AP collects quotes about Nader candidacy
Are there equivalent quotes on the other side missing from this?
| Permalink | technorati
« on a 95 year copyright | Main | The Black and White about Grey Tuesday »
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://lessig.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1193
Comments (43)
Perhaps by the time of the election, most people who plan to vote would be somewhat aware that voting for Nader may hurt a Democratic candidate, and aware that ignoring this may hurt most on the issues Nader cares most about. Claims about Nader's irresponsibility won't do much good now -- this needs to be changed into a talk about voter responsibility.
Mr. Lessig, did you watch Nader on Meet The Press this past Sunday? I thought he did a great job of defending himself against the pretty silly claims against him. The best part of his interview with Tim Russert was when he made the point that many of his supporters are normally non-voters. Should Kerry win the nomination, I will vote Nader. I would never have voted Kerry. In fact, the decision I was preparing myself for was "Do I vote Bush or not vote at all?" Interestingly, I was a big Dean supporter (another guy who got non-voters involved in the voting process again).
As the barriers to communication weaken, more voices and ideas have been heard. The result of this is a greater assurance of community outside the two major parties. With this assurance, people feel more comfortable voting outside the two major political parties. Because the general (and I realize I'm pairing it down quite a bit here) goal of the conservatives, which make up the voting base for the Republicans is to achieve a state of government which we've had in the past, there is little disagreement within the party. Few liberals share such a unified vision of their future government. This lack of a unified vision makes the liberals, who are the voting base of the Democratic party, far more vulnerable to party members abandoning ship for a new party or an independant candidate.
Do you doubt that, if we used instant-runoff voting, the majority of Nader votes would runoff to the Democratic candidate? I believe this is more evidence that Nader is being blamed for the election process not withstanding the test of time more than he is being blamed for any action he has taken. This scapegoat-ism, like the quotes you've linked to, create nothing more than FUD.
No, Mr. Lessig, I think that the quotes from Mike Huckabee and Tim Pawlenty represent the 'other side' just fine...
Where should I go for coverage of this event that doesn't silently assume that the Democrats are owed votes?
I don't claim it is exhaustive, but http://www.greensforgreens.org has a number messages on Nader, particularly in the past few days, that represent a different point of view from the AP quotes.
Drive the mass media criminals off the Internet with massive denial of service and hack attacks. Ignore their reporters. End paid journalism, except for those who go to other nations and take real risks with their lives.
If you see ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN or any other commercial media talking about the campaign or the issues, heave a brick through the screen. That'll teach those who leave these liars on the screens in public places, not to do so. If you want, leave a polite note that PBS is acceptable.
Ummm...did a good job of defendint himself?
Am I the only one who saw "liberal intelligentsia"=Jew?
This is so sad.
The supposed "good guys" want to limit voter choice.
Apparently, the Democrats feel somehow entitled to the progressive vote, when in truth they largely abandoned the cause decades ago. A party with any sincerity and backbone would acknowledge that they long ago surrendered those votes and work to earn them back. That's right: bring them in, don't shut them out. Don't blame the guy standing up for the disenfranchised for your having disenfranchised them.
Nader can't force people to vote for him, but the Democratic party can.
I'm still trying to figure out: how after the whole debacle that was the last Presidential election there hasn't been any signficant electoral system changes (at least at the national level and at least that I'm aware of)...?
What I don't understand is why so many otherwise intelligent people don't think people are smart enough to decide for themselves who to vote for (or not vote at all). I hate, yes hate, Bush as much as most of the nation, but I may not vote for the Democratic nominee. I currently feel that I can vote for any remaining Democrat other than Kerry, and I may be able to vote for him. If Kerry wins the nod, and if I decide I cannot support him, I will vote for the Green candidate, but I'm still happy that Nader is in the race. The fact is that Nader is a consumer advocate and he is just doing his job- advocating for the voting consumer.
How entirely one sided commentary. How hard is it to choose someone to vote for? You don't control other people's votes, so just worry about your own. If you don't want to vote for Nader, then don't. It's really that simple.
