I couldn't agree more that Paul and Huckabee offer solutions that would be as bad as the disease. But Glenn's point is not that they're great candidates of that they're the answer to all our problems, but that we the people don't get to decide if we like them or not because we don't get to hear their side of things.

That said, Ralph Nader certainly does offer a cogent and well-thought-out critique of American politics and corporatism. He also offers, in his own person, someone who has, over 40 + years, fought the corporate and government establishments and won. He is someone who is smart, dedicated and has done more for American consumers than anyone alive. My question to you is this: did you vote for him in 1996, 2000 or 2004? I did.

It's an odd thing that many people who call themselves liberals don't vote for liberal candidates when they get the chance. The opinion polls in 2000 had Nader at over 5% immediately before election day, but he actually got only 2.7% of the vote. That meant that a lot of liberals just couldn't get themselves out of the "lesser of two evils" mindset that dictates their vote for the Dem candidate regardless of whether he/she represents their values. It's a powerful influence on voting patterns in this country.

ever since Roe was decided. But I am absolutely sick and tired of the issue of abortion rights being used to trump everything else. It's undeniably an important issue, but it's not the only one. I'm very left-wing about just about everything, which leads me to be really p.o.'ed at Democratic candidates/officeholders who take it for granted that I have to vote for them even though we share essentially no political ground. The argument I always get is that whoever the Rep is will be pro-life, therefore, regardless of everything else, I must vote Dem. I don't, but that's the argument I hear. This is a good example. You can't vote for Paul because, in his way of seeing things, fetuses have rights too.

I think we'd be better off in many ways if Roe were overturned and the issue of abortion was decided by state legislatures. Making it an explicitly political issue instead of a partly judicial and partly political issue would galvanize more abortion proponents than there are now. The fact is that the lion's share of the lobbying work at the state level is now being done by anti-choice forces while pro-choice folks rely on the federal right to protect what's theirs. That is proving to be a losing battle as that federal right is gradually whittled away at the state level.

Losing the federal right would of course be an initial setback for choice, but it would be, I believe, beneficial in the long run. Losing Roe would force people including politicians to decide where they really stand on the issue. Given that most people favor limited abortion rights, it would ultimately be a winner. Finally, by making it a political issue, people would perceive they have a stake in the outcome of the process of deciding pro- or anti- abortion, rather than feeling they had their position dictated to them by 9 unelected people in black robes.

And we could at last get back to voting for candidates we want instead of those we don't want except for their abortion stand.

"extremely high standards for corroborating evidence" turns out to be the statement of the complaining witness ("John Doe raped me.") and ONE other piece of evidence supporting the statement (e.g. bruising, DNA, a witness saw the pair leave a bar together, his hair on her sweater, etc.). The only possible lower standard would be the statement of the woman alone. In other words, Harris wants a system in which men can be arrested, charged with rape and possibly sent to jail for many years based on NOTHING but the say-so of the woman. (Just so we're clear, the requirement of corroborating evidence is not unusual. Few criminal cases make it to a jury on nothing but the statement of a complaining witness. If I tell the police that John Doe stole my car, they're going to want some proof beyond my word for it. For example, they'll want a witness who saw him do it, they'll want to see the car in his possession, evidence he fenced it, etc.) That's the type of reasoning that gives feminism a bad name. Its naked hostility to men may escape some readers, but it's painfully obvious to others. The easier it is for women to put men behind bars, the better some feminists like it.

You answer steambadger as if you know what you're talking about, but you don't. We've had this discussion before and I understand that you believe that rape is a crime that can only be done by a man to a woman because he has a penis that can be inserted into one of her body's orifices and she doesn't. That's a coherent statement of your beliefs, but it is NOT the law. In gender-neutral jurisdictions, consent is something both partners have to give in order to have legal sex. If either is too drunk, too young, too whatever to give consent, the other person is guilty of rape. That's why Mary Kay Letourneau (sp?) went to jail and her 12-year-old boyfriend didn't. See? He had the penis, but she committed the crime. I know you don't like the gender-neutral thing, but there it is.