Nader
I don't think it matters that Ralph Nader's running. It didn't matter in 2004. How many people even remember he ran in 2004? So it's silly to make a big issue of it. At this point, Ralph's just in it for the chicks... or the dudes... always hard to tell with him. But, there can be no doubt, he's got a point about how narrow our presidential debates have become. He's the wrong messenger, because even most of the people who used to like him now hate him, but no candidate is talking about single payer health care, which 59 percent of doctors support. No candidate dares talk about cutting the bloated military budget. Gun control. A carbon tax. Gay marriage. Cloning supermodels. We won't have a debate about any of these things. That's bad for the country, isn't it? In fact, isn't Ralph Nader's platform still the best one? Couldn't Barack Obama, with all his political gifts, be borrowing more from Nader's platform? That would be real change.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It doesn't matter one bit whether Nader runs or not. It won't make a difference in the outcome of the general election. Nader has every right to run, and I have every right NOT to vote for him. I might agree with some of his positions, however I think that his motivation for continually running with no hope of being elected and no party behind him, has to be questioned. Is it really altruism, or is it some other bizarre reason?
It's a bizarre reason called standing up for your principles.
Even if it ends up electing a George W. Bush? Sometimes life isn't as simple as one would like it to be.
Great... so does that mean that every nutcase that wants to stand up for their principles cn declare they are running? If we have to sit through any more debates with Ralph Nader and Alan Keys when the general comes along, I'll go crazy! Why don't these guys just get radio shows like the other opinionated nutcases that could never get elected to anything? That way they could stand up for their principles without taking any valuable prime-time away from candidates that really have a chance to win.
Has anyone stopped to consider that scapegoating Ralph Nader might just be a lazy, pathetic attempt on the part of the Democratic Party to keep its base voters in the fold while continuing to ignore them? After all, its downright rude to try to distract Democratic candidates from getting on with the business of wooing Republican voters.
Is anyone else starting to feel like a chump for going along with it?
What depresses me is that the Democratic bigwigs don't have to lift a finger to accomplish this: liberals enthusiastically volunteer to be enforcers.
Well, the Republicans may be the masters of negative attacks, but the Democrats reign supreme when it comes to negative arguments. Everywhere I turn someone is threatening me with what will happen if I don't vote for their candidate. No one seems to be able to give me a concrete picture of what will happen if I do.
I'm no psychologist, but I'd say the Democrats have serious commitment issues.
F.F. Nader haters are ditto-heads. Useful idiots.
Has anyone stopped to consider that supporting Ralph Nader might just be a lazy, pathetic attempt on the part of the Republican Party to keep its few remaining base voters from being outvoted by progressives while continuing to ignore them? After all, it's downright rude to try to distract Republican candidates from getting on with the business of screwing all voters.
Is anyone else starting to feel that Nader is a chump for doing it?
Now, there isn't much the Republicans do that I don't find reprehensible, but giving money to a candidate who you think will siphon off votes from the competition is perfectly legitimate in our money-driven political process. As for Ralph Nader, he's entitled to run for president wherever he can manage to get himself on the ballot. If you don't like that little loophole in our two-party-favoring constitution, you should try to get some legislation passed that would make running for president a priviledge reserved exclusively for our two illustrious major parties. I'm sure Congress would be happy to oblige you.
Maybe instead of whining about Ralph Nader and what dangers his insignificant candidacies might pose, the Democrats should try to get his supporters to vote for them instead. Al Gore could have saved us all a lot of grief if he had put more energy into courting Ralph Nader's supporters and less into trying to attract people who were going to vote for Bush anyway.
And can we please stop with this 'progressive' nonsense? Progressive is a euphemism someone came up with to apologize for being liberal, which is what Democrats have been doing since George H.W. Bush called Michael Dukakis a card-carrying liberal. I don't know how progressive I am, but I am not ashamed to be called liberal.
If you tell the truth in American politics, your career is finished. And If you're lucky you will only be marginalized by the powerful interests, and by the media. Sometimes they're one in the same. Just look at those who've tried recently: Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravele, Ron Paul and recently, John Edwards.
Having said that, Ralph Nader doesn't stand a chance in his bid for the Presidency.