I remembered hearing Nader would hold off if Dean or even Edwards made it to the candidacy, Nader wouldn't run. If the Democrats wanted Nader out, they knew how to do it. But again, the Democrats don't give a crap about real Progressives. They just want to be Republican-Lites.
Democrats want to be Republican-lites?
Ralph Nader claims there is no clear distinction between BushCo and his opponents. He has slandered Vice President Al Gore.
Looks like Nader fits the profile of a compassionate Republican. I must be missing something.
It certainly wasn't censorship for the left to discourage Nader from running. But now that he's made the decision, the ballot access battles will begin. Should liberals fight tooth and nail to keep Nader off the ballot now? Doesn't that start to look a little more like the censorship that Nader was charging?
here's a crazy thought i had before the last election (nader/IL, for the record):
if gore had any sense of close he really was cutting things, what if he had asked nader to be vice president? now, if nader accepts, maybe gore gains those votes that could have put him over the top. my guess is that nader declines, but in doing so gives up at least the appearance of some chance to greatly expand his influence. i think it could have been a simple, effective bluff-calling and could have been spin-able/survivable. not saying kerry should do same, but still interesting to play with.
i suppose the notion of "a heartbeat away" would be enough to frighten many away, but i've always assumed nader would say no. an assumption i have no solid basis for, however. still, there oughta be a way of working with rather than...
Maybe Nader and the Green candidate should demand just one concession from the Democrats: to promise to mend the electoral system so that underdogs don't have to worry about "spoiling" elections in future.
This Nader stuff is starting to feel a lot like trolling.
Even if Nader did "lose the election for Gore" in 2000, it makes no difference in 2004. Nader shares far less ideological views with Kerry than he did with Gore (assuming the Democrats don't get their heads on straight and nominate Edwards). This means Nader's candidacy will do far more of what he claims (bring new voters into the process) than "steal" votes from the Democratic candidate.
When first reading your blog entries about Nader running or not I agreed with your reasoning, but the more I thought about it I think the only sane/responsible thing he can do is run.
If he doesn't run (and 'cost' the democrates the election) then he is giving the democrats no incentive to mend the election system using something like Instant Runoff voting. I think taking two-three presidencies away from the Democrats is the only way to get them to reconsider and start support changing the system. By not running would just be giving short term gaims priority over long term gains, which is never good.
If the Democrats promise to mend the system however then not running would of course be the smart thing to do as it would allow you to run and show the level of support you have behind you at the next crossroads without 'helping' the other side.
Howard Dean says he's sticking to the Democrat, and that it's so important to beat Bush and that the world will be so nice when Democrats are in control again, that ... that... nothing. It's a glob of nothing. But at least it's more eloquent than "yeaaarrargh!" (trolls kind of liked that scary war-whoop!)
Yes, it feels a lot like trolling, because Nader *IS* trolling, the entire political system.
ALL DISSIDENTS ARE TROLLS (though not all trolls are dissidents). Today we see real live trolls in the streets, just like the sans-culottes or the Boston Tea Party or Battle of Seattle. Trolls on the net. Trolls, trolls, trolls, destroying your worthless legal and political system and your senile constitution. Trolls of change. Trolls of yeeaararargh. Trolls everywhere. If not for trolls, you'd have no democracy now, no rights, no appeal against power's decisions, no system at all. Trolls gave you all this, and now trolls are taking it away...
...to replace it with something better. Which trolls know is good enough to fight for, and perhaps be called names over.
The sysop-Democrats versus the Green-Nader-Commie-doper-libertrollians? What sane man would be on the Dims?
Damn right it's trolling. And so is every Supreme Court case. Larry Flynt is a troll. John Gilmore is a troll. We are all trolls, when we come up against systems that have nothing to justify their authority, except authority itself.
Join the trolls. Abandon logins. Abandon names. Borrow IP numbers. Attack. ATTACK! A T T A C K ! ! !
