The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 326

[top10]

The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 326

February 25, 2008
Oscar Special!

It's Oscar time again, so let's celebrate by handing out some little gold statuettes of our own. John McCain (1,2,3,4,5) cleans up the top honors, while Ralph Nader (6), Rick Renzi (7), and Bill O'Reilly (8), all walk away with awards. My apologies in advance for the bad language in number 9 - it's Roger Stone's fault. Enjoy, and don't forget the key!



John McCain

Biggest Hypocrite

"As President, John McCain will see to it that the institutions of self-government are respected pillars of democracy, not commodities to be bought, bartered, or abused!"

Not my words, the words of whoever wrote the copy on John "Maverick" McCain's website. Which is funny, because according to the New York Times last week:

Early in Senator John McCain's first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client's corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself - instructing staff members to block the woman's access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist's client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.

Yup, John "No Special Interests" McCain was so tight with a lobbyist that his own staffers had to warn her off because it looked so damn suspicious. Think about it - Captain Straight Talk says he was "friends" with lobbyist Vicki Iseman, but that's a pretty intense level of friendship. I mean, there's "hey let's get together for drinks next week" friendly, and then there's "Jeez, we gotta do something about the boss and this woman, people are going to think they're banging" friendly.

The right-wing would like you to believe that this is a story about gutter politics and shoddy journalism, but that's a huge red herring. The real story here is that according to Newsweek, "Both the Times and the Post report that McCain accepted more than $100,000 in campaign donations from interests represented by Iseman and her firm before taking actions at Iseman's urging that were intended to benefit the lobbyist's clients."

Newsweek says this is not illegal - but it certainly makes a man who has staked his career on a reputation for ethics and integrity look like a hypocrite - or worse, like a typical, inside-the-Beltway, politics-as-usual Republican. And let's face it, nobody wants to belong to that club this year.



John McCain

Biggest Supporting Hypocrite

Sen. McCain was extremely quick to smack down the original New York Times article connecting him with Iseman and one of her clients, Lowell W. Paxson. "Obviously, I'm very disappointed in the article; it's not true," he said.

Of course, that was before the Times published their follow-up...

In late 1998, Senator John McCain sent an unusually blunt letter to the head of the Federal Communications Commission, warning that he would try to overhaul the agency if it closed a broadcast ownership loophole.

The letter, and two later ones signed by Mr. McCain, then chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, urged the commission to abandon plans to close a loophole vitally important to Glencairn Ltd., a client of Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist.

(snip)

One of the McCain campaign's statements about his dealings with Ms. Iseman was challenged by news accounts on Friday. In discussing letters he wrote regulators about a deal involving another of Ms. Iseman's clients, Lowell W. Paxson, the campaign had said the senator had never spoken to her or anyone from the company. But Mr. McCain acknowledged in a 2002 deposition that he had sent the letters after meeting with Mr. Paxson.

(snip)

A review of the record, including agency records now at the National Archives and interviews with participants, shows that Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, played a significant role in killing the plan to eliminate the loophole. His actions followed requests by Ms. Iseman and lobbyists at other broadcasting companies, according to lobbying records and Congressional aides.

But come on - this is John McCain we're talking about here. John McCain! The apex of integrity. The pinnacle of probity. The man who never lies!

Sure, the facts may be conspiring to make him look like a liar, but that's hardly his fault.



John McCain

Special Achievement In Hypocrisy

So is McCain, um, soft on lobbyists? According to Raw Story:

Sen. John McCain said Friday that while lobbyists serve as close advisers to his presidential campaign, they are honorable and he is not influenced by corruption in the system.

McCain, who has styled himself as an enemy of special interests, defended having lobbyists working for his campaign. He is the expected Republican presidential nominee.

"These people have honorable records, and they're honorable people, and I'm proud to have them as part of my team," McCain told reporters following a town hall meeting in Indianapolis.

Which is a bit odd, because his http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/cb15a056-ac87-485d-a64d-82989bdc948c.htm">website says:

America deserves and demands a government that serves the country, not itself. Most people believe that elected leaders are more interested in the perks and privileges of office than in public service, and that too often the special interest lobbyists with the fattest wallets and best access carry the day when issues of public policy are being decided.

John McCain has fought the good fight against the practices that alienate the public from their elected leaders. He has fought for public disclosure of those who lobby lawmakers for a living, and to prohibit them from providing gifts to elected officials.

(snip)

The American people have been alienated from the process of self-government by the overwhelming appearance of their elected leaders having sold-out to the big-moneyed special interests who help finance political campaigns.

Fine words - but a Washington Post story over the weekend notes that in fact McCain has at least 59 lobbyists working on his campaign. One of them - his chief political adviser Charles Black, who also happens to be chairman of one of the most powerful lobbying firms in Washington - conducts his lobbying business directly from the mothership.

