoughts, progressives?

To see how "progressives" act when they have to contend with debate has really helped me understand how an intellectually hollow Nazi ideology swept Germany in a time of crisis. Obama wants to make us believe we can get something for nothing if we'll all just hold hands and dream, McCain is a caricature of patriotism, and Clinton is a 2nd-rate BS artist. Nader and Ron Paul are the only candidates left with the brains and guts to stand up for true "liberalism" and against corporate fascism. I'm not surprised a half-educated college student would say "F.U. Ralph Nader". The fact that many green party members, the media, and our elected representatives are essentially doing the same shows either a tremendous moral and intellectual deficit, or intolerable cowardice.

The single most absurd thing about the "we wouldn't be in this war" charge is that the Democratic electorate APPROVED of George W. Bush early on! Remember when his approval rating was 93%, the highest approval rating of any President in the history of the office? In May of 2003 polls showed that 79% of Americans were in favor of the Iraq War whether or not there turned out to be weapons of mass destruction.

Those numbers required DEMOCRATIC support, as did the war itself. George W. Bush was not elected king, folks. We have many constitutional safeguards to save us from an illegal war of choice. But we need an educated, active, electorate, an electorate that understands what it means to be a signatory to international treaties, an electorate that understands what the Clinton/Gore and previous administrations did to CAUSE 9/11. An electorate who will fight and take to the streets and demand accountability. An electorate who will demand that Congress exercise its Constitutional duties. While the majority of Democrats were giving the Republicans the benefit of the doubt, Nader's supporters were overwhelmingly doing our civic duties to prevent 9/11 before it happened! Unlike most Democrats, Nader's supporters were not astonished by 9/11. After 9/11 did happen, war was not inevitable. If Democrats had joined Nader supporters on the streets in equal proportion to their numbers, if Democrats had joined Nader supporters, who were writing and calling our representatives at the time, in equal proportion to our numbers, the war would never have been waged. While we consistently, ACTIVELY opposed everything government was standing for, Democrats, even those who opposed the war, were largely "politely" silent. It was the astonishing lack of political education/involvement of this country, among Democrats and Republicans alike, that produced this madness. Congress's supine behavior in the face of these crimes should only confirm to thinking progressives that Ralph was exactly right all along.

The only way this will change is if a significant number of us promise to consistently withhold our vote from those who have not earned it. If that leaves us with McCain in November, well maybe that will stimulate ordinary people to take a more active role in this country. Maybe it would even mean Democratic Party reform in time for the race in 2012.

post, not letter to the editor.

Funny to read the Nader acolytes asserting that had everyone just agreed with them, that all would be perfect and fine now and that everyone else is at fault for not agreeing with them.

Little do they learn that it takes work to get people to agree with them, that they cannot just show up with good ideas and expect to win, but that a campaign commensurate with the scale of the office they seek is required, not optional.

The media is set up to make people like Nader and Gonzalez invisible. Read Herman/Chomsky Manufacturing Consent (1988) for a detailed analysis of how the media filters news to ratify corporate rule.

Either you roll your own media capable of reaching voters through direct mail, hitting the internet viral jackpot and such, or your message and you don't get through. Gonzalez knows this, but I think he just prefers to talk to small groups and bask in their glow.

We're dealt a crappy hand. We can either whine about how crappy it is, whine about the biased dealer, or we can do what it takes to start dealing hands of our own. Since the federal and state card tables are locked down, and absent a media strategy that can break through the filters and handle a the media blowback of a potential spoiling, all that is left is to build progressive power from the grassroots up in local communities.

Recent history has shown, Camejo and Nader, that campaigns for impossibly high office cannot do that, but as Gonzalez demonstrated in 2003, it can happen locally.

Only then, after progressives run credible campaigns and win state legislative office can we change the election rules such that those qualified candidates will not be hobbled by restrictive access laws.

Until then, the only positive things that these campaigns accomplish is for those involved to believe that they are doing something to stop injustice, notwithstanding the fact that these actions are wholly ineffective and inconsequential.

Thus, the progressive echo chamber reratifies itself and accomplishes nothing else of significance other than risking alienating potential allies by being framed as a spoiler by a hostile press.

I find that Kenny Rogers' wisdom is appropriate here:

You've gotta know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
Know when to run

-marc

"The only way this will change is if a significant number of us promise to consistently withhold our vote from those who have not earned it. If that leaves us with McCain in November, well maybe that will stimulate ordinary people to take a more active role in this country. Maybe it would even mean Democratic Party reform in time for the race in 2012."

Yes, and the flying spaghetti monster will swoop down and provide vegan meatballs for all!

Seriously, folks, this is where political religion replaces political science.

Let's just close our eyes, click our heels three times and say "there's nothing like the democrats imploding on their own contradictions, there's nothing like the democrats imploding on their own contradictions, there's nothing like the democrats imploding on their own contradictions!"

There, don't you feel better now?

Let's go march in ritualized protest so that the state can ignore us.

-marc

What a joke. Nader is to the presidential race as Gary Coleman was to the gubenatorial race. Gonzalez is running so he can forever be referred to as "former Vice Presidential Candidate" when he is asked to comment in the future on FOX news. Nader and Gonzalez are similar in the fact that they both have quit the Green Party.

It is unfortunate that there were so many voters in 2000 who believed there was no difference between Bush and Gore. How wrong these people were. How many who voted for Nader in 2000 would vote for Gore if they had a chance? Gonzalez believes there isn't a difference between Obama and McCain. Go back to working the art gallery crowd, Matt.

Marc,

Apparently you're not familiar with Obama's Hopefund Pac, money which he has consistently doled out to the candidacies of his corporate cronies and establishment Democrats, in lieu of the grassroots progressives they were running against. (Check out the Duckworth/Cegelis race in Illinois). Most of the Congress establishes these corporate Pac funds, which they give out to each other, knowing that the money will be tossed right back at them when they are up for reelection. Obama is just one example of a candidate knowing how to play the game, which involves supporting the DNC candidate regardless of platform or ideology. He and others threw money at Hillary when she was up in New York, running against an anti-war progressive who begged (to no avail) for even one debate. When you're a grassroots candidate, with the cash trickling at $10 a shot, and your opponent is raking it in from people who don't even respect her, you have virtually no shot. That is not democracy, not even close.

