The Politico of November 12 has this interesting column about the idea that Ralph Nader could conceivably decide to run for U.S. Senate in Connecticut in 2010. Thanks to Darcy Richardson for the link.
The Politico of November 12 has this interesting column about the idea that Ralph Nader could conceivably decide to run for U.S. Senate in Connecticut in 2010. Thanks to Darcy Richardson for the link.
Would he run as an independent, Green, or with the Independent Party that place him on the ballot for prez? If I am not mistaken the the Green Party is ballot qualified for Senate. Almost forgot the Connecticut for Lieberman Party. They are ballot qualified too.
What about Dr. John Mertens? He is already seeking the 4 parties nominations.
How about Nader runs for a House of Representatives seat, instead?
The Green Party is not ballot-qualified for US Senate in Connecticut. It got .52% for US Senate in 2006, and there was no US Senate race in 2008 in Connecticut.
What parties are available in CT? I went to the SOS site and was confused.
Connecticut has the oddest law on whether a party is ballot-qualified of any state. Parties that polled 20% for Governor, of which have 20% of the number of registered voters who are party members, are automatically on the ballot. Parties are also ballot-qualified for any particular partisan office if they polled 1% for that same office in the last election. The two U.S. Senate seats are considered interchangeable for that purpose. The only ballot-qualified party, other than Democratic and Republican, for U.S. Senate is the Connecticut for Lieberman Party, which won the 2006 election.
So the other parties (Libs, Greens, Working Families) would have to nominate by petition?
I think Nader should do this. As an Independent. I bet he could raise 2-3 million, if he really pitched it well to his national following. he can ask people all over the country to come to the state, come up with some well put together controversial ads. if he hit hard on the bailout, he might appeal a large section of the voters in the state. .
Nader supports too much government. I have looked at the campaign site for Dr John Mertens, and I agree with his stands on most issues – bring the troops home, end the war on drugs, balance the federal budget etc.
I hope the Libertarians and the Independent Party can get together behind John Mertens. Ralph Nader is way past his sell-by date.
I respect Gene Berkman’s opinion, but others might argue that some things get better with age, in which case Nader is nearing perfection.
I hope Nader does run, as it would split the left-wing vote.
This would be a blow to Chris “Countrywide” Dodd, who is already running behind in the polls.
Nader’s presence would spice up the race, since he’s a very interesting fellow.
Why is Senator Christopher Dodd even running behind his potential Republican potential challengers in the polls? I don’t understand. The last thing that the U.S. Senate needs is another Republican sitting there.
Are there any polls showing that Ralph Nader could win in a three-way (or four-way, or more) race?
Perhaps Mr. Nader should run for House of Representatives. It would really be nice to see him actually get elected to something!
What I meant to write was: ” … behind his potential Republican challengers in the polls?”
One reason Dodd is having difficulty back home is the “sweetheart” mortgage that he personally got from Countrywide Financial.
The Republicans won’t take control of the Senate next year, but they will definitely pick up some seats there.
Well, is there any human that is perfect? From what I have heard, Senator Dodd has been very good, for the most part. I don’t think that the GOP is going to pick up any seats in the U.S. Senate next year, by the way. I think that they are going to loose even more.
Woops! I meant to write ” … lose even more.”
Doesn’t Connecticut already have a narcissistic independent Senator?
#14 Why would the Republicans lose even more seats? The Democrats will have held the House and Senate for four years and the White House for two years. The economy will take years to recover, and many important issues remain unaddressed. Voters tend to blame the party in power.
#16 I’ll take Nader at his worst over Lieberman any day.
The reason that I think the Republican Party will lose even more seats in the U.S. Senate next year is because I believe that the GOP, like the Whigs and the Federalists before it, is destined to become a minor-sized party (by 2012) and, eventually, fade out entirely. I am cognizant of the fact that the Republican Party is better at getting its voters to actually cast their ballots, generally speaking. However, I think that the GOP is shrinking to the point where that factor is going to be offset.