Black said he does a lot of his work by telephone from McCain's Straight Talk Express bus.

So in other words, John McCain is like a guy who loudly proclaims that he's perfectly sober while staggering down the street wearing a traffic cone on his head.



John McCain

Worst Fundraising

Yes there's more...

On a day when Sen. John McCain was blasting The New York Times for a story that alleged that he had had an inappropriate, romantic relationship with a female lobbyist eight years ago, he faced a fresh and unrelated dilemma that could also be potentially damaging to his campaign.

You guessed it - he was caught backstage at a dog fight snorting meth off Ted Haggard's naked ass.

Just kidding.

The nation's top federal election official yesterday told the Arizona Republican that he cannot immediately withdraw from the presidential public-financing system as he had requested -- a decision that could dramatically restrict Mr. McCain's spending until the general election begins in the fall.

The prospect of being financially hamstrung by the very fundraising system he helped create is the latest in a series of bitter challenges for the presumed GOP nominee, who still faces a fractured conservative coalition as he assumes the mantle of party leadership.

(snip)

But Mr. McCain's attempts to build up his campaign coffers in advance of a general election contest appeared to be threatened by the stern warning yesterday from Federal Election Commission Chairman David Mason, a Republican. Mr. Mason notified them that the commission had not granted Mr. McCain's Feb. 6 request to withdraw from the presidential public-financing system.

Hmm, a prickly situation. It seems that McCain only has one way to solve this problem, and that would involve circumventing the campaign law he himself wrote. I think we all know that a man of McCain's integrity and principles would surely never... hold on a minute... according to Andrew Sullivan:

A few days ago I wrote about a loan John McCain had taken out, in which he tried to use his future eligibility for federal matching funds as collateral.

(snip)

I am not a lawyer, and thus have no opinion about whether McCain's loan violates the, um, McCain Feingold Act, or any other provision of federal law. But I did think that this was a pretty transparent attempt to violate its spirit. Campaign finance laws ask candidates to make a choice: either you take federal money, in which case you are subject to a number of restrictions, or else you don't take it, in which case you are not. Getting a loan by using the matching funds you have not yet received as collateral is a way of trying to have it both ways: essentially, you get to spend your matching funds now, but because the money did not literally come from the government, you can delay a decision about whether or not to accept the restrictions that go with them until later. If you can leverage the money into enough wins to generate contributions, you can pay back the loan and duck the restrictions; if not, you've lost anyways, so you might as well abide by them. That's exactly what campaign finance laws do not want candidates to be able to do.

McCain tried to be tricky about this: he didn't use the matching funds he had qualified for as collateral, but he did use the fact that he could qualify for them at any time. That's why he had to give away his legal right to withdraw from the campaign if he lost: to satisfy his lenders, he had to promise to stay in long enough to actually get the matching funds he qualified for, and to give them first dibs on those funds. Whether or not this violates the law -- a law McCain authored -- I have no idea, but it is certainly an attempt to wriggle out of its requirements, and it ought to put paid, once and for all, to the idea of McCain as a straight-talking man of principle.

So let's see - saying one thing and then doing the opposite, getting caught up in a web of lies involving lobbyists and corruption in Washington, demonstrating a complete disregard for the law - this is starting to seem awfully familiar...




John McCain

Least Competent Campaign

One more for luck...

Last week Mike Huckabee announced his intention to stay in the GOP race to the bitter end, and while John McCain is all but guaranteed to win the nomination, Huckabee's quixotic charge can't be doing his much for his nerves - or his wallet. The last thing you want to do when you're the cash-strapped Republican nominee is have to contest a primary in Texas.

Another thing you don't want to do is forget to put yourself on the ballot in Indiana. According to Raw Story:

In order for a candidate to be placed on the ballot in the May 6 contest, his or her campaign must supply 500 signatures in each of Indiana's congressional districts. A blogger and Democratic activist, Thomas Cook of Blue Indiana, discovered that McCain was a number of signatures short in the state's 4th District.

"This is one of the most Republican-friendly districts in one of the most Republican-friendly presidential states," Cook wrote in a Feb. 20 blog post. "And despite all of this high-level help, these guys managed to screw up one of the most basic steps that any candidate can take in the state."

Oops! After Thomas Cook filed a challenge with Indiana's Secretary of State to keep McCain off the ballot, the McCain campaign countered saying that they had 531 signatures in the 4th District. Not so fast said State Democratic Chairman Dan Parker - his staff only counted 496 signatures.