Nader has long been an activist for environmental protection, consumer rights, and labour movements. He was instrumental in the push to make auto makers responsible for the safety of drivers and passengers. He is the reason seat belts exist today. In essence, he is not afraid to push the powerful special interests, armed with millions in bribe money, back into their chair.
For that he deserves respect.
In all his years of fighting for civil rights, the wealthy special interests have never been able to 'buy" his acquiescence. Nader does stand for real change.
Nader is criticized by both Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are diametrically opposed to Nader's views.
But democrats argue that he will hurt their chances of winning back the White House -- that the democratic vote will be split. That's fair criticism, I suppose, and to some extent true. One could successfully argue that Nader is single-handedly responsible for the Bush victory in 2000.
Yes, Gore lost many necessary votes to Nader, which ultimately made Bush's election swindling in Florida much easier to pull off.
But Nader's counterpoint should not be dismissed outright. Says Nader, "why do they say they lost because of me, why don't they see that they cost MY election?" Why didn't an incumbent like Gore beat a then-inexperienced Texas governor (who many already knew was not the brightest bulb on the ranch) in a landslide?
Whether one agrees with Nader's bid for the presidency or not, it shouldn't be difficult to see that he makes a a very valid point.
Canadians, who have had a multi-party system for years, should find it easy to understand Nader's position. How often do we hear the Liberal Party tell the NDP not to run for fear that they will cost the Liberals votes? Surely, that would be ridiculous.
Okay, it is true that the Conservatives were split only a few years ago -- arguing the very same nonsense. But it did ultimately unite them. And, yes, they did have to listen to each other in order to finally re-unite. Incidentally, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea for the Democratic Party to consider talking and listening to their base.
Apparently turning to your base for support works. Just ask George W. Bush and Karl Rove.
Nader also reminds us that if Democrats can't beat the Republicans after eight years of Bush, perhaps they should re-consider their own run. Again, he's right. George W. Bush and the Republicans should really be no match for the Democrats.
Instead, national polls show a relatively close gap between John McCain and whoever ultimately wins the Democratic race (Obama or Hillary). How shameful!
If the Democrats can't beat the Republicans after such a dreadful eight years, they really are the ones who need to step aside for Ralph Nader. And, yes, Nader should use the campaign slogan: HAD ENOUGH? It would work wonders, I think.
Obama, who many believe is a refreshing change in U.S. presidential races, is really no different than Hillary Clinton on the real issues. Their debates are missing something very key..... let me think... ah yes, ideas.
Don't get me wrong, either one would be a welcome after George W. Bush. But it's easy to see how Hillary and Obama will be more of the same - lots of good speech writing, PR, and words of inspiration, but no real substance.
Ralph Nader, on the other hand does offer ideas, change, solutions, and a record of accomplishments and victories AGAINST special interest groups.
This is a guy who does not need "Change" as just a slogan. His record of achievement proves it.
-30-
------
Ralph Nader's Record of Accomplishments
Instrumental in the passing of the following legislation:
National Automobile and Highway Traffic Safety Act (1965)
Clean Water Act (1968)
Clean Air Act (1970)
Co-Op Bank Bill (1978)
Law establishing Environmental Protection Agency (1970)
Consumer Product Safety Act
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
Mine Health and Safety Act
Whistleblower Protection Act
Medical Devices safety
Nuclear power safety
Mobile home safety
Consumer credit disclosure law
Pension protection law
Funeral home cost disclosure law
Tire safety & grading disclosure law
Wholesome Meat Act
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act
Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act
Wholesome Poultry Product Act
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) 1970
Safe Water Drinking Act
Freedom of Information Act
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
Founded or sponsored the following organizations:
American Antitrust Institute
Appleseed Foundation
Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest
Aviation Consumer Action Project
Buyers Up
Capitol Hill News Service Center for Concerned Engineering
Center for Auto Safety
Center for Insurance Research
Center for Justice and Democracy
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Center for the study of Responsive Law - 1969
Center for Women Policy Studies
Citizen Action Group
Citizen Advocacy Center
Citizen Utility Boards
Citizen Works
Clean Water Action Project
Clearinghouse for Professional Responsibility