The only hope that we have for reform is for the electorate to fully understand the magnitude of the problem. That is one reason why these third party candidates are so essential: They are often the only people in public life who EVER speak the truth.

www.poeticmotherlover.com

Both Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez represent largely held yet largeley ignored views by the 24 hour corporatist media propoganda. The big question is not are Ralph and Matt right on the nation's critical issues-they are and have shown great courage- rather, will the truth be smothered again beneath the weight of the lies and propoganda of the Murdochian media machine and the two entrenched parties.
According to PollingReport.com most voters already believe:
*That our nation is way off course on the wrong track in numerous ways
*That Corporations hold far too much sway and power in Washington at public expense
*That NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO are undemocratic and secretive trade agreements that strengthen Internataionl business interests, destroy US sovereignty and are dismantling and deporting American jobs and pulling the rug out from underneath families
*That the Iraq War/Occupation/Holocaust is a dreadful blunder and should be neded ASAP to get all of our troops
*That corporate welfare such as the recent payout to Bear/Stearns constitutes corporate socialism, relinquishes corporate responsibility and creates a breeding ground for future systemic moral hazards for investors and taxpayers
*That single payer universal health care is the intelligent alternative to the messy and beaureaucratic system that plagues our current medical system
*That the our nation needs more voices and more choices in the politicial arena and that a third party enjoys more than 50% support,

Given the proven record of both Ralph and Matt, and their rhetorical/actional consistency, makes the other candidates look like dancing puppets on long corporate strings. Why should voters settle for the 2nd and 3rd rate candidates from both parties when the genuine articles of Ralph and Matt are available?

Marc,

Look at other issue movements that have a disproportionate sway over policy as examples. The Israel lobby, Miami Cubans, Pro-life groups, the NRA- they all do one thing. They make it crystal clear that if they don't get concessions then they won't give their votes. It works. Why shouldn't progressives be an identifiable voting block in exactly the same way?

What was clear after Florida 2000 is that the Democrats need these Nader progressives to win. But rather than make even a token concession they've pursued a more effective strategy. Since progressives have a low threshold for feeling guilt, they shame them into getting in line and not making waves. The politicians are disciplining the voters. But I think it should be the other way around. The voters should discipline the politicians. Rather than being defined by our guilt let's be defined by our willingness to fight and make things uncomfortable for those in power.

By the way, I couldn't agree more about building grassroots power.

Marc,

Look at other issue movements that have a disproportionate sway over policy as examples. The Israel lobby, Miami Cubans, Pro-life groups, the NRA- they all do one thing. They make it crystal clear that if they don't get concessions then they won't give their votes. It works. Why shouldn't progressives be an identifiable voting block in exactly the same way?

What was clear after Florida 2000 is that the Democrats need these Nader progressives to win. But rather than make even a token concession they've pursued a more effective strategy. Since progressives have a low threshold for feeling guilt, they shame them into getting in line and not making waves. The politicians are disciplining the voters. But I think it should be the other way around. The voters should discipline the politicians. Rather than being defined by our guilt let's be defined by our willingness to fight and make things uncomfortable for those in power.

By the way, I couldn't agree more about building grassroots power.

I'm not voting for Obama for president, probably not voting for president this year because there are no good choices.

It is one thing to describe how bad things are and quite another to prescribe viable solutions. Nader has no viable solutions, as he's not solved any problems for the past 25 years. Likewise, Gonzalez was unable to do much to stop the waves of gentrification that have washed over San Francisco and are taking our culture back out with them.

It is axiomatic that if there are no volunteers coming out for Nader/Gonzalez as they did for Matt in 2003, that the campaign contributions are not rolling in, that all this campaign adds up to is a few individuals salving their need to resist through grand but empty gestures.

Unless you all can learn from what happened after Nader disappeared from the scene and allowed the Green Party to be whipped by the media as spoiling the election in 2000 and figure out a way to control the media frame when something goes wrong, when the media trips you up and uses that to discredit all progressive ideas, candidates and initiatives, then you all are engaging in intentionally reckless conduct that will screw other people as well as you.

We need to look to the right wing for instruction here, in how they began to run for office at the lowest levels to create a base that eventually allowed them to take power. And we should learn from the over reaching that has kneecapped their movement should we ever convince folks that our ideas are better and to elect us.

-marc

Marc Solomon obviously cares about being practical and effective. That's good. But he is wrong to think that "progressives" like Nader, Gonzalez or anyone else should just give up on the national stage and focus exclusively on grass roots organizing, on the theory that we can only do harm at the national level. First, we should always be suspicious when someone suggests that we curtail the free exercise of our constitutional rights. (When, exactly, will it be "safe" or "appropriate" to exercise those rights?) Second, participation in national elections is not mutually exclusive with local, grassroots organizing. Rather, as Nader himself exemplifies, engagement on both levels is mutually reinforcing, and absolutely necessary if progressives hope to build a successful movement of any kind. By contrast, consider the Green Party, which, under the leadership of people like David Cobb and Medea Benjamin, voluntarily campaigned only in so-called "safe" states during the 2004 presidential election. Does anybody take the Green Party seriously anymore? No, because they don't have to. Progressives should have the courage of their convictions and recognize that they not only have an equal right, but also a duty to participate in national elections and in the political discourse generally. This means they must not stand by quietly (or actively encourage, a la Cobb and Benjamin) while the Democrats vote for the war, for the surge, for the Patriot Act, for Scalia, for Alito, and on and on and on. As a third and final point, therefore, Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez perform a vital service to those of us who were never that enamored with the Democrats in the first place, but who have nevertheless been sorely disappointed by this total failure of a so-called opposition party. Nader and Gonzalez are speaking the truth - not only when it's safe, but when it counts - and they are showing the rest of us how to organize ourselves, to demand that our voices be heard, and thus, to exercise some influence over the direction of this country. Those who suggest that progressives should compromise, capitulate, postpone and do whatever else it takes to support a Democratic Party that OPPOSES our goals and ideals, are really advocating that we relegate ourselves to the role of second class citizens. As the Greens proved in 2004, this is a recipe for disaster. Ralph and Matt should run, and if you support their agenda, you should support them.

What would make you all think that you all had any sort of claim on the national stage? You are a water pistol and they are a firehose. When you all in the echo chamber claim that you are being effective on the national stage, you all are only congratulating yourselves for your simulacra of real politics. Indeed, your attention is being drawn by the media and its spectacles in precisely the direction where you will accomplish the least with the risk of doing the most harm.
First, we should always be suspicious when someone suggests that we curtail the free exercise of our constitutional rights. (When, exactly, will it be "safe" or "appropriate" to exercise those rights?)

