Nader Supporters Blame Electoral Defeat On Bush, Kerry

[shereads]

WASHINGTON, DC—Supporters of presidential candidate Ralph Nader blamed his defeat Tuesday on George W. Bush and John Kerry, claiming that the two candidates "ate up" his share of the electoral votes. "This election was stolen out from under Mr. Nader by Bush and Kerry, who diverted his votes to the right and the left," Nader campaign manager Theresa Amato said. "It's an outrage. If Nader were the only candidate, he would be president right now." In his concession speech, Nader characterized Bush and Kerry as spoilers.

www.theonion.com

 

[shereads]

I'd give just about anything right now to sit in a room with Al Franken, Dave Letterman, Molly Ivans, Hunter Thompson, James Carville, Bill Clinton, Conan O'Brian, Garrison Keillor, some guest leftists from other countries, and a few friends from Literotica. I'd make passion fruit martinis. Hunter Thompson would break out some ether he's been saving for a special occasion. We'd laugh, we'd cry, we'd comfort each other by listing popular things that suck. Jay Leno, for example.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Well, Al Franken did a guest appearance on Dave Letterman. He was still sticking it to Limbaugh and O'Reilly.

BTW: He mentioned his Radio Program. Anyone know, does he have a new regular program, or is RadioFreeAmerica still going?

Damn Slow Dial-Up Modem!

 

[minsue]

Well, Al Franken did a guest appearance on Dave Letterman. He was still sticking it to Limbaugh and O'Reilly.

BTW: He mentioned his Radio Program. Anyone know, does he have a new regular program, or is RadioFreeAmerica still going?

Damn Slow Dial-Up Modem!

He's on Air America, I believe.

 

[lucy camden]

LOL...very very funny.....mr. nader should take heart, though: three of my friends voted for him, so mr. nader can at least point to three votes that he got from the state of washington......

 

[Colleen Thomas]

i find it odd, that in a race wehre both candidates were so utterly forgettable, no viable thrid party candidate emerged. If President were not a step down for him, I think Michael jordan could have won this year.

-Colly

 

[shereads]

i find it odd, that in a race wehre both candidates were so utterly forgettable, no viable thrid party candidate emerged. If President were not a step down for him, I think Michael jordan could have won this year.

-Colly

I don't know if anyone could have defeated a wartime president. You're the historian; have we ever dumped a president during a war?

Edited to add: As to the lack of a viable third-party candidate, consider what the next president would have inherited: the helm of the Titanic in the moments just after the nightwatch sounded the iceberg alarm. Full momentum and no brakes.
What's surprising to me isn't the lack of a viable third-party candidate, but that there were any candidates.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I don't know if anyone could have defeated a wartime president. You're the historian; have we ever dumped a president during a war?

Edited to add: As to the lack of a viable third-party candidate, consider what the next president would have inherited: the helm of the Titanic in the moments just after the nightwatch sounded the iceberg alarm. Full momentum and no brakes.
What's surprising to me isn't the lack of a viable third-party candidate, but that there were any candidates.

The only "war time" president that comes to mind would be Buchanon. Of course we weren't at war with ourselves, but the meassage had been sent loud and clear we would be, if Lincoln was elected.

We have, however changed parties during undeclared wars, witness the election of Nixxon during Vietnam. Certainly the war on terror qualifies as one of those nebulous undeclared war scenarios, where we have no recognizeable enemy state.

A third party candidate may have had no shot, with both theleft and the right screaming this was a make of break election, but I know a lot of Dems held their noses when they voted for Kerry and a lot of GOP moderates did the same with Bush. I honestly believe a centrist party, with atainable goals and a less radical stance on issues would ahve stood a good chance this time around.

-Colly

 

[shereads]

True, we changed parties during Vietnam, but LBJ had chosen not to run for reelection so "the devil you know" was not an option. Bush I screwed up by ending his war too quickly. If Bush II had been right when he declared the end of combat a year ago, he would have had to fan the Terror flames with more than just Orange Alerts to make up for it. The Christian evangelicals who registered and voted Tuesday gave Bush the larger margin, but at the core, it's still possible he'd have won on the fear vote alone.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

True, we changed parties during Vietnam, but LBJ had chosen not to run for reelection so "the devil you know" was not an option. Bush I screwed up by ending his war too quickly. If Bush II had been right when he declared the end of combat a year ago, he would have had to fan the Terror flames with more than just Orange Alerts to make up for it. The Christian evangelicals who registered and voted Tuesday gave Bush the larger margin, but at the core, it's still possible he'd have won on the fear vote alone.

he did win on the fear vote. Domestic fear was just as much a factor as the fear of terror.

 

[razor_nut]

he did win on the fear vote. Domestic fear was just as much a factor as the fear of terror.

Yeah the only thing that could've been a bigger fear is if Kim Jong Il and Osama Bin Laden announced they were "life partners".

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Colleen Thomas
he did win on the fear vote

Maybe not. Maybe more voting Americans liked him, his policies, his plans, or his intentions more than the other two guys.

 

[razor_nut]

Maybe not. Maybe more voting Americans liked him, his policies, his plans, or his intentions more than the other two guys.

Then again, maybe not.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by razor_nut
Then again, maybe not.

Very true... makes statements claiming conclusiveness highly suspect. Better to say "may" then "did", in such, no?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Maybe not. Maybe more voting Americans liked him, his policies, his plans, or his intentions more than the other two guys.

I thought we had established that I'm not playing your stupid semantic games, nor am I interested in your long, convoluted defenses of the obvious. When you take half a thread arguing that GWB might be bringing us closer to perfection, get your ass handed to you several times and retreat into defnding the word might in the statement as providing possiblity of it being correct, you have ceased to be anything in my mind other than a nuisance.

Kindly refrain from quoting me and I will return to ignoring you out of hand.

thank you for your time and attention.

-Colly

 

[BigAndTall]

I don't know if anyone could have defeated a wartime president. You're the historian; have we ever dumped a president during a war?

Edited to add: As to the lack of a viable third-party candidate, consider what the next president would have inherited: the helm of the Titanic in the moments just after the nightwatch sounded the iceberg alarm. Full momentum and no brakes.
What's surprising to me isn't the lack of a viable third-party candidate, but that there were any candidates.

Well depending how you look at it the US Army was practically at war the whole time from about 1845-1890 in the west.

You could also look at the US war with the Phillepino guerillas from about 1895-1900.

Both were similar to the current conflict with the notable exceptions of.

1. The lack of a media that shows you real time war footage.

2. (and I am not sure about this) Those wars were popular.

 

[Guest]

Just here to say I thought the thread said "NaNo supporters..."

Perdita

 

[razor_nut]

Just here to say I thought the thread said "NaNo supporters..."

Perdita

LOL now the trap is sprung! Forever are you trapped in a political thread!

 

[shereads]

Yeah the only thing that could've been a bigger fear is if Kim Jong Il and Osama Bin Laden announced they were "life partners".

They do make a cute couple.

 

[Weird Harold]

We have, however changed parties during undeclared wars, witness the election of Nixxon during Vietnam.

Eisenhower won his first term by his stand on the Korean Conflict. Truman wasn't elgible to run again, so it's a another case of changing parties rather than ousting a sitting President running for re-election.

A qucik review of Whitehouse.gov's list of presidential biography's doesn't reveal any modern examples of a sitting president being unseated during an armed conflict.

 

[Guest]

LOL now the trap is sprung! Forever are you trapped in a political thread!

Help! Pops, Mat, Gauche, Mack: Get me out! - Perdita

 

[shereads]

Very true... makes statements claiming conclusiveness highly suspect. Better to say "may" then "did", in such, no?

You haven't read much about your boy, have you. There is no factual evidence that George W. Bush's policies have or will benefit anybody but the rich.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

They do make a cute couple.

Aren’t they! Sort of like the two main characters in Rudyard Kipling's “Rikki-Tikki-Tavi.”