Why I'm Voting for Nader

Lots of friends have been asking me lately why I'm voting Nader especially since he is not on officially on the ballot in Hawaii. Here are my reasons:

• Gore won the electoral votes in Hawaii in the last election by a large margin. Kerry should be a shoe-in in this election.


• Kerry and Bush both support the Patriot Act.


• Kerry and Bush both support DMCA laws.


• Neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party could be viewed as progressive parties.


• By protest voting for Nader I hope the Democratic will become more supportive of Nader issues.

I urge anyone in a blue state or a red state to vote for Nader. This is the only way we will get the progressive policies we want.

•  If you must vote for a third party...

  ...vote for David Cobb and the Green Party.  Nader is a Republican stooge, not a genuinely independent candidate.

  Besides, Hawaii isn't a safely blue state.  Those recent polls may or may not be right, but I wouldn't take chances.

  by tyronen on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:16:56 PM PDT

  •  First

    This is the guy's first diary. He has only two comments. Draw your own conclusion.

    by Semblance on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:18:09 PM PDT

    •  Why don't you all

      just consider this an open thread.  Better still, let's see some great recipes!

      by wozzle on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:46:14 PM PDT

      •  Allright

        Packers over Redskins because whenver the Redskins lose their last home game before an election, the incumbent loses.

        More importantly - I HATE the Redskins.  Giants fan.  And yeah, I hate the Cowboys too.  Strangely, don't hate the Eagles.  Like McNabb.

        by Armando on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:50:44 PM PDT

        •  Armando, love your FB tips, but we need

          RECIPES!  Good ones that won't make us ill.  Or ugly.

          BTW, here's a Stillers fan that's hoping you'uns NE folk won't hate me too much when we beat your Pats tomorrow...

          by wozzle on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:57:27 PM PDT

          •  Hey

            You said Open Thread.

            by Armando on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:59:24 PM PDT

            •  I lied ;) (n/t)

              by wozzle on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:03:12 PM PDT

    •  Agreed

      ...and really not informed at the level of detail to consider voting for a 3rd part.  Besides, Nader is a repug in fools clothing.

      by DrKate on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:59:26 PM PDT

  •  I heard an interview

    with David Cobb recently and was quite impressed. He said if he was elected the first thing he would do is apologize to the people of Iraq for the war. I think he then he outlined a plan to get the troops out of there.

    However, still voting for Kerry. Now is not the time to make a point. Now is the time to get that murderous lying bastard out of the White House.

    by slee on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:21:59 PM PDT

  •  Not safe

    
     Polls have tightened.  You'd have far more impact if you voted for Kerry and wrote President Kerry saying you almost voted for Nader for the reasons you listed and you hope he'll exceed your expectations.

     Read Nader's game of chicken

    http://www.normansolomon.com/norman_solomon/2004/10/naders_game_of_.html

    by ari on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:24:25 PM PDT

    •  exactly

      The person who authored this dairy obviously lacks a lot of general knowlege of the world around him based on the fact that he thinks that Hawaii is a shoe in.  That explains a whole lot.

      Regards,
      Jamie

      by jamie ahmad on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:01:27 PM PDT

  •  ATLEAST...

    no one has called him a "troll" repeatedly. LOL

    although I already voted for Kerry, man did I get fucking ripped in my first diary when I suggested that Kerry was Stag-Nant

    wow.  lol.  and not, if you go back and read what I wrote, it looks solid.

    but seriously--FUC Nader.  I would have voted for him if he weren't Bush's lap dog.

    by Raiyan on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:37:07 PM PDT

•  Fricassée de Mer et sa Julienne de légumes

  Ingredients for 4 people:

  • 8 fresh fleshy scallops
    
  • 250 gr [1/2 lb] salmon fillets
    
  • 250 gr [1/2 lb] doversole fillets
    
  • 25 cl [9 fl oz] sour cream
    
  • 30 cl [10 fl oz] dry white wine
    
  • 2 carrotts + 1 leak
    
  • 2 shallots
    
  • 40 gr [1.5 oz] butter
    
  • 4 Tbspoons olive olive
    
  • Salt & pepper

  1- Cut the fish fillets into strips (you need a very sharp knife) ; cut the scallops thickwise (so that you obtain 2 disks from one).
  2- In a frying pan, melt half of the butter with 2 Tspoons of olive oil ; over a medium-high flame, brown the fish and scallops for 5 minutes with salt & pepper ; keep aside.
  3- Peel and mince the shallots ; peel the carrots ; prepare the leak (take outside leaves off and wash). Cut the leak into very small and thin sticks ; grate the carrotts not too thinly.
  4- In the frying pan, melt the second half of the butter with the 2 left Tspoons of olive oil and brown the shallots for 3 minutes ; add the vegetables, brown for 3 more minutes, then add the wine and let simmer for 15 minutes (cover with a lid).
  5- Add the cream which you will mix carefully with a wooden spoon ; let simmer for 5 minutes turning from time to time, then add the fish and scallops (do not mix) cover again and let simmer for 5 more minutes.
  6- Adjust seasonning and serve right away.
  

  by Plutonium Page on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:17:04 PM PDT

  •  I agree

    check out his comments...his name etc.

    Make your own judgements (and this sounds like a lovely recipe)

    by israelfox87 on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:19:13 PM PDT

  •  Mmm

    And don't forget the whine.

    by Kimberley on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:26:15 PM PDT

  •  I can't cook, so...

    Papa John's
    108 University Boulevard West    [phone]

    I like pepperoni and sausage, but they have other ingredients.

    (Always wanted to do this on a troll diary)

    by choateward on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:29:40 PM PDT

    •  I MUST protest - this is

      NOT a recipe.  Young man, go thou and FIND ME A SHRUBBERY - er, a RECIPE!  And here's a 4 for the change...

      by wozzle on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:48:06 PM PDT

      •  My Wife Felt Sorry For Me...

        Here's a real one (and not my famous Pop-Tarts recipe):

        Corn Pudding

        1 can whole corn
        1 can cream-style corn
        1/2 stick butter
        3/4 cup warm milk (I usually use skim)
        4 tablsp. flour
        3 teasp. sugar
        3 eggs (well beaten)
        Casserole dish greased with butter (I usually don't grease the dish and use a glass bowl)

        Drain whole corn. Melt butter in milk in the microwave. Add flour and sugar to both corns and then add milk and butter mixture. Add eggs. Pour into casserole.

        Bake at 350 for about 1 hour or until golden brown on top. (It usually takes 1 hour 10 minutes in the glass bowl for me.)

        If you double the recipe, don't double the milk and butter.

        by choateward on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:06:11 PM PDT

        •  An excellent recipe,

          thank you, sir.

          by wozzle on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:12:04 PM PDT

    •  LOL

      Funny.  My cooking is marginal, so my contributions thus far have been "corn on the cob" and "Kraft dinner."

