To all of you who voted for Nader, hope you like what you get. I live in Wyoming. Dick Cheney's supposed home state. Already the Farm Bureau and other "multiple use" groups are chomping at the bit to develop wilderness. They hope to add 2500 natural gas wells in my state alone. This is information from the statewide newspaper. What an orgy of destruction we have to look forward to for the next four to eight years. The environment, the poor, and other liberal causes will be destroyed. Why even Nader admitted that Gore would have been better. What Nader and his ill thought supports taught me is don't give a hoot about the environment or anyone else, because you better snatch what you can now. Even the icons of consumer adovocacy are just a bunch of hypocritical self aggrandizing twits.FWIW, my spouse and I have decided to research the groups who gave money to Nader and to specifically not support them via donations or purchasing. Real Goods (which is not long for the corporate world) is one which we have stopped supporting, there will be more.Enjoy the absolute Dionisyian destruction of the next four to eight years, ye Nader supporters, you deserve it!Frolix8P.S. You bet I am angry. Nader knew what he was doing, he set back the liberal cause twenty or thirty years. Oh, BTW, the statewide Greens are afraid of what a Bush presidency will mean to the environment. A little late.
FWIW, my spouse and I have decided to research the groups who gave money to Nader and to specifically not support them via donations or purchasing.Since I doubt that my personal contributions of both cash and labor toward Nader's presidential campaigns (1996, 2000, and again in 2004 if the opportunity presents itself) will show up in any public records filings, I'll do you the favor of calling myself out. If you ever find yourself interviewing a freelance i.s. consultant in the Chicago area named Johnson, be sure to ask about political affiliations. You'll also want to avoid anything that comes out of Chronic Digression Publishing (assuming I ever get it off the ground.)As for the claim that Nader selfishly destroyed liberal politics with the (relative) handful of votes he garnered this year, I find that argument rather specious. In his wrestling match with Bush for the "middle" of U.S. politics (anyone else remember W calling for third-world debt relief????), Gore seemed to ignore most of my, admittedly personal and subjective, liberal values. It only took eight short years to go from arguing for a phase-out of the internal combustion engine to to arguing for a release of strategic petroleum reserves in order to keep gas prices low!!! In general, given their campaigns, I find it very unlikely that Bush will do anything with regard to the environment that Gore would not have done.If you really want to blame someone for Gore's loss, you might consider directing some of that rancor toward Gore himself. He seemed to campaign on a platform of "Anyone But Bush!" rather than standing for anything that might have positively energized the liberal base, or the Tennessee/Arkansas electorate (ahem).Now, it's time to get back to reveling!!! Here's wishing everyone on this board a happy and safe new millenium, complete with market-beating returns, clean consciences, and lots of lively, intelligent, civil discourse!!!!Cheers,hoffa
Frolix8 makes a fair point about political contributions from companies as an SRI issue. While he's compiling a boycott list he may also want to add all the companies who contributed to the Republican Party (since apparently he doesn't like them) and maybe even those that contributed to the Democractic party - since all of these companies are breaking the letter and spirit of the law. In the US it is illegal for any company to give a direct contribution or collective personal contributions ("bundling") that are compensated by the company... a law that is so completely ignored that most people don't realise such contributions are actually illegal. But then look who's getting the money and ask, who's going to enforce that law?!As for the political nature of the comments (which are IMO OT for this board) couldn't resist my $0.02 worth:Hoffa writes:In general, given their campaigns, I find it very unlikely that Bush will do anything with regard to the environment that Gore would not have done.My same feeling. The only real difference between the D's and the R's is that the D's say progressive things (sometimes) and never do them (8 years later what have they done for enviro issues, healthcare, etc???) while the R's never say progressive things and never do them. So basically it's two right wing parties, only one with a little more progressive wrapping paper around it. As an aboriginal leader in Australia said recently about the right wing, "In the desert it is better to have a snake out in the open where you can see it, rather than hidden in the rocks." At least under the Bush Reich progressives will be on the alert and ready to fight for what matters to them - rather than being complacent and trusting a greenwashed D party to take care of everything. And in the end, many of these enviro issues are controlled by local politicians - and even opening of Federal lands, under the power of DC, can easily be shut down by well organised activists on the scene a la numerous logging cases in the NW US and native land claims in BC.Otto
