Ralph was Right

From the credit-where-credit-is-due file. The Nader campaign sends along an email pointing out that Nader more or less predicted the current meltdown:

Eight years ago, consumer advocate Ralph Nader correctly predicted that the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) were on track to follow the savings and loan industry of the 1980s and 90s into a big financial heap of trouble. Nobody listened, and taxpayers are now at risk of losing tens of billions of dollars. Wall Street is being shaken to its foundation. American International Group Inc., the biggest U.S. insurer by assets, is now teetering on the brink of ruin after suffering losses of $18 billion in the past three quarters, largely due to its sub prime mortgage exposure.

"Nader Rips Mae and Mac," declared the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal on June 16, 2000. "Ralph Nader, warning of a potential taxpayer bailout similar to the savings and loan crisis, urged lawmakers to cut government benefits to mortgage-market giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which he called 'poster children for corporate welfare.'"

Relatedly, I've gotten a lot of emails from conservatives in the last few weeks berating me for ignoring the fact that the heads of Fannie and Freddie were Democrats and gave a lot of money to Democrats. Fair point. It would be nice to say this crisis is the Republican failing, but it really is an ideological failing, one in which both parties were complicit.

Comments (59)

1. This is one of those "NO SHIT" moments for those of us who have supported Nader from the beginning. It's rather a bitter victory for those of us who foresaw this years ago.

   Posted by jorcheim at 09/16/2008 @ 11:13am

2. Queue comments about Nader and Gore in 3...2...1...

   Posted by srjenkins at 09/16/2008 @ 11:30am

3. McC's spokesperson is right on one point, the dems as well as the GOP have been feeding the F/F corporate welfare by the billions for years & the pols have pocketed mucho in campaign contributions from both. The kind of taxpayer money F/F received even before the bailout should have demanded government control, not private no-risk control.

   We've been played for suckers by both parties & their owners.

   Think there'll be any investigations of F/F leading to indictments ... ha. They got away with their golden parachutes even after years of lying about F/F's capital base.

   Posted by sloper at 09/16/2008 @ 11:33am

4. First time for everything!

   Although the idea of "shooting in the dark untill you finally hit something" comes to mind.

   C'mon Chris, the mans a boob. He couldn't find his way out of an airbag if his hairstyle depended on it

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/16/2008 @ 11:41am

5. Will Obama break with corporate welfare? Ah, no. Will McCain? That is not even a question. Will things go on as they have before, no matter who wins? Generally.

   They both share basic philosophy, which makes them blind to events that Nader was talking about. Chippy, I'll bet he's been right far more than you.

   Posted by ElyDog at 09/16/2008 @ 11:44am

6. I just wonder why Ralph couldn't have figured out ...vote trading...eight years ago????

   Posted by Maskdelta at 09/16/2008 @ 11:49am

7. Hmm. Like Ralph needs any more ego stroking. That head of his will soon be in orbit.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2008 @ 12:25pm

8. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2008 @ 12:25pm

   Another good thing about an Obama win...

   by 2016, Ralph will be 82 and even CRAB and ZERO won't be able to say "Vote for Nader" with a straight face.

   (john lowell probably, but not the other two...too sane!)

   Posted by Maskdelta at 09/16/2008 @ 12:32pm

9. "I just wonder why Ralph couldn't have figured out ...vote trading...eight years ago????"

   Right, if you agree to do nothing to change these neo-liberal policies, I will trade votes so you can be President. Isn't that the type trade of values about which people are skewing McCain?

   Posted by onthehelm at 09/16/2008 @ 12:33pm

10. He could be revealed to be the second coming of Christ and Democrats would still hate him and use him as a scapegoat. These corporate-owned Democrats love Republicans compared to how they feel about someone who actually represents the average person, as opposed to these lying whores you so-called liberals defend unconditionally even after they repeatedly demonstrate their criminal negligence. Do you think the Republicans destroyed the country all by themselves? Enjoy your war.