      I can cook slightly better than that, though.  How 'bout this rice pilaf:

      1 cup basmati rice
      2 cups water
      1/2 cup portabello mushrooms, chopped
      6 sun-dried tomatoes
      1 onion, finely chopped

      Cook onion in oil until golden.  Simmer with mushrooms.  Put onions and mushrooms in rice cooker (if ya got one) and let cook.  Stir in sundried tomatoes after cooked.

      by Dale on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:50:51 PM PDT

•  Voting is not an art

  It is a practical choice, not a time to express your soul.  If you wish to express the purity of your heart and your soul, vote for a third party for Congress, for Senate, for city council.

  For president, vote for the continued survival of our country's democracy and your right to continue expressing your soul in the voting booth in the future.

  When the crisis has passed, vote for whoever you want.

  For now, vote for the only man who can save us from Bush.

  by KariQ on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:17:56 PM PDT

  •  An helping get Bush re-elected

    is most certainly NOT the way to do that.

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:23:35 PM PDT

  •  Well

    that makes me think this . . .  HUH?

    by Armando on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:24:21 PM PDT

    •  Speaking for me

      I have not rated you.  My reaction is an honest one - HUH?

      by Armando on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:28:48 PM PDT

    •  You know what's stupid?

      Expecting anything other than to get your ass kicked on the ratings for taunting people here with your vote for Nader. Now, that's idiocy!

      by Kimberley on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:29:49 PM PDT

    •  Well

      The difference is at Free Republic they love Nader.

      by Blue the Wild Dog on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:29:52 PM PDT

    •  many reasons

      
       but one major one is it would be pleasant rather than scary to meet most of the people who post here.

      Plus I was booted from there for being a 'troll' which meant asking a few critical questions about their great leader.

      by ari on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:30:51 PM PDT

    •  The guy is a troll.

      He's a troll because he is trying to pick a fight. Anybody who says stuff just to pick a fight will get troll-rated here.

      For why not to vote for Nader, Patsy Keever, in her post here, makes a far better case than me.

      The fact is, many prominent liberals who supported Nader in 2000 asked him not to run this time and he refused. I have been around basketball all my life and I have learned that it doesn't matter if you're Michael Jordan, if you are a selfish person, you will harm the team, rather than help the team. I don't give a rat's behind that I agree with Nader on 100% of the issues, the fact is, he's been corrupted by the lust of power by recieving support primarily from right-wingers and white supremacists.

      You are invited to go to Keever's comments and try to refute them point by point, if you dare. By contrast, Howard Dean showed himself to be the ultimate team player who kept his promise made in the debates by supporting Kerry after he lost the primaries. He brought in a lot of new voters and candidates even though he didn't win. I have a lot of respect for him as a result. And he didn't have to accept support from freepers and white supremacists to do so.

      by Eternal Hope on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:41:08 PM PDT

      •  i'm not Patsy Keever!

        just an ardent supporter!

        thanks for the compliment, though =)

        by GoKeever on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:54:07 PM PDT

    •  Why don't you go

      develop, troubleshoot, maintain, upgrade as necessary, and love a blog devoted to the Ralph Nader perpetual candidacy?  Then YOU can control the flow of information as YOU see fit.

      Otherwise, fuck you very much.

      by wozzle on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:54:09 PM PDT

      •  Heh

        Well, Wozzle, FUCK YOU!

        Ha!  You replied to the wrong guy.  At least, I hope you did.

        by Armando on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 03:43:33 AM PDT

        •  Scoop screwed up!

          I remember responding to this incomprehensible Naderite, not you. That's what happened to wozzle, too.

          by Blue the Wild Dog on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 04:37:40 AM PDT

  •  But

    don't you think it would be wise for a third party to start from the ground up, with statewide elections before national?  I just saw my state's ballot and there aren't any Green or Libertarian or Socialist candidates besides President and Senate.  Not even one for the House.  If these parties want to be truly competitive, they would build from the ground up, not go for broke with something they know they can't win in the first place.

    I voted for Nader in 2000, and boy do I regret it.  Even though I live in New York.

    by Muboshgu on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:25:48 PM PDT

  •  Then go get a gun and get busy...

    Because that's how you reform the system.  If you're too afraid to put your life on the line (nothing to be ashamed of, same goes for most of us), then STFU and live with how things are.  Allowing Bush to be elected does not reform the system, it just makes it worse.  

    by Asak on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:27:13 PM PDT

    •  umm, yes

      This is an election, not art class. There are no shades of gray when the returns come in. We either win, or we don't.

      by GoKeever on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:50:58 PM PDT

    •  Realistically, that's what I'm saying...

      I'm saying that this system is never going to change.  It's imperfect, so we have to live with it.  The only way to get something better is through armed revolution.  I'm not necessarily advocating that, because it will result in a lot of short term strife and misery.  However, realistically I believe that is the only way the system will ever be changed.  

      by Asak on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:15:01 PM PDT

  •  Vote for the man who can save us from Bush?

    I know that John Hinckley Jr. has been allowed to leave the mental hospital a couple of times, and I honestly don't know if he's out full-time now, but I don't think he's running for anything at all.

    I guess a write-in vote wouldn't hurt.

    Note to FBI: I'm a kidder, I kid. I'm a witty guy.

    Note to John Hinckley Jr.: You know why Jane Fonda doesn't return your phone calls, don't you? Well, yes, there is that stark raving loony thing, and yes there's that whole scared for her life thing, but there's also that whole stench of failure thing...

    by Gustavo on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 12:14:56 AM PDT

•  I know I'm stupid but...

  DMCA laws?

  And we want to lose all of the presidential elections for the next 100 years, then the Democratic party will go the Nader route.

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:18:14 PM PDT

  •  Digital Millenium Copyright Act

    
     a really, really bad law supported by both parties (but still not enough of a reason to vote for Nader - Lessig http://lessig has a connection to Edwards and would have a far better hearing in a Kerry administration than with another term under Bush.  Who knows they might be smart and appoint him to the Supreme Court)

    http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/

    by ari on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:28:23 PM PDT

    •  Well Damn

      they should have made it so that people go to jailor something for downloading music imho.  Same as shoplifting and should be treated as such in my opinion.  But thats's just me.  Know its probably unpopular here, but oh well.

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:30:36 PM PDT

      •  shoplifting

        
         there are many reasons it is different from shoplifting, but here isn't the place to argue the issue.

         plus very few people are prosecuted for shoplifting.

        by ari on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:33:19 PM PDT

      •  I agree

        I write computer games for a living, I don't like having my work stolen.  However, the DMCA is mostly unrelated to that (IP theft has been a crime, at the least, for decades), and is a really vile piece of legislation.  It's kind of like how yes, the record companies are right that people should be stopped from pirating music, but no, they should not be sending out subpeonas all across the country and harassing and threatening people (they literally have sent out squads of goons to pretend to be cops and harass people who sell pirated CDs on the street).  Two wrongs do not generally make a right, unless you mean the religious right, which is indeed too wrong.

        by Hamumu on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:37:03 PM PDT

        •  Some of the things

          preventing people from cracking codes for security reasons I am against yes, just because it's stupid to basically prohibit people from checking to see if what they are encrypting is actually secure.

