This Party

24 February 2008

Is That a Real LIberal I See?

Nope, just Ralph Nader. Drat.

Labels: , ,

posted by Nate at 21:11

5 Comments:

  • Do you think McCain is paying him to jump in and make 2008 like 2000?

    If not: Nader-Paul 2008? (With Kucinich as Secretary of Alien Affairs, of course.)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sun Feb 24, 09:59:00 PM GMT  

  • I wish! Actually I think this will strengthen the GOP position over either Hillary or Obama - oh gee, yea, McCain [please note the HEAVY use of sarcasm here].

    Here's a thought, Lets let true democratic process occur - Let McCain, Huckabee, Obama, Hillary, Nader, and any other mickey mouser run who wants to run, run. Who said that a party must absolutely support onyl one candidate!? I realize some may say that this would cause too huge a rift in party lines, but I disagree - Let any candidate or number of candidates run for any number of parties, WITH THE AGREEMENT THAT: the winner - chosen by electoral college vote be givent he support due them at the conclusion of the election, and let them be recognized as having obtained the majority vote - PERIOD.

    Here's a second thought - what IF the proposed "majority" only consisted of a mere 30%, or 21% ? What then?

    Obviously we know what would happen in reality, but...dare I say it...maybe our system of election needs to be tweaked/refined or [gasp] changed!

    Wow! I am really starting to scare myself here!

    By Blogger ProLPconserve, at Sun Feb 24, 10:27:00 PM GMT  

  • I think that Nader is probably paying himself to do it. Strange bird, that.

    It's interesting to think about different methods of election. I have in mind to make a post about that sometime, because every physicist I know has her own idea. A few are real hoots.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Mon Feb 25, 04:55:00 AM GMT  

  • Yeah, I don't know. Right about now, Nader ain't lookin so bad.

    I liked McCain 8 years ago when he was actually a straight talker. His "hoping Fidel meets Marx soon" is just a little silly.

    As for Obama and Clinton, I've tried watching their debates, but they're almost more boring than the Gore-Bush debates. I turn it on with the intention to really see what the differences are and what they actually stand for...what they'll do while in office, then they start talking. Before a minute is up, they've lost my interest with their grand introduction about how they understand the plight of the working man. Now, if any of them actually meant it or maybe said it quickly then got to their point quickly and concisely, I might give a damn and be able to keep watching. Unfortunately, they both seem to suffer from Kerry syndrome and can't say what they mean and make an actual point in under 15 minutes.

    If it keeps up this way, I might just go all Nader....like I did back in '00. Nader-Paul...we'll see.

    As for my thoughts on elections. I haven't thought it fully through or come up with a new method, just a minor tweak and I may have already said this. Add a vote of "no confidence." This way people could make it clear that they actually want to vote for one candidate as opposed to against another. Also, we know if people actually like the third party candidate or just hate the other two. Additionally, if the vote of no confidence is greater than the other two candidates, then we have a new election without either candidate. Just a thought!

    By Blogger John E., at Mon Feb 25, 08:52:00 PM GMT  

  • ProLP,

    I'm probably not remembering this correctly, but assuming that there were multiple candidates and no one of them received a majority of the votes of the electoral college, doesn't the House then choose the President?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wed Feb 27, 12:55:00 AM GMT  

Post a Comment

<< Home