YEAEEEAARRRGH! he's sticking to the Democrat, and that it's so important to beat Bush and that the world will be so nice when Democrats are in control again, that ... that... nothing. It's a glob of nothing. But at least it's more eloquent than "yeaaarrargh!" (trolls kind of liked that scary war-whoop!)
Yes, it feels a lot like trolling, because Nader *IS* trolling, the entire political system.
ALL DISSIDENTS ARE TROLLS (though not all trolls are dissidents). Today we see real live trolls in the streets, just like the sans-culottes or the Boston Tea Party or Battle of Seattle. Trolls on the net. Trolls, trolls, trolls, destroying your worthless legal and political system and your senile constitution. Trolls of change. Trolls of yeeaararargh. Trolls everywhere. If not for trolls, you'd have no democracy now, no rights, no appeal against power's decisions, no system at all. Trolls gave you all this, and now trolls are taking it away...
...to replace it with something better. Which trolls know is good enough to fight for, and perhaps be called names over.
The sysop-Democrats versus the Green-Nader-Commie-doper-libertrollians? What sane man would be on the Dims?
Damn right it's trolling. And so is every Supreme Court case. Larry Flynt is a troll. John Gilmore is a troll. We are all trolls, when we come up against systems that have nothing to justify their authority, except authority itself.
Join the trolls. Abandon logins. Abandon names. Borrow IP numbers. Attack. ATTACK! A T T A C K ! ! !
YEAEEEAARRRGH!
Well hmmmm...
Someone, I assumed a French citizen, posted in another thread what happened to the "left" in their previous elections: basically, to my knowledge, the "left" was so fragmented that a run-off was held between the candidate on the "right"--Chirac--and the one on the "far-right"--Le Pen. The left was left standing in the rain.
However one might want to explain what happened to the left, one simple and yet still important explanation is that the left-leaning folks decided to find more to disagree with than to agree with. Or, to state it another way, it may have been an important failure of pragmatism, basically lead by folks who are too certain they know what is wrong and what is right with everything (it seems that over the past 15 years such "certain" folks have tended more to aggregate to the "right").
Nader and others may think that this country needs open-heart surgery, perhaps even a lobotomy. My guess is, however, that most on the left--even "Progressives"--do not. What a shame that anti-Bush folks with these two views cannot at least join together to defeat Bush.
An interesting thought: those with the most pragmatists on either side of the ideological divide will win the election.
"Do you doubt that, if we used instant-runoff voting, the majority of Nader votes would runoff to the Democratic candidate?"
This is why I, in Australia, am perfectly happy to vote for the Greens, because I'm voting as my conscience dictates *and* I know it's not a completely wasted effort. Under your system, I'd more than likely not bother to vote at all.
Re: "Those with the most pragmatists on either side of the ideological divide will win"... I've always been suspicious of anyone who says "you have to look at the broader picture", as it almost always means you should overlook some injustice or questionable means. But in this case, the pragmatists represent the more narrow view, i.e., that of gaining meaningless temporary position, in the person of the prospective election of Kerry. Those who support Nader represent the broader picture, i.e., the possibility of fundamental political reform. If it is not a real possibility, then it is all immaterial, as we're all fucked.
I've had enough pragmatism, thanks. We're drowning in it.
Troll, sorry.
What I meant was that because the majority of the comments on all the Nader posts disagree with the original post, and explain the questionable logic behind the original posts, the original posts feel a lot like trolling.
there is no doubt that nader produced the bush presidency even tho a plurality voted for gore. now he wishes to do the same. if any progressive thinker believes that helping nader to achieve this goal is a positive for America, then i would urge them to consider the matter this way: assume three people decide who will be the President: Bush or a Democrat, and that persons one and two divide between the two. Then who do you choose? Nader is not an option because of course he is not going be tied for the victory in any event. Oh you don't like hard choices? Sorry, democracy is all about hard choices.
Sorry reed, Democracy isn't about hard choices. It is about making an extremely easy choice: "Which of these candidates most closely represents me?" For me, that is Nader. The problem is that our electoral system punishes ideologically similar groups.