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:40:18 PM PDT

  •  DMCA

    oh give me a break.  DMCA is crap.  The only people that seem to be pushing it are big corporations that wish to control digital information.  

    oh, and get this: our man, Kerry is on the right side of this issue (in my view)

    "I do not condone the illegal sharing of copyrighted material," Kerry said, though he is "open to examining whether legislative action is necessary to ensure that a person who lawfully receives a transmission of a digital work may back up a copy of it for archival purposes."

    http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5425019.html

    by snappy on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:31:46 PM PDT

  •  The DMCA

    http://anti-dmca.org/

    The Digital Millenium Copyright Act is a horrible piece of legislation that basically expands the power of copyright to cover things that it can't possibly cover and shouldn't ever.  I can't explain it, but it is pure corporate evil, and the website above does explain it.

    by Hamumu on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:33:59 PM PDT

•  Ugh

  You make me want to vomit. I forgive any 2000 Nadir voter. You are just encouraging Nader to help deliver the election to Bush.

  Thanks. Must be nice to be purer than the rest of us.

  by trifecta on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:18:38 PM PDT

  •  CHIMPEACHMENT!

    Blaaahahhahha!  The kick I got outta that was the only good thing about this diary.:P

    by jandey on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:31:09 PM PDT

•  Could...

  "Lots of friends have been asking me lately why I'm voting Nader especially since he is not on officially on the ballot in Hawaii."

  Could the reason be that you're a douchebag?

  Or is it just that you're a troll...

  by FullDisclosure on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:18:49 PM PDT

•  (Crickets chirping)...

  by PeterSD on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:19:32 PM PDT

•  He is taking votes away from Kerry

  needlessly, and taking tons of Republican money in the process.  I'm not sure what more you need to be convinced that he's, at the very least, helping Bush get re-elected.

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:19:49 PM PDT

•  Not ridiculous

  The key word in your post is "history".

  Nader is accepting donations and organizational help from the Republican Party.  He was a great citizen leader once, but he's now a de facto Republican.  All the more so since he's actually concentrating his campaign in swing states.

  by tyronen on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:19:49 PM PDT

•  only two reasons

  There are only two reasons why someone would vote for Nader:

  1) They're complete morons

  and/or

  2) They're fucking insane

  by Heywood Jablowme on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:19:52 PM PDT

  •  Or...

    ...they want to feel important.

    by Plutonium Page on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:26:21 PM PDT

  •  There is a third reason

    3) They have sold out their democratic principles for a big bag of cash from Rove and associates.

    by Muboshgu on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:27:15 PM PDT

  •  a third reason...

    They are uneducated and are just following a crowd, seen it a million times. People who say they're Nader voters and can't give me one good reason, just that old "there's no difference between dems and repugs" crap.

    by ZT155 on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:34:25 PM PDT

    •  a fourth reason

      No strategic sense. progressive third partyism is dead as a doornail, having failed over many years now to advance outside of a few thousand votes, and a few low level offices from a few university towns. Nader and the Green party have now splintered. It is long past time for progressives who are serious about gaining sufficient political power to enact meaningful reforms, to become vigorous activists in the democratic party. Protest votes are gestures of powerlessness. That is the message that is sent and received by the Democratic Party if you vote for Ralph Nader this year.

      by Frederick Clarkson on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:50:26 PM PDT

      •  Not quite

        
         Matt Gonzalez got over 110,000 votes last year, within 15,000 votes of Newsom who outspent him by more than 5 to 1.

          When there is a good candidate and little chance of electing a Republican, a green can do well.

         

        by ari on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:54:00 PM PDT

        •  but...

          in a wasted effort in a losing campaign. Its long past time progressives built a serious grassroots powerbase in the democratic party, and stopped pointing to the exceptions like Gonzalez that really just prove the rule. Progressive third parties are a crashing failure.

          by Frederick Clarkson on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:57:47 PM PDT

          •  It wasn't wasted

            
             Newsom wouldn't be making so many progressive moves if he hadn't nearly been beaten.

             And it got people involved in politics and many of them are now working to defeat Bush and on local campaigns.

             And there are a couple of Green candidates who have a good chance of replacing Matt on the board in an election using IRV, something which wouldn't have happened without green activism.

             The full impact won't be known for a few years.

            by ari on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:13:49 PM PDT

            •  too bad

              this work wasn't being done in the democratic party where it would have a far greater impact. This is a classic case of division of the left as well as a classic focus on the politics of personalities as opposed to building for power.

              These situations happen time and again, for example, there is no one to follow socialist independent Bernie Sanders in Vermont.  There was no one to follow liberal reform republican Lowell Weicker in Connecticut whose Connecticut Party no longer exists as far as I can tell. Ralph Nader left little behind in the way of infrastructure. More people turned out to hear Nader at UMASS in 2000, than there are now Green Party members in the entire state.

              If San Francisco is busy building a local Green party because of its particular political dynamics -- with almost nothing else of any consequence happening in the entire country, after all these years -- I think its time to stop being so parochial.

              by Frederick Clarkson on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:25:45 PM PDT

              •  Green party is growing

                
                The Green Party is growing in many cities.    The number of local elected Greens has been increasing every election.  

                  Democrats should be encouraging Greens to run for local offices, particularly where it won't hurt progressive Democrats.  And there are lots of Greens working to elect progressive Democrats like Aaron Peskin and Jake McGoldrick.

                 Tom Ammiano tried to work within the Democratic Party and got destroyed by the machine when he ran against Willie Brown.

                 Matt wrote about why he became a Green in 2000

                http://www.sfbg.com/News/35/07/07oped.html

                by ari on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:53:46 PM PDT

                •  the green party's progress is aneimic

                  and in no greater proportion to the animation of the rest of the electorate. There is a need for a strong, progressive political infrastrucure that can function within the democratic party that is not soley dependent on the personalities and political fortunes of individual pols.

                  Progressives can be powerful. Sectarian splinter movements cannot. The Green Party has demonstrated that it has no mass appeal and no capacity to get it. The best progresive spinters can hope for is transient local regional strength, usually predicated on one strong personality. Its a proven way not to go.

                  by Frederick Clarkson on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 11:07:01 PM PDT

          •  I'll add..

            If this losing effort was Democrat to Democrat, Gonzalez at least would have a second chance somewhere to get something done. Not to mention that the effect of such turnout would be on the winner. The winner would have an incentive to incorporate such a large block of such Democrats' concerns into governing, in order to win a second time or to win higher office. And those concerns could be translated into jobs, bills, policy.

            Third party concerns can get shoved aside precisely because there isn't that followup.

            by CarolDuhart on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 03:14:37 AM PDT

  •  Another reason

    They're a rebellious 19 year old twit who hates their Democrat father and everything their father believes in, but has enough sense not to vote for Bush.

