Ralph Nader Is Insane

Eliaures said:

There are always ways of explaining away whatever shines a light on impropriety.

Click to expand...

I notice you forgot one. Scream "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!"

dteowner said:

I notice you forgot one. Scream "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!"

Click to expand...

Yeah, except that's true. There is one.

chamr said:

Yeah, except that's true. There is one.

Click to expand...

Not really... but there is (or, rather, was?) something very much like it. It's not a conspiracy per se; it's about preconceptions and attitudes. You can even see it with dte here -- he has a reflexive tendency to pooh-pooh claims about wrongdoing by Republicans or the Republican party in general (such as here when discussing possible electoral fraud). Almost all Republicans share the same attitude.

When the Republicans are in power, the aggregate effect of these attitudes is that nobody bothers to do anything much about allegations of Republican wrongdoing, while any allegations about Democrat misdeeds are gone over with a toothcomb -- and the perception of horrible crimes remains even if nothing concrete actually ever comes up. (For example, the impression left by the Swift Boat smear had remained with Magerette, even though just about all of their allegations had been thoroughly debunked.)

This further reinforces the perception that Republicans are being maliciously picked on ("nothing bad ever shows up since it's never investigated") while Democrats are doing all kinds of nastiness ("if they weren't, why all the investigations?") and a prevailing discourse emerges that makes "left-wing crazy-talk" the default assumption about any such allegations. It's a self-reinforcing cycle, with no actual conspiracies needed.

I have a feeling that something like this is almost bound to emerge if a single group dominates the discourse as long as the Republicans have in the US.

Whew PJ, thanks. I wanted to make a similar statement, but I don't have quite the eloquence you have.

My biggest frustration is, is that it's not my purpose to pick on Republicans. I'm as frustrated or more so with Democratic waffling and spinelessness, and I get just as outraged when I find that they are playing politics rather than promoting the public good. It must be admitted though, its Republicans who are showing the most brazen and obvious malfeasance. They went apeshit over Bill Clinton's lying, yet have remained positively docile over W's. Bill Clinton deserved what he got. Doesn't Bush and Cheney deserve the same?

Oh, and Ralph Nader may not be crazy, but he's more egomaniac than philanthropist. Where has he been the last four years? Has he been trying to promote his issues in between the last election?

Yep, well said, PJ.

Prime Junta said:

...it's about preconceptions and attitudes. You can even see it with dte here -- he has a reflexive tendency to pooh-pooh claims....

Click to expand...

Others always serve as the best examples, don't they? Certainly not ourselves!

Isn't it just plain common sense to expect the burdon of proof to be on those making claims? Shouldn't that proof be convincing? Claims are easy to make, after all. Any fool can make a claim and explain and defend it.

Internet logic can be a little funny that way. Standards for ideas are different, somehow. More than anything else, it reminds me of prison logic.

Prime Junta said:

Not really... but there is (or, rather, was?) something very much like it.

Click to expand...

Um, PJ? That was a joke...

But now that we're on the subject, while not really a "vast right wing conspiracy", it's a pretty well accepted fact that a very conservative wing of the Republican party known as Neo-Conservatives have been waging a rather well orchestrated campaign to push the country pretty far right since the 70's or 80's through organizations such as the Federalist Society, the Christian Coalition, the American Enterprise Institute, and so on. You can get more details at the wiki page:

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

While developing a wide-spread ideology and then trying to turn that into an agenda to change a nation isn't new, as is usually the case, the conservatives are far more organized and effective at it than the liberals. And the neo-cons have been have been almost shockingly good at it over the last 20 years or so. They've made tremendous gains. Here's just a few examples:
1) They've expanded the power of the Executive branch over the other two quite a bit to the point where Bush is making liberal use of "signing statements" on bills that effectively say he can ignore the law if he wants to, and executive orders that are at such volume as to be arguably keeping pace with the Legislature in making laws.
2) They've dramatically changed the face of the judiciary from the Supreme Court all the way down to the lowest federal courts as well as some state court systems through Executive and other appointments to the bench into one that interprets the law and the Constitution in a very, very conservative way.
3) They've greatly reduced governmental transparency and accountability. The amount of times they've refused to turn over documents or information to the Legislature, independent investigators or even the Justice Department itself is staggering. And they're mostly getting away with it.
4) They've set us back many decades in having a bit of high ground in the human rights arena through our covert prison camps, our refusal to give these so-called "enemy combatants" any form of due process, and increasing the leeway with which the government can spy on it's own citizens with impunity to a level that probably exceeds the levels achieved in the pre-Viet Nam era.
5) They've essentially neutered the EPA and done everything short of repealing the Clean Air & Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. Steven Johnson's refusal to grant California the right to restrict emissions beyond the federal guidelines over the stringent objections of every single person in his Department is the latest example. And the bastard still has his job. They've also put off any significant action on global warming in part through systematic editing and censoring of the government's top scientists. In fact, the clever weasels even managed to turn the issue into a windfall for their corporate farming buddies by creating new subsidies for corn to support an increase of ethanol usage that most experts on the topic say is a waste of time and money and may actually contribute to global warming rather than reduce it! And don't even get me started on the idiocy that is "clean coal technology". Jeez...
6) Through re-making the country's legal system, they've struck blow after blow to the labor unions with several key, pro-management rulings.
7) The pre-emptive strike foriegn policy doctrine they put into action with the invasion of Iraq is a HUGELY aggressive change for the country that should not be underestimated. That we would invade them under such flimsy, and ultimately concocted, premises with the hubris of not just influencing change in another country but out-and-out hand crafting their government ourselves is probably very troubling to the rest of the world and should be to us citizens. We've basically said "we can invade anyone we want and there's nothing you can do to stop us". eek.

and so on...