Congress Project
Congress Watch
Congressional Accountability Project
Connecticut Citizen Action Group
Consumer Project on Technology
Corporate Accountability Research Group
Critical Mass Energy Project
Democracy Rising
Disability Rights Center
Equal Justice Foundation
Essential Information
FANS (Fight to Advance the Nation's Sports)
Fisherman's Clear Water Action Group
Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights
Freedom of Information Clearinghouse
Global Trade Watch
Government Purchasing Project
Health Research Group
Litigation Group
Multinational Monitor
National Citizen's Coalition for Nursing Home Reform
National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest
National Insurance Consumer Organization
Ohio Public Interest Action Group
Organization for Competitive Markets
Professional Drivers (PROD)
Professionals for Auto Safety
Public Citizen
Pension Rights Center
Princeton Project 55
PROD - truck safety
Public Citizen's Visitor's Center
Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGS)
Resource Consumption Alliance (conserve trees) 1004
Retired Professionals Action Group
Shafeek Nader Trust for the Community Interest
Tax Reform Research Group
Telecommunications Research and Action Center
(list from draftnader
Nader is the best example of that old Star Trek chestnut - the perfect is the enemy of the good. He could have accomplished a lot more in the last decades if he'd been willing to work with Democratic legislators but his ego is too big and his supporters are too myopic.
Maybe it is the dems who are not willing to work with Nader. Where have they really worked at any of the issues that Nader advocates and we support? They have caved and ran from every confrontation with bush. Have they shown any inclination to work with their constituents? Have they made a real effort to end the war, our one big reason to vote them back in in 06? I'll take Nader over the do-nothing dems any day.
Wow, truly an impressive record. No wonder the politicians and MSM want to discredit him and sweep him aside. No one has a record that even comes close.
It is amazing that this man was never picked by either party for a major seat at the table.
A very helpful post to quiet much of the outrage against Nader, the audacity to run for public office. I, also, did a search using Wikipedia, I encourage everyone to do the same and then just ask yourself, why would I not support a candidate with this history, agenda and credentials?
Kinda makes Billary, Obama, and McCain look pretty small doesn't it. But then again if substance actually mattered to the shit for brains electorate Ross Perot would have been elected instead of "slick Willie."
Mr. Maher, as always, I agree with your post. However, I do have a problem with your show last week. What is the point of having guests that only repeat the lame arguments of the GOP talking points? The Republican Congressan, (jeez, I can't recall the assole's name, Jack somebody) made some of the most offensive comments that I've ever heard on your show. Why give someone like that a platform??? If I wanted to know what Congressman Jack had to say, I'd have turned off your show and watched Fox News Channel.
Honestly Bill,do you think anyone can get elected by campaining on the real issues? The American voter has herd mentality.
A good point here about how much more upset you should be at Ralph if you support him. He's got all these great things to say and only seems to come out of hiding to try to be spoiler in elections. Where's his attempt to build a 3rd party or strengthen the left wing of the democratic party?
But ralph has fallen into 2 huge traps. One if he can't have the ball then no one can, the other is that the perfect is the enemy of the good.
You haven't been paying attention when you say Nader "seems to be in hiding" in non-election years.
As long as liberals have to apologize for their believes this is going to be hard. We have to vote for the concensus candidate as long as it is no Republican. But we have a two party system, as long as nobody changes the idea for this pluralistic society. Lets recognize that a two party system is just one party to much for a Castro like regime. Europe has many parties and a so called representative democracy, we have a Presidential Democracy, which is almost a contradiction. As long as fourty senators can hold up legislation, as long as a Veto has to be overriden by two thirds majority, nothing will happen to reflect our society not just what money says our society ought to be. That takes courage and not spoiler mentality campaigns. Nader addresses the real issues, but has not enough clout to make a dent into the process.
Beliefs not believes.
Liberals don't have to apologize for anything. I sure as hell don't.
I'm proud to be a progressive liberal because as far as I'm concerned anybody who isn't is only much more challenged in terms of intelligence. In other words, conservatives are morons.
Just look at one very prominent mixed political couple... Arnold and Maria Shwartzenegger.
You ask Arnold who is the smarter one of the two, I guarantee you he will tell you it's his wife.
