Nader promotes for President: co-founder of leveraged buyout group; co-founder of Carlyle group;

[pnwmom]

multiple Hedge Fund founders, Ted Turner, and others -- as long as they're "modestly enlightened" billionaires who would challenge the two-party system.

His list is here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02/24/oprah-for-president-nader-seeks-modestly-enlightened-billionaire-to-run/

[merrily]

1. Hah? What can he possibly be thinking?

I get that the two party system needs to be different, but how will a billionaire accomplish positive change for the (90 to) 99%?

[pnwmom]

2. On his theory that anyone's better than a Democrat, and the Democrats and Rethugs

are the same, then anyone who can win is better. And billionaires have the money to win.

[merrily]

3. Let's assume, just for a second, that Democrats and Republicans are identical; and further, that

the identity they share is more of a Republican identity than a Democratic Identity. What would a Carlyle Group billionaire change, except make it three identical parties instead of two?

(BTW, this may come as a shock to some, but I don't think the two parties are identical. I wish they were more different than they are, but I don't at all think they are identical.)

Geez, I wish I could sit down with George and try to get him to make me understand this. We go from the foremost advocate for the consumer in US history to a guy who's promoting a Carlyle Group billionaire?

Sorry, I don't think I can even read the article. I feel like mourning.

[pnwmom]

4. You mean Ralph, not George.

But the mistake is understandable, since he helped elect George.

Nader is the same guy he was in 2000. It's just that lately his mask is falling off more and more often.

I agree he used to be a tremendous consumer advocate. So what happened? Maybe he finally realized he makes more money for his Public Interest Research Group if a conservative is in office for everyone to hate.

[merrily]

6. Thanks. LOL, who the hell is George Nader and why am I thinking about him?

[WhiteTara]

29. You know, George Ralph Nadir Bush

our last selected president.

[merrily]

31. Maybe deep in my subconscious. Consciously, I blamed the US Supreme Court for Bush.

And the electoral college system.

Didn't it turn out that Gore had won, though, even in Florida--or is my rear view mirror made of rose-colored glass as to Florida? (Definitely a possibly: most rear view mirrors are distorted in one way or another.)

Gore did not do himself any favors with indies with his debatng style, either. He was such a personable and damned witty man when he went on talk shows after the election. However, the eye rolls, signs and obvious impatience, invading Bush's personal space, etc. during the debates and campaign did not do him any favors

Neither did the Lewinsky scandal and impeachment, even though they seemed to help Bubba's numbers. I've heard people say they switched parties over that. Stupid reason to switch parties, I know, but tell that to them. Also enabled Bush to run on, among other things, "restoring honor to the White House."

Also, Clinton was the first New Democrat president and Gore and Liebowitz had both been co-founding members of the DLC, along with Bill, Hillary and others. And, I think anti-Semitism may have reared its ugly head in that election as well.

Loyal Democrats are going to vote Democratic. But for everyone else, the above-mentioned things, and others, may have mattered at the polls. After all, no one had a gun to the head of anyone who voted for Bush or Nader or the several third party candidates who ran to the right of Bush.

But, the biggest thing was the SCOTUS and the second biggest was the electoral college system. But, maybe my subconscious mind does blame Nader. Who knows?

[WhiteTara]

32. You're kind to give the basta*d a pass

He is an evil plant and I will not mourn his passing from this earth.

[merrily]

36. Not giving anyone a pass. But the SCOTUS and the electoral college were, in

my mind the main factors and I thought a lot of things contributed. \

I believe people have a Constitional right to run for President, if they meet Constitutional qualifications, like age.

Not sure why Democrats think someone owes them a clear field on the left. Republicans have long had two or three parties running against them for President; and I am entirely unsure that Clinton Gore would have won in the first instance if Perot had not run against Poppy.

I also think that both Democrats and Republicans joining to create obstacles for third parties is unfair to US voters. If we had more viable choices, maybe all candidates would have to worry more about pleasing us, not only the lobbyists and major donors.

[WhiteTara]

37. It's not that it wasn't a clear field, but that he would

NOT work to have his platform included, but instead told his supporters (on teevee they should a small room of white men) "They deserve this." And I tell you WE DID NOT DESERVE GEORGE BUSH and he KNEW he was tipping the scales to Bush so it was possible to steal this. SCOTUS should have been impeached but we couldn't even' impeach * for starting a criminal war.

But Nadir knew and was a plant just as he is now. Why anyone gives him one second of mental time or breath is totally beyond me. He is the lowest point of electoral politics and I will try to forgive him, but it might take a lifetime or two.

[merrily]

12. True, but what would the end result be? I think he's dreaming that a

Carlyle Group billionaire is going to fix the political system in favor of anyone Nader traditionally seemed to want to help.

Basically, I think we're stuck with the two party system, at least with the foreseeable future. Maybe Nader simply can't accept that reality?