    If the last four years have taught us anything, it should be this: never underestimate the power of the Oedipus Complex.

    by Gustavo on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 12:21:12 AM PDT

•  Idiot

  That sums it up.

  by KeithH on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:20:03 PM PDT

•  Right

  I urge anyone in a blue state or a red state to vote for Nader. This is the only way we will get the progressive policies we want.

  Because, you know, a vote for Nader was such a stunning success for progressive policies in 2000.

  by Blue the Wild Dog on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:20:35 PM PDT

•  well you are in bed with some interesting company!

  so, who else supports St. Ralph??

  • The ultra-conservative Arno Political Consultants firm that has directed ballot-qualification efforts for GOP icons Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr, Bob Dole, Pete Wilson, and Bob Dornan and whose client list features a virtual Who's Who of the corporate cartels and anti-progressive groups Nader routinely claims to oppose (including the National Rifle Association, U.S. English, the California Timber Association, Mobil Oil, Occidental Petroleum, Phillip Morris, Wal-Mart, and numerous Republican Party committees).

  • Arno's Florida-based subcontractors JSM Inc. that directed illegal, deadbeat petition drives on behalf of Ralphie in numerous states, including West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Criminal charges are now pending against their shady solicitors in several states.

  • The ultra-conservative former executive director of the Arizona Republican Party Nathan Sproul, a major GOP fundraiser, along with former Republican AZ Governor Fife Symington's attorney Lisa Hauser, associated with numerous other rightwing causes. Nathan Sproul has now been implicated in Republican voter registration fraud in Nevada, Oregon, Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania.

  • George Bush Sr's White House political director Dave Carney, owner of the ultra-conservative Norway Hill Associates consultant firm - that provided illegal, in-kind contributions to St. Ralph's ballot campaigns.

  • The shady Choices for America rightwing nonprofit, founded by Nevada-based GOP apparatchik Steve Wark, scheming to prop up Ralphie's ballot drives and funnel donations from other conservatives.

  • The Michigan Republican Party that collected 45,000 signatures to qualify St. Ralph for that ballot, then cast aside all pretense to intervene with a lawsuit on behalf of their proxy. The Wisconsin Republican Party, that orchestrated an underground petition drive masquerading as 'progressive' Naderites.

  • Former GOP Arkansas state senator Doyle Webb II, chief of staff to state Republican Party chairman Win Rockefeller, the state's lieutenant governor; GOP state Rep. Michael Lamoureaux; Little Rock GOP chairwoman Martha McCaskill; five minions of the Republican Party's coordinated campaign; and former state GOP chairwoman Phyllis Kincannon - just a snippet of Nader petitioners in one state.

  • The radical-right Oregon Family Council along with chapters of the reactionary Citizens for a Sound Economy both in that state and various others across the nation.

  • George W. Bush 2000 Florida recount lawyer Ken Sukhia who along with the chairman of the Florida Republican Party maneuvered Ralphie onto that ballot.

  • Buchananite Reform Party Chairman Shawn O'Hara, outspoken, revisionist defender of Samuel Bowers, former Imperial Wizard of the KKK in Mississippi.

  • Innumerable Republican Party lackeys and minions (such as Colorado Republican Party Treasurer Richard Westfall and former Virginia Republican Party offical Jim Polk) who have orchestrated St. Ralph's campaigns in various states or otherwise twisted the law on his behalf (e.g., hyperpartisan Jeb! elections whore Glenda Hood).

  • And, finally, we can add the insidious backers of the Swift Boat Veterans for 'Truth' malevolent smear campaign against John Kerry's heroic service in Vietnam, who are also fundraising for their sketchy bedfellow Ralph Nader.

  by GoKeever on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:21:00 PM PDT

•  Heh

  Way to keep your head in the game.  Because, it's true, a vote for Nader will get us progressive policies.  There is no doubt about that.

  Sheesh.

  by Armando on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:21:15 PM PDT

•  Why don't you support Cobb?

  David Cobb actually represents a progressive party...the Green Party.

  Nader represents the Reform Party, which fielded the xenopobic arch-conservative Pat Buchanan in 2000. Do you really want your vote going to embolden a racist, anti-immigrant party like the Reform Party?

  Might as well just don the white hood and startgettin' together your lynchin' party.

  by Maxwell on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:21:34 PM PDT

•  Third party?

  In what way do you support third parties by voting for Nader?  Which third party are you supporting?  Last time he ran with the Green Party so a vote for him was a vote for the Green Party?  What about this time?  You might have reasons for voting for Nader, but I don't think the "Third Party" reason is a legitimate one.

  by panhu on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:21:36 PM PDT

  •  Cow-tipping party, Si! Turd party, No!

    by RonK Seattle on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:44:43 PM PDT

  •  A vote for Nader is a vote for Consumer Reports!

    (No, I'm not sure what that means)

    by Gustavo on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 12:22:42 AM PDT

•  Reply

  When did those issues became only Nader's issues? Stop feeding that selfish pig's ego. Also, when did Nader stand for progressives? Gimme a break, Progressives left Nader back in 2000 and Nader left us after the 2000 Election. Hmm, what progressive movement did he usher in? Not a damn thing, he's self serving and only cares for himself. Stop relying on him and know that you'll have a seat at the Democratic Party table...not because of Nader, but because of US who refused to support an selfish pig such as him and rather pave our own way through a grassroots movement rather than rely on a some figure to guide us to the promise land.

  by Modest Mouse on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:21:47 PM PDT

•  I wont argue with you

  but the fact is that republicans are funding him, backing his drive for ballot access and will benefit the most from his voters

  Just remember, on November 3...that you had a chance to change the country in the direction that Ralph Nader's activism in the 60's, 70's and 80's was aimed at...and you did not. You actually failed Ralph Nader and his "public service history" by voting for him in this election

  Flame away.

  by israelfox87 on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:22:08 PM PDT

•  Hawaiian Stew with Luau**

  In a large pot brown 1 lb. of pork, cut in stewing pieces, with 1 lb. beef
  stew meat, sprinkle with Hawaiian salt and then add just a little water to
  cover and simmer until tender. In another pot cook 3 lb. cleaned luau leaves**
  about 1 1/2 hours or until soft (do not mix until cooked) and remember to
  change the water.  When both are done, drain and rinse the luau leaves well
  and combine, season with salt and pepper, and simmer for another 10 minutes.

  Best eaten with sour poi, raw onions, limu and chili pepper!! (Like I said I
  use spinach leaves, and you don't have to boil as long, only until soft)

  **Instead of luau leaves I use spinach leaves or even canned spinach.
  

  by IsraelHand on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:22:13 PM PDT

•  Tool, not operative

  No Democrat has claimed that Nader is a Republican operative. He's a Republican tool. Important distinction.

  by Blue the Wild Dog on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:22:30 PM PDT

•  If you want to advance a progressive agenda

  (I know, foolish of me to bite, but I'll ask anyway):

  (1) In your last statement, you urge folks in a "blue state or a red state" to vote for Nader. Does it then follow that if you are in a swing state that you should not vote for Nader? If so, then I don't understand why one would vote for Nader in Hawaii, which is apparently not locked up for Kerry.