Politics is not about the politicians and their ability to exercise their rights. That has to be the most narcissistic view of politics imaginable. Politics is about empowering folks to take control of our daily lives and to democratically participate in governance. Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez is not about any of that, rather about putting men on stages before microphones and adoring crowds.

Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez has the right to run, and I'd not deny that. However a Green value is personal and global responsibility, and a reckless pursuit of individual rights to speech over the will of the grassroots base--few enough are giving their time and money to indicate there is no support for this candiacy--does not relieve actors from the consequences of their actions.

Ralph Nader has accomplished nothing positive, substantial and tangible since the 1970s and his 2000 run has poisoned the well for local progressive and Green campaigns by alienating our potential base.

Here in SF corporate interests spend like drunken sailors to contain the Green Party and our progressive allies from moving our agenda. This is because, with the help of people like Gonzalez and countless others, we've established a record of progressive governance. Greens, like progressives who have not done the requisite organizing work, are irrelevant in state and national elections.

When there is no difference between standing aside and launching oneself in a trebuchet at power, the distinction becomes meaningless. The way to challenge power, as we've learned in SF, is to marshall the resources to win at the ballot box. Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez are doing nothing of the sort. Thus, all that is left is the salving of egos and the enabling of microphonosexuals to practice their preferences.

The way to win is to win. So many of the left are afraid to walk in power, are permanently wedded to being the opposition, the alternative, the left. Didn't Marx say that the point of politics and philosophy is to change the world? You all are stuck jousting at windmills rather than getting your hands dirty in doing organizing that counts.

As a third and final point, therefore, Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez perform a vital service to those of us who were never that enamored with the Democrats in the first place, but who have nevertheless been sorely disappointed by this total failure of a so-called opposition party.

Nader are performing a service to that class of nonproductive progressive hangers on who get paid to work on campaigns every 4 years and tell the requisite celebrity how cool they are. How deluded can you all be when you see a significant distinction between not voting and voting for nothing significant?

Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez are not organizing. In none of Nader, Camejo OR Gonzalez' campaigns has anything tangible and sustainable been a product. In fact, Gonzalez nixed consolidating the organizing successes of 2003 because he didn't want to create a base he'd have to fight.

Capitulation only happens when one has joined the battle. A line from Monty Python comes to mind: "what are you going to do, BLEED on me?"

Newsflash: power already knows the truth. Many folks know the truth about power. They don't see Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez as a viable choice. They are only speaking truth when its safe--when they've been filtered out by the media and can make no positive difference.

Any of the choices facing the Greens in 2004 would have ended up the same, an asterisk in the final tally, and that's where Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez will end up, asterisk land.

-marc

Nader-Gonzalez choose to stand up for an alternative, and to do so - heaven forbid - in a national election. Marc Solomon not only opposes their choice, but finds that choice to be dangerous. In support of this point of view, which is official doctrine among corporate Democrats, Solomon claims that politics has nothing to do with the exercise of constitutional rights, and that Nader-Gonzalez are narcissists because they presume to speak on a national stage. What's really dangerous, though, is that so many people who call themselves progressives subscribe to this point of view. But it is not "progressive" to attack others for participating in a supposedly free and democratic election - no matter what your motives are. Don't speak; don't participate; don't challenge the status quo. That's your message and, as Nader says, it is political bigotry.

You all are not standing up. You don't have any substance above the ankles if you're going to use that analogy. Such a misjudgement of your position is astounding. Voters don't vote for people who seriously misconceive of their own relative power.

Marc Solomon not only opposes their choice, but finds that choice to be dangerous.

I find the potential for negative outcomes in this sort of thing to be substantiated historically. If you all can't learn from history, how Nader was used to batter progressives and Greens amongst our likely base, then people are going to see that you all are too brittle, too unable to adapt to changing circumstances, to be trusted with governance.

I voted for Nader in 2000 and have no regrets. I do see, however, that Nader 2000 has probably, in my opinion, cost Greens and progressives over the long term, full lifecycle analysis precisely because the corporate Democrat message prevailed. Either you learn to overcome that negative framing or you invite similar negative outcomes.

"What's really dangerous, though, is that so many people who call themselves progressives subscribe to this point of view."

What's dangerous is ignoring where your likely base of support is at politically and going against that and blaming them for being wrong when they disagree with you. The fact is that there are many people who agree that capitalism is bad but they don't see Nader/Gonzalez/Camejo as presenting any viable program that they have confidence in.

Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez are running for office. If they can't handle criticism, from the left, right or center without whining, they have no business running for office.

We are challenging the status quo in SF, Greens, prog dems and independents, and we are making a difference. Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez are not challenging anything because they don't have the resources, financial, political or people power to do so. The best they can hope for is to do no harm. The worst we can hope for is that they fuck it up again and abandon us to clean up their mess.

-marc

Come on Solomon. You advocate total abdication at the national level and criticize anyone who disagrees as a narcissist. That doesn't sound very wise. You don't even plan to vote for president, even though Nader-Gonzalez are out there fighting for everything you supposedly believe in. That doesn't sound very wise either. Finally, your comments are laced with bizarre personal attacks on the candidates and their supporters simply because they want to participate in the political process when you think it dangerous. That, too, doesn't seem very wise. We're perfectly capable of handling your criticism. It's your hypocrisy and bigotry we can't stand. Signing off now so this doesn't become a firefight.

One must be a monarch before one can abdicate. I'm talking about allocating our scarce resources conservatively, focusing on where they'll do the most good.

Supporters of Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez, such as yourself in earlier posts, argue their position on several grounds, all narcissistic:

1. They have a right to run
2. Their supporters have a right to vote their conscience
3. If they don't run, they abdicate.

Nowhere here do I see an 'other centered' statement, where consideration is given to the other 99.9% of folks. You're trying to switch arguments once cornered.

What is wise is conserving our powder for where it can deliver the most good.

Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez are up on stage talking. They're not fighting for anything because they're not significantly engaging in the campaign. Going through the motions is not fighting.

Nader wants to lower the price of gas, claiming that the big bad corporations are driving the price up. And Nader thinks that the war is the cause of the current economic crisis. To me, that indicates a significant cluelessness on economics and energy policy, two of the most critical issues facing us, not something I even remotely agree with. That's just pandering crap

You can't switch arguments in the middle on us again. Gonzalez has a political record. It is in play when he seeks office. Nader has one as well, and that is also fair game. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns, but neither is it irrelevant.