[pnwmom]

13. We'd need to have a parliamentary system, I think, so that coalitions could form

to build a majority. Otherwise, with a third party in the race, the risk is that a very conservative party with 34% of the vote could take control.

[merrily]

15. I agree, but both of the largest parties have been quite good at closing ranks when

it's something that may affect both of them adversely. Look what they have done to televised primary and general debates. Unless, you get an out and out clown, like Perry or Cain, they are more of a dog and pony show than any indication of what you will get if you choose Candidate B over the others.

So, if we want a parliamentary system, we have to find a way of making the current system more uncomfortable for both of them than a parliamentary system would be. If you have any thoughts on that, let me know--and sign me up.

[Spazito]

34. Canada has the parliamentary system and the result is the left is split 4 ways...

which guarantees the Cons win with less than 40% of the vote. Unless the left unites, the Cons will continue to win and, sadly, I see no movement toward unity of the left here and I certainly don't see any unity on the left in the U.S. either.

[msanthrope]

10. Ask Glenn Greenwald....he wants a billionaire to run, too....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4769581

Specifically..to disrupt the two party system.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Probably the same sort of stuff he was thinking when he took Republican money to run in 2004.

[merrily]

18. Taking money is not the issue.

A newer party has to take money from any place it can get it. There is no choice. Lord knows, mainstream Democrats and Republicans are not fussy about who they accept campaign donations from; and they have so many advantages over a new party And it's not even as though every candidate actually knows who sends every check. I could have been a serial cannibal killer who was also selling secrets to Iran in my spare time, for all Obama knew when I sent checks to his campaign.

The problem comes when the candidate gives something back to donors in return for their "generosity. " That was never going to happen in Nader's case and he knew it. He knew he was not going to win. He was running only to try to make a point.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. Nader did more than that in '04, IIRC. He knowingly let right-wing republicans manage his state

organizations, etc. with full knowledge that what they were doing was trying to help put a ding in Kerry's numbers.

The honorable thing in 2004 would have been for him to drop out. I can't let that go.

[merrily]

21. That is a different issue, but some of the things I said in my prior post

apply to that as well. How many options do you think third parties have in this country? And I am all for breaking the stranglehold of the two party system.

No one guarantees the mainstream left-ish candidate no competition, any more than the mainstream rightist candidate is guaranteed no competition from Libertarians, the Constitution Party, the Tea Party, the John Birch candidate, etc. Republicans have long had competition from their right.

The more things that cause both of them to pay attention to what voters want, the better in my book.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. We're gonna have to disagree, then.

Deliberately doing something stupid knowing that, here on Planet Earth in reality, you're facilitating a likely shitty outcome - in this case, 4 more years of Dubya - of course he was "allowed" to do it, of course no party is guaranteed to not have competition.

But people like me are also allowed to call Nader a fucking shitwit for going ahead with it. No one like Ralph Nader is guaranteed to be entitled to the respect of forward-thinking progressives such as myself after that kind of debacle.

If you didn't understand the shabby caliber of the dude back then, well, in light of this story maybe you do now.

As for the rest of it, there were and still are glaring differences between the two big parties. Are there areas where our party can and should do better? Yes. But i think electing good Democrats is the way to get there.

[merrily]

23. Yes, I disagree.

Fiirst, none of the remarks I made in my prior post had a thing to do with Nader as an individual So, whether I understand him or not--or whether your understanding of him is off base or not--is really irrelevant to my prior post.

Yes. But i think electing good Democrats is the way to get there.

Cute. "Good" being the key word. As if you have a meaningful choice in which Democrats run for office. And as if most Democrats, once a candidate is in office, don't pretend the naked emperor is dressed to the nines.

Repeal of Glass Steagall, and Clinton is still talking about what a good job he did and many Democrats still agree. Drone killings and the propaganda machine focuses on Russians shooting dogs, instead of putting them down with injections, as we do, as if we know whether that is more humane in the first place.

I think the way to do it is to do everything that we possible can--which is laughably little, unless we are at least multi-millionaires-- to make sure that the two largest political parties have as much incentive to listen to voters as we can possibly give them. I haven't noticed them complaining about it a lot, either.

Again, Republicans have managed to survive despite being opposed by parties to their right for a very long time. Why Democratic candidates and voters seem to think God or America owes them a clear field is a mystery to me. They need to earn it by being attentive to their base, instead of continuing to mouth, "The left has nowhere else to go."

[Warren DeMontague]

24. And again, here on planet Earth, in actual reality instead of the aether realm of pure idealism

voting Green for President is a fool's errand. Was 10 years ago, still is.

[merrily]

25. I also do not believe the meme that whatever is, is the best possible result we could have gotten

realistically.

For example, nothing--not Americans nor Republicans in Congress--forced Clinton to whip Democrats to repeal Glass Steagall. Nothing also compelled Obama to drop a strong public option from Obama before Baucus and Collins ever even got their hands on hands on it.