  (2) If you believe that the only way to advance a progressive agenda is to vote third party, why are you not voting for David Cobb (Green Party guy)?

  (3) Am I foolish for even bothering to ask these questions, for I am actually being trolled? If so, does anyone out there have a good recipe for a crockpot stew?

  by sheba on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:22:33 PM PDT

•  stop the Republican assaults on democracy

  From Paul Loeb: Working for Chcange

  A final plea to Nader supporters
  Bush assault must be stopped, now

  If Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Barbara Ehrenreich, Jim Hightower, and Ralph Nader's former running mate Winona LaDuke haven't convinced you that voting for Nader is too great a risk this election, maybe nothing will. But the stakes are high enough to try.
  As Nader supporters continually point out, Kerry is a compromised, centrist Democrat, ambivalent at best on a host of key questions including the Iraqi war. And yes, Nader's positions are better, and it may feel personally gratifying to vote for them.

  But this election isn't about abstract stands. It's about Bush's threat to democracy. Not just Bush, but a larger Republican machine that purges African Americans from the Florida voting rolls, throws away voter registrations in Nevada, jams New Hampshire Democratic phone banks with hired telemarketers, shouts down Palm Beach vote counters, and shuts Congressional Democrats out of the legislative drafting process entirely, replacing their voices with those of industry lobbyists. That doesn't count waging preemptive wars and lying about their justification, passing over a hundred billion dollars a year of regressive tax cuts, smashing unions, plundering the environment, and branding everyone who disagrees with you an ally of terrorism.

  Either we stop these trends or we don't. And what we do this with is the ballot. If we place all our hopes in awaiting some nebulous citizens' revolt, we throw away a concrete opportunity to stop this assault in its tracks by voting Bush out. And that gives away an aspect of power that citizen movements have fought and died for. That's what we do by replacing a real vote against Bush with a symbolic vote for Ralph Nader.

  Think of the court appointments. Four years ago, the issue seemed abstract. After the gang of five justices installed Bush in office, it's urgent. William Rehnquist is 80 years old and sick, with thyroid cancer. John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have had cancer as well, and Stevens is 84. Do we really want another Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas to replace them? Or another Rehnquist? These justices didn't just anoint Bush as president. The same 5-4 majority recently validated Tom DeLay's mid-census reapportionment of key congressional districts in Texas, Michigan and Pennsylvania, to give the Republicans a near unbreakable short-term lock on the House of Representatives. Maybe O'Connor will have a change of heart, but if they appoint one more ultraright justice, all three branches will be controlled by a party that seeks not just victory, but the total annihilation of all opposition, as if we were the rats and insects that DeLay used to exterminate. Stopping this trend means stopping Bush.

  There's a reason Republicans have put so much money, time and organizational effort into getting Nader on the ballot in key states: it's a chance to consolidate power. And there's a reason every major progressive organization in this country begged Ralph not to run. And that three quarters of participants in Nader's "Committee of 100" from four years ago are now mobilizing for Kerry in efforts like the Unity Campaign. As Chomsky says, "...Anyone who says 'I don't care if Bush gets elected' is basically telling poor and working people in the country, 'I don't care if your lives are destroyed... I don't care about you'... Apart from [this] being wrong, it's a recipe for disaster if you're hoping to ever develop a popular movement and a political alternative."

  In fact, there's an odd parallel between Bush's total lack of accountability, and belief in his divinely anointed infallibility, and Nader's own. Nader insists that no matter how many how many long-time allies ask him to pull back, he has a direct line to the truth, and knows he's right. It's tragic that someone who has spent most of his life fighting to expand democracy is doing his best to make the worst of Florida's plantation politics our national political model.

  I've heard Nader supporters say their vote won't matter. Or that Nader will actually take votes away from Bush. As a recent Nation Institute survey showed, Nader actually draws three to one or more from those who'd otherwise support Kerry, but if you'd otherwise support Bush, please do vote for Ralph. If you want to get Bush out, however, and your state is remotely close, then you need to act as if every vote matters, including your own, and those of everyone you turn out. You need to assume that the 366-vote margin in New Mexico (where Nader got 21,000 votes) or the 537 votes that Katherine Harris certified in Florida will be the outcome in your state this round, and that your actions will make the key difference. You don't want to become one more Republican tool.

  Think about the 2002 French election. Progressives split their vote in the initial balloting, allowing neo-fascist Jean-Marie Le Pen to edge Socialist Lionel Jospin to make it onto the final ballot. In response, French progressives and moderates rallied around Conservative Jacques Chirac, because Le Pen was too great a threat to ignore. And Chirac surprised us all by refusing to go to war in Iraq. Bush's politics aren't as rightist as Le Pen, but their global impact is infinitely greater. Bush's Euro-bashing aside, this is one time to learn from the French.

  I'm all in favor of acts of conscience. But we also have to be strategic. We can find ample ways to express our direct voice after November 2. If Kerry wins, I expect to be marching soon afterward to get America out of Iraq, because it's going to take persistent citizen action no matter which way the elections go. But symbolic statements and symbolic actions will not stop the Republican assaults on democracy. At some point we'll need to vote them out. That point is now.
  

  by California Dreamer on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:23:13 PM PDT

  •  That's what blows me away...

    ...about Nader supporters. They choose Ralph, who no longer represents any active and credible progressive institution, over other progressive voices like Chomsky, Zinn, Solomon, Ehrenreich, etc.

    Every major progressive voice in this country is urging voters to back Kerry, yet there are these grossly irresponsible and woefully uninformed airheads that thinks a Nader vote means something now.

    Did anyone watch Kevin Costner in all his incoherent and confused splendor defend Nader on the Bill Maher show last night? It was like he had drunk some shroom tea and thought he was addressing wide-eyed co-eds at an Oliver Stone party or something.

    What a fool.

    by Maxwell on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:37:50 PM PDT

•  Nader?

  Dude,

  Dems will NEVER cede an INCH to Nader eben if he runs from 2008-3000.  Nader is an asshole who cares more about promoting his stupid party than the nation.  As far as not being progressive enough, please cut the horseshit. You are just a lazy bum who refuses to see any differences.  Nw, go ahead and vite for Nader. Even if we lose, we will simply make Naders life impposible and re-gear for 2008 but we won't accomodate him EVER!

  You sound like a 10 years who wants their kids to agree with them on everything or else. The key is to balance in elections.  The public does not like Nader and never has more than today. By trying to please Nader, the democrats will cede virtualy the entire electorate to the GOP.  Let idiot bums like you waste your vote on Nader. We dont need you to win nor we will we accomodate you anyway anyhow...we will crush nader.