The case for Gonzalez/Camejo/Nader in 2008 is faulty and I've pretty much drilled holes in each and every one of its justifications. The reasons why the left can't gain traction are enumerated in these comments, a complete disconnect from political reality, utter self-centeredness, sense of self as enlightened vanguard with everyone else clueless and in need of leadership.

-marc

I believe that most of the commentators have so far neglected a matter that the author has not yet addressed either -- character. Matt Gonzalez may talk a good line, but when examimed closely, will he pass the character test?

How's this for the politesse of diplomacy, Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez are so far from viable that the issue of character, Matt's or Ralph's, will not be something that will be taken up by the mainstream press.

As far as the loser lefties who thrive on fighting to be king of the left, I'm sure that in their publications, we'll see a major spread on the character faults of both Matt Gonzalez and Gloria LaRiva and a sober analysis of which is least conflicted, deviates less from the party line.

-marc

Um, you don't have to be a monarch to abdicate. You just have to give up. Like you. Anyway, thanks for enlightening this board with your civics (and vocabulary) lesson. I'm sure next time anyone here gets the urge to vote for a candidate who represents their ideals, they'll remember that they're just being egotists, because what they should really be doing is conserving resources and thinking 'other centered' thoughts. By the way, is voting a renewable or a nonrenewable resource (if you're going to use that analogy)?

"The case for Gonzalez/Camejo/Nader in 2008 is faulty and I've pretty much drilled holes in each and every one of its justifications."

Anyone sense a touch of narcissism in this statement?

Either we use words and take responsibility for their semantics, or we might as well not be having a conversation using words.

I'm not "giving up," "capitulating" or "abdicating" although I am not seeking reelection to the SFGP County Council this year. Political contests exist at all levels, not just state or federal.

It makes sense to engage the enemy on your terms, not to have the terms dictated by your opponent, and I believe that we should engage where our comparative advantage is greatest. In fact, we've observed that when we do it your way, we generally lose worse each time out and piss off more likely allies. Such is the cost of a narcissistic politics.

We have a clear example with multiple hard data points right here in California that your strategy is bogus. Camejo has earned fewer votes each time before the California electorate, even when he was in the debates. Nader's vote totals dropped significantly in 2004, and there was no groundswell to put him on the ballot and fund his campaign.

Why would you think that was?

Gonzalez could have taken on and beaten Dennis Herrera for SF City Attorney in 2005 but he did not engage. He "abdicated," "capitulated" and "gave in" to corporate power in a contest where he would have won, and did not give people the opportunity to vote for a person who represented their views. Funny how different standards get applied when convenient. The consequences of Herrera's reelection were and continue to be detrimental to the most vulnerable San Franciscans.

The difference between you all and us is that we engage meaningfully, and if we try hard we win, you all don't engage to speak of, you all touch a few of the bases required to run a meaningful campaign, and you all lose.

Voting is situationally valuable under the US political context.

If we're going to have a debate over an issue and one contestant does not engage substantively when cogent arguments are made against their position, then their position is considered demolished, nothing narcissistic about it.

What we've got going on here is the marriage between the Nader worshippers and sectarian leftists. When you mix starry eyed celebrity worshippers with Trotskyites, you end up with a lot of babble and a lot of yelling.

-marc

Ralph, More power to your ideas. Keep working to end this insane war and bring our people home. You've been out there making speeches, doing interviews and writing articles and have written at least three books in the last 6 years. And you've been writing weekly commentary on the things that really matter, at http://www.nader.org .The question is where has the Press been on these important matters you discuss? where have the "Talking Heads" been on corporate crime and the profiteers of this war? The population is too busy being entertained and watching Sporting events to get involved, they take the easy route and don't bother to think, settling instead for snippets and quick slogans. Knowing what's going on in a Corporate controlled State takes work. Thank you Ralph, for all the good things you've done to protect the People of this Country. Amazing how quickly they forget, or perhaps they just don't know. Almost everyone's lives, or that of friends and relatives of theirs, have been improved and made safer because of you, Some wouldn't be alive today, if not for Ralph Nader! Their minds have been intentionally bombarded with with Corporate propaganda and the Democrat Party scapegoating machine. Clinton and that phony Terry McAuliffe should be ashamed of their comments regarding you. They continue the DNC scapegoating myth. thank you for your great service to this Country. More power to your ideas. http://www.votenader.org..... all the rest of you out there, buckle-up! ....... Other Great websites about Nader; Click o play at http://thewomandirector.com./ AND after that go to http://www.dianeszoo.com/ralphnader.htm to vote and comment

"The question is where has the Press been on these important matters you discuss?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Political_Economy_of_the_Mass_Media

Herman and Chomsky tell us exactly where the media is not when it comes to covering ideas that threaten corporations.

Until you all have a plan on how to get around the media filters, you all are going to simply repeat the failures of the past eight years over and again. The rest of us who, by one definition are sane, that is, prefer to not do the same thing time and again expecting a different result each time, have to clean up after you all, as most of you all don't do anything between elections but wait until the next election to rampage your egos through the Green Party.

Like Gonzalez said, the time to convince people to vote for you is before, not during elections.

-marc

Marc,

The reason I object to this becoming an argument about who is most active, politically aware, whatever, is that you never addressed my two main points.

First, in the context of a build-up to a war with Iran, with two pro-war candidates from the main parties, is it wise for anti-war voters to simply disappear. In 2004 deciding to back John Kerry irregardless of his position on the war destroyed the anti-war movement in America. I would assume that a new war will give some new life to that movement and I don't think we should make the same mistake.

Second, especially in light of what happened in 2000, will the professionals running the Democratic campaign have to factor dissent on the left into their calculations for winning. Certainly if Nader supporters become jaded and join the throngs of the unvoters they won't. Their main tactic so far is to intimidate. So a central question is will we be intimidated.

I thought a lot about your analysis and criticisms. I remember an interview with a Serbian activist who helped overthrow Milosevic and he said that they always concentrated on goals they could achieve because then people started seeing them as winners and started moving to their side. This is a point well taken.

Nonetheless, I can't go along with not engaging on a national level. Perhaps we need more thought about where that achievable goal is. The first concern should be how do we create leverage. And that should center around getting like-minded people all on the same page.

Marc,

The reason I object to this becoming an argument about who is most active, politically aware, whatever, is that you never addressed my two main points.

First, in the context of a build-up to a war with Iran, with two pro-war candidates from the main parties, is it wise for anti-war voters to simply disappear. In 2004 deciding to back John Kerry irregardless of his position on the war destroyed the anti-war movement in America. I would assume that a new war will give some new life to that movement and I don't think we should make the same mistake.

