<a HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/27/politics/campaign/27green.html">Greens Pick a Candidate Not Named Nader</a> <i> MILWAUKEE, June 26 - The Green Party of the United States rebuffed efforts by Ralph Nader to win its endorsement for president by voting Saturday to make David Cobb, a longtime party activist, its 2004 presidential candidate. Mr. Cobb, 41, immediately reached out to Mr. Nader, who drew 3 percent of the national vote when he was the party's nominee in 2000, as well as to Mr. Nader's Green supporters, asking them to put what had been a raucous convention battle behind them. "Ralph Nader has had more influence on my life than any human being who is not related to me," said an ebullient Mr. Cobb, flashing the peace sign to cheering supporters in the grand ballroom of the Midwest Airlines Center here. "Ralph, if you are watching, thank you for what you have done, and thank you for what you will continue to do." Many Democrats have blamed Mr. Nader's 2000 candidacy for costing Al Gore, the Democratic nominee, the White House, since Mr. Nader drew more votes in some crucial states than the gap between Mr. Gore and President Bush. This image as a spoiler party is particularly irksome to Green leaders, who say it is false. Still, eager not to be viewed once again as spoilers, many Green supporters here were pushing for a strategy in which their presidential candidate would actively campaign only in those states where a Republican or Democratic victory is all but assured. Mr. Cobb, in fact, has said he will campaign for other Green candidates in all 50 states, but for himself in only the 40 states he deems "safe." In the battleground states, where votes for him might tip the balance, he said he would ask voters to let their consciences guide them, a suggestion that was interpreted by Mr. Nader's supporters as permission to vote for the presumptive Democratic nominee, John Kerry. Mr. Cobb describes himself as a self-made activist. Born in "grinding poverty" on the Texas Gulf Coast, he went to law school and worked for the party in Texas before moving to Eureka, Calif. Two years ago, he said, he gave up a successful career as a trial lawyer to dedicate himself to party activities. Mr. Nader did not seek the Green Party nomination this year, asking instead that the party nominate no one and then endorse his candidacy as part of a strategy to collect endorsements from several independent groups, including the Reform Party. He did not make an appearance at the convention and was represented in Milwaukee by his vice-presidential running mate, Peter M. Camejo, a veteran Green Party activist from California. In his speech to delegates before the voting, Mr. Camejo appealed for unity. It took two rounds of voting here on Saturday for Mr. Cobb to emerge with 408 delegates, compared with 308 for "no nominee" and 54 for other candidates. Only a victory for "no nominee" would have allowed Mr. Nader's supporters to push for a party endorsement. The sprawling convention hall was filled with party banners and delegates from more than 40 states. There was a traditional roll call of the states, just as there is at Republican and Democratic conventions, though the colorful opening declarations from each state had a somewhat different flavor. New York, for instance, described itself as "home of Wall Street and unbridled corporate greed." And the official spokesman for Indiana said that his state stretched "from the shores of polluted Lake Michigan in the north to the clear-cut banks of the Ohio River in the south, with many other sins in between."</i>
God, will you whining socialists go to Europe with all of your fellow travelers and quit trying to screw up my country....please?
Why don't you go to Europe, with your bombastic rants, and make a speaking tour to attempt to reform all the "socialists and fellow travelers." I'm sure you will be welcomed. Good grief, you sound like a bad parody of Saturday Night Live doing a skit on Joe McCarthy. Do you seriously imagine that we find this stuff funny, bama?? Thanks for the info, Mango.
Let me understand this: Pointing out a problem in America is screwing the country up, and those who do so should leave...is that right? And this problem you're pointing out...which occurs in America...is that an example of you, screwing up the country? Or are you and those whose political slant agrees with yours the only ones allowed to criticize anything American without you deeming it a problem?
If all the manufacturing jobs left this country, that would take care of almost all of the pollution problems, right?
Sorry Macbeth, but I for one won't allow the United States as I know it become a pyscho-psuedo socialistic haven for those who want the ideals in other countries!...If you love O' Canada so much and it's processes, then go there...Think Norway is the model way? then get out, go live there... The United States is all about our rights including the 2nd admendment, and less government ideals which infringe the people...but hethonistic persons with communistic/socialistic favorable tendencies wish to distort the fabric and framework of how our country was envisioned to be, and it is this nature of thought that is utterly unacceptable! To argue and debate the direction and allocation of resources as it deals with the people and the government is truly acceptable, but as long as it doesn't infringe or alter the nature and scope of the United States' governmental framework.... We hate the foreign way because...we are ALL foreigners! We have been there and elsewhere, (from our heritage) and we decided it sucks out there, so we come here and we have received this gift from the almighty that is the eventuality of our rights and freedoms and this absolutely cannot change, and I know the vast majority of American citizens won't let it happen!