  CM

  by sla5sh5 on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:23:37 PM PDT

•  Move

  You're in my way.

  by MyDeskChair on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:23:45 PM PDT

•  Have you watched "Going Up River" yet?

  Because if you haven't, you need to do so before the election.  I almost guarantee you will end up voting for John Kerry if you do.  Before I watched this documentary I supported Kerry, but my support was only luke warm.  After I saw it, I realized he was a truly great man who deserved my vote.  

  My advice to you is to download and watch this movie before the election.  I think it will change your mind!  

  by Asak on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:24:57 PM PDT

•  Vote for whomever you please....

  ...that is the choice you have -- THIS TIME.

  But, by voting for Nader, you may well deny future generations of that choice. Think about it.

  "It's about America" [perhaps for the last time]

  by understandinglife on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:25:03 PM PDT

•  I voted for Nader in 2000 in California...

  ...and will never do so again.

  He sold out the Greens and abandoned them after 2000. Went to the racist Reform Party instead!

  The fact that you could choose Nader over Cobb, who actually represents the Greens, is an unbelievable betrayal of the progressive movement in this country.

  Personally I think the only choice is Kerry in this election, but if you had to choose a third party candidate, I can't believe you chose Nader.

  You're completely useless.

  by Maxwell on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:26:51 PM PDT

•  Reply

  ALERT!

  Progressive is now called Nader. Since he just labeled Progressive issues as GASP! Nader Issues.

  NADER OWNS ALL YOUR ISSUES!

  by Modest Mouse on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:27:25 PM PDT

  •  Nader has issues

    But I think that's besides the point

    by jfern on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:31:53 PM PDT

•  You got everything wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  Your vote for Nader is half a vote for Bush. Even Nader's (2000) running mate supports Kerry.

  1. Latest polls have Bush narrowly up in Hawaii

  2. Kerry supports removing parts of the Patriot Act. Bush favors a worse Act, called Patriot 2.

  3. Kerry opposes the DMCA:
     

  http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5425019.html

  4. The Democratic party is fighting for progressive policies. You can't honestly think there's no difference between the Dems and the GOP, can you?

  5. What's Nader's issues? Suing to get on the ballot? Taking signatures from election stealing Republicans?

  by jfern on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:28:12 PM PDT

•  Obvious Troll

  This is his only diary entry.

  Just another Bush fan making a desperate ploy.

  by Devilstower on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:32:29 PM PDT

•  asdf

  post a tip jar, coward.

  by wu ming on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:32:42 PM PDT

•  NO

  Everyone's vote counts the same, red state or blue state as well as swing states. The popular vote total is as important as the electoral vote total. We MUST give Kerry the largest mandate possible so he can heal this country, silence the right wing propaganda machine of FOX News, talk radio and the rest, and force the congress to work with him. They must know which way the wind is blowing.

  Kerry may not be your ideal candidate, but I strongly suspect that once in office, President Kerry will be far more progressive in action than Candidate Kerry has been in the campaign. And I think he will also be a far more effective President off the mark than others we have had recently because of his long tenure in the Senate.

  By urging people to vote against Kerry based on a few issues, however important, is the same as Catholic bishops tell their flocks to vote for Bush because of abortion and stem cells, even though on every other issue and especially the war, Bush's policies are antithetical to Catholic doctrine.

  The way to make the Dem party more progressive is to join with other progressives like Democrasy for America or MoveOn.org, work to elect progressive Democrats on the local level and contribute money to progressive candidates nationally.

  Protest vote is so last century.

  by Grassroots Mom on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:33:00 PM PDT

  •  no mandate

    Sorry, but I have to disagree.  Kerry should not get a huge mandate, not when half the people voting for him are just voting ABB.  If you are progressive and live in a 'safe' state, the only vote that makes sense is Cobb, which in some states will help the Greens keep their ballot status (1% necessary in many states), and continue to grow the fastest growing party in the country.  Voting for Kerry in Texas or Connecticut or California or New York is throwing away a vote.

    Put you vote to good use, Vote Cobb, and while you are at it, vote Green for local candidates.

    by green in brooklyn on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:41:16 PM PDT

•  Gullible

  Wow, some of you are gullible.  The first EVER post (diary or comment) by a person named "The Central Committee" during a lightly moderated time advocates a Nader vote and people start to pile on.  It's the equivalent of you and I going to FreeRepublic and posting "Vote for Peroutka - Bush doesn't use enough uninformed Christianity to guide his decisions".  Just a cheap way to stir shit up - the only difference being that it would be deleted much more quickly on FR than this thread will be.

  by Ickey shuffle on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:37:29 PM PDT

  •  I troll-rate for a reason.

    He was not giving any constructive reasons why we should vote for Nader. He was just trying to pick a fight knowing a lot of us hate him.

    by Eternal Hope on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:49:40 PM PDT

    •  Also, the fact that

      1) He supports the Patriot Act (though supports reforming it)

      and

      2) alledgedly supports DMCA (though some people have posted things countering this)

      seem to be a very good reason to vote for Nader.

      It's like voting for Bush only because you're pro-life or because he supports the marriage amendment, and for no other reason.

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:51:36 PM PDT

•  Here's what I made tonight

  Mocha Brownie Cake

  Makes 12 servings.

  The Cake

      * 3/4 cup all-purpose flour
      * 3/4 teaspoon baking powder
      * 1/4 teaspoon salt
      * 4 1/2 ounces semisweet chocolate, coarsely chopped
      * 2 1/2 ounces unsweetened chocolate, coarsely chopped
      * 3/4 stick (3 ounces) unsalted butter
      * 5 large eggs
      * 1 cup sugar
      * 1 teaspoon pure vanilla extract
      * 3 tablespoons sour cream

  Position a rack in the center of the oven and preheat the oven to 325 degree F. Butter a 9-inch round cake pan and dust with flour, tapping out the excess; set aside.

  Whisk together the flour, baking powder, and salt in a small bowl and reserve.

  Heat an inch of water in the bottom of a double boiler. Put the semisweet and unsweetened chocolates and the butter in the top of the double boiler, and heat, stirring occasionally, until the mixture is fully blended and smooth. Remove the pan from the heat.

  Put the eggs, sugar, and vanilla in the bowl of a mixer fitted with the whisk attachment, or use a hand mixer, and whip on high speed for 4 to 5 minutes, or until the eggs are slightly thickened and doubled in volume. Add the melted chocolate and mix at medium speed for 15 seconds. Don't worry if the chocolate is not fully incorporated --it will blend in as you add the other ingredients. Remove the bowl from the mixer and, working with a rubber spatula, gently but thoroughly fold in the dry ingredients. Give the sour cream a vigorous turn or two with a whisk to loosen it, and fold it into the batter. The batter will be quite think.