By the way, isn’t a little narcissism (if that is what we are going to call independent thinking) a prerequisite for being active in politics? Or, as a matter of fact, just functioning (in general) in this crazy world?
Coupled with the fact that nine states, including such populous states as Florida, Illinois, Michigan and New Jersey, are now facing fiscal calamity and could soon find themselves in the same economic peril as California, a national unemployment rate of 11-12 percent next summer — and it could be higher — could spell disaster for the Democrats in the 2010 mid-term elections.
Unlike the Great Depression when the Democrats continued to gain seats in both chambers of Congress for nearly a decade following the stock market crash of 1929, the American people, sadly enough, are likely to turn to the Republicans next November, not unlike a dog returning to its vomit.
Fortunately, in California, Senator Barbara Boxer is running ahead of her potential Republican challengers (at least, the last that I read about). I know that my wife and I will be voting for her in both the primary and the general election.
Why does my very good friend, Darcy Richardson, think that these times are (and are going to be) so different (in regards to the Democratic Party against the Republican Party) from the Great Depression? I hope that he is wrong. I am sure that he does also.
Phil, I hope I’m wrong, too. I’m afraid, however, that the GOP will undeservedly pick up a large number of congressional seats next year, simply because of their status as the chief opposition party in our corrupt and contented duopoly.
As the country continues to spiral toward what could very well be a long and dreary Kondratiev Winter, the party in power will pay the ultimate price at the voting booth.
One of the big differences between the Great Depression and the current economic crisis, of course, is that the American people are arguably far more impatient today than they were during that period.
Unlike the early days of FDR’s New Deal, American taxpayers see nothing positive or tangible from the $800 billion TARP bailout or the trillions in Federal Reserve cash infusions, loans and loan guarantees to the financial services industry — the very folks responsible for this crisis — let alone President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package, much of which was used not for job creation, but to enable various governors and state lawmakers, including Florida’s Republican-controlled legislature, to balance their 2009-10 budgets.
As unemployment and mortgage foreclosures continue to rise during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Wall Street continues on its merry way, awash in cash and prepared to pay out record bonuses this year. According to Bloomberg News, the big three — Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan and Morgan Stanley — plan to pay more than $29.7 billion in bonuses. That’s a whopping 60 percent increase from last year and nearly three billion more than the previous high of $26.8 billion in 2007.
According to the IMF, this same industry has yet to deal with nearly three-quarters of the toxic assets currently on their books, apparently content at some point to stick U.S. taxpayers with that $4.1 trillion nightmare that they alone created.
All the while, President Obama and his clueless economic advisors continue to talk about a recovery that doesn’t exist, except for the investor class and their near-sighted cheerleaders on Wall Street.
Make no mistake about it, there will almost certainly be a huge backlash next year. While I profoundly hope that independent and third-party candidates — including, perhaps, Ralph Nader himself — will benefit from the coming uprising at the ballot box, I know one thing for sure. I certainly wouldn’t want to be a Democrat in 2010.
Thank you for the interesting and lengthy clarification, Darcy. You could be correct about the economic situation. I have been saying to people that economics is what is going to determine the outcome of this current (very fierce) political struggle. While people seem to agree with that – and it is certainly stating the obvious to any person who has spent even a little time in the political arena – I’m not sure that the importance of it always hits home. It’s like Al Gore preaching about climate change. Most people know that he is right but not all of them quite get the significance of it.
For my part, as a new Democrat, I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to the Obama-Biden Administration (in that I think that they know what they are doing about the economy and other matters).
Is this the same Phil Sawyer who used to post on here about the Peace and Freedom Party? I thought you used to call Democrats just another ‘capitalist party.’
Phil, I’m not sure that the Obama Administration deserves the benefit of the doubt that you’re willing to extend them, nor am I convinced that they know what they’re doing when it comes to our sputtering economy.
Obama’s economic policies — a continuation of the disastrous Bush policies — have created a situation in which the investor class is enjoying unprecedented prosperity during a period in which unemployment is at a 26-year high and most working people in this country are struggling, many of whom have had their hours and benefits cut drastically. Enjoying a 62% market rally since March of this year, Wall Street is absolutely giddy about this new-found “jobless prosperity.”
