River Valley Blogs

Clever wrote on Mar 8, 2008 7:10 AM:

" guys, real clever... "

rick harsch wrote on Feb 27, 2008 9:03 AM:

" Wasn't it Chip DeNure who ran against 'Kind'?. "

Bugs to 9:36 pm wrote on Feb 27, 2008 8:06 AM:

" I think you're confusing me with someone else. "

Slider wrote on Feb 27, 2008 5:38 AM:

" Nader is probally put there by the far right as a sponge for votes. "

To Bugs wrote on Feb 26, 2008 9:36 PM:

" When you ran against Kind, why didn't you run as an Independent then? "

Michael Welch: Ralph Was PUMPED By The Media In 2000 To Help W... wrote on Feb 26, 2008 2:38 PM:

" People forget I think that Gore WON the popular vote in 2000; obviously Nader took some votes from Gore in Florida but wouldn't Buchanan have done the same re: W? Besides the 'machinery' for stealing was set up in advance -- it had to be -- and many black voters had been falsely harassed as 'felons' and the rolls in minority and poor areas were ordered 'cleaned up' (purged really) by that Jeb Bush-Harris junta. In New Mexico the targets were/are regularly hispanics and particularly Navajos and other native tribes -- they vote Democratic. But the supremes were needed to STOP the recount and end the 'controversy' and they voted right along party lines to do so... "

Whiskerflickins wrote on Feb 26, 2008 8:39 AM:

" I'm not a teacher or lawyer so the Democrats don't do much for me. I'm no longer a businessman and I'm not in the war business, so the republicans have nothing to offer. I do however, feel disgust at corruption, greed, and the lack of honest politicians that can't turn down dirty money. "

Bugs to Wakeup wrote on Feb 26, 2008 7:47 AM:

" Bingo. You got it right. The people are the sheep; the media, the shepard tending the flock to make sure it votes either Democrat or Republican. "

harsch wrote on Feb 26, 2008 7:22 AM:

" I essentially agree with wakeup, but it's of some importance that Jimmy Gillman hasn't decided anything--he just wrote a commonly held opinion among Democrats. The thing to balance is the essential status quo of Obama and Clinton versus the potential danger of McCain. This is the kind of ugly choice forced on US voters each election, only perhaps worse each time. Practically, a vote for Nader will probably mean very little as he won't get even 1% again as he's old hat, and as a perpetual runner coming off somewhat buffoonish. A write in campaign for Kucinich led by Nader might have been a better idea. "

wakeup wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:11 AM:

" I disagree. Candidates who are seriously bringing up these big issues are increasingly marginalized by the media who bring us the framing of the campaign. Kucinich? out. Paul? marginalized. Edwards? ignored. Ralph has a right to run and try to bring some of these most important issues (do we need to spend more on our military than every other country in the world combined? Barry O, Hill and McCain all want BIGGER militaries!) If you don't like him, don't vote for him. But don't decide for the rest of us who we can and can't hear, who we can and can't vote fore. "

harsch to ignorance wrote on Feb 25, 2008 5:58 PM:

" Cliches are not strength, so don't cry over spilt herrings. "

To CJD wrote on Feb 25, 2008 3:30 PM:

" You're saying babies being killed is unimportant? Without life, all other issues are rendered meaningless. "

Bugs to Ignorance wrote on Feb 25, 2008 3:07 PM:

" Your insights are on target. The political system is not designed to serve the interests of the people. Its function is to maintain corporate power, at the expense of the people. No wonder the electorate is ticked off...but there's not a damn thing we can do about it. "

Bugs Raplin wrote on Feb 25, 2008 2:53 PM:

" 3rd party candidates have no chance of winning presidential elections; The Democrat/Republican monopoly on power will continue because they have the money. Politics is all about money, not ideas or issues. Money! "

Ignorance is Strength wrote on Feb 25, 2008 2:31 PM:

" Where are the citizens outraged and disenfranchised by the current 2 party system and the political sway being held in the hands of the almighty dollar (corporate contributions/pandering, lobbyists and party lines controlling agendas)? Hoping for change (no I'm not copping Obama-speak here) and some kind of progressivism will have to start with realizing that we need better and more options on our ballots. Your views may or may not align with Nadar, but I, for one, applaud any third party candidates that provide some diversity from the homogeny of the Demo-publican hegemony. We like our easily digestible political definers: red, blue, conser/mod/lib, and socialist (ooh, what a threatening label to some). If one would like to continue deceiving yourself into thinking that these naive distinctions offer diverse options, do some research and see who's controlling the agenda. You'll be shocked to find many major U.S. corporations backing both parties. "

Ignorance is Strength wrote on Feb 25, 2008 2:23 PM:

" You've got to be kidding me, Jimmy. The democratic loss of Florida in 2000 is the worst excuse for exclusion of a third party candidate. Why do you insist on crying over spilt milk and then attributing its cause to some red herring?