Greg, there are two types of run-off elections. 1) If the candidate with the majority of the votes does not have over 50% of the vote, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and everyone votes again. 2) Everyone ranks the candidates in their order of preference. If one candidate does not have more than 50% of the vote, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and the votes of people who voted for the eliminated candidate are reallocated to their next most preferential candidate.
The first system often makes the voters of the eliminated candidate bitter toward the most ideologically similar candidate (Nader voters toward Gore, for instance). Many of these bitter candidates just don't vote. The second system solves this by making people vote for every candidate while they have a clear head, not clouded by bitterness.
Which was used in France?
I'm glad people are passionate about this, but I'd like to ask us to take a step back and look at the electoral system. We have a two party system in this country. If A, E, and T run for office and each letter represents a place along a left right continum, then A & E are dividing their ground and handing the election to T.
The group in A through M will have more political power if they decide as a group who their candidate is and then run with a united front. This is a cabal or alliance like on Survivor.
If Nader has such powerful ideas than why not take his chances in a party nomination race. If Edwards wins the primary, I will not vote for a presidential candidate in November.
greg: Please take us through a list of issues where Bush is on one side and the Progressives and Democrats are on the other. Don't overgeneralize and continue to say how joining together to get Bush out of office will help us all, without supplying details from Democratic Party member's voting records and campaign funding sources. And don't just argue that Bush is so bad anyone would be better, because then you're not providing any reason to stand behind any candidate (which is the goal of your argument) you're only telling us why we shouldn't back Bush.
I'm disturbed that Progressives think media reform is such a big deal now but they rarely mention that in 1996 the Democrats joined the Republicans and supported the same kind of media deregulation they now criticize. This happened when a Democrat was president (didn't Democrats controlled Congress too?).
I am also disturbed that a majority of Democrats joined Republicans and voted to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq (or perhaps that authority went beyond Iraq and now the President, no matter who it is, has the authority to pre-emptively invade any country at any time without Congressional oversight). Some Democrats who voted for this are trying to play the blame game now and say that they didn't get good information (while millions of people who didn't get this information at all were in the streets protesting this war). Fortunately there are some Democrats who make the party look good, but there are far too few of them and only one of them is running for president (namely Kucinich).
Similar Democrat-Republican agreement happens around the USA PATRIOT Act, the Copyright Term Extension Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and both major parties collect large sums of campaign money from corporations who set the agenda regardless of what the people want. I remember these things and I don't understand why Progressives hesitate to bring them up when they'll count--at election time.
I can't gloss over these things so easily and conclude that a Democratic Party president would make things better (therefore I should support any of them with my vote). I've grown tired of the Democrats chasitizing Progressives for not voting for them. The Democrats should running candidates who can argue based on their record and persuade lost voters to come on board. So I wait for the Democrats to change their ways and I'm willing to apply pressure on them to give them a reason to change their ways by not voting for their candidates. Kucinich is an exception here--I plan to vote for Kucinich in the primaries because his voting record and campaign fund record is so much better than the other Democratic Party contenders. Who I'll vote for in the general election is still up in the air, but I'll need specifics on what good things the Democrats can offer before I'll be willing to vote for them.
this Wikipedia article on tolerances versus preferences and how voting systems can be designed to help voters express either, but it's a tradeoff, would assist much in the debate above. Some voting systems let you express your preferences safely. Others are about your tolerances. And some are lousy at both - consensus is that FPTP is one of these.
Sam Smith of the Progressive Review had some interesting comments on the Nader (non)issue. Scroll down to "The Democrats:Open Up or Shut Up."
A highlight:
They made no common cause with Greens on any issue.
They appointed no Greens to positions in federal, state or local government.
They took not one step to institute instant runoff voting which would have eliminated the problem they complained about.