That meme is propaganda from the DLC and its primary offshoot, the Progressive Policy Institute, along with the other DLC-type clone think tanks. It is very much in the interest of the professionals in the Party to try to convince the more liberal among us that we are unrealistic and to convince other Democrats that liberals be crazy.

"Whatever we gave you was the best possible result. So STFU and make your fellow Democratic voters do the same." You see how that would work incredibly well for them, don't you? All they have to do is keep demonizing Republicans, keep up the divide and conquer strategy and that will be enough to both get out as much of the vote as they need while they govern to woo indies, Republican voters and Wall Street/bankster donors.

It is very much in their best interest to try to convince me that no one in their position could possibly have done better. It is very much in my best interest, though, not to buy into that meme/slash propaganda. I often have to laugh to myself these days when I hear Democrats talking about how Republicans don't act in their own best interests. What the hell are we doing when we try to convince each other that we can expect nothing better from Democrats than we are already getting? I think that is a self-serving (for and from the pols) falsehood of "Big Lie" magnitude

How is it in your best interest to believe that Democrats simply can't realistically expect anything better than global economic collapse as a result of Clinton's actions and the fastest transfer of wealth to the rich in American history during the Obama administration? If that is actually the best we can possibly expect realistically, we all may as well mail our checkbooks, deeds and firstborn to the DNC or the RNC "right fucking now."

[merrily]

30. I already addressed the alleged reality issue.

Don't think I urged anyone to vote Green, either.

[dsc]

33. FDR was close to a billionaire and he did some pretty great things.

[merrily]

35. Those were very different times.

For one thing, Russia had just seen two revolutions, one of which had succeeded.

If you don't think that had terrified rich USians, especially once Black Friday and the Dust Bowl were simultaneously ravaging America, you are mistaken.

Besides, he had Eleanor and her liberal friends to keep him on track.

He did some great things for Wall Street and banksters, too. At the expense of all of us, he restored public confidence in the banking system with the FDIC. And, he used new bankrupty laws (repealed under Carter) and securities laws to restore confidence in Wall Street.

He also did some horrible things, like "intern" the Japanese and develop nuclear weapons. (Why did we supposedly invade Iraq?) Also kept Truman, for whom he (FDR) had contempt, out of the loop, even though we were at war and he (FDR) knew he was dying.


Besides, in most of posts on this thread, I've specified Carlyle Group billionaires. I think that bespeaks a certain type of billionaire, as does the Bohemian Grove.

[Ichingcarpenter]

5. He's a poser now

and a has been who use to be relevant and still tries
but is a sell out.


The Carlyle group is an evil organization...... Obama's last FCC commissioner went there and landed a great job at George HW Bush place.


The illusion is only what you can perceive through the spectrum that our
limited perceptions of communication and observations can obtain.

Our vision is very limited.........we can't see or understand the that 90% of the universe we see is dark energy, dark matter and that reality is composed of at least 11 dimensions beyond the four dimensions.we really understand and relate with.

This reality even applies to Politics.

There is a deep, dark underlying current of power that some of us can see now, without the interpretations of others that can't see yet.

I think the fate of the planet is at stake now........ and that's not hyperbole.

The US is a player in this game of planetary survival because of its power.

Choose wisely

[Gothmog]

7. Nader is a joke and no one should pay any attention to his stupidity

Nader should see if Mitt Romney is still interested in running

Nader should be ignored

[pnwmom]

9. Romney was only a 1/4 billionaire, last time I heard. So he wouldn't qualify

for Nader's fav list.

[Gothmog]

11. Nader may have to settle

Nader may as well support the GOP candidate. He gave Bush the victory in 2000

[merrily]

20. I nominate Oprah. She may buy Sterling's team, with a couple of partners.

Then again, maybe she's in the Carlyle Group, too. What do I know?

[Squinch]

8. Isn't he, like, 90? He did say that, but he thought he was ordering a sandwich.

[herding cats]

14. He's trying to draw sales for his new book. That's all this is about IMO.

I said this in a thread earlier, he's fallen far since his days in the sun. His most recent cries for the Progressive left to join up with laissez-faire capitalist Libertarians is just sad.

[merrily]

17. I agree as to voting for people, but I don't see anything wrong with joining forces on

individual issues. Let the Libertarians vote for Paul or whomever, while we vote for our guys and gals. But, what is wrong with joining forces with them on, say, de-criminalization (at a minimum) of pot or on Bill of Rights issues, where we agree with them?

They pressure Libertarians and Republicans, while we pressure our guys and gals. And just maybe we'll get somewhere.

Otherwise, it's divide and conquer. I think the 99% already has suffered way too much from being so divided that we cannot align on anything.

[Turbineguy]

26. He seems to really have off the rails.

[winter is coming]

27. "Nader promotes his latest book" would probably be a more accurate headline.

Sounds like he's tossing out grenades to stir up interest.

[LWolf]

28. Why do I care who Nader promotes for President?

Seriously...I don't. It's irrelevant.

I care who the Democrats promote for President. THAT's relevant.