    Posted by Mandaliet at 09/16/2008 @ 12:35pm

11. The sky is falling The Sky is falling. The fundamentals of our economy are strong. The fundamentals being the people who go to work everyday to make America work.

    Posted by abell12ct at 09/16/2008 @ 12:39pm

12. Vote Nader! So we don't hear I told you so again.

    Posted by 24hrlib at 09/16/2008 @ 12:50pm

13. The fundamentals of our economy are strong. The fundamentals being the people who go to work everyday to make America work. Posted by abell12ct at 09/16/2008 @ 12:39pm

    This is what I love. You are talking about a crash in lenders. The people who give money to start ups. Go try to get a business loan. You will notice you can't. No new start ups means stunted economic growth. God knows we need that right now.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2008 @ 12:51pm

14. Posted by srjenkins at 09/16/2008 @ 11:30am

    Well, face it, srjenkins, how else will these schmendriks excuse Obama's likely defeat this time? Will they look to the flip-flopping since the primaries? Not a chance. Democrats can only lose, see, because others steal from them, or cheat them, or some such cockamamie. The good thing about that is that it keeps them from understanding the truth so that they can make the necessary corrections. Now if we could only get the Republicans to do the same, maybe we could have a better world. Progressives should vote Nader, conservatives Baldwin. Anything but the two system parties!

    Posted by john lowell at 09/16/2008 @ 12:53pm

15. The fundamentals of our economy are strong. The fundamentals being the people who go to work everyday to make America work.

    Posted by abell12ct at 09/16/2008 @ 12:39pm

    Sure thing John. Everything is just peachy keen.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/16/2008 @ 1:05pm

16. Hayes: Nader assuredly was right, but Nader is not an economist. He must have been informed by other parties. There actually were a range of economists widely publicizing their views on the inevitably of the housing and credit bubbles crashing, for example, Nouriel Roubini and Dean Baker both.

    Posted by Zero at 09/16/2008 @ 11:43am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Do you really think it took a degree in economics to figure out that the housing bubble and mortgage meltdown was going to happen...not a matter of if, but when?

    Lets see......something like well over 3/4's of the homes being sold were sold at prices that purchasers could not really afford based on conventional mortgage and debt coverage ratios. Nearly 50% of the homes being sold required no cash down payment by the lender. An "implicit" guarantee that mortages dumped on Fannie and Freddie by lenders would be guaranteed by the Federal Government. Interesting interview with Peter Wallison by Brian Lamb on Q & A (CSPAN)....Q&A.org. Check it out.

    Basic cyclical market fundamentals indicate that prices could not keep escalating forever, there would come a day when interest rates would rise (they are cyclical too), adjustable rates would be adjusted, speculators would dump homes once they figured the top had been reached. This was foreseeable....and it sure didn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Lack of regulation...lack of enforcement of existing laws and oversight guaranteed it. Same old story like the S & L crisis, but this time bigger, and with a federal government trillions of dollars in debt. Yikes......Nader looks like he has some guts. Wallison pointed out that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went after anyone who dared criticize them. Socialized capitalists?

    Posted by OneVote at 09/16/2008 @ 1:14pm

17. Nader was right...

    Again.

    as much as Chip would like it to be otherwise, Nader is correct often. That is what gets him the label "loon". whereas Alan Greenspan, who did NOT see this coming, is an "expert", along with Phil Gramm and Robert Rubin.

    chip, do you let your kids ride in the car without seat belts? I guess Ralph was wrong about that too. Do you let them eat high levels of known toxic chemicals in their food? Ooooh, another Ralph wrongheaded guess. Yep, he's a loon.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/16/2008 @ 1:34pm

18. Why in the hell did Hayes have to bring up Nader? That is a subject better left unbreached. Like discussing why Uncle Fred always has his nieces sitting on his lap around the Thanksgiving dinner table. Why take out the dirty laundry when you can put on a clean pair of shorts.