Well, Mr. Hoffa, I'm glad you stated your beliefs in such a sincere and clear manner. How fun it must be for the Naderites to sit back and glowingly accuse Gore of not being liberal enough. As though that were the reason he lost the election. Of course there is a race toward the center in politics. People need to grow up and realize the majority of the country is in the center. It is only by continual nudging and pushing from the left that there will be any change.The right wing conspiracy folk where I live had their children convinced that Al Gore would take away their guns and violent video games. Economically, I think this is a great time to invest in oil and gas companies (and don't buy the pipe dream that they can be green, I have lived in the parts of the country where oil and gas are extracted and refined, it isn't green by any stretch of the imagination. The degregation to the environment may be mininally lessened, but that's about it.) It's also a good time to divest yourself of companies like Ballard. Sadly, socially responsible investing will be suicidal for the next few years.Frolix8
Crazy Otto, I'll not write about politics on this board once I am convinced that politics have no signifigant role in investing. I must remind you and others, that oil and natural gas in my state will be drilling and spewing soon. The prices will drop because that is the desire of the neo Bush administration. There will be a massive set back in alterative energy development.Does anyone here remember when Carter put forth energy tax credits for solar power? The solar companies were beginning to maki money. Then came Reagan, who quickly ridded the nation of the tax credit. Wherefore we had twelve years of oil and gas development, to the detriment of alternative energy and a war fought over cheap oil.Santayana said those who do not live from the past are condemned to repeat it.Politics and investing are and will continue to be interrelated.Frolix8
First, let me state that I would have liked to vote for Nader but I voted for Gore because I didn't want Bush to win.That said, to blame Nader and his supporters for Bush's victory and subsequent environmental policies and whatever bad might happen to one's "socially responsible" investments over the next four years is a misdirected view. The problem (as if it could be reduced to one simplistic cause) was people voting for Bush, not people voting for Nader. Gore didn't help the cause by undermining his credibility by making statements like he invented the internet and softening his environmental stances as mentioned by previous posters.Nader and the Green party attempted (with some success, IMO) to raise awareness of environmental issues and the degree to which some people in this country care about them. To this end, I think they did more than Gore and the Democrats and are to be commended rather than condemned.
How fun it must be for the Naderites to sit back and glowingly accuse Gore of not being liberal enough. As though that were the reason he lost the election. Frolix8, I read your original assertion to be that Nader and those who complicitly voted for him are responsible for the Bush victory. While I doubt that is true, personally I did rule out voting for Gore precisely because he is too conservative (or not liberal enough); to the extent that this is a typical attitude among Nader voters... there you go.Of course, I am neither glowing nor especially pleased with Gore's evolution over the past eight years under the national political spotlight. I thought he was terrific back in 92.Now, onto something a little more topical to the SRI board...It's also a good time to divest yourself of companies like Ballard. Sadly, socially responsible investing will be suicidal for the next few years.I respectfully disagree with this. Granted, I am a bit of a contrarian investor, always hoping to buy at the point of maximum pessimism and all. I don't really follow Ballard, but I do believe that fuel cells will become a huge part of our economy, particularly in the transportation sector but also in commercial/residential real estate as the traditional power grids prove to be less and less robust... regardless of who the president happens to be. I would like to thank the poster who suggested Trex a few weeks back; unfortunately, i can't remember who that was :| Still doing some due diligence on that one, but it certainly looks promising.I'm still pretty bullish on an sri approach. Within this arena, there are still many good, small, extremely innovative (and recently out of favor) companies. Healthcare, pharms, oil/gas, etc. all made pretty big short-term moves primarily because of Bush's election, but I see those as largely short-term phenomena. If you have a long-run investment horizon, the outcome of this election will have about as much bearing on our portfolios as that dark election in 1994 did.hoffa