Not that any of this matters. The DNC released a statement last week which noted that:

"Despite the fact that the McCain campaign clearly failed to qualify for the ballot, Republican Attorney General Steve Carter and Republican Secretary of State Todd Rokita (who recently endorsed McCain) rubberstamped it anyway, trying to sneak McCain onto the ballot.

What a surprise!



Ralph Nader

Biggest Ego

With the president's approval rating at an all time low (more on that later), the vast majority of Americans unhappy with the direction the country is headed, ongoing occupations sucking billions out of the pockets of the taxpayer, the Republican party rocked by scandal after scandal and dissatisfied with their corrupt presidential nominee, leave it to Ralph Nader to declare last week that, "If the Democrats can't landslide the election this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down."

Apparently Ralph is under the impression that taking back the country is going to be too easy this year, so he's decided to handicap things a little by jumping into the presidential race. Again.

Nader, who rose to prominence by campaigning for auto safety in the 1960s, said he still had a message to offer for those "locked out" by the perennial Republican-Democratic duel.

Wait, let me guess - both parties are the same, right?

Nader described Obama as a "person of substance" but said the senator had allowed his own "better instincts" to be compromised in the White House battle.

McCain was meanwhile "the candidate for perpetual war," Nader said, calling for the impeachment of the "criminal recidivist regime of George Bush and (Vice President) Dick Cheney."

Okay, let's time-travel for a moment all the way back to the year 2000...

If California tips Green enough, Bush could win the state and the whole damn election.

Which, Nader confided to Outside in June, wouldn't be so bad. When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush."

Not that he actually thinks the man he calls "Bush Inc." deserves to be elected: "He'll do whatever industry wants done."

The rumpled crusader clearly prefers to sink his righteous teeth into Al Gore, however: "He's totally betrayed his 1992 book," Nader says. "It's all rhetoric."

Yeah, that Al Gore was totally full of shit about the environment, wasn't he? His 1992 book Earth In The Balance was just a bunch of fluff that the guy never backed up.

Oh wait a minute, here he is winning the Nobel Peace Prize.


Meanwhile, back in 2000...

Gore "groveled openly" to automakers, charges Nader, who concludes with the sotto voce realpolitik of a ward heeler: "If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win."

So let me get this "Nader plan" straight:

2000

• Run for president


• Tell everybody that there's no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush


• Reveal that it would be better if Bush wins because then the parties will "diverge from one another"


• Sit back and watch Bush spend eight years shredding the Constitution, voiding decades-old international treaties, illegally invading other countries, wiretapping American citizens without a warrant, politicizing the Department of Justice, appointing radical conservative Supreme Court justices, whipping the religious right into an apocalyptic frenzy, sinking the economy into recession, robbing working Americans to pay for generous tax cuts for millionaires and generally destroying America's reputation around the world

2008

• Run for president


• Tell everybody that there's no difference between Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton and John McCain

Gee, I wonder what comes next? Let me guess - reveal that it would be better if McCain wins because then the parties will "diverge from one another."

Jerk.



Rick Renzi

Best Indictment

You know, one of these days we might have a week go by where a prominent Republican doesn't get indicted for corruption. Unfortunately last week was not one of those weeks.

Republican U.S. Rep. Richard Renzi of Arizona, a state co-chair for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, was indicted on corruption charges stemming from land deals in his state, Justice Department officials said on Friday.

The 35-count indictment stemmed from plans by Renzi and a business associate, a real estate investor, to benefit from a land-exchange deal in Arizona in return for Renzi's support for necessary federal legislation, according to court documents.

(snip)

The indictment, which included charges of conspiracy, fraud, money laundering and official extortion, also accused the three-term congressman of embezzling premiums from clients of an insurance business to fund his congressional campaign.

Renzi, who has had a solid conservative voting record since first being elected to Congress in 2002, also was accused of concealing his receipt of more than $733,000 from the associate in 2005.

Renzi will now join the hallowed ranks of John McCain's Co-Chair Hall Of Fame, alongside such legends as The Guy Who Counted Jews For Nixon and The Guy Who Tried To Buy Sex From A Cop.



Bill O'Reilly

Stalest Falafel

Last week at a campaign rally in Milwaukee, Michelle Obama said, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change." The Obama campaign later clarified this as "Of course Michelle is proud of her country, which is why she and Barack talk constantly about how their story wouldn't be possible in any other nation on Earth. What she meant is that she's really proud at this moment because for the first time in a long time, thousands of Americans who've never participated in politics before are coming out in record numbers to build a grassroots movement for change."

And predictably, the radical right went nuts. But not Bill O'Reilly! Responding to a caller on his radio show, Bill sensibly decided to take the high road:

O'REILLY: You know, I have a lot of sympathy for Michelle Obama, for Bill Clinton, for all of these people. Bill Clinton, I have sympathy for him, because they're thrown into a hopper where everybody is waiting for them to make a mistake, so that they can just go and bludgeon them. And, you know, Bill Clinton and I don't agree on a lot of things, and I think I've made that clear over the years, but he's trying to stick up for his wife, and every time the guy turns around, there's another demagogue or another ideologue in his face trying to humiliate him because they're rooting for Obama.