When judging the Obama Administration’s performance on the economy, it’s important to keep in mind that the President’s chief economic advisor Larry Summers, chairman of the White House Economic Council, is probably more responsible for the country’s current economic mess than any other individual.
As President Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury from 1999 to January 2001, Summers shaped and pushed the financial deregulation that unleashed the present financial crisis, particularly in 1999, when he pushed through the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, legislation that had prohibited banks from doing both commercial and investment banking.
An architect-turned-enabler of the continuing financial crisis, Summers later supported the Commodity Futures Modernization Act that unbelievably mandated that financial derivatives — including the reckless credit default swaps at the heart of this financial crisis — could be traded between financial institutions without any government oversight whatsoever.
It’s little wonder that writer William Greider, in an article late last year, pointed out that Obama’s choice of Summers and other key economic advisors, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, seemed designed to sustain the failed economic policies of the Bush presidency — an administration that never saw the financial crisis coming in the first place.
Comrade Phil #14: “I don’t think that the GOP is going to pick up any seats in the U.S. Senate next year… . I think that they are going to lose even more.”
Would you like to make a wager on that? If you win, I owe you a copy of Das Kapital. If I win, you owe me a hard-cover copy of The Discovery of Freedom, by Rose Wilder Lane.
It’s interesting, Phil, that a former Communist Party member like yourself feels comfortable joining today’s Democratic Party.
The Republicans, in my view, have a good chance of taking control of the U. S. House in next year’s elections. I doubt that Obama really cares: he’ll play off of a GOP House much like Bill Clinton played off of Newt Gingrich.
Darcy #22: The dirty little secret is that many– if not most– of the Wall Street people are Democrats (Jon Corzine will presumably be back, since he’ll be out of a job in January). As for the $787 billion “stimulus”: only about 15% of it has been spent, with the bulk of it earmarked for next year, an election year.
Comrade Phil #19: “… I believe that the GOP, like the Whigs and the Federalists before it, is destined to become a minor-sized party (by 2012) and, eventually, fade out entirely.”
That sounds similar to what Roger MacBride wrote in his 1976 book. In 1983, MacBride rejoined the Republican Party, where he helped found the Republican Liberty Caucus.
Steve #26…Excellent points. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Wall Street fell in love with Obama early on, having contributed at least $37.6 million to the President’s state and federal campaigns during his relatively short political career.
Given the fact that Obama had never worked in the private sector and possesses only a rudimentary understanding of economics and finance, they viewed him as easily influenced and pliable to their will. They got their wish and Wall Street has been partying ever since.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, for example, a number of Wall Street executives — including Louis Susman of Citigroup, Gary Gensler and Bruce Heyman of Goldman Sachs, and Mark Gilbert of the failed Lehman Brothers firm, to mention only a few — bundled large sums of cash for Obama’s presidential campaign.
I also agree that Jon Corzine will eventually make his way back to Wall Street. In fact, just last week there was media speculation that he might replace Bank of America’s CEO Ken Lewis, who is retiring at the end of the year — a rumor that Corzine denied.
Yes, it would be somewhat reassuring if Obama had run, say, a lemonade stand somewhere along the way. All of his paychecks have come, directly or indirectly, from government.
Looks like Comrade Phil is afraid to take me up on that wager.
Buck, buck, buck… CAW!!
Well, I have been busy Steve. I think that I will pass on your offer of a bet. By the way, most members of the Communist Party USA work within the Democratic Party. Just yesterday, I resigned from CPUSA and rejoined the Socialist Party USA.
Yes, Ty. I am the same Phil Sawyer who was an activist in the Peace and Freedom Party of California. The Democratic Party is, indeed, a capitalist party. However, many people who are socialists or communists work within that Party because they think that it is the most practical approach in our country.
Thank you, again, Darcy for your many fascinating clarifications about our country’s current ecnomic policies.