This is intellectual rubbish. Most of of us Americans from European decent have to go back at least past our grandparents to find their European roots. From my own investigation into my family history, my European ancestors came for jobs in the 1800s. They were not making a political statement; they were looking to feed their families. If the jobs here evaporated, I strongly suspect that they would not be opposed to returning to Europe if they could find work there.
priceless. Hethonistic? Eskewing? You're on a seriesous roil. Your malaproppriateive screedches don't really help your cause, especially when you and bamaslammer start salivating over various shafts -- also you forgot the "T" at the end of your username.
There are so many things wrong with this, at first read I thought it a parody. Reads better that way. * The US, as it stands, is to the right of the political norm on the global spectrum. In that it is closer to fascism than socialism/communism. * This country was founded...founded by people trying to capture the ideals of other countries. I defy you to look at the foundations of this country without seeing reference or deriviation of Voltaire, the ancient Greeks, Rome etc. Can't be done. If the founding fathers had hated the foreign way as you do, we'd not be who we are. * If the United States can be said to be about any one thing, in truth, it isn't the limitation of power of a centralized government, but about the inalienable rights of every human being. Read any of our initial documents, and see where the priorization lies. How those rights are protected is a matter of political debate, not right wing factualization as you suggest. * Hethenistic? Ok, a little refresher here: Did those who founded this country side for or against the principle of being judged based on religious assosciation? For...or against? *To argue and debate the direction and allocation of resources as it deals with the people and the government is truly acceptable, but as long as it doesn't infringe or alter the nature and scope of the United States' governmental framework.... That's the best quote. A perfect rewording of the tried and true: "You have the right to say anything you want, so long as it doesn't disagree with what I believe in too much." * The foundation of this nation's immigration waves owes much, much more to a pursuit of economic opportunity than it does to a rejection of the ideals of the lands they were leaving. Study early America, or look at the social polarization of most immigrant waves and what you will see is that, for the vast majority, immigrants sought, as best they could, to recreate their homelands in America. Think of cultural regions in cities...think of why certain parts of America have differeng cultures than other parts, and how much that refects the differing cultures of their primary immigrants places of origin. Look at the eforts of immigrants groups, when enfranchised, to affect legislative change to reflect or allow relfection of their own culture.
Here's the rather bizarre reaction of Nadir to the Green Party deciding to nominate another as it's candidate. Typical crazy spin by Nadir... Nadir Plays Down Green Party Rebuff By David Finkel Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, June 28, 2004; Page A06 A day after not getting the Green Party's endorsement for president, Ralph Nadir brushed off the rejection as an inconvenience, described the party as "strange," called the party's national nominating convention "a cabal" and predicted who the big loser in its decision not to endorse him would be. "The benefit was really for the Green Party," Nadir said yesterday of what an endorsement of him would have meant. "I don't want to exaggerate it, so I'll just say massively more." Endorsing him, Nadir said, would have meant higher visibility and better fundraising opportunities for the party. Because of his vice presidential running mate, Peter Miguel Camejo, it also had the potential to attract Latino voters. Instead, by nominating Texas attorney David Cobb, Nadir said, the party that made him its candidate in 1996 and 2000 will "shrink in its dimension" and "has jettisoned [itself] out of any influence on the Democratic Party." Long before the nominating convention convened in Milwaukee over the weekend, Nadir had made clear he did not want to be the party nominee for a third time because he is trying to expand his appeal. His hope was that the party would end up nominating no one and would instead endorse him, which would have helped get his name on ballots in 22 states and the District where the Green Party has secured space for a name. Now that space will go to Cobb, leaving Nadir the task of getting his name on those ballots one state at a time, a time-consuming and potentially expensive effort, particularly when Democrats have suggested they would be scrutinizing Nadir's every attempt and would not be shy about filing legal challenges. Nonetheless, Nadir played down the effects of not getting the endorsement as he headed toward Washington state, where 20 volunteers with signs reading "Does your candidate support gay marriage?" were hoping to secure enough signatures at a gay pride parade to put Nadir on that state's ballot. "Most of them are modestly easy to get onto," he said of the bulk of the Green Party states. He also questioned Cobb's pledge to campaign for local and state Green candidates in all 50 states but to avoid campaigning for himself in any state where polls show a close race between President Bush and Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.). Nadir, who received almost 3 percent of the votes in the 2000 election, has been criticized by some Democrats as having cost Al Gore the election; Cobb's strategy suggests the Green Party does not want to be cast again as a spoiler. Nadir, however, said he will avoid no state, and his campaign spokesman Kevin Zeese said he expects Nadir's name to be on ballots in nearly all of the states. "If you're trying to build a political movement, you don't turn your backs on people who happen to live in so-called close states," Nadir said. "Our plan is to get as many votes nationally as possible. "We're campaigning all-out." As for the Green Party, he said, "I wish them well." A 21st Century Schizoid Man. No doubt about it.