And you better believe he's right.
Nader is the American Diogenes; the last honest man whose unyielding hewing to principles is admirable but, sadly, ultimately unpractical. For those who still whine about his "spoiler" role in the 2000 elections, go rent An Unreasonable Man and be prepared to rethink what you were spoon fed with, by intelligent progressives like Mike Moore and Bill Maher who have also fallen into the shallow logic put out by the losers in the Democratic party. It is human nature to keep grasping at crumbs doled out by the Democratic establishment, but they have abjectly failed their constituents and protected corporate interests on so many matters that it has to penetrate one's consciousness at some point. Even on the matter of the FISA bill, the senate folded with a whimper and we all know that the House is just play-acting its shadow-theater before it ultimately gives in and grants retroactive immunity to the Telecom corporations. Yet, we keep hoping that something will eventually change and reason and justice will ultimately prevail, and go back for sops because "there is no alternative". Well, friends, there will never be any change until the Democratic party establishment really feels the hurt from losing. Eight years of the worst administration ever, and people are now willing to consider a Black man or a woman. Why not a true American patriot and social fighter like Nader?
When Nader resurrects the thousands of dead in Iraq and gets Roberts and Alito to retire, I'll vote for the A-hole.
Yet you can't ask for 5% as much from your own candidates. Double standard?
I voted for Nader in 96, 2000 and 2004, why, because I feel the Democratic Party has not lived up to it's ideals. If someone could tell me what big ticket item they've stuck together on, voted on and passed in the last, well, 20 years, I'm all ears! I don't know how many people I heard say they liked Kusinich's platform, but he'd never be elected. This year I hope to vote for Obama because of his message of change, I voted for Nader because I wanted to send a message of change to the powers that be, now I can send it through Obama.
For many reasons I doubt that Obama will carry any messages with a win. I would love to believe but his and Hillarys positions on most all issues are quasi progressive at best. Examples, ending the war, health care with drug program, progressive tax plan, free public education etc. If countries like Venezuela, Cuba, Canada, France, most of Scandinavia and others can provide many if not all of these progressive services and more, then I have to ask, why can't the wealthiest country in the world? The answer, of course, is 'what are the priorities of the politicians'? Just compare all the issues, Clinton with Obama with Nader. Then ask yourself, who is the progressive democrat?
So Ralph Nader is back in the ring again and the argument over whether or not Nader is doing right by our nation has resurfaced. What else is new? The Democrats are especially upset at Nader’s decision.
I choose to look at this issue from a different perspective. As I see it, the important question does not reside in Nader’s back yard, it resides in the people’s back yard. Yes, it is possible that Nader will attract votes which would otherwise have permitted another losing candidate to win. And so be it. The fault, if and when this happens, will not rest upon the shoulders of Ralph Nader. Rather, it will have been we the people who have spoken.
Understanding this fact, we the people have an obligation to discern every option and possibility connected with our vote in November and to vote accordingly.
Very fair and astute. What it ultimately comed down to is basic democracy. If an informed voter wants to vote for Nader, than that is ultimately his or her choice, just as it is ultimately up to you and others to convince them otherwise if you think it is for the good of the nation. But to wring one's hands and condemn Nader for running? It presumes that some voters should not be allowed to make their own choice. It presumes that some voters simply shouldn't be heard. And it presumes that one segment of the population has the right to overrule another segment simply through force of majority. And these ideas are blatantly un-American.
Damn, Bill! Here I was getting ready to disagree with you, but I can't. What you say is true. Nader is the only candidate who goes into detail about anything. Perhaps that's why Americans ignore him. They'd rather watch a beauty pageant or professional wrestling.
"A beauty pageant or professional wrestling", how true! Bill Moyers had something similar recently when he interviewed the author of "The Age of American Unreason".
Nader represents the worst possible form of "Do-Gooder". One that is quite happy to force all manner of laws down our throats our own "Good". And all these laws, it should be remembered will come with Police State enforcement.
