Skip to main content

View Diary: Ralph Nader was Right. (204 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  couple things (none)
    even if kerry says "screw my job -- i'm gonna win no matter what it takes, even if it means losing my job and credibility with the status quo powers that be," that's no guarantee he'll win that fight.  he'll take a stand and that's important to a lot of us, but it's no guarantee he'll win.

    second thing, if he gives up his job, sacrifices his place within the status quo, then he would be replaced and there is no guarantee he wouldn't be replaced by someone even MORE entrenched in the things you don't like, the status quo, there's no guarantee, although massachussetts is what it is, there's still no guarantee, he wouldn't be replaced by a republican.

    ergo.  a potentially HUGE net loss.  all the way around.

    do you really think the risks/possibility of reward justify the action you're suggesting?

    •  The Republicans care about winning more. (none)
      And that's why the Republicans win more.  They are willing to risk a middle-management job to get to the CEO's desk.  Thinking long term is how they succeed over the long term.  Losing Kerry in the Senate is small potatoes when compared to the gigantmunga defecit, war, trashed economy, environmental damage, and general misery that Bush is causing, don't you think?

      There are never any guarantees in life.  But you will never gain anything if you don't risk some things.

      •  i think it's wrong to draw those kinds (none)
        of conclusions.

        of course, no one ever says the loser cared more about winning.  so it's a tautological observation.  on nov. 1, 2004, i sincerely believed kerry cared more about winning.  was i wrong?

        why should the fact that he lost prove anything i thought on nov. 1st wrong?

        it shouldn't.

        i'm a lot more torn on the issue than might be apparent.  i'd like to see kerry haul ass and get in front of cameras every day crying "fraud," viscerally speaking, that would be great.  but practically speaking, the possibility for reward/risk evaluation i make is just negligiblie enough for me to give kerry the benefit of the doubt.  losing a senate seat is not small potatoes.

        and all the votes will be counted.  kerry doesn't need to take that on on principle.  in fact, it's bad if he does cause it's an obvious conflict of interest/distraction, more so than if third party people do it.

        if bush lost by 100k votes and suspected fraud, you wouldn't see bush standing front center crying "fraud," his minions would be out there doing that, just like our minions are out there doing that.  only our minions don't get 24/7 PR on fox news channel and cnn.

        anyway.  that's the best answer i have.

        •  It's not just about November 2nd. (none)
          Kerry, and the rest of the bigwigs in the Democratic Party have been backing down for years.  

          That's why Dean is so popular nowadays.  He's saying that the Dems have to start standing firm if they want to win.

          Remember how many progressives got behind Kerry while saying "You don't start rearranging the furniture when the house is on fire."?  Well, the house has now burned down, along with the furniture.  Fat lot of good that tactic did us.  Now we have to start all over again.  

          How about looking at what works, and what doesn't.  How about coming up with a truly progressive, democratic, sustainable party?

          •  when dean says (none)
            we have to START standing firm, does he mean that or does he mean we have to continue to stand firm?

            which has a different meaning.

            and it would have exactly the opposite meaning if kerry said it:  "we have to continue to stand firm."  that would be an endorsement of the status quo.

            it just occured to me there's some ambiguity to what dean is suggesting.

            i'm fairly certain it means we don't give on inch on our core values/issues.  and i wholeheartedly agree with that, except that it creates this perception that some of us were selling our values/issues for some idea of political clout.  
            and the thing is, i don't see that.  i always see that claim, "democrats stand for nothing" is what it boils down to, and yet i never see any examples.  it's taken as a given, a priori.  and the only place i can think of, where it comes from is right wing talking points.  cause that's exactly what they say:  democrats stand for nothing.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (121)
  • Community (58)
  • 2016 (45)
  • Elections (37)
  • Environment (35)
  • Media (34)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (33)
  • Republicans (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Law (28)
  • Barack Obama (27)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Jeb Bush (24)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Culture (23)
  • Economy (20)
  • Bernie Sanders (18)
  • Labor (18)
  • White House (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site