Second, especially in light of what happened in 2000, will the professionals running the Democratic campaign have to factor dissent on the left into their calculations for winning. Certainly if Nader supporters become jaded and join the throngs of the unvoters they won't. Their main tactic so far is to intimidate. So a central question is will we be intimidated.

I thought a lot about your analysis and criticisms. I remember an interview with a Serbian activist who helped overthrow Milosevic and he said that they always concentrated on goals they could achieve because then people started seeing them as winners and started moving to their side. This is a point well taken.

Nonetheless, I can't go along with not engaging on a national level. Perhaps we need more thought about where that achievable goal is. The first concern should be how do we create leverage. And that should center around getting like-minded people all on the same page.

Doug, if the relatively homogeneous Green Party cannot be united under banners like this, then the chances of reaching out to a broader progressive community and beyond are diminished if not impossible.

Instead of trying to force everyone on the same page and attacking them if they don't, as so many of the trotskyites supporting Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez have done for the past few years, we need to build on the wide variety of issues we all agree on. But with the trots in the house, the game is to always find the most divisive issues and push them to the forefront so that the ultra leftists can prove themselves most left. This is why the sectarian left has a trail of broken and divided organizations behind it; they may have fatally wounded the Green Party as they've tried to force us all onto the same page.

The only way we can engage at the national level, either on issue advocacy or electoral campaigns is to have a grassroots network capable of providing that national infrastructure to make up for the money we don't have. Unfortunately, Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez supporers have trashed the Green Party which is/was a nascent national network because too many of us were "demogreens" for not supporting these quixotic campaigns that are providing diminishing returns each time out.

Have these quixotic campaigns ever created leverage? Have they ever pressured the Democrats? Do you have any sort of historical examples from recent times that justify your extreme position that we expend scarce resources on a project that cannot win or make a positive difference? No, you all are praying to the flying spaghetti monster to dispense vegan meatballs to us as a substitute for reasoned political calculus. Add in a healthy dose of male egos semi-professional paid campaign staff leeches and a full dollop of middle class entitlement, and we're in narcissism land.

Don't you think that if the Greens or Nader were viewed as capable of ending the war and governing that folks would support either? Why would you imagine that the dollars and bodies are not forthcoming for these campaigns?

Instead of attacking all who don't get on YOUR same page, you all should take a moment for introspection to determine why this is the case, holding off on criticizing rank and file voters for not agreeing with you. Folks don't like to come home from a day at work, take time from their families to attend a political meeting, only to be ridiculed by fanatics who have no experience winning power and changing things.

It frustrates me to no end that we can't stop the war, that we can't stop them from invading Iran, but as the system has developed a media filter framework to keep the discourse acceptable to it, the system has developed an immune response against protest. And it is clearly capable of ignoring or negating a presidential challenge.

The common flatworm is capable of determining that its hit a wall and needs to try another direction. What's the problem with Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez supporters that they cannot demonstrate the adaptability to circumstance that a flatworm can?

-marc

What a great choice Gonzalez is for Nader's running mate. The guy is accomplished, serious and speaks intelligently about the issues. Plus he is focusing on the need for electoral reform while he actually participates in the process, insofar as that is possible in our rigged system, which raises awareness of the issue even while the Nader-Gonzalez ticket challenges the system. I think it's a great strategy. It reminds me of those courageous African-Americans a generation ago who sat down at a Woolworth's lunch counter and demanded to be served. Why was it so important - and effective - when they did that? Because they had the right to be there, and the way you gain and protect your rights is by exercising them. These days people say Ralph and Matt shouldn't run. Even people who agree with them on the issues say don't run, because people will blame us for George W., or Iraq, or whatever. I just don't buy it. I mean, people said the same thing to those who challenged the Jim Crow system, and that is what we really have today in the electoral arena, a discriminatory system in which one set of laws applies to the major parties and another set of laws applies to everyone else. Matt Gonzalez gets this, and by running for office he is challenging the Jim Crow electoral system in both word and deed. More power to him! As for his running mate, if anyone has proved you can win against long odds, time and time again, it's Ralph Nader. So more power to him, too! I think their slogan ought to be: Nader-Gonzalez 2008: Now More Than Ever.

The civil rights movement was a broad based mass movement that had buy in and support of myriad communities.

Nader/Camejo/Gonzalez is a gang of self appointed dilettantes.

That comparison is invalid.

-marc

Man, you are like Oscar the Grouch. Not only do you want to live in a trash can, but you're also pissed off that no one wants to join you there. What happened to you? Oh right, Ralph Nader ran for office and caused you eternal misery. What a victim!

PS: What does "abdicate" mean? As a follow-up, what do you think Chomsky would say about people who improperly use words like "semantics" instead of "meaning," and then try to correct others for properly using common words like "abdicate"?

Marc,

I am that rank and file voter you're talking about. I'm not in the Green party. I'm a single parent in Buffalo NY and frankly I'm not always keeping it together. Issues like health insurance and childcare are very immediate for me. With two boys 8 and 10 the issue of perpetual war is also very acute. Debating on the internet while I'm trying to get dinner together does take up valuable time. I have plenty of character flaws but I don't really appreciate the narcissism rap.

What you're characterizing as unadapting insanity could also be seen as persistence in a different light. Forget the flatworm analogy, he's not going to knock down any walls anyway. Think of a root system. It hits the wall again and again and again but as long as it has one end in the sunlight that dumb vegetable will find a chink and eventually he will bring it down.

So I have no problem with hammering away at insurmountable odds. I've also learned from some of the local fights I've been in that sometimes it pays to pretend you have more cards in your hand than you really do. Because it keeps things up in the air until maybe a better solution comes along.

So just arguing very persuasively (as you do) that we're screwed isn't necessarily very helpful. You might be surprised at how many rank and file voters see that the situation has reached a crisis point. Don't assume that this isn't the year that a rebellion could take place. They might not be moved by the Green-Party types that you describe but a lot of people are moved by Ralph Nader because they know just where he stands and what he's done. If you don't like him that's fine, work on another angle. Be for Obama. There's nothing wrong with that. But let's keep a game face on this and let's hang on to the common ground that we obviously have.

Marc,
You come across like a grumpy old man, only he who does, have the right to complain. Nader has done over and over again, America is a far greater place by the deeds of Ralph Nader. What have you ever done to improve our lot in life?