The bright side (if you're not a new-conservative, that is) is that they just may have pushed the envelop too far. On the dark, dark day that was November 3rd, 2004, I told myself and anyone that would listen, "this next 4 years will give them just enough rope to hang themselves". While it's way too early to call that prediction, I'm cautiously optimistic...

I'll just comment on the voter fraud issue for now.

Although living in Denmark I always follow the US presidential elections with great vigour. I remember seeing a section? of the tv-news in either 2000 or 2004 where I saw and heard that in what is known as african-american communities polling station were closed at 8PM even if there were people waiting to vote. Also, in another news section, I saw and heard that in the suburbs (where mainly the republicans live) there were pen, paper and pencils, while this wasn't the case in the african-american communities.

I think the whole problem stems from the fact that each states, or sometimes each county within each state, can decide for themselves how to measure if and when a vote is registered. In Denmark, we have a law that regulates how an election is to take place and when a cast vote is valid or not.

Let's not forget that Al Gore actually got the majority of the vote in 2000, while Geroge Bush got the majority of the electorate's votes - by winning Florida.
Of course, one cannot say that every vote cast and not counted in the 2000 and 2004 election would have gone the way of the democrats...

aries100 said:

Let's not forget that Al Gore actually got the majority of the vote in 2000

Click to expand...

Regardless of how I feel, what does that matter? It is completely irrelevant to the process.

Squeek said:

Others always serve as the best examples, don't they? Certainly not ourselves!

Click to expand...

True, but, yet again, that don't mean it ain't so. And I really do wish you'd drop that passive-aggressive attitude of yours -- you're much more fun to talk to without it.

Isn't it just plain common sense to expect the burdon of proof to be on those making claims? Shouldn't that proof be convincing? Claims are easy to make, after all. Any fool can make a claim and explain and defend it.

Click to expand...

Of course it is -- and that wasn't my point. My point was the presumption and the "flavor" of the discourse. Compare:

(a) "That's a serious allegation. Do you have evidence for it?"
(b) "Ch'yeah, that's the Great Right-Wing Conspiracy in action again, right?"

Asking to see evidence is one thing; pooh-poohing the allegations as flaky conspiracy theories is another altogether.

The thing is, *there is evidence* -- and it's quite well documented, too. Republican lawmakers and people close to them have even landed in prison for it. Yet what do you think has made the bigger mark in public consciousness -- Jack Abramoff and his connection to Bush, Cheney, & co, or the Swift Boaters? Tom DeLay or Whitewater? Alberto Gonzalez and the Mysteriously Disappearing Attorneys, or Monica Lewinsky? Somehow the former just kinda fade out of sight, while the latter -- which, may I remind you, ended up with no evidence of any illegalities whatsoever -- remain as indelible stains on the character of the people involved.

Like it or not, there is a double standard about how this stuff gets portrayed, investigated, and remembered -- and while it isn't a conspiracy, the end result is much the same.

(Incidentally, that's what bothers me about the Obama/Clinton face-off too -- it's pretty damn obvious that the media treats the two rather differently. As I've said, I'm not a huge Clinton fan, and I'd rather see Obama get the nomination -- but the way the media treat Clinton just isn't fair.)

Prime Junta said:

And I really do wish you'd drop that passive-aggressive attitude of yours...My point was the presumption and the "flavor" of the discourse....Asking to see evidence is one thing; pooh-poohing the allegations as flaky conspiracy theories is another altogether.

Click to expand...

Fortunately for me, there's no rule here that says you have to enjoy my attitude. For what it's worth, yours can sometimes be a little hard to take too.

As to your point, it was clear but unconvincing (IMO, anyway). You tend to express yourself well, PJ, and I admire that. But some of us will never buy into some of your skewed points of view, no matter how hard you sell them.

I'm not sure how my "conspiracy" comment is any more flimsy or blindly dismissive than the similar comments that I responded to, PJ. So why did you not question Eliaures? Perhaps because you're sympathetic to that slant of thought, which is the exact same thing you're calling me out for?

Squeek said:

Fortunately for me, there's no rule here that says you have to enjoy my attitude. For what it's worth, yours can sometimes be a little hard to take too.

Click to expand...

As you wish.