I think SRI investing in energy is doomed to poor to nil results for the next four to eight years. What you will see, which is already happening in my state, is a rush to production of fossil fuels. Fast, cheap, and shortsighted production. The Windriver Mountains will become polluted as will my beloved Red Desert. That is the price which those of us who live in these climes will pay.The glaciers in the Snowy Range and other ranges in the state have been gradually fading away. The increased use of fossil fuels, at least in part, accounts for this change.Again, investments and politics merge. Bush has made it abundantly clear by his cabinet nominations (gads especially interior), that he will stand by his conservative goals. Cheney headed up Haliburton. Haliburton will reap the benefits of a push toward increased fossil fuel development.In my state, there is a push to stop Canandian crude from coming here. The goal is to use the state's supplies. I assume on a national basis this would include drilling on the preserves in Alaska.As far as other SRI investments go, perhaps if one has the money and can hold it for upward of ten to twenty years, buy up and hope the companies won't fold. I believe this is going to be rough sailing at best.Take care, Frolix8
I voted for Nader. I would do so again without hesitation. Al Gore lost the election. Nader didn't lose it for him. OTOH, Gore took away the Green's 5% by sending out his celebrities to beg Nader supporters for their votes. It's probably going to take me a while to get over resenting Gore for that shameless move. This was discussed on this board right after the election and also over on the Politics and Investing Board. Here is a link from Susan that explains why Gore's loss is not Ralph Nader's fault.< http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=13672142 >Socially Responsible Investing will not be harmed by the new Bush administration. If anything, it will do even better because it meets not only the needs of the investors but also the needs of the planet. To believe otherwise is to be quite while we're gaining ground. Personally, I'm no quitter (except for alcohol). Good fortune. RickBTW, Susan, how 'bout those New Orleans Saints?
What you will see, which is already happening in my state, is a rush to production of fossil fuels. Fast, cheap, and shortsighted production.I must say I admire your certainty about this, but what makes no sense to me is why you are wasting your anger and energy ranting about it rather than trying to do something about it. Bush hasn't even taken office yet. Rather than lashing out about "what is going to happen," and allocating blame for it, begin organizing now. Make certain that the opinions and needs of your state's citizens are made completely clear and persuasive to its lawmakers at all levels.As for Nader, I also voted for him and have no regrets. The final insult, in my opinion, was the cowardly banning of Nader and Buchanan from the debates. Instead, we got to hear regurgitated platitudes and stump-speech soundbites. Our basis for choosing a president turned on such earthshaking problems as Gore's sighing. Because Nader was so roundly shut out of the debate (in the more general sense), I felt it was my duty to try to help the Green Party receive the necessary 5% that would ascertain its participation in future debate.Having made it through 8 years of Reagan and 4 of Daddy Bush, I don't expect the world to end with Dubbya holding the reins. What I dearly hope will come of his 4 years in office is a revivification of interest and a reawakened interest on the part of citizens that leads to letting D.C. andits corporate handlers know that their smarmy manipulation can no longer be "business as usual."As for hearing the death knell of SRI, doesn't TMF philosophy hinge on investing for the long term? I am far from well-informed about government support for SR businesses, but doubt they had much help during the Clinton administration. Those making a go of it do so thanks to the usual ingredients of effective management, worthy and workable products, and effective marketing. How will a shift toward the right change that? It does suggest, however, that it will be more important—and possibly more profitable—than ever to continue the vigilance and support alternative energy and other SRI approaches over the next four years.