  Baking, Cooling, and Chilling Pour the batter into the pan and, with a spatula, smooth and level the batter. Bake the cake for 45 to 50 minutes, until a toothpick inserted in the center comes out clean. Transfer the ake to a cooling rack and let cool in the pan for 20 minutes. Turn the cake out onto a cardboard cake round (or the round from a tart pan with a removable bottom) and refrigerate, uncovered, for 1 hour.

  The Ganache

      * 1 1/4 cups heavy cream
      * 3 tablespoons unsalted butter
      * 3 tablespoons sugar
      * 12 ounces semisweet chocolate, coarsely chopped
      * 1/4 cup hot strong brewed coffee

  Heat the heavy cream, butter, and sugar in a medium saucepan over medium-high heat, stirring frequently, until the sugar is dissolved and the mixture reaches the boil. Put the chopped chocolate in a large bowl and pour in the boiling cream and the hot coffee. Set the mixture aside for 5 minutes, then stir until smooth. The ganache must cool thoroughly. You can leave it to cool at room temperature --which could take an hour or so --or you can refrigerate it. The ganache thickens as it cools. You want to use it when it just begins to thicken and can be poured rather than spread over the cake.

  Assembling the Cake Remove the cake from the refrigerator and invert it onto a clean, dry work surface. Working with a long sharp knife, cut the cake into 3 even layers. Place the top layer of the cake, cut side down, in a 9-inch springform pan; check that the sides of the pan are closed. Pour 1 cup of the ganache over the layer, spreading it evenly to the edges with a rubber spatula; refrigerate, uncovered, until set, about 15 minutes. Top with the center layer, pressing it gently into place, and pour over another cup of ganache, again taking care to get the filling out to the edges; refrigerate until set. (If at any point the ganache has thickened and is no longer pourable, heat it over the lowest heat, stirring constantly, until returns to its proper consistency.) Place the last layer, cut side down, in the pan, and press down firmly but carefully to position it. Refrigerate the cake for at least 1 hour before applying the icing. Cover the remaining ganache with plastic wrap and keep it at room temperature.

  Finishing the Cake To finish, run a knife around the inside edges of the cake pan; release the sides of the springform. Pour over the remaining ganache and use a long iciing spatula to smooth the ganache over the top and around the sides. Allow the icing to set in the refrigerator or at room temperature.

  by mcjoan on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:41:28 PM PDT

  •  Ohhhhh

    mmmmm...Nice.

    by Plutonium Page on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:44:48 PM PDT

    •  Julia!

      by mcjoan on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:47:16 PM PDT

      •  Yum, I need to try that recipe.

        These troll diaries are almost worth it, just for the recipes.

        by martianchronic on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:56:36 PM PDT

  •  Showoff! :) (n/t)

    by choateward on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:23:08 PM PDT

  •  This one sounds REALLY good n/t

    by sheba on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:25:01 PM PDT

•  come out of the closet

  Why don't you just come out of the closet and ask for Bush votes? What's the worst that could happen? I went to the Freep site once and asked for Kerry votes. Pretty much all they did was say no. Well, OK, they said a few other things, then they took away my user name (Maurice Papon).

  by Rudyard on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:42:11 PM PDT

•  GET THIS FUCK NUT OFF OF HERE

  
  GET THIS LOSER OUT OF HERE.  FUCKING TROLL GOPER

  by hadrianswall on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:43:17 PM PDT

•  sigh.

  I get where this is coming from, really.  I do.  In a perfect world, a lot of things would be different.

  We have to deal with what we have, and a "point-making" vote doesn't do a thing other than show how out-of-touch with reality you are.  Honestly.  I respect Green policies, and the campaign Nader had in the past- but honestly, you have to realize he's not going to win.  He's just not.  It's like voting for the fat girl for Homecoming.  It's NOT GONNA HAPPEN.  She might be a really nice girl, she might be really pretty- but it's not gonna happen.

  So, we're left instead with the issue of what to do with what we're given.  And I'm not going to reduce this to "lesser of two evils" bullshit, because it's not that- Kerry deals as well as he can with reality.  Reality involves capitalism, corporations run amok, and an unfortunate amount of corporate greed.  It's not going to change overnight.  Paradigms don't shift overnight, and all the good well-wishes in the world aren't going to make the world better.

  And Hawaii is not a safe blue state.  So get out of your protective bubble, realize reality, and GOTV.  Then things will change.  Even if not for you, for your children (or neices, nephews).  And if you are honestly so idealist, that will be enough.

  by noshenanigans on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:50:19 PM PDT

•  So you think that

  Bush is the man for you!!

  You are fine with supreme court vacancies filled by Bush.

  Womens right to chose must not be a concern of yours.

  You must be old enough not to be drafted.

  The value of the dollar does not concern you.

  You must not have children - or at least not care about the staggering debt you are leaving to them.

  Another war the next 4 years in either Iran or Korea is fine with you?

  Good grief man - get a grip.

  by sara seattle on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:52:49 PM PDT

•  I made grilled shrimp tonight...

  Ingredients:

  2 pounds jumbo shrimp
  1/4 cup vegetable oil
  3 Tbsp fresh lemon juice
  1 bunch green onions with a few inches of green sliced thin
  1/4 cup chopped parsley
  3 cloves garlic, finely minced
  1 teaspoon dried basil
  1 teaspoon dry mustard
  1 teaspoon salt

  Preparation:

  Marinate shrimp in ingredients for 4-6 hours (remember...glass bowl).  Grill until cooked :)

  I really like this with rice or a nice spinach salad....

  by chickdebater on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:55:07 PM PDT

  •  is posting recepies

    in response to a pro-nader post some tradition or what?

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:56:52 PM PDT

    •  Nope

      Just to troll dairies/posts.  No idea how the tradition started though.

      I must admit, I've never posted a recipe before...but this is one of my favorites.

      by chickdebater on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:58:54 PM PDT

•  Will you regret voting for Nader if Kerry loses?

  I wouldn't blame you for voting for Nader at all; if you were in an uncontested state. But Hawaii is contested and your vote could be the difference between Kerry or Bush. Although you may not believe it, you have to admit that there's a chance you could be wrong and that you will wake up the morning after wondering how it happened. This election is too close and too important to take chances.

  I hope that you'll reconsider voting for Kerry and save your effort for a time that's not so dangerous. I live in a swing state myself and would seriously consider Cobb if this election wasn't so important.

  But most importantly, if Kerry's elected it will largely have to do with the progressive movement that's taken place here on dkos and other internet blogs. This empowers progressives to move back toward the left and will do more to help those who support Nader, Cobb, and other progressive third party candidates than them losing the election themselves. Let's take one step at a time and not get ahead of ourselves. After Kerry's elected, progressives will then have a much better chance at influencing others. If Bush is re-elected, then you can kiss your progressive movement goodbye.

  by rogun on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:01:31 PM PDT

•  If you are serious...

  ...and I doubt you are, then you are an idiot.

  It's been said before but you know what? It needs to be said again.