What I care, and am refering to is the time of the founding of the United States and the nature, framework, and scope of the envisioned governmental process that is bestowed upon us from generation to succeeding generation... This is the Unted States of America which is derived from basic principles that was realized from foreigners when the bill of rights, the constitution was conceived...These basic principles dealt with rights, and the unique nature of the relationship between the people and the government...and the consequence of this creation was the limitation, yet assurance of governmental influence as it deals with freedom and accompanying rights...It is this history that is the fruition of what makes us great.
* Your calling a democracy closer to facism than socialism/communism is a parody since I see no closeness to either... * The founding fathers may have been tuned to insignificant aspects from other nations at that time, but they absolutely wanted a nation created like no other which based the scope, nature, and framework of the governmental process on a democracy which underscores rights and freedoms... * Our governmental relationship and process is based on the bill of rights, and the constitution. The vision of the protection of our rights and freedoms as conceived is based on intentional limitation by the United States government as it relates to regulation, and the less the better was understood...However, the protection of those rights is indefinite...I hope you understand this distinction...Our founding fathers knew overdone interference and regulation is purely infringement and a blatant attack on our inalienable rights...Protecting rights which infringe other rights is not acceptable! * I won't throw a roil at you like Sam enjoys doing when he isn't laughing at himself, but I will say the hedons out there that want our government to change without regard for others are just that! * You can believe a socialistic/communistic type of government is grand, but the implentation of your desire as it relates to what we have here in the United States is wishful thinking on a hedonistic level... * Economic advantages are always alluring, but what is greater is freedom and rights which cannot be taken away! This is what the United States is all about, and this is who we are...
democracy doesn't preclude socialism/communism. One deals with money, and the other with elections. What does hedonism have to do with Socialism/Communism? Why would Socialism be any more or less hedonistic than the govt. we have in the U.S.?
* A democracy is the better form of government!...Real Americans have no doubt about this... A democracy is a different form of government than a communistic or socialistic type of government...The democracy that is ingrained here in the United States is an assurance of rights, liberties, and freedoms moreso than any other country in the world...Our manner of goverance is flexible, but the limitation of government is the essence of what makes us different and better...and what makes America the great country it is! * Hedonistic minded people want to change my great country into something else for ideals which concern themselves at the expense of others, and the fiber of what I am endeared to is the limiting government which is indefinitely supportive of my rights and freedoms...This aspect is the intended scope, nature, and framework the founding fathers envisioned as a benefit for it's citizens...I'm not addressing the establishment of differing types of governmental processes, but I contend the continuance of what we have in it's basic form of a limiting government by the people, for the people with assured rights and freedoms is a value which must be unshakable and undeniable for me and my fellow citizens...
I'm not sure which you don't understand. Either you don't understand what a democracy is or you don't understand socialism. Most socialist countries are in fact democracies. I agree with you that the principles of the United States of America make this a great country. Among those is the pursuit justice, and truth. The truth is that a country can easily tax the wealthy heavily, provide for the needs of the poor, and still be an elected government. If that is the will of the people and the type of the government they elect then it is a democratically elected socialist government. You seem to be equating democracy with the U.S. Democracy was around long before the U.S. Hedonism has to do with unihibited pursuit of one's desires above all else. Socialism is no more prone to that than capitalism. In fact societies which allow a lot of freedom are much more prone to hedonism then say a strict theocracy such as Iran.
What I am refering to is the democracy in the United States is uniquely inherent with unparalled rights and freedoms based on the structure of our governmental process...Of course, there are definitions which can arise to differing governmental-based implications and processes of varying degrees, but the core of what is the active democracy here in the United States is the limitation of government, yet indefinite protection of rights and freedoms as expressed by the founding fathers... Now you are free to migrate and be subjected under the form of socialism and communistic governmental process where you don't have the degree of rights and freedoms that you do in the United States, but I will enjoy, embrace, and defend what we have here in spite of you, and the back-slapping cadre of liberal-based hedonistic motives...
The oft-repeated "love it or leave it" answer to governmental criticism is about as anti-American as you can get. It's *because* I love my country that I criticize governmental policies and activities that fall short of the high standard I have for my government. If you want to live in a country where nobody speaks up, nobody criticizes the government and nobody challenges authority, I might suggest a few brochures from North Korea and China.