I also vehemently oppose your assertion that issues are being covered. When you look at media coverage of this election (including this blog), the main subjects are political strategy, who's pandering to which target groups, and updates on the perpetual mudslinging and dramatic arc (i.e. Hillary's tears, race/gender issues) of the "race." It's appalling to me the lack of issues/solutions being addressed in this campaign given the amount of dissatisfaction you see in the general populace. "

justaguess wrote on Feb 25, 2008 2:11 PM:

" when, "Grumpy Old Men," meet "Brokeback Mountain." It will be a hit in the making Jimmy... "

"Yer pays yer money... wrote on Feb 25, 2008 1:51 PM:

" and yer picks yer candidate", as someone repeatedly states... "

CJD wrote on Feb 25, 2008 12:32 PM:

" To: Question
I think you should just focus on important issues. "

TO:Michael Welch wrote on Feb 25, 2008 12:05 PM:

" You are correct that the Republicans essentially stole the elections, but if Ralph hadn't been in the mix, it wouldn't have been issue. "

Michael Welch: Yeah Maybe... wrote on Feb 25, 2008 12:05 PM:

" The Socialist party is running candidates -- Brian Moore and Stewart Alexander -- and they may be on the Arizona ballot. I suppose I could vote for them then but obviously that vote would be even more miniscule than those for Nader! Nader is not an avowed 'soshie' of course but his views are more 'socialistic' than many others and whatever 'advantage' there would be in casting it for Ralph would lie in the numbers and the consequent media attention -- meaning probably Nader would rate an asterick I guess while the Socialist party would be 'invisible' essentially... "

rick harsch wrote on Feb 25, 2008 11:58 AM:

" It is a strange move, strange timing, by Nader. A viable third (fourth, fifth) party would be nice, but I don't know what he's done to establish one recently. His efforts for consumers should not be forgotten, but I think his candidacy will be. "

To:Michael Welch wrote on Feb 25, 2008 11:35 AM:

" Is there someone on the Socialist Party ticket? Would you vote for them?
"

Michael Welch: More About 2000 & 2004... wrote on Feb 25, 2008 10:31 AM:

" Also re: Florida if the supreme court had permitted (as it should) a completed recount Gore would have won. The election wasn't so much affected by Nader's or Buchanan's votes (Pat Buchanan folks tend to forget was the Reform party candidate in 2000) as it was by the machinations of Jeb Bush as the brother governor and Kathleen Harris as the sec'y of the state, the office that controls and regulates a state's voting. In 2000 Nader got about 2% of the vote nation wide; in 2004 something under .03%; still the Repubs were able to manipulate voting qualifications and final counts in Ohio, Florida and New Mexico so to construct another Bush victory. These elections were not 'stolen' by Ralph Nader... "

DJ: wrote on Feb 25, 2008 10:16 AM:

" ...a life in search of a life. Still crazy after all these years. "

Michael Welch: What's It All About -- Ralphie?!... wrote on Feb 25, 2008 10:15 AM:

" Oh gee Jim I don't know that good ol' Ralph is such a distraction; it's not that issues aren't 'discussed' so much as it is that the solutions and proposals are inadequate. I think for instance Hillary's health care plan is better than Obama's (it would require coverage for all; Obama's would mandate only for children apparently) but neither is presenting the BEST idea which would be a Canadian style single payer. Maybe Ralph would. Also the wars are often 'finessed' the closer one gets to actual power; a candidate 'pushing' from 'the left' keeps some focus on real withdrawal. And lastly if some of us just finally get disgusted with BOTH Repub and Demo candys by Nov we can mark for Ralphie. Welcome back Mr Nader I say!... "

Question wrote on Feb 25, 2008 9:46 AM:

" What is his position on women killing their babies or the idea we came from monkeys? We haven't discussed those two things in awhile. "

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »