…Senator John Kerry and Ralph Nader had a meeting.
WASHINGTON – John Kerry (news – web sites) met with independent Ralph Nader (news – web sites) Wednesday, but didn’t ask the third-party candidate to quit the presidential race despite widespread Democratic fears that his candidacy could ensure President Bush (news – web sites)’s re-election.
Big shock there. Although if I were in Sen Kerry’s shoes I’d have met with Nader, too; sure, the meeting gives the latter additional legitimacy, but waverers between Kerry and Nader are waverers between Kerry and Nader. Every little bit helps, especially since Fighting The Last Election syndrome seems to have busted out all over*.
I’ll also note that I didn’t realize that Nader was a comedian:
“We talked about that and I told him of my belief that I would take more votes away from Bush than from him,” Nader said.
Only with the mass application of esoteric and arcane psychotropic drugs, dude, and alas for you, the MK-ULTRA boys all work for the VRWC, Military-Industrial Complex Division. In other words, Republican interest in Ralph Nader begins and ends with how much he can hamper Kerry’s appeal to the Center.
Moe
*Predictions this early are a mug’s game, but I’ll go out on a limb here and say that the final results in November are not going to be close.
“I’ll also note that I didn’t realize that Nader was a comedian….”
He was, in fact, quite funny when he hosted SNL.
In absolute terms, or by comparison?
“In absolute terms, or by comparison?”
I’m not sure if you mean “by comparison to droning on about PIRGs,” or “by comparison to the funnier hosts of SNL” or “by comparison to the more awful hosts of SNL.”
But he was certainly in the mid-range of SNL hosts, and was, in general terms, funny. I recall quite a lot of people noting this with understandable surprise.
I’ve read that he’s also surprisingly funny in small conversation, but a) one often reads that of someone; b) it’s not hard to be surprised; c) “a” doesn’t mean it’s not often true.
Not having had a private conversation with the man, I can offer no testimony.
*Predictions this early are a mug’s game, but I’ll go out on a limb here and say that the final results in November are not going to be close.
I don’t think so either – when incumbents lose, they lose big.
(Given that the only reason you gave for not supporting Kerry was manifestly hypocritical, I suspect that a lot of Republicans like you are going to bite the bullet and vote for Kerry in November…)
“Given that the only reason you gave for not supporting Kerry was manifestly hypocritical”
(Rolling eyes) Not that, again.
(Rolling eyes) Not that, again.
Well, yeah. Unless you’ve changed your mind.
Much as this is going to bore the Military Orbital Eldritch Laser Array (Non-Euclidean…
(Given that the only reason you gave for not supporting Kerry was manifestly hypocritical, I suspect that a lot of Republicans like you are going to bite the bullet and vote for Kerry in November…)
Now… I’m suspecting this is not what M. Jesurgislac thinks (and, given it’s Je Surgis Lac, should the familiar term be ‘Je’, and is the surname ‘Lac’?), but I can’t remember what he’s alluding to… could you drop me a link to the bit of Movian policy in question?
Obviously you think it’s massively hypocritical, obviously its originator does not – can I have a look? Can I? Can I, can I, please?
James, “Jesurgislac” is such a mouthful (handful? takes a significant amount of time to type, anyway) that I’m happy for people to abbreviate it any way that suits them so long as it still clearly identifies me. I wanted it to be unique (my given name is pretty commonplace) having noted the endless problems that arise with people having to explain “No, I’m the James from Ohio”, “no, I’m the British James” and so on.
Obviously you think it’s massively hypocritical, obviously its originator does not – can I have a look? Can I? Can I, can I, please?
The post in question was our esteemed blogowner’s post formally endorsing Bush as his preferred candidate for the Presidency. No surprise there. (I’ve been trying to find it again for half an hour, and have failed, even though there’s only six months of archives to search through. Sorry.)
What was a surprise was the reason Moe gave for so doing: because Kerry had voted against the $87B bill, asserting that the Iraqis should part-pay for their own reconstruction, and Moe claimed he could not support any candidate that was in favor of rooking the Iraqis.
As I pointed out, Bush & Co are the administration with the track record of actually rooking the Iraqis, from selling off Iraqi industries to the highest bidder and no restrictions on foreign ownership, to the proposal that Iraqi reconstruction should be entirely funded by Iraq, to the (then) strategy for putting Chalabi (a convicted fraudster) in charge of Iraq.
I wasn’t in the least surprised that Moe Lane, an avowed Republican, intends to support the Republican incumbent. I was startled to see him profess such a hypocritical reason for doing so. If he believes it would be wrong to support a candidate who’s for rooking the Iraqis, he shouldn’t be supporting Bush, and that’s all there is to it: Bush & Co’s record is far more active and far more blatant than one vote against an $87B bill. Hence the point I would love Moe to respond to*, that the reason he gave for supporting Bush over Kerry was manifestly hypocritical.
*Thus far, he’s persistently declined.
“(I’ve been trying to find it again for half an hour, and have failed, even though there’s only six months of archives to search through. Sorry.)”
That reminds me: I’ve been, for a long time, meaning to, and forgetting to, suggest to the esteemed blog-owners that they add a search function. I found after trying a bunch that the Atomz one worked best for me, though I had to add each archive page as a separate page, which was annoying. But for whatever reason, the Google engine and others kept not finding stuff.
Search engines specifically on and for a blog are most useful. Only takes a few minutes to drop into the template, too.
James, the posts relevant to your question can be found here (via this Google search) and here (via this Google search).
As to Gary’s request for an internal search engine: sorry, but there isn’t a standard option for one in the layout and I ain’t no HTML wonderboy, so I wouldn’t know where to begin putting one together. Besides, we’re kind of running out of room on the sides…
Moe
Moe, you and any other gaming geek should enjoy this one.
As for the search engine, I’m an HTML idiot. All you have to do is go to the Atomz page, enter your URLs bo be searched, copy the four or so lines of HTML, and paste them into the appropriate spot in your template where you want it to show up. A six-year-old can do it. I’ll find the exact page for you, if you need it, but you can do what I’d do, which is go here , just like I would, and find it from there.
Re the search engine: start here.
Re the search engine: start here.
Ignore that they ask for your “work e-mail address.” It’s irrelevant which address you give.
My suggestion for placement would be under “The View from Baghdad” and above “Powered by TypePad” on the right. But it really doesn’t matter; put it wherever you like.
Or don’t; it’s your blog. Just trying to help, here.