That's wrong. And I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama...

Wow - Bill, that's very gracious of you! How unexpected!

Oops - wait a minute... I've left a bit off the end of the full quote.

O'REILLY: That's wrong. And I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels.

Well I guess he's a reasonable man. Michelle is perfectly safe - for now. Bill's just saying that maybe she should watch her mouth in future, otherwise he might have to round up a posse and hang that uppity negro from a tree.

Honestly, how can Michelle Obama possibly suggest that she hasn't always been proud of her country when upstanding Americans like Bill O'Reilly rule the public airwaves?



Roger Stone

Tiniest Penis

Meanwhile, Roger Stone - the famed GOP operative who was last featured on this list after he left obscene voice mails for Elliot Spitzer's 83-year-old father (see Idiots 305) - was back in the news last week with a new 527 organization intended "to educate the American public about what Hillary Clinton really is."

The name of Stone's organization is Citizens United Not Timid. Get it? Here, allow me to spell it out for you. Citizens United Not Timid.

Clever stuff, huh?

Curiously, Stone continues to be invited to give his opinion on national television, which you have to admit is a little strange. I mean, how does that phone call go? "Hi, Mr. Stone? Mr. Roger Stone? The guy who leaves obscene voice mails for the elderly and runs an organization that describes Hillary Clinton as a 'cunt?' Yes, do you have ten minutes to spare this afternoon for a bit of political analysis with Tucker Carlson?"

Bizarre. But anyway, it seems that the conservative strategy for 2008 is pretty clear - black people who are deemed sufficiently unpatriotic by Bill O'Reilly should be lynched, and women are cunts. Sounds like a winning election year message to me!



George W. Bush

Worst President Ever

And finally - remember this guy?


Yes, he's still the president - but America doesn't have to like it. Last week the American Research Group released its latest poll results, and found that George W. Bush's overall job approval rating is currently... wait for it...


Bush has now beaten his father's anemic 29%, Richard Nixon's resignation-eve 24%, and Harry Truman's all-time-low of 23%. Yes, Our Great Leader is truly sprinting to the finish line - but only to escape the angry mob who are in hot pursuit.

See you next week!

-- EarlG

[Trajan]

1. We love you EarlG ....

And David and Brian as well .... THANKS for DU ! ...

I appreciate the Nader entry .... As much as I like Nader's philosophies, I just don't see a Nader juggernaut producing a progressive government, in the end .... His candidacy can only weaken the overall Liberal coalition ....

[krispos42]

2. Another good week,with Oscars!

You really are on the ball. I didn't know it was Oscar Sunday until after the awards show was over!

:dunce:

[guyanakoolaid]

3. Bush and/or Cheney need to be included

every week for the rest of the year. It may not be this good again for many years! Well... there's always voter fraud, crooked land deals, and sex scandals. And not just the Clintons but the Republicans still in Congress, too.

[BobTheSubgenius]

6. A Lifetime Achievement type of 'honourarium'?

A Top Ten c\w Dishonourable Mention, perhaps?

In the unlikely event that they don't do something boneheaded, perniciously incompetent or downright evil enough to qualify for The List, per se.

[argyl]

4. Whew. For a while I thought our Fearless Leader wasn't gonna make the cut.

But instead of his streak ending at 325 he's extended it to 326. Pretty sure he's been on every Top Ten list.

[Hissyspit]

5. Saved the lowest for last.

[BobTheSubgenius]

7. Excellent, as always.

Thanks, EarlG!

[happygoluckytoyou]

8. IN A RELATED STORY----->

Each week I see the GOP slime machine trying to get the Hillary and Obama campaigns angry enough at each other that they "would never vote for the other"

This is BULLSHIT... and the Democrats would be wise to announce NOW AND FOREVER...
VOTE FOR WHICHEVER CANDIDATE WINS THE PRIMARY

The LOSING CANDIDATE should STEP UP LARGE to back the winner.

------- I would love to see the top 10 idiots include those Rethugs who think they can run the democrats into the ground.... the swift boaters... etc....

Yes... she can be a bitch
AND
Yes... Obama has a black baby

PREPARE FOR THE DEM LANDSLIDE...if only we can stick together

[Initech]

9. Citizens United Not Timid

Oh my fucking GOD. :rofl:

[demigoddess]

10. sounds like a bunch of seventh grade boys, doesn't it?

that's republicans for you

[rasputin1952]

13. And they think they are just SO clever...

:eyes:

[Initech]

36. Yup. Republican humor is an oxymoron.

Especially when you consider that the poster child is Larry the Fucking Cable Guy.