    Posted by chaoszen at 09/16/2008 @ 1:39pm

19. The fundamentals being the people who go to work everyday to make America work.

    Posted by abell12ct at 09/16/2008 @ 12:39pm

    Unemployment- highest level in years, kind of hard to be a fundamental when looking for work, or working for $10/hr in the low level service industries.

    Most foreclosures since the 1930's

    Highest level of investment firm failure since the 1930's.

    Stock market at 10,000, lowest level since...when?

    Gasoline at $4.30/gal, record high.

    Propane at 4.00/gal. record level

    Natural gas at record high price, estimated to be 25-30% higher than last year

    Heating oil at record high price, estimated to be 25-30% higher than last year.

    4 of the 20 largest brokerage firms broke.

    Yep, sound fundamentals. Sound.

    And the Detroit Lions will be going to the Super Bowl!!

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/16/2008 @ 1:40pm

20. Posted by chaoszen at 09/16/2008 @ 1:39pm

    poor analogy.

    Try Ralph is pointing out the nekked emperors.

    Or; taking Ralph out of the closet would be like finding the new pair of scivvies that never got worn because they were just too nice to put under the hookers outfit congress wears.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/16/2008 @ 1:48pm

21. LVLIBERTY1:

    Actually, he has been right on the money more often than not, which is more than I can say about you. Take, for example, his crusade to have reinforced cockpit doors 10 years before 9/11. The excuse by the airlines was that they were too expensive. That's a little-known example of something small that he was prescient on. Care to play more?

    Posted by jorcheim at 09/16/2008 @ 1:54pm

22. Posted by jorcheim at 09/16/2008 @ 1:54pm

    buwhahahaha

    oh, wait, that's not funny.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/16/2008 @ 1:59pm

23. RE: (Zero) "Nader assuredly was right, but Nader is not an economist. He must have been informed by other parties. There actually were a range of economists widely publicizing their views on the inevitably of the housing and credit bubbles crashing, for example, Nouriel Roubini and Dean Baker both."

    I think your response misses the point of the comment. Of course, Nader was informed by other economists. I think C. Hayes's point is not to prove Nader's utter originality, or to say that he is a genius in economics, but that he was running for president and addressing this issue before any other prominent Dem or Republican was doing so. The economists you cite may have deserve credit for their original analysis, but they were not running for office, and they weren't necessarily in a position to influence the government and the public on this issue.

    The most significant point to draw from the Nader campaign email is that the Dems have been equally complicit in the current economic situation as a result of its support for de-regulation, free trade pacts, and the GOP big business program. As a party, the Dems can only offer reformist solutions. And, of course reform is a long way from "change." I'm still a bit unclear what Obama, or Obama supporters, mean when they say "change." I even support the Dems, but only as a way to keep McCain/Palin out of office.

    Posted by jonhayes at 09/16/2008 @ 1:59pm

24. Yep, Larry, all Nader has done is save lives, save peoples money from corporate pension raiders etc.

    He has not saved any souls, though. How many souls make up a pension fund? More than can fit on the head of a pinhead?

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/16/2008 @ 2:06pm

25. Posted by john lowell at 09/16/2008 @ 12:53pm

    What about the Greens and the Libertarians?

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/16/2008 @ 2:24pm

26. Posted by onthehelm at 09/16/2008 @ 12:33pm

    "Vote trading" is the process by which those in "Sold Red" or "Solid Blue" states "trade votes" with people in toss-up states, so that their support for a 3rd party candidate (like Nader) gets registered...but DOESN'T cause the guy you LEAST want to win (like Dubya).

    If it had been done in Florida, the Nader voters there in FL could have STILL seen their votes for Nader show up in his popular vote...in states like Massachusetts (which Gore was sure to win)...or in Texas (which Bush was sure to win)...and still have the "impact" they wanted...

    WITHOUT giving us 4100+ dead GIs, several trillion in debt, or a collapsing stock market and financial system.

    Neat, huh?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/16/2008 @ 2:25pm

27. WITHOUT giving us 4100+ dead GIs, several trillion in debt, or a collapsing stock market and financial system.

    Neat, huh?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/16/2008 @ 2:25pm

    Yep, blame it all on Ralph. Tell me again, who did you vote for in 2000?

    Tell me again how hard Gore fought to get all the votes counted. Tell me again how the florida dems fought to have thousands of people put back onto voter registration rolls after having been illegaly removed.

    give it up. gore lost all by hiself.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/16/2008 @ 2:33pm

28. MAsk, didn't many dems vote to authorize some of what you blame Nader for? (Biden on Iraq or Biden on credit legislation for instance)

    hmmm, how did he get them to do that? His ego?

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/16/2008 @ 2:42pm

29. Posted by srjenkins at 09/16/2008 @ 2:24pm

    McKinney OK for progressives, forget Barr. Barr is a shmendrik, was a no-show at Ron Paul's press conference last week announcing that Nader, Baldwin and McKinney had joined together around four anti-system "principles". Stuck his finger in Paul's eye, a patently stupid thing for a Libertarian to do. Barr will now lose most of Paul's voters which, until this absolutely mind bending stupidity, would likely have been his. Most will go with Baldwin now, I'd guess. Barr would seem to be under the impression that his terribly scintillating contribution to American politics was just too unique to be merged into a bloc, or front, of anti-system parties. He then had the chuzpah to offer the Vice Presidential slot on the Libertarian ticket to Paul, that when the LP already had nominated Root for that position! Barr is all through.

    Posted by john lowell at 09/16/2008 @ 2:57pm

30. CRAB,

    Again, Obama wins...re-elected in 2012....and by 2016, even YOU will be done with the silliness of a Ralph Nader candidacy. At 82, he'd be lucky if he polled in California, what he got nationally in 2004!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/16/2008 @ 3:07pm

31. Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/16/2008 @ 3:01pm

    sure, Larry. Even granting Naders getting "Unsafe" wrong, don't you think the chevette, Pinto, Gremlin, Javelin, K-cars etc

    versus

    corrola, Civic and the indestructible Nissan V6 may have had more to do with the failure of the US auto industry?

    The US never had anything to compete with the 240Z. Like the BMW Z3 and other european 2 seaters in the 90's, and the Prius hybrid today, the US lags far behind the other major manufacturers in marketing and fuel economy. For over a decade they lagged in engineering and build quality. Ralphs fault?

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/16/2008 @ 3:10pm

32. Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/16/2008 @ 3:01pm

    So, if we had only let a few people die in Corvairs....they would have been around for the 1973 oil crises and nobody would have bought Datsuns and Toyotas?

    Interesting....uh....theory.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/16/2008 @ 3:13pm

33. And yes, the UAW in the 70's was a den of thieves, drug addicts and thugs. they share the blame.

    But, other than"unsafe" what harm has Ralph done? His actions have probably saved your grandkids lives multiple times.

    as JORCH pointed out, just one idea of Ralphs could have prevented your reason to invade Iraq on the cheap. but, no, it was going to be outrageous legislation to require locked cockpits like Israel did for years. Ralph Nader was a loon if he thought secure cockpit doors were needed! Just like he was a loon for wanting seatbelts in cars, or airbags in mini-vans, or cars that did not go BOOM! when you ass-ended them.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/16/2008 @ 3:16pm

34. Ralphs fault? Posted by crabwalk at 09/16/2008 @ 3:10pm

    LVL blames EVERYTHING on the left.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2008 @ 3:22pm

35. Nader has never been right about anything. He remains a destructive influence on America albeit a more benign one in the late stages of his life.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/16/2008 @ 1:49pm

    This post is equally interesting as it is persuasive and informative...Also, weird personal bias that contradicts actual history doesn't count as interesting, persuasive, or informative.

    Posted by ADHD at 09/16/2008 @ 3:52pm

36. This is one of those "NO SHIT" moments for those of us who have supported Nader from the beginning. It's rather a bitter victory for those of us who foresaw this years ago.

    Posted by jorcheim at 09/16/2008 @ 11:13am

    That's a big 10-4, buddy.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/16/2008 @ 4:23pm

37. SR Jenkins:

    Queue comments about Nader and Gore in 3...2...1...

    Roll 5.....

    Aim...Reload

    tinyurl.com/6ba8zs

    Missed the timing on this one, but a fittingly furious segue in any case.

    It's past time to call the cards of these criminals...regardless of party affiliation.

    Obama just aint gonna cut it, folks.

    Just watch.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/16/2008 @ 4:36pm

38. Just out of scientific curiosity (CRAB, JORCH, B_KOOL, etc.)....

    who here HONESTLY believe that at some time in the past (2000 would seem most probable)...

    that Ralph Nader stood a REALISTIC chance of being elected President of the United States?

    And who here STILL thinks that's a realistic probability?

    hands? (or text, rather)

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/16/2008 @ 4:43pm

39. It's not a question of "could he get elected", as much as a question of "is he correct?"

    On the crux of the biscuit (as Zappa might say) Nader has been, and continues to be, center ring bullseye on target.

    But the machine continues to grind us into dust as we gorge ourselves on (primarily) televised propaganda.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/16/2008 @ 4:51pm

40. I'm out.

    Later.....

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/16/2008 @ 4:52pm

41. Appreciated this piece. Made me think, you know if The Nation and other media gave Mr. Nader credit every time he saw something coming years in advance, he and these important issues would be getting a ton more coverage!

    This certainly isn't the first time he's been right far in advance, and it won't be the last: http://betterthannader.blogspot.com/2008/05/seeing-it-coming.html

    Posted by betterthannader at 09/16/2008 @ 5:17pm

42. MASK:

    No, in all honesty, Nader has exactly zero chance of becoming President of the US, save something really weird happening. However, that is not the point. He still should be alloted a slot to participate in the debates, as should Bob Barr. The simple fact of the matter is, they have legitimate points of view that deserve press, and have been squelched for too long. In that situation, the possibility of a Nader win would increase exponentially, because frankly, many people agree with his views, and more importantly, many more people are fed up with the bullshit that passes for political discourse in this country.

    Posted by jorcheim at 09/16/2008 @ 6:16pm

43. Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/16/2008 @ 4:51pm |

    B_KOOL....JORCH answered the question.

    Why didn't you?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/16/2008 @ 8:36pm

44. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/16/2008 @ 8:36pm

    I think he did answer your question, Mask. He is saying that his electability isn't the issue (obviously he is not going to be elected). The issue is that he brings truth to the table in ways no one else does, and in that way, people like him are an important part of the political process.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/17/2008 @ 08:49am

45. Posted by srjenkins at 09/17/2008 @ 08:49am

    No, saying "That's not the question" is an old debate dodge and a politician's trick.

    The question is simple enough...he can answer it and add caveats and "explanations" afterwards.

    and the question is...

    Does he think Ralph Nader has (or had) a realistic chance to be elected President?

    If "no", then feel free to explain why it's "not important". But atleast B_KOOL can answer yes or no, first.

    But see, I don't think he wants to, because to go "on record" saying "Of course, he'd never win" means that he has to defend continually (we're into our 4th Nader candidacy or is it 5th?) voting for somebody you KNOW isn't going to win.

    And I don't think a lot of Naderites can actually do that.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/17/2008 @ 09:05am

46. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/17/2008 @ 09:05am

    We'll I think this time around Nader actually make sense. Obama and McCain's foreign policy isn't that much different. One wants to fight in Iraq. One wants to fight in Afghanistan. Neither is talking about shutting down our bases worldwide and moving our economy off its military basis.

    Since this is my main issue, I have to consider other candidates. Of the major third party candidates, all have signed on to Ron Paul's principles that we should close up military shop. So, we move on to other considerations. We've got:

    1. Baldwin. The Balwin Doctrine of eliminating foreign investment in the United States is just one example of a plethora of bad ideas. No thanks.

    2. McKinney. 9/11 Truther who wants me to votetruth08.com. She wants to protect me from Islamophobia. Provide guaranteed employment at a guaranteed income for every American - (sounds like a great way of increasing bureacracy). Again, bad ideas.

    3. Barr. Drug Warrior. Author of the Defensive of Marriage Act. Supporter of the Patriot Act. Voter for invading Iraq. Supporter of banning Wicca from the military. Suddenly, he's caught religion and is running as a Libertarian? Please.

    4. Nader. I'm not sure all of Nader's ideas are good ones. The National Initative could very easily turn into another way for people with power to manipulate the government, but I also think that increasing democratic participation is generally good - just not sure about a federal referrendum scheme. He's got more good ideas than bad.

    Of course, depending on which state you are in you might have other choices: Lyttle, Keyes, Amondson, Moore, etc.

    If I consider these options, and the fact that I'm not in a state where my vote matters, Nader looks like a reasonable choice.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/17/2008 @ 10:32am

47. This is all Bull! The Congress has more to do with the economy than the executive branch. The congress is the one who raises taxes and approves spending. But it is easier to blame one person than 535. And America needs someone to blame!

    Posted by abell12ct at 09/17/2008 @ 10:43am

48. It was 3rd parties who introduced the ideas of abolition of slavery and women's right to vote. Regardless of his electability, Nader (and Barr and Paul, ect) should be allowed to debate and their platforms should be covered by the news media- which uses our public airwaves to disseminate 'news' by the way.

    I don't understand all this vitriol aimed at a legendary Consumer Advocate. What has he ever done to you lvliberty1?

    Well, lemme tell ya-

    *Safe Drinking Water Act *Clean Air Act *Freedom of Information Act *Environmental Protection Agency *SeatBelts/AirBags/Tire Safety *Consumer Product Safety Act *Pension Protection Act *Whistleblower Protection Act *Safe Medical Device Act *National Traffic & Motor Vehicle Safety Act *Clean Water Act *Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA )

    Posted by Hazelflomom at 09/17/2008 @ 11:11am

49. Posted by abell12ct at 09/17/2008 @ 10:43am

    Actually, you should take some time to learn how our government works. The President sets the Congress's agenda.

    If government worked the way you apparently think it does, it wouldn't be very relevant to hear either Presidential candidates ideas on how to solve the energy crisis, public debt, abortion or pick your issue of choice - because they would merely be following the dictates of Congress. But, that's not the way the world works, and because it isn't, we do care where the President stands on these issues.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/17/2008 @ 11:23am

50. The majority of these comments only prove how short-sighted and unrepentent both parties and their followers really are. I'm 42. The Dems and the GOP have been feeding us to the lions for at least as long as I've been alive. I've had it. Nader gets my vote.

    Posted by r_zeiger at 09/17/2008 @ 11:34am

51. Nader gets my vote too. Some here seem to think that winning is the reason to vote. It's not. This is not a football game where you want to be on the winning team. This is a moral obligation to vote for a candidate that best represents your views and will do what is right for the country. I don't care if Nader wins. I want my vote to count by sending the message that I support Nader's views on the issues. Nader HAS been right more often than not. Voting for one of the two major party candidates is a wasted vote because it is a vote for corporatocracy.

    And I just wanted to add a point about the National Initiative. Nader supports this, but he did not create this idea. It is something that Senator Mike Gravel built. As a former Gravel supporter, I want to make sure that he gets the credit he is due.

    I don't think the National Initiative would become another corporate-led branch of the government, since this would be totally reliant on the people of this country voting directly on federal level initiatives. Initiatives that the PEOPLE can get on the ballot, similar to state level ones that are available in 24 states today. Living in one of those states, I can say that even though the process is not perfect, it is better to have that power than to be treated like children by our elected representatives.

    Posted by DebbieKat at 09/17/2008 @ 12:49pm

52. When or on which issue has Ralph Nader ever been wrong? Could Katrina vanden Heuvel tell me?

    Posted by goedel at 09/17/2008 @ 1:02pm

53. Posted by DebbieKat at 09/17/2008 @ 12:49pm

    Spend some time looking at how the politics of state referendums and how last minute saturation advertising effects outcomes, how often the measures are poorly worded or designed to bias the voter and the standard political nonsense around them - and think about that on a national scale. Personally, I particularly don't like the idea of people ramming there ideas down other people's throat. For example, think about a national initative on the topic of abortion, gun control, availability of birth control or a whole host of issues that shouldn't be the topic of national decision making.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/17/2008 @ 1:21pm

54. "The majority of these comments only prove how short-sighted and unrepentent both parties and their followers really are. I'm 42. The Dems and the GOP have been feeding us to the lions for at least as long as I've been alive. I've had it. Nader gets my vote."

    AMEN!!

    It's time to go to the mattress!

    Posted by bleedingheart at 09/17/2008 @ 11:24pm

55. <h2><b> Stop the BS that voting for Nader is a lost vote <p> If you are living in a state where your vote won't make a difference thanks to the corrupt undemocratic election-zones, vote Nader <p> For example if you live in California or New York, tt will go to the corrupt democrats. But at least by voting for Nader you can show your disgust with Pelosi's pandering and Obama's shift in policies over the last months. <p> Make your vote really count. VOTE NADER <b></h2>

    Posted by Annn at 09/18/2008 @ 02:23am

56. Stop the BS that voting for Nader is a lost vote

    If you are living in a state where your vote won't make a difference thanks to the corrupt undemocratic election-zones, vote Nader

    For example if you live in California or New York, tt will go to the corrupt democrats. But at least by voting for Nader you can show your disgust with Pelosi's pandering and Obama's shift in policies over the last months.

    Make your vote really count.

    VOTE NADER

    Posted by Annn at 09/18/2008 @ 02:24am

57. Mr. Nader would surely make a fine president, but he has demonstrated his un-electability on numerous occasions. Not only does he lack the charisma to win over a majority of the electorate, he can't even capture a majority of the one percent of voters who plan to vote for leftwing micro-parties like the Greens or the Peace & Freedom Party. Sadly, one must conclude that he and his well-intentioned followers are making perfection the enemy of progress, and that their fetishization of progressive purity is wildly counterproductive.

    Posted by leftcoastliberal at 09/18/2008 @ 04:46am

58. The issue is that he brings truth to the table in ways no one else does, and in that way, people like him are an important part of the political process. Posted by srjenkins at 09/17/2008 @ 08:49am | ignore this person | warn this person

    that may be so but this is an election of TWO principals, and I want to see them debate, not some insignificant ego tripper.

    Posted by emile duBois at 09/18/2008 @ 11:19am

59. Congress should reenact the usury laws. For those of you who read the Bible usurThe Dems and the repugnant Republicans have both worked to get us into this situation. But what didn't help was 8 yrs of Geo Bush not responding to obvious fraud within the system. Better to have regulation than bail-outs.

    With the bail outs the government should, by statute, have to initiate a fraud investigation. Also, CEOs and other corporate officers should have limits set on their salaries once the bail out is agreed upon.

    When corporate America comes begging to the taxpayers, then the taxpayers should get to set the limits.

    Posted by GymRatt at 09/18/2008 @ 4:21pm