I have done plenty about energy issues for well nigh four decades. I have been politically active for and hold positions within my party. I have been a part of the loyal opposition and, to a smaller degree, a part of those in power.A shift to the right will change SR business. The business climate is ripe for anything but SR at this time. While the Clinton administration may not have been the panacea that the far left desired, it did not actively attempt to dismantle SR activity and even made it palatable.The major failing of Clinton's administration had to do with his sexual proclivities, which unfortunately wreaked havoc on other aspects of his administration.SR companies and the SR philosophy had anything but a good go of it during Reagan/Bush the first. As I have noted before, there was an all out attack on the Carter administration's energy policy.I am watching, first hand, the same thing happen now. Yes vigilance is needed, but vigilance failed to stop a Bush administration. It failed to put into place Gore as president.The effective management, workable products, and effective marketing of which you write are that which makes the Wal-Marts of the world cheaper, faster, and better. But, the Wal-Marts of the world hammer unions, don't seem to care about the environment, and apparently, endorse tobacco. What the public wants right now, is cheaper energy. Wal-Mart's gas is cheaper.Exxon's gas will be cheaper, and the concmittant "convetional" energy sources will be cheaper as well, when the tax credits move their way.I am so sorely disappointed with the flow of politics in this country, but even more saddened by a seeming lack of understanding of the interplay between politics and economics on the part of those who should know better. If those who should know better display a lack of understanding, then it is well nigh impossible to explain these matters to others who don't know better or maybe don't even care.As far as long term investing, absolutely, but a company needs to survive to be a viable long term investment. Halliburton will survive. As will Exxon and such, but the Ballard's of the world, will likely lose investment because the quick buck is to be made in conventional energy. If the company can't get investment it will go belly up.Also, PG&E is demanding a rate increase, similar to what the local gas company is demanding where I live, because they claim they will be broke by February. A PG&E is far more likely to receive a bail-out than is a Ballard.Frolix8
Finally someone who understands "the interplay between politics and economics." Thanks so much for explaining it to me. :-| Who does that Nader guy think he is anyway -- refusing to step aside and let the real candidates buy their way into the White House? What a nuisance. To think that he actually wanted to become the first U.S. President in history who isn't owned by some corporation or other special interest? What kind of a politician actually spends his entire career working for the people!?! The nerve! You'd think he was trying to inject some integrity into the process or something. Or worse, he might actually think that the good ole' two party system that has hampered real progressive reform in this country for at least a century could use some improvement! What gall. After all, where would this country be without corporate greed and partisan politics-as-usual? Why, just the thought is positively un-American! The Republicans and Democrats don't need Ralph Nader's help to screw up elections (not to mention the environment). They can do that just fine by themselves! Susan(Who would be happy to give you a list of Nader's corporate backers for you to boycott -- except, go figure, he didn't accept any.)
<<The major failing of Clinton's administration had to do with his sexual proclivities>>No, I'd have to say the major failings of the Clinton administration was their audacity to turn their back of those who supported them - labor, women, minorities, the poor, enviros, to name just a few - in order to further entrench the centrist DNC and benefit from the corporations who now own our government. I believe the failed healthcare reform and the welfare "reform" act are fine examples of this biting the hand that feeds you...Emily
Emily, The Green Party feels your pain. The Greens don't bite. That's reserved for the Republicans and Dems. Good fortune. Rick
Who does that Nader guy think he is anyway -- refusing to step aside and let the real candidates buy their way into the White House? What a nuisance. Susan,Sarcasm becomes you, my dear. Sadly, though, when you rhetorically ask...:What kind of a politician actually spends his entire career working for the people!?! ...I think the answer, for many of us (greens and all the other hues, alike), is:the ones who find themselves outspent and lose elections.Granted, getting outspent and losing one's election can still serve an important and powerful role, but... 5% sure would have been sweet...<sigh>hoffa