[nxylas]

14. What with that and leaving obscene calls for an 83-year-old...

...there's got to be a pun on "No CUNTry for Old Men" in there somewhere. I'm probably gonna be racking my brains all day now trying to get exactly the right wording and then trying to slip it into a post somewhere.

[Neo-wobbly]

23. They ripped it off from a movie

"Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back", which is funny, because a movie by the same guys, "Dogma", caught hell from religious groups.

I'm not fond of Hillary, but yea, it's childish.

[Initech]

35. OMG!!!

I've seen that movie like 100 times and I dont remember that. I'll need to watch it again.

[SalmonChantedEvening]

11. Maverick Mania Sweeps TTCIL!!

Boffo! Socko! Gummo! Kendo!

:D

A great list as always EarlG :hi: :pals: :yourock:

[rasputin1952]

12. 19%...LOL...that's still some 18 points above where it should be...

:D

[The Wizard]

15. True

As only 1% have benefited from Bush's treasury looting.

[eggman61]

37. In Bush's upside-down world....

19 looks like 61, which is actually pretty good, and also happens to be his IQ.

[rasputin1952]

48. LOL...I think the "19" is his IQ, at lest he acts like it...

:D

[Neo-wobbly]

16. Oh come off it already!

Sure, Nader's being a jerk, but he still doesn't belong on the list; that's like FOX news listing McCain as a democrat.

Aren't we better than that?

[rasputin1952]

18. You're kidding right? He advocated voting for bush, and possibly

McCain if 'he' does not go far in his bid for the WH...(like that is going to happen anyway).

Maybe you see this differently, but anyone who advocates voting for an R, especially over qualified D's, is essentially a "Conservative Idiot". He's right where he's supposed to be...well maybe more like at #1.

[Neo-wobbly]

21. You lost me with "qualified D's"

Again, he's being a jerk, but he's certainly not conservative; I'll even grant "idiot".

The "qualified D's" thing, though, is a problem; what makes them qualified? I would say that one "qualification" should be withdrawal from Iraq, but neither Obama nor Clinton are going to do that, are they? Another "qualification" should be support for single-payer universal health care, but neither of them are going to do that, are they? I won't belittle their education plans, if for no other reason than that they seem to consist of "fix education!" and not much else, but there's another "qualification" in there somewhere that they've missed.

Remember: Nader represents strong Liberalism; write him off at your own risk.

[rasputin1952]

24. Hey...I could consider you a qualified D, if you were born in

this country and are over 35, you could run for PotUS.

Nader could easily push his points w/o running for president, for him, it is ego, nothing more, nothing less. There is no reason for him to run, other than as an egoistical jumpshot. That's it, cut and dried, plain and simple. The fact that he "told" people to vote for bush is damning in itself, it merely shows me that he is an "idiot", and we have been paying for this idiocy for 8 years.

All things considered, though...he has nary a chance in hell of doing anything other than being his usual moronic self, splitting a few off the D rolls and doing nothing else. He'll once again go down in flames, his ego trailing behind, and he'll blame everyone and everything else for his imminent failure because the failed to recognize his "genius".

Simply put, the man is nothing but a shell, a fool, a disruptor...and he relishes in his perceived "power", something only he seems to relate to.

[Neo-wobbly]

29. Here's the punchline:

Nader's strategy wouldn't work if either Obama or Clinton stood up for even a single progressive issue; give a Liberal a reason to vote for a winning candidate, and they will, but they're not going to vote for someone who opposes everything they believe in. Did you notice that he didn't announce until all the progressives were pushed out?

[rasputin1952]

30. Hey...who's to say Obama or HRC aren't progressives?

So far we have nothing to go by, as all they've done is posture...we can look at past records...just as I've done w/Nader, and his record stinks. Other than the 60's, what has Nader done? Let's see...there it is...nothing.

I won't say he can't run, anyone can...but why, he can't win, he can only be divisive, there is no valid reason for him to run...if he had the slightest chance of claiming victory it might be differrent...but since he can't win, his run is irrelevant.

It's all about ego...his ego.

[Neo-wobbly]

33. Not arguing for Nader, just saying

This is belittling those of us on the left.

[f the letter]

45. i am here to say they are far from progressive

Until i hear talk of restoring our defecated-upon Constitution, ending extraordinary rendition and torture, ending the war, impeachment and war crimes hearings, universal single payer health care, etc, they are not progressive. How can you ever argue this point?

i hope i don't have to vote for Nader.. but the poster with whom you are arguing has a fair point. True progressives are assumed to fall in line because they won't vote republican, but when your only Democratic choices won't even acknowledge your issues as valid, then what else are we supposed to do?

Ego aside. He is not a conservative idiot. i don't plan to vote for him, but seriously...

[rasputin1952]

46. If he enables conservatives, as he always has, he is a

conservative idiot, with an emphasis on "idiot".

You mention impeachment in your post...a little late wouldn't you say? As for war crimes...i have said on numerous occasions they should be arrested and tried immediately following the inauguration of a D. Do I think that will happen, no.

If you even contemplate voting for Nader, who has absolutely NO chance of winning, why vote at all? You have to realize that your vote is just wasted, why even do that? I've heard the "principles" argument before, I figure that anyone who would throw their vote away, as opposed to has no principles anyway, after all...hopw can one be "principled", and then run out and prove he/she isn't?

i can't tell you who to vote for, that is personal...but I can tell you that a vote for Nader is a waste of time and effort...go for it if you want, but at the same time, this is DU, and it is not a forum to push for 3rd party candidates.

[f the letter]

49. Read my post carefully, and

you'll notice i say right away that i'm not voting for Nader. i'm not arguing for him as president. i'm arguing that Clinton and Obama are not progressive, which is pretty indisputable, and that the progressive wing of the party will not "fall in line" forever.

It's never too late for impeachment. Or war crimes hearings. Our political system is much, much smaller than international law, if it ever gets enforced.

[ProudDad]

52. No, DU is not better than that

there's a hard core of Dems here that won't accept the fact that they fucked up on 2000 and 2004 and lost enough of their base with their corporate bullshit to allow the repukes to relatively easily steal both elections.

But it's easier to just blame Ralph Nader for "stealing" 90,000 votes in Florida...

[DWilliamsamh]

17. Earl, an "attaboy" for listing Ralph Nader

What could be a more conservative value than putting your ego before what is best for your country and getting someone in office who will at the very least not be a continuation of the Bush Presidency. There's no difference between Obama or Clinton and McCain? Really?


And what could be more conservative than telling bold faced lies? The voters aren't happy with the remaining candidates of either party? Really? I guess THAT'S why all the primaries have nearly doubled turnout from four years ago. People hate the candidates so they are coming ot in droves to support their choice? Hmmm... by that Logic GWB is the most popular President in the history of this country.

Fuck Ralph Nader and the horse he rode in on.

On edit... changed the title because I wanted to nominate Nader so bad I didn't read the list before writing my reasons for nominating that jackass. So now it's just an Attaboy!

[rasputin1952]

19. Do we have to fuck that horse while Nader is still on it?

Oh wait...that's not a horse, it's that old gray hamster that Thompson rode in on!

[pink-o]

26. The way Ralph has backslid away from progressive values...

...I'm just surprised it isn't a Corvair!

[rasputin1952]

27. Hey...for "hot sex" and an allusion to to the equesrtian side...

how about a Pinto!

:D

[Neo-wobbly]

22. "more conservative"

I don't know, how about belittling anyone who disagrees with you rather than listening to their valid points? Sounds pretty conservative to me.

[DWilliamsamh]

25. What are his valid points.

I am MORE than willing to listen to valid points... it's just there are no valid reasons to vote for a political wrecking machine who, by his every action in national politics in the last ten years has done Zero to actually bring about the changes he says are needed.

He shows up every four years or so and throws sand in the eyes of the Democratic Party's candidate. In the intervening years, if he was SERIOUS about making change, he would work tirelessly to create a REAL third party, not perpetuate his party of one. He would work to get that party's representatives into state legislatures, and city councils. He doesn't do any of that hard work. He fancies himself as the only person capable of stopping the slide into corporatism, while doing every thing he can to grease the skids through his foolish ego driven plays for attention.

Ralph Nader could be any better for the Republican Party if he tried. And I (and a lot of people) honestly can't see any way he could not know that. It actually looks like he IS trying to help the Republican party.

I attack him because he is not reasonable. He's a douche bag.

[Neo-wobbly]

28. Reasonable points:

1. Any plan regarding Iraq must either commit to withdrawal, completely and quickly, or continue offensive operations indefinitely.

2. Single payer universal health care is the only effective way to give everyone in the U.S. insurance; yes, France and Germany get away with multi-payer, but we can't.

3. Biofuels and "clean" coal are environmental disasters; "clean" coal may actually have a future, if we can fix the process, but biofuels have to go.

These are, hands-down, the most important issues of the day, and on every single one of them, Obama and Clinton are on the wrong side.

I would suggest that running either of these two for president is the best help the GOP has ever received; even if they lose, they win.

I will certainly agree that Nader is going about it in a heavy-handed way, and that local governments are the place to start winning seats, but we get the same argument there: "Win some electoral votes in the presidential election, then we'll take you seriously."

[DWilliamsamh]

32. I wasn't asking what his positions are

I know what his positions are. I don't even disagree with him all that much....

I was asking what is a reasonable argument for voting for him. And again he is plainly NOT a serious candidate. Sorry to offend a Naderite - but if he wanted influence for the good he'd stop doing things that objectively help Republicans.

[Neo-wobbly]

40. But those are the points that are being ignored

But, since you want a reasonable argument for voting for him:

Obama and Clinton both plan to continue our presence in Iraq, despite overwhelming public opposition. They know this fact, which is why there plan for staying is labeled "the way out" or whatever Orwellian doublespeak they're using this week. Rather than tarnish the good name of Democrats who will feel obliged to support them in this endeavor, let's stonewall McCain for 4 years while we roll out a candidate who will actually reflect well on us. Yes, this would be unpleasant during the next 4 years, but what happens after that? If McCain wins, he gets stuck with an unpopular war (and getting more so), and gets to face a strong antiwar candidate in 2012; If Obama/Clinton wins, we get stuck with the war, and the GOP gets the chance to pull another Nixon on us.

I am not fond of this argument, but it is sound. I would much prefer for someone (Obama) to stand up and say that we will be getting out of Iraq come Hell or high water, we will have single payer universal health care and the insurance companies can suck it, we will have campaign finance reform that spells out that money is not "free speech", we will prosecute all culpable members of the Bush administration to the fullest extent of the law, and we will fund our schools based on demographics and not on "performance", whatever the hell that means.

But I don't think that's going to happen, so I may write in either Edwards or Kucinich, and I like Cynthia McKinney, if she gets the nomination.

[rasputin1952]

41. None of this will be addressed until there is a candidate and

those questions are posed to the candidate D vs R. This Primary stuff is all about posturing; if HRC and Obama learned anything from Richardson and Kucinich's failure, it is that people don't want "issues" right now, they want non-substantial stuff.

With a strong D Congress, and a D in the WH, these problems will be addressed. Politics is funny stuff, regardless o how noble one may be, it is imperative to appear "moderate" until the position is gained. Most people who have been around the political process understand this, although almost all of us find it despicable.

Nader can talk all he wants, he will, if anything, drive people away from whatever position he takes. he is a loser in the political arena, he should know this, and he is essentially poison. The Greens refused to back him in 04 because he almost destroyed the whole Green movement...after Nader took his beating in 2000, he took a lot of the Green stuff down with him by being so damn stupid at how he dealt with things in that election cycle.

Nader is nuts if he thinks he's going to better that the 0.3% he took in 2004, it will be more like 0.003% and he will have doomed whatever progressive points he wanted to make.

Let me say this again, he is poison, toxic, meaningless. If he really wanted to do something, he'd run in his district for the House, or maybe the Senate...but PotUS is just plain wasting his, and the nation's time.

[kenfrequed]

42. Bah

Kucinich's failure was not about his issues, it was about the 2 year parade of media attention lauded on Hillary and Obama and the absurd amount of attention given to them during every televised debate.

Unless you honestly think the questions that were aked by the moderators in the debates were actually issue based? How many time did Blitzer ask about global warming? Was there even 5 minutes longer than a quick hand-raising or Q&A on nafta in any of the debates?

More time was alloted to ask about trivial nonsense and junk. The campaign is all about substanceless glop and celebrity garbage? Well I think it is time to lay the blame at the feet of our various media outlets.

[rasputin1952]

43. LOL...that's exactly what I posted!

As for DK...I am a realist. I like the guy, but now he is in a fight for his seat in his own District because of some of what he said during the "Clown-fest" that these "debates" really are.
In other words, DK never had a chance, it is that cut and dried.

Richardson and Kucinich both tried to bring issues to the format...people didn't want to hear about it...they wanted a dog and pony show, aided and abetted by each media outlet that "ran" the things.

Until there is a seismic change in the political spectator sport of "debates" this is what we get.
It will be slightly different in D vs R for the GE...but unless some of the Ringmasters of this circus get their heads out of their butts...we are stuck with banal answers to asinine questions.

[kenfrequed]

47. Right...

I am sorry, I jsut cannot accept that. It is not what the people want that is being delivered in this fashion, it is what the various outlets decide to serve us. They select who and what to ask and how much time to give each candidate in advance. The arranged the televised debates on the basis of little more than name recognition polls and assigned time based partially on that and partially on their own economic interests.

These debates are supposed to introduce the candidates to the American public if you introduce pablum and celebrity culture, than that will be all the people have to vote on, if you introduce issues and policy of the candidates than maybe people will think "hey... who IS the best candidate for me?"