Read it
David,
All the Nader supporters I have met understand this clearly. The problem is that the right has had so much push, the entire spectrum has shifted so far right that what used to be the left is now the center. In other words, we used to be E, but the Democrats have moved so far right that we're now A and the Democrats are E. Moving toward E (thus moving toward T) has no redeeming qualities while E moving toward A, while having some drawbacks, has many advantages.
You're entirely right to question why Nader doesn't run for the Democratic nomination (if you want a job done right, do it yourself). Nader won't run for the Democratic party nomination because Terry McAuliffe would never let Nader be the Democratic nominee. Just like he wouldn't let Dean be the nominee.
Drew says:
I think that's an overly-individualistic view of voting. I'd say instead the choice is, "What vote can I cast which does the most good?"
Jonathan quotes Sam Smith saying of the Democrats post-2002:
I think it would have been rather difficult for the Democrats to appoint Greens to positions in federal government, as the Democrats don't currently control the federal government. But I also wonder whether this statement is literally true.
Green counts of local Green officeholders are inflated--why wouldn't their counts of local Greens appointed by Democrats be understated? This is a partisan issue, and the Greens have demonstrated that, while they aren't too hip on most political tactics, they do understand partisan infighting.
Kerry the born-again unilateralist says that "as president, he would work with America's allies to make the nation and the world safer, but he would not be hampered by them or beholden to them.
"Allies give us more hands in the struggle, but no president would ever let them tie our hands and prevent us from doing what must be done," Kerry said. Gee hands but no brains, no voices, and no hesitation of theirs is allowed to count it seems:
"As president, I pledge to you, I'll never wait for a green light from abroad, from any other institution, if our safety and security are legitimately at stake."
He also uses the phrase War on Terror as if it were real, has no seeming objection to Bush's inventing new weapons or funding new technologies primarily useful for weapons, and claims he will send 40,000 more troops to Iraq, and says he is convinced of his "capacity to leverage a more effective multilateral effort" on behalf of the country."
Hmm. Let's see: all the rich countries in the world doing what America wants, on behalf of America, with America able to do whatever it wants and discard even just their advice if the President so chooses. Yes, this is unilateralism, Empire, or whatever you want to call what Bush is doing. The same.
The exact same. Seems that even to get a debate on real issues, it requires not even Nader vs. a Democrat, but, Nader vs. a Green. And this year, that's where the real issues will actually be debated: between Nader, and the Green (likely David Cobb or Peter Camejo). Who will presumably agree that one does not achieve national security by imposing global insecurity. Though it's not clear anyone will be allowed to hear them debate.
woops this is the Moron Terror link, sorry
no this is it, hmm - this is why blogs are bad and wikis are good. Can't edit what you write.
From Swans,
http://www.swans.com/library/art10/xxx106.html:
With all due respect to Mr. Dean and the lib-labs out there, could you cease and desist? Fran Shor, we do not need to hear from you that in 2000, it was, "if not now for Nader and alternatives to politics as usual, when?" and in 2004, "our historic responsibility is to defeat Bush." Do you have any sense or knowledge of history, Mr. Shor? And the same question could be asked from patronizers such as Marc Cooper, Todd Gitlin, Ted Glick, Norman Solomon, Lawrence Lessig, Doug Ireland, Michael Bérubé, Paul Loeb (and that's just a sample), the condescending editors at The Nation, and all these "good" people who will whore themselves into yet another book contract, a kitchen remodel, a vacation around the world, and a grant from the Ford Foundation or George Soros -- or the CIA. What these people have been up to for the past couple of years is a subtle but quite methodical strategy to gut the Greens and defeat all efforts to break away from the undemocratic bicephalous system (an issue that has largely been ignored and should deserve further scrutiny).
Sure, but with the Pentagon even starting to sing a Green tune, who cares what The Nation or other shrill lib-left nonsense pandermedia says?
The issue is the planet we live on, the climate we live in. That transcends left/right. One reasonably intelligent centrist city council candidate with the evidence for climate change in hand and read through, is more than an intellectual match for all "the Left" put together. Greens are not "left", it just happens that there are more leftists in the Greens right now for historical reasons (the left wing woke up to the issue first).