Sarcasm becomes you, my dear...Thanks hoffa,Although in retrospect I think I could have used one or two fewer exclamation marks. I was merely trying to hammer home the point that Nader had as much a right to run as anybody, and blaming the Greens for Gore's loss is like blaming the sun for global warming. I do think Gore was robbed in Florida, but he's the one who went off and left the door unlocked.Back to a topic more closely related to investing -- if ever there was a link between politics and economics it's in the area of campaign finance. I dearly hope that what America learns from this election is that money (corporate money in particular) does buy power. It also buys better, more reliable voting machines and better equipped polling places so that the wishes of more affluent and better educated voters "count" more than those of less fortunate citizens. And I hope more than anything that the Greens and others don't draw from this the conclusion that what they need is more soft money. What we need is more power to the people and less influence from the major parties, extremely wealthy individuals, and big business.To that end, I'd like to offer these sites where those who are interested can find out more about (and hopefully do something about) the influence of money in national politics. Now is a great time for us voters to let our Senators and Representatives AND the companies in which we invest know how we feel:An alarming report by the Federal Elections Commission (http://www.fec.gov/press/pty00text.htm)Public Citizen on campaign finance issues (http://www.citizen.org/congress/reform/refhome.html)Just one page in an extremely informative site by the League of Women Voters (http://www.lwv.org/elibrary/pub/issue5.html)Public Disclosure, which bills itslef as "A place to discover who gave what to which Federal candidates when" (http://www.publicdisclosure.org/)"Know Your Congress" from Common Cause - provides contact info for legistalors along with info on how each financed his or her campaign (http://www.commoncause.org/congress/)The Congressional Accountability Project (http://www.essential.org/orgs/CAP/CAP.html)and this scathing article by its director, Gary Ruskin (http://www.rollcall.com/pages/news/00/05/21stcen0508.html)Because most of these sites focus primarily, if not exclusively, on the Republicans and Democrats, here are the quite different guidelines followed by the Nader campaign (http://votenader.org/materials/houseparty/RegulationsDonationHP.html)A very enlightening floor speech by Sen. Russ Feingold (http://www.senate.gov/~feingold/cfr.html)An Op-Ed piece for the Washington Post by Sen. John McCain pub. Nov. 19, 2000 (http://mccain.senate.gov/cfrwashpost.htm)The Environmental Working Groups's guide to anti-environmental Political Action Committees (PACs) and the corporations that fund them (http://www.ewg.org/dirtymoney/badguys.html)That should keep y'all busy for a while. :0)Yours in this and other kinds of Foolishness,Susan
I checked out some of those sites the other day. Morris Dees a co-founder of Southern Poverty Law Center donated $2000.00 to Nader, Ben of Ben and Jerry's tried to donate $3000.00, but had to get back a grand. Gerry Spence of Spence, Moriarty, and Schuster who is a Wyoming Attorney, but stated his residence is in Califoria, donated about one-thousand.Per the Hollywood types, Loren Michaels, Patricia Arquette, and Warren Beatty, among others, donated. I write the last only to respond to someone who attacked Gore for bringing out his Hollywood friends. It appears Nader had some of his own.BTW, Nader refused to release his tax return. He felt he gave enough information and such a release was an invasion of his privacy.I saw on Amazon, that Nader had a book published in October. If I were utterly and truly cynical, I would wonder whether or not he was on a book tour. As it is I am only moderately cyncial and understand he must have written the book months prior to his presidential aspirations.A book all folk ought to read is Hunter S. Thompson's latest tome. I haven't read it yet, but if it is half as good as The Great Shark Hunt, it should be well worth the reading. It is a collection of some of his letters. BTW, he oft referred to Dick Nixon as his football buddy (cf. Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72).Frolix8
I saw on Amazon, that Nader had a book published in October. If I were utterly and truly cynical, I would wonder whether or not he was on a book tour. As it is I am only moderately cyncial and understand he must have written the book months prior to his presidential aspirations.I didn't check to see if it was still there, but you could go to http://www.votenader.org during October and purchase an autographed copy of The Ralph Nader Reader (I'm guessing this is the book you're talking about) for, like, a $200 or $250 contribution to the Greens. Given that the Reader is just a collection of various essays and op-ed pieces he's published over the years, I was left with the impression that it was created pretty quickly and exclusively to raise funds for the party. Could be wrong about that, though.A slightly more cynical person might also say that Clinton is wrapping up a whirlwind eight-year book tour.It's a dangerous game, of course, to guess at other people's motivations, but I think it extremely uncommon that a public servant seeks office without some angle for a tax cut, or a targeted subsidy, or a zoning permit, or chance to influence where the freeway exits get built, or preferential treatment from law enforcement, or something smelling of self-interest.hoffa
Frolix8 said -<<<I saw on Amazon, that Nader had a book published in October. If I were utterly and truly cynical, I would wonder whether or not he was on a book tour. As it is I am only moderately cyncial and understand he must have written the book months prior to his presidential aspirations>>>Actually, if you donated $100 or so to voteNader.orgyou could receive an autographed copy of the "Ralph Nader Reader".Seems like a much more reasonable form of campaign finance than $100,000 soft money private dinners.But then, who would give $100 for the "Al Gore Reader"?