[Coexist]

20. "Bill's just saying that maybe she should watch her mouth in future"

best line.

Awesome, as usual.

[Jennicut]

31. If Nader had a "progressive" bone in his body he wouldn't have accepted Rethug money

in 2004. Loser. Complete utter egomaniac. If he was "progressive" then he would never have said that he would have voted for Bush in 2000 and that there was "NO DIFFERENCE" between Gore and Bush. Before Gore became the darling of the progressive movement he was still miles apart from Bush on every major issue. I voted for Gore in 2000 and anyone who voted for Nader back then has to get the idea through their heads that voting for a supposed ultra-left candidate hurts the Democrat, not the Republican. Thus, we ended up with Monkey boy for 4 years. Unfortunately, more idiots than normal people decided to keep him around for 4 more years as obviously he hadn't done enough damage yet to wake people up. Maybe he even stole the election in 2004 like in 2000 by messing with voting machines in Ohio. Still, no one could have voted for him if he hadn't gotten in during 2000 in the first place. It would not have been close in Florida if Nader had not gotten in. Bush still could have managed some way to steal Forida but he would not have had Nader helping him. I have no love for Hillary Clinton. I voted for Obama in the CT primary. But I will be damned if I'm going to let a Republican ever get back in the Whitehouse. Look, its not perfect. Its not a perfect system. I want a legitimate 3rd party candidate except the only thing we have gotten so far has been libertarian nutballs and Nader. Until it changes, I'm voting Democrat.

[namvet73]

34. Nadar, "Unsafe in Any Election"

I used to like Nadar. I owned a few books of his, including "Unsafe at Any Speed". My first car was a 1960 Corvair." A real piece of crap. I junked the car. But, I got so pissed at Nadar over the election that I also junked every book of his that I owned!

[DinahMoeHum]

38. Heh heh! Kick 'em in the Oscars, EarlG !!

:kick:

[ElboRuum]

39. Fun with the Top10!!!

Ok, now you know those little bitty icons (Don't forget the key!)? Yes, those little things that tell you just the degree and type of idiocy you're dealing with? Yes, yes. Those.

Mmmkay...

Now, this is Oscar week, and if you've noticed, we are giving away the awards for various categories of idiots, so the seldom used "oscar winner" icon is pulled out of mothballs, dusted off, and brought out into the light for this ceremony.

When you roll your mouse over these icons (using Nader as an example), a little text comes up so you don't have to memorize the ever increasing number of icons. If you do this with Nader, you'll find that not only does he have a massive ego, but that he is also a car.

Go ahead, try it! Fun for all!

P.S. EarlG, you might want to take a look at this.

[ladym55]

44. Thanks for the great laughs

Of course none of these things is at all funny in the big picture ... corruption, incompetence, racism, and sexism are all ugly things (and sadly all in a day's work for Republicans), but when you skewer them as you do, I can laugh out loud. I will enjoy the image of McCain staggering down the street with a traffic cone on his head for a bit. :rofl:

[SQinAZ]

50. So proud to be an Arizonan --- NOT!

I find it absolutely disgusting that people from my state continually vote for the likes of McCain, Renzi, Kyl, etc. I swear that these people don't, or can't, read.

And let's talk about clear cut cases of these politicians NOT representing their constituencies...as evidenced by both McCain and Kyl supporting the illegal immigrant reform (aka "amnesty") bill last spring. Arizona had to take matters in their own hands and pass a law (even though there is already a federal law to this effect) making it illegal for businesses to hire illegal immigrants, with stiff penalties, including losing the business license on the second offense. Let's not talk about the fact that McCain can't be bothered to vote in Congress, ever. Nice representation for the state that is paying your salary, McAmnesty!

What is even sadder is that McCain will most likely win Arizona come November 2008. Excuse me while I go and :puke:

[ProudDad]

51. For those DUers who actually care about facts and policies...

Here's a chance to listen to his own words instead of the spin the corporate MSM puts on his existence or the blind hatred of many Nader-haters here on DU.

Ralph Nader on the Candidates, Corporate Power and His Own Plans for 2008
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/7/9/ralph_nader_on_the_candidates_corporate

Ralph Nader on Conservative Democrats, Corporate Power and the Middle East
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/11/8/ralph_nader_on_conservative_democrats_corporate

Ralph Nader: U.S. Carries “Inescapable Responsibility” for “Israeli Government’s Escalating War Crimes”
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/7/20/ralph_nader_u_s_carries_inescapable

Newest Israeli war crime:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x202072

Or find the Talk of the Nation show where Nader explains how he tried for months just to talk with hillary and Obama and Edwards and they blew him off...just as Gore did in '00 and Kerry in '04.

You wanna' blame somebody, blame the fucking corporate Dems for losing to bush!!!