I tend to agree with Marc. I would hesitate to compare what Nader and Gonzalez are doing to the Civil Rights Movement as there is no mass movement behind them. It is doubtful they will be able to coopt any of the disparate anti-war coalitions of the left and get closer to the spotlight because of flaws of character of both these candidates, especially when the ever-offensive Peter Camejo is brought into complete the triangle.

The narcissism rap is meant for the principles more so than the supporters. When we see half a million people vote for Nader/Camejo and a handful more for Cobb, that says to me that we're having a problem connecting with the voters in a presidential contest. Either we learn from that or we repeat the same errors. If those errors caused no other harm, then I'd have no problem with you all playing your presidential games. But those games cause harm to your allies and that is neither respectful nor cool.

Some of us were active in the radical protest movement a few decades ago. Earth First! got the notion of old growth and biodiversity into the lexicon and ACT/UP got life saving drugs into people's bodies. Once that ceased to function, once the machine learned to adapt, many of us did as well and no longer do we protest, we work to take power and change the rules. We're persistent without disconnecting from reality. The flatworm is going to go around the obstruction rather than banging its head(s) against the wall(s).

The only problem with bluffing is that once your bluff has been called, and it is revealed that you're not playing with a full deck, as it were, you can't bluff any more.

My arguments are that these flatworms have found a path around obstruction and we've been able to bring progressive values to bear on local government. If that were done nationwide, then there would be a network of local organizations that could serve as a base for more ambitious political assaults on the system.

Voters see a crisis, but they're not going to see Nader/Gonzalez/Camejo as viable, given their lack of wisdom on so many issues, namely the economy. As I've been saying, there is a difference between voters agreeing with you and their voting for you. It is known how to surmount that, but Nader/Gonzalez/Camejo are not going that route, just running a placeholder campaign that portends significant downside outcomes for people who share the values of N/G/C.

"Don't assume that this isn't the year that a rebellion could take place."

With a forceful statement like that, I guess its time to stock up on firearms and food and buy my tickets for Nader's inauguration.

But seriously, Nader's appeal has diminished over time and there is no evidence that people are going to vote for a grumpy old man who has no energy or economics policy when he's stale product.

I'm not playing that game and will not keep a game face for a farce. The fact is that the Green Party has been the only beacon of hope for progressives electorally in my lifetime while the sectarian lefties and nader worshippers have not.

"You come across like a grumpy old man, only he who does, have the right to complain. Nader has done over and over again, America is a far greater place by the deeds of Ralph Nader. What have you ever done to improve our lot in life?"

Please, flattery will get you nowhere.

What have I done? A shitload here in SF on issues involving sane equitable and just urban planning, housing, land use transportation, ethics and campaign finance reform and police reform for starters. A charter amendment that I helped craft is on the November ballot here in SF that would set aside $30m for affordable housing.

Let's just say that as a volunteer with FT job, I've accomplished as much as any local paid advocate has. Here we pass laws and have to do what it takes to get a majority to agree with us and most of you all spend your time wishing on a star and blaming people for not agreeing with you. It is humbling to see your best ideas ripped to shreds by the market place of ideas, but rewarding to see an idea attract many supporters and see the light of day.

-marc

I guess I just don't understand the animosity for these guys. The idea that Nader is somehow responsible for Democrats losing is nonsense. Just because Democrats say it over and over again, and the media repeats it uncritically, doesn't mean it's true. But now lots of Greens even believe it and, as these posts show, they are among the loudest opponents when Nader dares to run for office. The rationale for their opposition is that Democrats blame the Greens for Gore's loss in 2000, and they'll blame us again if the Democrats lose again. But everyone here knows the Dems are full of BS - at least on this point. So what else can you call it but surrender (abdication?), when Greens argue that we shouldn't participate in national politics because of what Democrats might say if we do? I wish these Greens would use that energy to oppose Democrats who try to suppress our participation, rather than arguing their side for them. The Democrats sued Nader-Camejo 24 times nationwide in a deliberate attempt to win the 2004 presidential election by denying voters a free choice of candidates, and they were pretty successful. (No one ever mentions this when they say support for Nader dropped in 04.) So yes it is a civil rights issue. And by the way, the "Civil Rights Movement" didn't spring to life one day with a groundswell of grassroots support already behind it. It took the leadership and initiative of a small number of individuals who were willing to stake their lives and reputations on the radical proposition that separate is not equal. Today, large numbers of people can't vote for who they want to vote for, because the major parties won't let their candidates run for office. The idea that we should bide our time and conserve resources (or whatever you want to call it) while this massive injustice goes on is beyond me. The major parties have made it nearly impossible for us to participate, and therefore, we shouldn't even try? No way. Focus on local issues if you want, but when you start telling others not to participate, you're doing the Democrats' dirty work for them.

We have a corporate medea that gatekeeps our candidates and issues. We have an opposition party that doesn't oppose. We have a war that the people of this country have no control over. And you're tittering at the idea of rebellion? I think we've found our fundamental difference. We've talked a lot about what's effective and I've listened to you. But if you don't think that rebellion is called for in a dire situation like this then I don't think the rest of your arguments amount to very much at all.

People are rebelling right now because of the price of food. I'm in solidarity with them because I think that could be me and my family someday. I'm going to rebel against the Democrats because they're worthless and somebody needs to say it. When bombs start falling on Iran I want to be already on my feet. Having a peace candidate already in the race is an invaluable asset. If the Democrats agressively oppose a war with Iran then great, they get points for that. But I'm not going to assume that. We should have LEVERAGE!

Rebellion is not something that can be stoked, instigated nor controlled, especially by the left. Odds are that the outcomes from rebellion would, by your standards, be worse than our current situation.

Whether or not you or I think that rebellion is called for is irrelevant to whether the material conditions and critical mass for rebellion to whatever degree exist.

The way we get leverage is to do that which gets us leverage. Nader and Camejo are perennial candidates who have proven themselves incapable of delivering leverage in their serial lunges at the windmills.

Unless you're going to try something different or think that circumstances have changed to the extent that trying the same thing will deliver different, better results, it is time to try something different or allocate our resources to another front.

All I'm seeing from you folks is desperation, appeals to a wing and a prayer, and attacks on anyone who questions you. That is hardly the kind of narrative that magnetizes and energizes people.

-marc

To NG2008, the Greens are likely to have a candidate -- Cynthia McKinney. McKinney's candidacy does not detract from the right of Nader and Gonzalez to run. They still have that right. I object to them on the matter of character. After the antics of the Nader-Camejo crew in 2008, I do not trust them to wield power with delicacy and with respect for those who differ from them. Among other antics.

I have said this on Ralph Nader's web site, and I'll say it here, we need a way to get all Third party cantidates in to the debates and on national T.V. or you can hand Hillery the Presidentcy right now. I can't beleive the people of this great country are sheep, you believe everything you see and hear on T.V. The only news you can really trust, comes from outside of this country, like the BBC. Please people, wake up, voting for any Republican or Demecrat is the real wasted vote, you will never change a thing with a republicrate at any level of Government, town,village,city,county,state,or national.Thank you SF weekly for information on Mr. Gonzollaz. I was interested to find out about Mr. Nader's running mate.My choice is becoming clearer now. SUPPORT RON PAUL, VOTE RALPH NADER!!!

"Rebellion" is not the same as "Revolution". It is somewhat more forceful than "resistance". What the Longshoreman did last week in closing down the ports was rebellion. They were in a position that they could do it, but it was still breaking the rules and I think it was effective. Because people doing what they can in their situation builds a sense of solidarity.

People taking to the street before the invasion of Iraq was also a rebellion. You may say it was ineffective but I dread to think what will happen if there is no response to the bombing of Iran. It will demonstrate that we are a defeated people.

What's also been totally ineffective is unquestioningly going along with the Democrats. Supporting John Kerry even though he wouldn't mention the war destroyed the anti-war movement in 2004. We became irrelevant and were easily lumped in with pro-war Democrats. And ironically Kerry lost because he failed to stand for anything of principle. In 2006 the Democrats were happy to ride to victory on the consensus that the war was a failure. But using that sentiment to gain power was really all they were about. Not stopping the war.

We were played for suckers. That's what I don't want to repeat. I think that we agree that just casting a vote is a pretty limited way to effect policy. That doesn't stop me from trying to use one vote as effectively as I can. I'm not about keeping the Democrats from winning. If the Democrats don't need me then it doesn't matter if I vote for Nader. If they do need me then they need to articulate something that has meaning to me. Their position is strengthened by having the courage of their convictions. And they only get that courage from rank and file voters.

"After the antics of the Nader-Camejo crew in 2008, I do not trust them to wield power with delicacy and with respect for those who differ from them. Among other antics."

True, Camejo is a late stage microphonosexual, and is compelled to wander mounting stages and pontificating to a crowd from behind a microphone, that is when he's not trying to punk the Green Party with his divisive, manipulative and inherently socialist imperative.

The ILWU staged what has become a ritualized act of statement which was anticipated and accounted for by capital. There was no rebellion involved, as the ILWU members are some of the highest paid workers in the US.

Organized labor is not going to be a source for building solidarity as by and large, solidarity only runs one way--with them as the receivers of solidarity--rather than reciprocal.

How could Iraq have turned out worse? Worldwide demonstrations of more than 10,000,000 were ineffective and served to further confirm that the system had adapted to protest. The way to convince people that they are defeated is to defeat them. We are a defeated people because our opponents are victorious and we are still trying the same old shit that has failed to work for generations.

There was no antiwar movement against Iraq. Popular support opposed it since late 04 or so, but that does not mean there is a movement by any definition of the word.

It seems that you would have preferred to have seen Kerry win. Why?

My read is that you all are seriously deep seated disaffected Democrats who, having been abandoned by "mommy" are bent on raging against her for leaving you high and dry under the vain hope that she will take you in her arms again and everything will be as idyllic as when you were a kid and your mommy loved you more than anything in the world.

It is not all about you. If Nader's run had no unintended consequences, then nobody would have a problem. But until you all can control the consequences of your actions, you need to own them.

-marc

User:Griot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Griot

This user has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that this user has used one or more accounts abusively.
The abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited; using new accounts to evade blocks or bans results in the block or ban being extended.

See block log • confirmed accounts • suspected socks • Checkuser request
Categories: Wikipedia sockpuppeteers

Wonderful, guilt by assertion of cooties based on similar statement.

A bad person says 'a', marc says 'a,' therefore marc is the bad person.

Remember, cutting the gas tax as Nader has called for, along with Hillary Clinton and John McCain, will not increase demand for and drive up the price of gasoline and will result in conservation.

There's no choice like NO CHOICE.

-marc

User:Griot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Griot

This user has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that this user has used one or more accounts abusively.
The abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited; using new accounts to evade blocks or bans results in the block or ban being extended.

See block log • confirmed accounts • suspected socks • Checkuser request
Categories: Wikipedia sockpuppeteers

Just an observation, but what kind of background does Gonzalez come from if he believes it takes "moral courage" to buy art? By this reasoning, Dee Dee Wilsey is the most morally courageous person in San Francisco, since she is the city's biggest art patron. All it takes to buy art is a few extra bucks, some artist friends who hit you up to buy their work, and an interest in visiting galleries. Big deal.

Another thing: When former Nader stalwarts such as editor Steven T. Jones of the Guardian and Ross Mirkarimi (co-founder of the California Green Party) call Nader's 2008 run for president "ego-driven" and "deceptive," I say it's about time. Nader's candidacy was ego-driven and deceptive in 2000 -- with horrendous consequences. Medea Benjamin, the Green Party's nominee for Senate in 2000, said, "Maybe it's time for the people who voted for Bush in 2000, the people who didnΉt vote at all in 2000, and yes, people like myself who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, to admit our mistakes. I'll say mine -- I had no idea that George Bush would be such a disastrous president. Had I known then what I know now, and had I lived in a swing state, I would have voted for Gore instead of Ralph Nader."

I'm glad to see that Mirkarimi and other Greens have finally learned this lesson -- eight years too late. Let's not repeat this mistake again, eh?

User:Griot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that this user has used one or more accounts abusively.
The abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited; using new accounts to evade blocks or bans results in the block or ban being extended.

See block log • confirmed accounts • suspected socks • Checkuser request
Categories: Wikipedia sockpuppeteers

I wanted to draw attention to the negative bad mouthing by the posters marc and the last one from Danny, these commenters offer no solutions or ways of approaching problems but tirelessly bad mouth Nader and Gonzales on trivial almost ethereal philosphical non-issues. I wanted people to know that people are placed in left wing political groups simply to be disruptors, the Pentagon has paid for bloggers and message posters to help them in their propaganda campaign.