  Nader will NOT lead to the progressive change you seek. You are deluding yourself if you believe that it will.

  Candidates alone do not produce change. Movements do. But Nader is not leading a movement. He thinks a protest vote can equal a movement.

  Nader lied to us in 2000 when he claimed that he would build a movement. He did not. If you're going to let him lie to you again, you're an idiot.

  by eugene on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:01:32 PM PDT

•  This thread makes me sad.

  I even took out a pencil and paper to see if I could be the one to rate the guy to less that 0.1, but the posts disappeared after I rated! What does a guy have to do around here to get some satisfaction? Win an eletion ?

  by Pacific John on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:05:37 PM PDT

•  Nader is poison

  Nader is in this for one reason: Nader.  He doesn't care about you or me.  He cares about himself.

  Four years ago, you may have been able to look at Nader as a legitimate candidate, but today he is nothing but an ego maniac in a cheap suit.

  Why should I trust this man?  He stabbed every Green Party member in the back when he snubbed them for his own campaign.  He had a place in the Democratic party, but he simply didn't want to work hard and stay the course to promote his agenda.  He needed to build alliances and he could, after time, have led the Democratic Party, if he wanted it bad enough.  But he didn't.  So, how is he any different than Pat Buchanan?

  Nader's political significance is over.  Very few people care about his message anymore because all they see is a former Green Party candidate who took his ball and when home to his own candidacy.  Why should anyone trust him?

  Have you ever read Dear Abby?  Every month, there is some broken woman writing in about the man that left his wife for her and now left her for someone else.  Abby says the same thing every time:  you knew what you were getting, so why are you complaining now?  Nader is poison.

  Go ahead, vote for Nader.  That is your right.  But do not expect absolution from the Democratic Party when Nader disappears from the scene.  You have had four years to see what Nader is all about.

  Voting for him just makes me question your judgement.

  by LeftofArizona on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:06:41 PM PDT

•  I think this is a slap in the face

  to all of us who are busting our butts out there to get the candidate elected who will stop the nightmare of the last few years.

  by englishdem on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:16:05 PM PDT

•  Please, I need a creme brulee recipe!

  Hi, I've been refreshing Daily Kos an obscene number of times per hour.  I've spent my day with GOTV efforts.  I have NEVER before felt an urge to post a comment or diary until I read this idiotic diary.  

  Please, someone give me a good creme brulee recipe.  I'm having a dinner party on Tuesday and I just got one of those cool torches.  Thanks.  Much appreciated.

  by allysonsta on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:21:46 PM PDT

  •  I recommend epicurious.com

    Here's all the creme brulee recipes you could dream of!

    by mcjoan on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:27:59 PM PDT

  •  espresso creme brulee

    from Cooking Light magazine (I'm 35 yrs old and starting to feel it a little, but I love cooking...)

    Anywho:

    
    2  cups 2% reduced-fat milk
    1  cup whole espresso coffee beans
    3/4  cup nonfat dry milk
    3  tablespoons sugar, divided
    1  teaspoon vanilla extract
    Dash of salt
    4  large egg yolks
    1/4  cup sugar, divided

    Combine 2% milk, espresso beans, dry milk, and 2 tablespoons sugar in a medium saucepan. Heat mixture over medium heat to 180° or until tiny bubbles form around edge (do not boil), stirring occasionally. Remove milk mixture from heat. Cover and steep 30 minutes.
    Preheat oven to 300°.

    Strain mixture through a sieve into a bowl; discard solids. Stir in vanilla.

    Combine 1 tablespoon sugar, salt, and egg yolks in a medium bowl, stirring well with a whisk.

    Gradually add milk mixture to egg mixture, stirring constantly with a whisk. Divide the mixture evenly among 4 (4-ounce) ramekins, custard cups, or shallow baking dishes. Place ramekins in a 13 x 9-inch baking pan, and add hot water to pan to a depth of 1/2 inch.

    Bake at 300° for 25 minutes or until center barely moves when ramekin is touched. Remove ramekins from pan; cool completely on a wire rack. Cover and chill at least 4 hours or overnight.

    Sift 1 tablespoon sugar evenly over each custard. Holding a kitchen blow torch about 2 inches from the top of each custard, heat the sugar, moving the torch back and forth, until sugar is completely melted and caramelized (about 1 minute). Serve immediately or within 1 hour.

    Note: If you don't have a kitchen blow torch, you can make the sugar topping on the stovetop. Place 1/4 cup sugar and 1 tablespoon water in a small, heavy saucepan. Cook over medium heat 5 to 8 minutes or until golden. (Resist the urge to stir, since doing so may cause the sugar to crystallize.) Immediately pour the sugar mixture evenly over cold custards, spreading to form a thin layer.

    Yield: 4 servings (serving size: 1 crème brûlée)

    NUTRITION PER SERVING
    CALORIES 262(26% from fat); FAT 7.7g(sat 3.2g,mono 2.7g,poly 0.7g); PROTEIN 11.3g; CHOLESTEROL 225mg; CALCIUM 315mg; SODIUM 215mg; FIBER 0.0g; IRON 0.6mg; CARBOHYDRATE 36g

    by wickerman26 on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:45:34 PM PDT

•  Hey freeper

  while I'm sure this kind of post would work in your world.....we can actually think over here.

  Sorry :(

  by The Free Man on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:30:50 PM PDT

  •  Oops...forgot my recipe

    The Free Man's 'What's Good for the Grey Goose, is good for my gander' Martini

    >Grey goose from the freezer
    >Leaded martini glass, also in freezer
    >Pour 1/2 cap of dry vermouth into glass.
    >Swish vermouth around so that the sides are covered and dump out excess.
    >Pour vodka to within 1/3 of an inch of rim (or 1/8th of an inch if you're looking to get good and fucked up)
    >Insert 3 giant green olives (but do not pour in olive juice)
    >grasp. drink. repeat-as long as you can still make it back to the freezer...or the letters on the computer screen start dancing about.....

    by The Free Man on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:35:46 PM PDT

•  My guess is that some day...

  ... somewhere, you'll run into the other guy who voted for Nader in this election.

  And the two of you can stop and have a beer.  Or share a bag of prunes to get your bowels moving again.

  Good luck.

  by Bob Johnson on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:32:28 PM PDT

•  Don't squeeze the Charmin

  "I don't know why everyone is so angry at me. My professor at Charminade said voting Nader was the intelligent thing to do! He made a very good argument, unfortunately I can't remember it and I'm not as eloquent. :( "

  ROTFLMAO

  Must be all the Hawaiian sensi
  

  by Andrew C White on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:34:03 PM PDT

•  Same guy on the

  9/11 saddam, osama thread says that after reading the transcripts of Osama's tape that OBL is his dream candidate and he'd vote for him over Kerry or Bush.

  There's a dream ticket for you "Osama/Nader '04"

  F.U. Central Committee.

  Even if it was meant as a joke. F.U. even more.