I would have been and would be more than willing to give $100 for the"Al Gore Reader".Heck, I gave more than that to his campaign.But, perhaps the point I was making was missed. It could look as though Nader was attemting to cash in on his 15 minutes of the 2000 election year fame, but I tend to doubt it. It takes too much time to put a book together. Even those sloppy tell all junk books. I doubt Nader would write a sloppy junk book. The point is there is an appearance of impropriety. An appearance. Not necessarily the actuality of it. In the work that many people do, it is the appearance that counts, not what was done. Thus, the issue to consider is whether it was bad timing, bad appearance, or (unlikely) something more sinister.Senator Clinton's book deal could be considered inappropriate. It was a book deal which brought down Speaker Wright of the U.S. House. Later, other republican politicos did similar or more egregious book deals, but that was forgotten or not even noticed beyond the polictal junkies.I read in today's paper a move by a Utah U.S. House member to repeal a number of the environmental measures passed and/or ordered by the Clinton administration. So quickly it will be gone.Does anyone agree with George W. Hayduke? Isn't his name ironic?Frolix8Frolix8
Of course Ralph Nader can forget all those nifty invites to DNC functions this year. Seriously, I am wondering how much trouble Nader is going to have getting his goals accomplished in the current political climate? The Dems are not going to bend over backwards to listen to him. The GOP will just ignore him. So how has he helped his organization? Will his group be effective now in its lobbying efforts? Seems like he blew alot of political capital.Just my .02,Charlie
Charlie, I think that it's important to remember that The Green Party exists outside of Ralph Nader. Don't get me wrong. Nader is important. But the emphasis should be on the Green Platform. It's way bigger than any candidate. Also, after the last elections, the Greens now have 79 elected officials in 21 states. It's a real grass roots movement that is making progress. I don't want to lose site of that. Good fortune. Rick
I voted for a third party in '92 (Perot) - I will not make that mistake again. I imagine many Nader voters will react similarly - without Nader in the race, Gore would've won hands down. (Nader had over 80,000 votes in Florida.)Nader put Gore in a box. If Gore had moved to the left to capture the votes of Susan/Hoffa thinkers, he would have lost the center. Now, the Democratic Party is faced with the same Catch 23. I.e., it's dead.The fundamental problem with Clinton & Gore is that they are expedient, as opposed to principled.
emschulze, IMHO, voting for Perot was the mistake. Perot showed has true colors by endorsing Bush in 2000. Nader would NEVER do that. If one wants change, one should vote for alternative parties. It's just business as usual with the big 2. Well, as Gore Vidal says, really one gigantic corporately controlled party with two right wings. The Green Party has some workable ideas concerning drug issues. For those who don't believe that party platform matters, please go see the movie, "Traffic." It reflects our failed war on drugs regarding current policy. It shows the tragedy of this futile effort in terms of both human cost and financial cost. Our Federal government spent $19.2 billion last year fighting this war. That's up from $13.5 billion in 1996. (Only $2.78 billion went to treatment!) By the time State incarceration is added into the mix, the total approachs $40 BILLION a year. This represents real tax dollars that could have been put to more productive use. There can be little doubt that the Socially Responsible Investing Board could think of better ways to invest our tax money.Party platform matters. Go see, "Traffic". Forget Perot. He's a traitor to his supporters. Good fortune. Rick
Forget Perot.No doubt about it.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |