Gee...I wonder why Hoover had so many jobs lost under his tenure...could it have been the Great Depression? Naw...must've been something else. And, despite what is commonly believed, Presidents do not create jobs, except when Clinton gave jobs to his relatives without them taking the Civil Service exam. They were quickly let go once word got out. Nor do they create law. That is the job of Congress, made up of Representatives and Senators, with two of the latter wanting to occupy the White House.
Of course Hoover had a net job creation loss during his term because of the Great Depression.
Balladeer confessed that when I said Bush had used the recession handed to him, 9/11 and the war in Iraq as excuses to why during his Administration no jobs were created, that that was "one of the most incredible statements I have seen in any of these discussions."
I don't see why.
After all, World War II cost the U.S $341 billion. Yet, somehow, the economy under Franklin D. Roosevelt still was capable of having at least a net gain in job creation.
Vietnam cost the U.S approximately $200 billion. Yet, somehow the economies under Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon still were capable of having net gains in job creation.
I acknowledge that it isn't the president himself who creates jobs, but every decision can influence the fate or destiny of the economy. Bush claims "the economy is strong, and it's getting stronger!". Yes, it's true that 1.9 million jobs have been created since we lost 2.7 million when Bush took office earlier. Yet, the sign that all these jobs won't be recovered in time show the irresponsibility of this Administration.
Bush had to deal with a recession which started in 1997, corporate scandals (I'm sure the investigations weren't started a few days before Enron went under), and the atrocious attack on the World Trade Center buildings, which cost over 3000 American lives and affected families in over 30 countries, not to mention losses of businesses and corporations. Oh, and don't forget that most of the job losses have been in the private sector...yanno, corporations that folded due to massive corruption and creative accounting practices. Let's not forget NAFTA either, which Clinton made a reality (cheaper labor in Mexico and no labor unions). If Albert Gore hadn't ignored 'smaller' electoral states, he would've had the exact same things to deal with. I'm not naive enough to wonder if the Democrats would hold him accountible. Nor do I think the DNC would be trying very hard to deny Nader his Constitutional right to run for President by his using the very same tactics the Republicans and Democrats have used for decades.
Again, these excuses can't cover up the lackluster performance of this Administration.
Now, let me get to the Nader controversy.
I absolutely agree that what some Democrats are doing to keep Nader off state ballots is wrong. I am not happy with that, and condemn those actions. Nader has every right to run because, after all, that is what rings true in democracy. The people decide, and thus they should have as many choices as possible.
Nader has done so much for America these past four decades, from working as a lawyer in Connecticut, to his time being a consumer advocate, to forming the Center for the Study of Responsive Law and the Public Citizen and U.S. Public Interest Research Group, to fighting against corporations and fighting for environmental protection, that is beyond admirable. He is courageous and he is to be honored in that respect.
Nader's positions on issues are also ones I overwhelmingly agree with. I applaud Ralph in defending Roe vs. Wade, how he's fighting for 47 million American workers by offering them a $8 minimum wage, getting rid of gay discrimination in full, that corporations should not be considered as individuals, treating hemp like poppy seeds instead of heroin, the reviving of energy policies, the ending of all logging in national forest areas, ending the war on Iraq, I am in great support of his policies!
I do also believe that Nader is coming off as naive and intransigent in his campaign. He must understand that this is a two-way race we're facing, and Nader himself knows he cannot win this election. Nader should also realize he could be an important role model in 2008 for many liberals and progressives, even many moderate Republicans. The Anybody But Bush bandwagon will dissolve by then and therefore he should be saving his energy for the next election, where I believe he can have a greater chance should this rigid system be fixed with an ITC ballot enforcement, expansion of Indymedia, etc.
Again, I disagree and denounce some tactics Democrats have used to keep Nader off the ballot in some states, as it shows unilateral, adversarial politics. All the same, when Nader continues to deny or fail to admit it, he, himself, has been involved in partisan politics in getting on some state ballots.
The way he has chosen to defend and promote his campaign is what is bothersome, using the likes of Republican lawyers to compete against Democratic lawyers instead of his own integrity to find a place on a ballot.
Nader's colleagues have worked with Peter Antonacci, George Meros, and, most notably, Kenneth Sukhia, a Republican judge who took a role in the 2000 recount then got appointed by Bush the following year for a federal judgeship in attempting to get on the Florida ballot is very troubling to me. All throughout Nader's long and rich history, partisan politics has never been his game, but seeing him work with the likes of those whose politics contradict his is very much out of character and, frankly, hypocritical.
54% of the signatures he got to get on the Arizona ballot were from Republicans alone. Nader received grants from the Oregon Family Council in Oregon, an anti-gay association, when Nader's politics contradict theirs.
Rumors are floating around that Nader has even accepted $75,000 from the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. Now, personally, I doubt Nader would go this far, but believing he is being dishonest about accepting previous endorsements, it won't be all too suprising should this story evolve and prove true.
In the end, I can forgive Nader for how he's been operating his campaign for presidency. Nader, overall, remains a breath of fresh air to democracy, and he represents the true definition of democracy as "of the people, by the people and for the people". His politics are what most of us I believe are yearning for and I commend him for continuing to hold them true.
I just hope while we sympathize with him, Nader can do the same for a majority of more liberal Americans depending on Kerry to bring America in a new direction.
Yes, Alicat, I agree it is wrong what some of these Democrats have done in pushing Nader aside from the ballots. All the same, Nader and the Republicans are no stranger to these adversarial politics.
After all, in Afghanistan, all 15 other presidential candidates have withdrawn and alleged election fraud in the first presidential election against U.S.-backed interim President Hamid Karzai. I have read multiple times that before this election, these candidates were saying that the U.S. officials were pressuring them to drop out of the race against Hamid.
In Iraq, it'll be the same story. The White House has developed a secret plan where it would covertly use the CIA to help pro-U.S. candidates win in the upcoming Iraqi election. Some officials within the Bush administration have even defended this plan saying it is "needed to counter outside influence from other countries including Iran."
There's democracy for you. Democracy is "of the people, by the people and for the people" thus I believe the Afghanis and Iraqis should decide how more or less pro-U.S they want their leaders to be.
"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20