So true...muc
Suppose by some miraculous happenstance, Ralph got to be president. What kind of negotiating skills has he demonstrated? How would they stack up against Barack's or Hillary's (or John McCain's for that matter)? That's a quality we desperately need right now, seeing as "The Decider" doesn't quite care to negotiate with anyone: it's all black or white, you're with us or with the terrorists, etc. (Hmm: why does this attitude make me think of the subject of this article?)
Question for you Ralphites: what has your candidate done in the past four years for the average joe besides talk or write articles? Has he lobbied Congress directly on issues? Has he gotten down in the muck and worked out deals to fix the problems he talks about? Has he chained himself to monuments or trees in protest of injustices? Has he gotten directly involved in ending the Iraq War? What service has he done to directly help make change happen for the better? What actual risks has he taken?
He strikes me as nothing more than a quadrennial performance artist who acts like we have a parliamentary-style government and refuses to acknowledge that yes, he does draw votes from those oh-so-impure Democrats.
good point, people who have worked for him have admitted that, even as they continue to admire him, he is a pain in the ass.
Now that's an important job qualification for a consumer advocate. That type of person plays a very important role in a democracy or republic. But what he should do is form a group like MoveOn and promise to mobilize it on behalf of a candidate, Major or Minor party, who meets certain limited objectives.
Copied and pasted from comments by Ryerson.
Ralph Nader's Record of Accomplishments
Instrumental in the passing of the following legislation:
National Automobile and Highway Traffic Safety Act (1965)
Clean Water Act (1968)
Clean Air Act (1970)
Co-Op Bank Bill (1978)
Law establishing Environmental Protection Agency (1970)
Consumer Product Safety Act
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
Mine Health and Safety Act
Whistleblower Protection Act
Medical Devices safety
Nuclear power safety
Mobile home safety
Consumer credit disclosure law
Pension protection law
Funeral home cost disclosure law
Tire safety & grading disclosure law
Wholesome Meat Act
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act
Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act
Wholesome Poultry Product Act
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) 1970
Safe Water Drinking Act
Freedom of Information Act
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
Founded or sponsored the following organizations:
American Antitrust Institute
Appleseed Foundation
Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest
Aviation Consumer Action Project
Buyers Up
Capitol Hill News Service Center for Concerned Engineering
Center for Auto Safety
Center for Insurance Research
Center for Justice and Democracy
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Center for the study of Responsive Law - 1969
Center for Women Policy Studies
Citizen Action Group
Citizen Advocacy Center
Citizen Utility Boards
Citizen Works
Clean Water Action Project
Clearinghouse for Professional Responsibility
Congress Project
Congress Watch
Congressional Accountability Project
Connecticut Citizen Action Group
Consumer Project on Technology
Corporate Accountability Research Group
Critical Mass Energy Project
Democracy Rising
Disability Rights Center
Equal Justice Foundation
Essential Information
FANS (Fight to Advance the Nation's Sports)
Fisherman's Clear Water Action Group
Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights
Freedom of Information Clearinghouse
Global Trade Watch
Government Purchasing Project
Health Research Group
Litigation Group
Multinational Monitor
National Citizen's Coalition for Nursing Home Reform
National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest
National Insurance Consumer Organization
Ohio Public Interest Action Group
Organization for Competitive Markets
Professional Drivers (PROD)
Professionals for Auto Safety
Public Citizen
Pension Rights Center
Princeton Project 55
PROD - truck safety
Public Citizen's Visitor's Center
Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGS)
Resource Consumption Alliance (conserve trees) 1004
Retired Professionals Action Group
Shafeek Nader Trust for the Community Interest
Tax Reform Research Group
Telecommunications Research and Action Center
(list from draftnader
There is a tendency in people, both the far left and far right, to think in absolutes. JMEB, below refers to the cross-your
In business and in life I have observed people who over plan, over design and generally screw themselves into the ground because they can’t get 100 percent of what needs doing done. To them I always say if you can only get 20 percent done today, then why not do that 20 percent. To not do anything accomplishes nothing, and does it repeatedly.
To me, that is the nature of compromise. Do what you can accomplish. It does not surrender your goals, it moves you towards your goals when otherwise you would have not moved at all.
Nader is not scary, not a spoiler, he is a quixotic figure. He serves to remind the people of what our goals should be, but realistically can do nothing to make them happen overnight. It is in fact the easiest thing to do, not the bravest.