/me bows out

dteowner said:

I'm not sure how my "conspiracy" comment is any more flimsy or blindly dismissive than the similar comments that I responded to, PJ. So why did you not question Eliaures? Perhaps because you're sympathetic to that slant of thought, which is the exact same thing you're calling me out for?

Click to expand...

Perhaps -- that sort of thing is entirely human, after all.

But then again perhaps not. If you'll review my posting history, I think you'll find quite common instances of my calling out people whose point of view I generally sympathize with, if I feel they're talking through their hats. IIRC it's even occurred with Eliaures. In this case, though, I thought he was pretty much right.

(See me vs. JemyM for some particularly vitriolic examples -- and he's much closer to me politically and, on the whole, philosophically than most people here.)

Another very educating discourse. Thanks in particular to chamr, for the clear exposition of what's going on with the neo-cons( a term I've only defined contextually til now.)

One brief personal comment--afa the Swift Boat situation--I was predisposed to believe the allegations because my husband accepted them without question and added a few of his own based upon his Viet Nam military experience and the contemporaneous anecdotal evidence he found convincing regarding John Kerry's character and actions. From what Prime Junta convinced me to explore on the subject, I really couldn't see that either side of the controversy had proved anything, for or against the allegations. Once again, that doesn't mean they were baseless, (or that they were true.) I suppose it does illustrate how 'facts' come to lodge in our brains, though.

Prime Junta said:

* snip*
Like it or not, there is a double standard about how this stuff gets portrayed, investigated, and remembered -- and while it isn't a conspiracy, the end result is much the same.

(Incidentally, that's what bothers me about the Obama/Clinton face-off too -- it's pretty damn obvious that the media treats the two rather differently. As I've said, I'm not a huge Clinton fan, and I'd rather see Obama get the nomination -- but the way the media treat Clinton just isn't fair.)

Click to expand...

I'm actually beginning to agree with you. The media has once again picked the candidate. IMO The recent debate showed clearly that Russert in particular held her in contempt and dislike, and was only too ready to focus the critical glare of the hard answers on her while happy to cut her off and propose straw men for Obama to tilt against. I thought she handled it well, despite her unfortunate tendency to purse her lips and look like she was about to send Obama to the detention hall for lunch period. It's hard for me to let go of my personal dislike for the woman, but it's one thing to dislike her, and another to allow the dislike to color the facts. However, I still don't think a return to Clintonism is the best answer in this election.

magerette said:

I still don't think a return to Clintonism is the best answer in this election.

Click to expand...

Yeah, this is the key for me.

I like Obama, but I do think the "all talk, no experience" argument has merit. It does make me nervous to think of someone with so little executive experience (just a lawyer and a legislator) running the country. I've seen plenty of lawyers and doctors take on executive jobs many times thinking that their superior intellect and obnoxious sense of entitlement automatically make them a good executive. Often, it works to opposite effect.

But on the other hand, I can't help thinking you're right. I never was a Clinton fan, and he was just way too old school, egomaniacal, back-room-deal-maker in the end. And it's hard to believe that the Mrs. would be that much different.

And on top of that, I think the general election is totally up for grabs, no matter what the talking heads might like you to believe. It presents a strong dilemma. I almost (almost mind you) wish someone like Biden or Edwards or even Gore were the Democratic candidate when considering solely the chances of kicking the Neo-Cons out of the White House. Hmmm.....

Don't forget that the Republicans are the minority party and aren't able to elect candidates to national office by themselves. Conservatives, old or new, just don't have the numbers. The fact is, Bush got elected (and re-elected) by convincing people other than conservatives to vote for him.

That's John McCain's strength as well. Historically, he's always had plenty of crossover appeal. A recent national poll showed him ahead of both Obama and Clinton, and I don't find that surprising at all.

Clinton is better matched to defeat McCain (IMO) but not without a tough fight, especially now that Nader will be leaching away Democratic votes.

chamr said:

Yeah, this is the key for me.

I like Obama, but I do think the "all talk, no experience" argument has merit. It does make me nervous to think of someone with so little executive experience (just a lawyer and a legislator) running the country.

Click to expand...

While not disagreeing with the main thrust of your post chamr can you tell me how much more of executive experience Bill Clinton had when he become president?

zahratustra said:

While not disagreeing with the main thrust of your post chamr can you tell me how much more of executive experience Bill Clinton had when he become president?

Click to expand...

Sure. He was Governor of Arkansas. That's like CEO of the state. There's a reason Governes tend to do better than Congressmen or Senators in Presidential elections..

I try to stay out of the politics forum because, mainly, I can see when the waters are too deep for me (also because I have a hard time remembering what I've read is classified, heh) but I feel compelled to throw in a few cents here.

Prime Junta, I know you get a lot of flak around here, although it has lessened, so I thought I'd let you know that I have a great deal of respect for you. I sincerely hope that you are involved, at least a little, in your own government. It would seem almost a disservice to civilization for you to not be involved.

As for the conspiracy mentality, I'd have to agree that Republicans do tend to get off the hook more easily. I was going to write arguments and examples but I decided I'm too lazy.