After much back and forth and reading marc's many responses, the only consistent theme he poses is don't vote for Nader, you who support Nader are bad, stupid, wasting your time, etc. Everytime someone offers a counter point marc comes back with another barrage of "Nader bad" non-sense. His only purpose is to poop on Nader and seem intelligent for doing so with his pseudo intellectual responses. He is here simply to waste people's time and energy, people like marc and some of the other people here who just bad mouth people fighting for social justice are really worse than those that support the killing of Iraqis and Afghanis, those that actively take a stand even a wrong one are at least standing for something, posters like marc and the other whiner comments I've read here just want to stop other people from acting for positive change.

He poses himself as some left wing deity passing judgement on others when he himself does nothing to help anyone, he devotes all his energy replying to posts in his own egotistical game of "I'm right, you're wrong" - all this while people die and are murdered for living on top of oil fields.

To marc and the other whiners, no one gives a rat's ass what you think, shut up and go inact your great political grand plans and show us all up including Nader and Gonzales so we can all marvel at your politcal brillance or just shut up and know that people aren't so stupid to not know you're nothing but a blow hard with no ability of your own religated to commenting negatively on other's actions while you sit on your judgement seat ass firmly planted.

To the rest of the posters look at how many times marc responds, like he's paid to sit at the board and be a disruption or some guy at computer in a homeless shelter getting off on argueing with people. I just want you all to be mindful that a big part of being a progressive is having supplanters in our mists talking endless crap for the sole purpose of wasting people's time and energy and that is what marc seems to be. These operatives take advantage of progressive's desire to be fair and engage with debate and ideas, but when it becomes obvious that someone is simply a fake leftie here to fillabuster discussion we as progressives need to have ways of purging people like that - it's a real part of being political.

Something that is missing from progressive movements is an organized way of letting people know "OK discussion's over you're just wasting people's time now" that point was reached a while back with marc and his thousand and one justifications for why Nader is bad. That also goes for people who have nothing to offer but Nadar is stupid, Nadar can't win, Nadar is to blame - these people aren't interested in positive change only slowing it down or tossing insults at people doing it - they should not be afforded respect by progressives as if they weren't actively opposed to us.

I dislike dishonesty and sharades - when someone poses themselves as just an unbiased third party or even a supporter of progressive politics and has nothing but bad mouthing to offer, then common sense has to kick in for the rest of us and know that we have a subversive on our hands and direct conversations to that person accordingly. To get things organized we have to establish those kinds of rules of order. I want people discussing real issues here, to do that effectively we have to let these bad mouthers know that they are not welcomed to smear ideas with pointless drive by verbage.

Taking a comprehensive look at the problems we are facing socially at the this junction, it has been and continues to be a COLABBORATION with supposive left wing political pundits and right wing facists that fuel the on-going moral crisis in this country of racism, materialism, and militarism as MLK put it. For these fake left people to blame active progressives for things like the murder in Iraq while they are either supporting it, funding it, or doing nothing about it except whine goes to show you what kind of people they are and why they are needed to be shown the door before anything can get done in group. Their goal is to stay within a progressive group and tear down what ever activities take place with their soul stealing negativity. It's a big part of why the progressive movement is not as effective as it should be, we need to consolditate our ranks and not allow in negative subversives.

User:Griot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that this user has used one or more accounts abusively.
The abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited; using new accounts to evade blocks or bans results in the block or ban being extended.
See block log • confirmed accounts • suspected socks • Checkuser request

Categories: Wikipedia sockpuppeteers

Hey Raf, I thought the whole purpose of Nader and Gonzalez' campaign was to have a discussion about the political system and what presidential campaigns mean.

But apparently, the progressive celebrities need to be protected from any scrutiny, using the typical leftist canard of asserting that if you challenge someone who is pushing an issue on anything, you are challenging the issue they are pushing.

The fact is that Nader is regurgitating stale proposals for a dynamically unfolding crisis in the American Empire. As we age, our brains become less and less plastic, unable to incorporate new realities, preferring to frame analysis in the familiar, the comfortable.

We are on the cusp of the deterioration of almost all constants which were valid during the last 1/2 of the 20th century and as such we need solutions grounded in this new reality, not one which no longer exists.

The fact is that Nader/Gonzalez is not magnetizing their natural base, as that base is now fascinated by Obama.

As such, the volunteers and funds are not forthcoming.

I am not a fake leftist. I am not a leftist at all. Americans have rejected the left and leftists. For some reason, leftists are enamored of Nader, who is a reformist capitalist millionaire. If you all can't get your own politics on the same page, how can you expect anyone to hand off the keys to the government to you all?

Neither left nor right, but forward Green!

-marc

User:Griot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that this user has used one or more accounts abusively. The abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited; using new accounts to evade blocks or bans results in the block or ban being extended.

See block log • confirmed accounts • suspected socks • Checkuser request Categories: Wikipedia sockpuppeteers

This is a well-written, well-researched, comprehensive and informative article. Well done!

The LA phony rode her pony to the tune of a didgeridoo

Filmmaker, artist, Pope-blessed, performance poet too

In perpetual post-production, her mouth never shuts

Excuzza me Jeannie, you’re just a great big putz!

The LA phony rode her pony to the tune of a didgeridoo

Filmmaker, artist, Pope-blessed, performance poet too

In perpetual post-production, her mouth never shuts

Excuzza me Jeannie, you’re just a great big putz!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking

Comment by From Wikipedia on Jun 26th, 2008, 15:31 pm

Barack Obama is going to make Ralph Nader, the Don Quixote of the Left, and Matt Gonzalez, his little Sancho Panza, irrelevant. Hear that? EAR. RELL. IV. ANT.

Very soon the public will be relieved of Gonzalez's pieties and self-righteousness. Gonzalez will go back to writing turd-rate poetry (http://www.leftcurve.org/LC28WebPages/GreenManifesto.html) and constructing turd-rate art collages (http://lincart.com/artists/album03/045_Light_Soda). He will be completely EAR. RELL. IV. ANT.

Barack Obama is going to make Ralph Nader, the Don Quixote of the Left, and Matt Gonzalez, his little Sancho Panza, irrelevant. Hear that? EAR. RELL. IV. ANT.

Very soon the public will be relieved of Gonzalez's pieties and self-righteousness. Gonzalez will go back to writing turd-rate poetry (http://www.leftcurve.org/LC28WebPages/GreenManifesto.html) and constructing turd-rate art collages (http://lincart.com/artists/album03/045_Light_Soda). He will be completely EAR. RELL. IV. ANT.

Like I said: EAR. RELL. IV. ANT.

What is Matt Gonzalez's take on Ralph Nader's "Uncle Tom" comment? On election night, Nader asked whether Obama will be an Uncle Sam or an Uncle Tom for America. What does Matt have to say about this?