(Crossposted to Redstate)
Front Runner for today’s And Water is Wet: This is News? award: Democrats bar Nader from convention
BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) — Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader was rejected Friday in his bid to try to attend next week’s Democratic National Convention.
“Given that Nader is running on the Pat Buchanan Reform Party ticket and is openly accepting both financial and organizational help from Republicans and their allies, the answer is no,” Democratic National Committee spokesman Jano Cabrera said. (Nader accepting GOP signatures in Michigan)
(Via Command Post)
I must admit that I can no longer ascertain Nader’s motives for remaining in this race; granted, I’m one of those evil Republicans whose party is Merrily Prankstering away in Michigan, but surely he must realize by now that he’s doing nothing but increasing his isolation from any actual sources of political power. The Right will have nothing to do with him*; we find his policies lacking – and deem his current association with the party of the Exile Buchanan to be darkly humorous. The Left was in the past prepared to at listen respectfully, but Nader’s continued insistence that the Democratic and Republican parties are essentially one and the same has been seemingly melting that goodwill like ice on a hot sidewalk.
So, what remains for him? What is he seeing in all of this that makes him think that he’s benefiting his causes?
*[UPDATE] OK, OK, I concede that we’re currently using him as a vote sponge. But it’s not like we’re going to call the next day, or anything.
The Right will have nothing to do with him;
Well, except for the ones who are supporting him as an Independent in states where they think that will help them against the Democrat party. 😉 I’m just saying.
OK, yes, except for that. Updating now…
And, in case it wasn’t clear: fair point. 🙂
Getting Nader on the ballot, VRWC in action.
Even more sinister protesters in Boston are to be caged
Timmy – The increasing use of “free speech zones” is highly disturbing on either side of the aisle. I’m not sure how far back it started, but it’s been going on since at least 2001, as protesters are conveniently cordoned off a good distance so the very politicians they’re trying to make an impression on can simply play “Out of sight, out of mind.” The notion of having a designated box where free protest is “allowed” is as apalling as it is asinine.
I’m not sure how far back it started , IL well it started in the previous Admin. And if I remember correctly the demonstrators were caged at the last DNC, although they had a public forum, as they were caged right next to Staples.
Public protest became an issue in Seattle as peaceful protest turned violent. Given what I’ve read on the plans to undermine security in NYC, some of the protesters have no plans to be peaceful. Now what do you do with them? I ask you.
I’m not sure how far back it started, IL well it started in the previous Admin. And if I remember correctly the demonstrators were caged at the last DNC, although they had a public forum, as they were caged right next to Staples.
Public protest became an issue in Seattle as peaceful protest turned violent. Given what I’ve read on the plans to undermine security in NYC, some of the protesters have no plans to be peaceful. Now what do you do with them? I ask you.
I can understand cordoning off the protestors for safety reasons.
But the current administration is making it a consistent policy of sticking them “way the heck over thar, past that hill over yonder”, and that’s outrageous. (Outrage class: Minor)
Besides which, just the phrase “Free Speech Zone” is sort of Orwellian, and I thought that there was a pre-existing “Free Speech Zone” ranging from Maine to Hawaii…
Timmy, free speech zones don’t stop demonstrations from turning violent. They just stop politicians from hearing the protestors, whether they turn violent or not. You’re overplaying the national security card in a most revealing way.
turning off italics, I hope.
More importantly, FSZs keep protesters out of sight of the media.
. . . well it started in the previous Admin . . .
Maybe as a formal, structured thing, but Ronald Reagan visited my college campus in 1988 to stump for GHWB, and the Secret Service made the Campus Democrats move off the route that the President’s car would be taking . . . how about behind that building, over there, where nobody can see you? That sound good? Perfect.
well it started in the previous Admin.
Timmy, I know this is a kneejerk reaction to everything “It’s Clinton’s fault!” but can’t you see that, certainly in this particular instance, blaming Clinton for creating “Free Speech Zones” (which is dodgy, in any case) just makes Bush look worse?
As Jason admirably pointed out, in the US there already is a FSZ, “ranging from Maine to Hawaii” and the presumption ought to be that protesters get to protest wherever they damn well please – it’s an explicit Constitutional right.
You seem to be asserting that Clinton started the policy of cordoning protesters safely away from the news cameras. I doubt if you can prove that, but even if you can, what this says is either:
1. FSZs are a good idea, invented by Clinton, that Bush just naturally borrowed, and right-wingers want to make sure that Clinton gets due credit for having such a fabulous idea. Wouldn’t do to give Bush credit for an idea he didn’t come up with, would it?
OR:
2. Bush isn’t evil enough to think up FSZ. FSZ are a bad thing, and therefore they’re all that evil bastard Clinton’s idea: Bush supinely went along with a pre-defined Presidential policy because he’s a good guy who lacks the backbone necessary to defy a previous President’s evil policies.
Now, which are you proposing, Timmy? 1 or 2?
(In point of fact, though, I go for (3): use of FSZ is a Bush thing, or rather a Karl Rove thing: because anti-Bush protesters at the Presidential inaugeration cavalcade made it clear how embarrassing it can be when the general public make clear in front of the news cameras how unpopular Bush is. Clinton didn’t need FSZ, because Clinton was a genuinely popular President.)
Aren’t these perversions of American values set up by the city governments in question? It is, after all, Boston who is getting sued.
I wonder if Jesurgislac realizes that the (false dichotomy) choice he presents Timmy with, given the cordoning-off of protestors that will be happening at the DNC convention, makes the Democrats look even worse than he imagines his (un)clever formulation makes Bush look? Probably not.
Phil, if you imagine I support the Democrats in cordoning off protesters, you’re so far out to lunch that I suggest you pick up sandwiches at the Diner At The End of The Universe.
If you think the dichotomy I presented Timmy with is false, do feel free to jump in: Timmy has a habit of woofing and wandering, but I’m sure you can explain why it’s somehow okay for loyal Republicans to excuse Bush’s use of “Free Speech Zones” with “Clinton did it first!”
Well, there’s an excluded middle that you’re leaping over — as is always the case when you attempt to trap someone into your “Which of these two equally crappy choices would you like to commit to?” game — but you’re a smart lad. I’m sure you can find an adult in your area to explain it to you.
Clinton didn’t need FSZ, because Clinton was a genuinely popular President.
If Clinton didn’t need them, then I wonder why he used them. I didn’t blame Clinton, I just noted that he introduced them. Just as I noted, the DNC is using them in Boston (I’m sure Jes will come up with some reason to blame Bush on the issue). And the Boston FSZ is away from the media as well as the Fleet Center. I find it interesting that no one has commented on that (not really).