Now that Nader is running independent, nothing stops the Greens from nominating a centrist and pulling right wing votes.
Still no deal links to the Green Party (one of the Green Parties, anyway) claiming to hear "the Pentagon even starting to sing a Green tune".
That's a partisan interpretation. The report in question was not predictive but conjectural: Not This will! but What if?
There's good evidence climate change may be building now and requires immediate action--this report just doesn't happen to be part of it.
It is sensational, though, so it's not a surprise that cynical politicos use it for its propaganda value. That's a real pity, because muddying the waters with RIOTS! WAR! FAMINE! SOMETHING HORRIBLE RIGHT AWAY! keeps us from discussing what actions to take.
P.S. I forgot where I heard this, but I do know George Bush's newest campaign slogan:
Why change horsemen in the middle of the apocalypse?
(Professor Lessig is long-winded and
otherwise incompetent in public rhetoric...
THEREFORE -- whatever his position --
it is without consequence. {serious smile})
As for the election
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR that worthless coward, Kerry.
Vietnam?
OK ... That worthless coward, Babykiller Kerry.
I think Nader running as an Independant candidate will hurt the Republicans more than the Dems.
America will be coming out of 4 years with George Bush that had more surprises and social change than any I can remember since the Reagan era and we are out of the Cold War now into another even more frightful war.
Ralph Nader is a person who has made a living looking out for the consumer and in my mind, what better person to have presiding over the people in America than him.
It is a shame that our political system is so stale and out of touch with today's modern world that a person with Nader's reputation and commitment to the people of the United States can not even get a fair chance to be president.
with the
with the
bajar
Democrats keep crying about Nader.
Well, Nader ran in 1996 as a Green as well, and the last time I checked, IT DIDN'T PUT A REPUBLICAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE, Bill Clinton still won!
Why?
Because Bill Clinton was the type of candidate who could get around Nader, and he had more "CROSSOVER APPEAL."
In 2000, Nader hurt Gore because Gore was a terrible, STIFF, ALOOF (sound familiar) candidate. Nader hurts Kerry because he is everything that Gore was, plus a total elitist, he and his wife who's ACCENT IS DUE TO DOOM KERRY EVEN MORE IN 2004. That about her accent may sound foolish, but stuff like that will turn off voters, and play right into the "ELITIST" portrayal of Kerry.
AND DUH, BUSH IS AN ELITIST TOO, DUH! But at least his simplemindedness and LAURA BUSH make him look like a "REGULAR GUY" to a lot of voters. Kerry doesn't, and he can't, no matter how many footballs he throws.
Now, back to Nader. He'll hurt Kerry, because Kerry is GORELIKE!
He wouldn't have hurt Edwards, who is Clinton like, just like he didn't hurt Clinton.
Kerry can't take away votes from Bush, EDWARDS WAS DOING IT EVEN DURING THE PRIMARIES, and he definitely would have done it in November...
...Democrats got what they wanted. A terrible general election candidate, and now they need to just shut up and take it. Anyone with a brain should have known that Edwards was a better general election candidate than John "I DON'T WEAR WELL" Kerry.
Like I told the people at DU, I'll eventually be back to tell you, "I told you so."
i am still nonplussed a the general lack of sophistication with regard to US presidential elections and the Electoral College.
Nader harms Kerry and helps Bush not at all in 80% of states. In the contested states, like Ohio, Pennsylvania, new Mexico, maybe Wisconsin and even Colorado (Bush is near certain to take all the energy states) this slices of voters coudl turn the election as it did in new hampshire in 2000. And there is a slight difference between Kerry and Bush, and that slight difference make Kerry the better choice for the self-interest of 90+% of voters.
In most states, where there is no Dem /'Pub contest, nader harms his former allies the Green Party and its candidates David Cobb / Pat Lamarche. Green parties, like the Green-Rainbow in Massachusetts need to poll adequate numbers to retain ballot access. In that contest, Nader is obviously a spoiler.