Burnt Orange Report

Hey Andrew, can we protest outside and then hear him speak? I wanna have it both ways.

me too, phil.

by the way, i started a blog. no -- it will never compete with BOR, but your great blog has inspired me to put down my own opinion. heres the link:
http://austinlowdown.blogspot.com/

Thanks to anyone and everyone who visits it. if anyone wants to help out on it, send me an email.

me too, phil.

by the way, i started a blog. no -- it will never compete with BOR, but your great blog has inspired me to put down my own opinion. heres the link:
http://austinlowdown.blogspot.com/

Thanks to anyone and everyone who visits it. if anyone wants to help out on it, send me an email.

me too, phil.

by the way, i started a blog. no -- it will never compete with BOR, but your great blog has inspired me to put down my own opinion. heres the link:
http://austinlowdown.blogspot.com/

Thanks to anyone and everyone who visits it.

do you even know what a national deficit is? The US can handle a huge deficit. Much Much more than we are currently facing.
dumbass

I'll be there...

larz: who are you directing that comment to?

also, how crowded will the nader thing be? will it be impossible to find a seat?

I am not really concerned about Nader running. He will have problems getting on the ballot, and I'm not sure he will have the support he did in 2000. Honestly, it's just MHO, but I'd love to hear what you all have to say.

Just curious why you would bother to give Nader any attention at all. Wouldn't it be better to do proactive campaigning for Democrats?

I don't want to yell him down- i was hoping to have a demonstration and then politely listen to what he has to say. I oppose his candidacy because in 2000 nobody at this point thought that he'd be a factor, but he was. We can't underestimate him. I say we show up w/ our signs, protest, get our seats and listen to what he has to say. We'll get it figured out and your input would be appreciated.

I have to leave town before Nader gets here, but if I may suggest a sign:

"PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

"Proof, Ralph, that you can (and did) spoil a spoiled system."

This is an updated version of a leaflet I printed up and handed out in fall of 2000:
....................................................................................
JUDICIAL REVIEW

4 --- Number of justices George W. Bush could appoint to the Supreme Court in the next four years.
4 --- Number of justices John F. Kerry could appoint to the Supreme Court in the next four years.
0 --- Number of justices Ralph Nader will ever appiont to the Supreme Court.
...................................................................................
The Supreme Court argument brought many Nader sympathizers back to reality.

BTW, if I remember correctly, there was a tasteful illustration of an open law book or a gavel on the original leaflet.

*appoint*

oops!

In 2000, the race was the Democrats' to lose. They took whole segments of the voting population for granted, were arrogant and presumptuous, and totally fumbled the ball. I think they totally underestimated the views of many voters -- their goose-step to the right cost them dearly.

Four years later, eh, things are different. I think Bush has torn the facade off the fascist beast that is the Republican Party, hijacked as it is by fundamentalists and hate-mongers. If you believe the analysis, many Republicans have become horrified, and are thinking of jumping ship. I'm dubious. But Bush has clearly shown he's a divider, NOT a uniter, and these hot-button topics he keeps flubbing show that without a doubt.

So Ralph wants to run, isn't that what democracy is all about? The Republicans sure as heck don't speak for me, the Democrats don't speak for me, but a choice between the two, the Democratic evil is only tolerably less nauseating -- I'm speaking about Texas Democrats. For every Lloyd Doggett there's 5 Madlas or Wilsons, anywhere else they'd be considered Republicans.

One of these days, American democracy and those who support it won't feel threatened by third party involvement. Thanks to the fascist orgy under Bush and Cheney, they've got the Democratic Party seeing US democracy as a 2 party beast. Lovely.

And no, I'm not voting Nader. This time around, I'm voting strategically, and I think a lot of independent voters will. Just let Nader run -- he's already said he's not going to attack the Democratic nominee, he's going to focus his attacks on the Bush machine. He can say things the Dems can't or won't. He doesn't have the support he did in 2000.

With that in mind, if the Dems do lose again, they've got no one but themselves to blame -- 1 year of rediscovered core values and actually standing up to them don't make up for the 3 years of subservient supplication under Bush and Cheney. It was that type of bull that got Bush elected governor, it was that type of bull that got Bush nationally recognised (thanks to DEMOCRAT Bob Bullock, amongst others), and it was that type of bull that saw Dems voting lock step with Republicans to strip away our civil rights.

NOW the Dems have a backbone? It's about bloody time!

I don't know who Larz is, but I wonder if he watched Alan Greenspan this morning - when he said that the deficit was putting the country over and proposed to cut and delay benefits for retirement, medicare and social security. Of course, the one variable that has affected the revenue in and out the most - the tax cuts - are the one thing the administration recommends keeping. Not a single mention of both trying to actually collect taxes from people like Ann Coulter (paid $700 tax on 6 million) or the CSX company headed by the treasurer (paid no tax for 3 years). Certainly not from Cheney (saved $16000 on taxes last year) or Halliburton (paid only 15 million tax on the tens of billions they were paid last year).

It really bothers me when people want to pin Bush winning on Nader. I agree with the question stated above: isn't this a democracy? I believe anyone and everyone who has a desire should run. In my heart, I believe everyone should vote for who they perceive to be the best candidate. If everyone voted for who they believed in, we might not have this stupid two (or one, as it may be) party system.

Secondly, I also believe that Gore DID WIN. I was in the Florida area during the election and heard first-hand how many Gore voters had difficulties voting, and that's just one state.

My point is, don't blame a corrupt system on someone who is trying to change it. I admire Nader's life work in trying to expose truth and make this country a better place. I think the real problem is with the system that tallies the votes and a Democratic party that can't seem to produce high quality candidates. Both may be more difficult targets but they're the ones that need to change, not Nader.

Why don't democrats focus on putting a good candidate up against bush instead of trying to limit democratic choices in an election? Maybe because the democrats running suck? ditto for Bush. Its like bad vs. worse in this election. I dont support Nader, but I would be happy to vote for a third party this year...especially if the Dem is Kerry. I think if Democrats had a viable candidate it wouldn't matter who ran against them. Shows a huge weakness. But thats just my opinion. I'd sign a petition to get ANYONE on the ballot, because that is their right to run, and the voters right to choose. Whatever happened to being PRO CHOICE? ;)

So are you suggesting Nader might spoil Kerry's chances to take Texas in the general election? I could see protesting him in New Hampshire, Florida, or any of the other close states, but you're especially wasting your time in Texas.