Now Huckabee is scary.
Well said! (applause)
Amen to the scary Huckabee! Spot on with the Idealistic Nader descriptor. And I mostly agree with your assessment on taking every inch that moves you towards the ultimate goal of change. But I don't agree about smiling while you cede most of the ground you attempted to gain. I think that is where work comes into play. Tireless work to change people's minds. And if you don't ask for it all, you set youself up for less at the start.
For all the horrible things Bush has done in these last 7 years, we should all learn one valuable lesson. He achieved the war he set out to wage and has kept it going now for almost his entire administration. How? He pandered, cajoled, threatened and lied....th
I tried to imply advancing toward an untimate goal, not quiting after settling. I must have quit a settled too soon on my comment. Mea culpa.
What is really scary Herrington, are the followers of Huckabee. I've known them personally and they are like the cancer Lincoln discussed in the Lincoln Douglas debates, threatening this country under God. Great video of Ron Paul on Meet The Press, see number 4 on You Tube. They show Huckabee with an cross behind him and Paul, paraphrasing, says fascism will come to this country draped in a flag and carrying a cross.
And here we are, businesses bleeding from health care costs, gas prices over $3 a gallon, foreclosures the highest in 20 years / while Exxon posts record profits, Corp Execs getting millions $s of bonuses for laying off employees, and the former richest man in the world (I would argue still the richest if you look at legacy) Warren Buffet questioning why he pays a lower percentage of taxes than some of his employees.
Herrington:
The thing is, I don't think that either Nader or those who appreciate his part in the conversation are just stamping their feet and expecting miracles. Just think about how Edwards moved the football into territory that the frontrunners did not want to take. Edwards was endorsed by Nader precisely because he was having that effect. Nader said that he would not enter the race as long as Edwards was in so that his notoriety would not interfere with Edwards' campaign. Nader's positions, through Edwards by proxy, were getting 15-20% of the vote and would have gotten more had Edwards not had a media blackout on him. How does that compare to the percentages Nader got in '97, 2000 and '04?
And now that Edwards is out, Nader is back...and we are all talking about him and his issues. The DLC knew this would happen and promptly issued its' little fatwa against him; hence the hordes of Dem flying monkeys and their talking points. He is being effective.
I don't think we need fear his candidacy giving any ground to Republicans and there is so much ground to gain with respect to the frontrunners. He doesn't need to win to make his points, he just needs to be in the game.
At least Nader has some solutions to our problems, and tries to bring these issues to the forefront. Since all we have running for president are Republicans of one stripe or another (and yes, that includes Clinton and Obama), someone has to at least pay lip service to progressive ideas. I have little confidence that either Dem candidate will do anything about healthcare or loss of good jobs. Clinton and Obama have the rhetoric, but will they actually do anything? They've already given up on single-payer health insurance.
Good for him. But why does he need a presidential spotlight to do it? Jimmy Carter does just fine bringing attention to homeless and other social injustices in the world but you don't see him running for president again.
Probably because Jimmy Carter is a former president, and he isn't belittled at every opportunity by the MSM. I should also point out that it took about fifteen years after his presidency ended before the MSM actually started reporting on his action with anything other than bemused skepticism. Nader doesn't have that much time.
You've also pointed out another big hole in the Haters' argument- that Nader doesn't do anything between elections. I understand you sincerely believe that, and that would probably be the fault of the same media that ONLY reports on what Nader has to say when he threatens to run for office. But it simply isn't true. Since his 2000 run, Nader formed two organizations, Citizen Works and Democracy Rising, which focus on many of his platform issues. His already established organizations continue to do good work. He's written at least five books by my count and numerous introductions, essays, and forewards. Tell me, what have YOU all been doing to change things?
He has SOME solutions but not all. And he has no appreciation for the need to compromise in a Democracy.
I'd love to see more of his anti-corporate positions added to Clinton or Obama's platforms, at least those 2 can lead diverse groups of people away from disaster. So they've given up on single payer, they'll cover more people and maybe we'll be 4 or 8 years closer to single payer, where as allowing McCain in might get Medicare dismantled, and set us 20 years back.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
