True, but not relevant. The SEC is part of the executive branch and its curent head was appointed by President Obama. 

You still don't have much here. You may be on firmer ground in your criticism of Craig. There is an appearance of impropriety, though I suspect the bar would not find it sufficient to act on. 

I am all for legitimate criticism, however, there is a lack of logic here that you are ignoring in your postulate that the Obama campaign received money from GS and the fact that the Obama administration has elected to purse a securities fraud case against GS, therefore something is wrong. 

If they throw the case, or some other untoward response is made by the Obama administration, then you may be on to something. 

At this point you don't have much and if this retort of yours is the best you can do... 

Goldman Sachs contributed money to President Obama's campaign to buy influence to insure it could be sued by the justice department?

Or are you suggesting  Goldman Sachs's money failed to keep the Obama administraton from settling the suit; and if so, are you complaining that the Obama administration wouldn't stay bought? 

Have I missed something about this? 

The headline and intial paragraph is believeable. Years ago I punched the ballot for Ben Jones over Pat Swindall in two elections with giddy glee  each time even though Ben lost the first time around and I didn't think Ben Jones was all that liberal. 

Now living in Florida, I vote for Nelson, and will vote for Nelson, but not even Katharine Harris made me feel good about it. Mostly I felt used. And I loathed Harris a lot more than I loathed Swindall. 

not the Independent.

I think you need to check the definition of strawman. I did know they didn't have to award it to anyone. You assume much.

Otherwise you make most of my points.

Obama may have been more deserving than the other candidates or not, there may be an argument to make that no prize should have been given this year (both points were alluded to with my question).

I gather you fall into the last category- No prize should have been given this year. Correct me if I am wrong.

Which of the nominees in your opinion deserved the prize more and why?

No Nader was not right in 2000. Do you really want to argue that Gore was no different than Bush?

2ndly lets assume arguendo that Nadar was right. And lets assume arguendo we all voted for Nadar in 2000. Nadar would have accomplished what?

In our system of government the executive is not king (no matter what Bush and Cheney thought).

Finally as long as we are at it, lets assume Nadar became president in January instead Obama.  How would Nadar have gotten health care through congress? Or a stimulous bill stronger than Obama's?

What deals would he have made to get them passed? Or would he simply said no bill is better than a bad bill.

Paul Krugman states the stimulous bill, while not strong enough in his opinion prevented the Great Depression part two. If Nadar wouldn't have bargained with the idiot senator from Maine (who cut spending out of the bill for the sake of saying she kept spending down, rather than for any sound economic reason), what do you suppose would have happened to main street. Would that be ok with you?

If your complaint is we need better Democrats, I am with you, but I don't see Ralph adding anything to your argument. We still need effective progressive politicans. No evidence Nadar fits that bill.

Ever since I first saw him in the 80's. He rarely fails me.

Rehnquist was pretty conservative. By what metric is Roberts more?

I didn't like Rehnquist and I don't like Roberts from what I can see, but I am not sure of the accuracy of the statemet.

are what I remember best about CBS News under Cronkite. Vietnam brought into the living room and the impression from my memory is every night.

I remember other things too. But if you ask me what I remember from Walter Concrite, the first thing that comes to my mind is Vietnam. Other memories come second.

On the other hand, that shows Concrite at his best. It was his job to make those news reports come alive and they did and they have stayed with me.

Sadder still is the way network news sucks today.  

 to get his op ed printed?

The modern filibustering of judges can be traced to the GOP and Abe Fortas