I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
first ... so suck IT!
first ... so suck IT!
Sorry to put it this harshly but if Nader was on fire I wouldn't piss on him. People are dying because of his ego and his actions in 2000. He may have done good things in the past but now he's a shill for the Republicans. Sure he'd be better than Lieberman, perhaps, but why "reward" him with anything like that? If we want Lieberman out, and I certainly do, lets replace him with someone who can have a positive effect, not the man partially responsible for Bush II and all the pain and suffering that has caused.
I've heard LOTS of interesting ideas for Ralphie, but that's certainly the most constructive.
They could always come battle it out at Iron Blog. 
Ooh what a good idea. I felt like taking a shower after watching the smarmy creep in the Rumsfeld hearing. And hats off to whoever called him Zell Lieberman -- I'll never think of him any other way. (Zellmentum is even stupider than Joementum.)
Such a happy, optimistic thread.
The idea has a lot of merit...I don't know if he'd go for it.
Either way, he should get out of the race for the Presidency.
Well, I think it's brilliant. And if Nader doesn't go for it, it shows that he's just in it for the e-g-o.
We had suggested numerous times in the past that we preferred the possible title Senatr Nader to the impossibility of President Nader, isolated from both parties in Congress and less equipped than Reagan or Clinton in similar positions, who could rely on partial Congressional support.
Of course, we were ignored amid irrational shrieks of Nader being guilty for everything.
Sadly, this is probably unlikely for several reasons-
Job Loserman enjoys his support because of a Satanic pact (which cynical Machiavellianism explains his unquestioning, unflagging love of his Republican "enemies"). We try explaining Job's Satanic voting base and are met with the increasingly meaningless accusations of anti-Semitism (it isn't! It's anti-Satanism!)
Nader is not going to do it if the ego thing is true. He should've done it from the beginning and this presidential fetish bodes ill. Doesn't excuse the irrational hatred, though: "xshirt" is completely unjustified in reference to the nuttiest Naderite, depending as it does upon violent exclusionism. If anyone's "shirted" it's McAuliffe.
Lucianne.com 'Quote Of The Day':
"The behavior by Americans at the prison in Iraq is ... intolerable and un-American ... I cannot help but say, however, that those responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001, never apologized."
Senator Joseph Lieberman, (D-Conn)
The Lincoln Bedroom is waiting for you, Joe.
I hope he stays in the run for President. I will not vote for either Bush or Kerry so it will be good to fill in something in November.
will someone tell lucienne that "those responsible for killing 3000 Americans on Sept. 11" can't apologise because they are dead?
Stop the Goptopus: don't pick up the stick.
My comment on Nader.
BM.
Does that stand for Bowel Movement?
This won't happen for a very simple reason. Nader is not a Democrat. With all the things he has had to say about the Democratic party, I think it unlikely that he would suddenly decide to join it.
And all this crap about Nader being responsible for the war dead is just stupid. If you are looking for someone to blame other than the people who actually are responsible, you should blame Gore for losing the election. It was by happenstance that Nader had the effect he had. If we don't want that to happen again, we have to stop giving people a reason to vote for him.
If you want a political system where only people in officially accepted political parties can run, you probably would have loved politics in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.
spirittraveller: fuck McAuliffe and fuck DNC, why can't Nader be an independent? Aren't there already a few indy congressmen from New England? Except of course for the ego thing.
"I hope he stays in the run for President. I will not vote for either Bush or Kerry so it will be good to fill in something in November.
BM"
You sir, are a fucking moron. This is not the time to be glib or to sit back on your ass. Unless you want to see WWIII, then get off your duff and vote this Novemeber, FOR KERRY.
"And all this crap about Nader being responsible for the war dead is just stupid. If you are looking for someone to blame other than the people who actually are responsible, you should blame Gore for losing the election. It was by happenstance that Nader had the effect he had."
Wrong buckwheat. Nadar did affect the election. Go back and look at the electoral college results. Nadar cost Gore some key states.
BTW, last time I checked, Gore won the popular vote.
He won't do it for the same reason Sharpton won't run for Congress--either could win easily in the right district, but it's easier and more fun to talk about issues.
If you want a political system where only people in officially accepted political parties can run, you probably would have loved politics in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.
Nader can't win and even if he did, he'd be in over his head. Who would HIS advisors be? WHO would agree to be in his cabinet that had any freaking idea what they were doing?
This isn't only about what's happening in this country, for fuck's sake. Someone better have an idea how to deal with the rest of the world!
Little ralphie ain't gonna save us.
Samlex, you'd be better telling Joe Lieberman... that's a quote which he himself said during the hearings with Donald Rumsfeld. *sighs*
Nader wants to run, not win.
Winning a Senate seat would not be out of reach for him and would give him a great measure of prominence. He could also make a bid for a cabinet position in a Kerry administration.
But those jobs require showing up every day, making policy, perhaps becoming vulnerable to criticism.
Better to forever run, staying well on the outside where one can criticize without ever having to take a meaningful stand.
Nader should make Pat Paulsen his VP.
spirittraveller: fuck McAuliffe and fuck DNC, why can't Nader be an independent? Aren't there already a few indy congressmen from New England? Except of course for the ego thing.
kei & yuri | Email | Homepage | 05.08.04 - 10:09 pm | #
Well, the gist of the article was that Nader ought to run against Lieberman in the Democratic primary.
If he were to run as an independent, assuming there is a Republican challenger, Nader would again be a third man, possibly having the same effect as he did in 2000.
....
BTW, are we having a troll infestation or something? WTF
Wrong buckwheat. Nadar did affect the election. Go back and look at the electoral college results. Nadar cost Gore some key states.
Of course he did -- Florida and New Hampshire. He also made several others (Oregon, Iowa, and Minnesota come to mind) very close, though Gore pulled them out.
Anyone who says Nader did not affect the 2000 election is in deep denial.
And anyone who says they are proud of their vote for Nader in 2000 and will vote for him again this time around is either stupid or incredibly naive (or both). There is no point trying to convince such people of their complicity in creating the ongoing disaster that is the Bush pResidency. Somewhere deep down, they know they're partly to blame, but they can't admit it to anyone, least of all to themselves.
BTW, are we having a troll infestation or something? WTF
Yes, just waiting for Cheryl and Elias to appear...
Anyone who says Nader did not affect the 2000 election is in deep denial.
They would be, except that noone has said that.
This is so simple.
Iraq is the Number one issue.
The only differnce between Bush and Kerry is a few nuances and the end result will be the same.
If Kerry wants my vote all he has to do is change his Iraq policy.
What is wrong with voting for the person that stands for the policy you want.
If Bush is elected I will not feel the slightest twinge of guilt.
McAuliffe drove the party right (which drove corporate donations up); that [lack of clear alternatives] drove the voters away; that drove the relative percentage of extremists up. Thus Bush sailing on the support of the Party of God and the Bloc of the Fearful (that is, God-Fearing) for a Base.
To say nothing of these idiots actually accepting Gore as the best candidate they could field. To say nothing of Loserman being the best veep they could fathom. But of course everything is all Nader's fault.
It's Nader's fault Gore spent the debate trying to be civil with and imitate Bush. It's Nader's fault Gore lied about his tobacco profits as his sister died of cancer. It's Nader's fault Gore couldn't carry his own state. It's Nader's fault Harris created a racist computer program and denied towns of votes. It's Nader's fault that all the examinations show Gore winning anyway. It's Nader's fault that Gore went out of his way to not do the recount right or that Loserman was such a loser. It's Nader's fault the Democrats got on their belly and refused to be an opposition for so long. It's Nader's fault that an intel apparatus that was hampered under Clinton and treasonously sabotaged (even if by carelessness) under Bush permitted thousands of deaths. It's Nader's fault that Democrats voted overwhelmingly for revenge, for USAPATRIOT, and for the restoration of the Mesopotamian colony. It's Nader's fault that Americans respond to guerillas by flattening neighborhoods.
You sir, are a fucking moron.
Oh, if I could count the number of times I have wanted to say that to somebody.
"are we having a troll infestation or something?"
well, you brought Nader up.
Actually, the 9/11 hijackers did apologize to the American people.
It's just kind of hard to hear it from the afterlife.
"What is wrong with voting for the person that stands for the policy you want.
If Bush is elected I will not feel the slightest twinge of guilt.
BM"
Guilt is not what you have to worry about.
The major diff between Bush and Kerry is that one will preserve democacy, the other won't.
One guess who is who.
If Bush is elected I will not feel the slightest twinge of guilt.
Then you are unable to feel.
"are we having a troll infestation or something?"
BM is a troll I think.
"If Bush is elected I will not feel the slightest twinge of guilt.
Then you are unable to feel.
pie"
Pie,
Right on.
Better to forever run, staying well on the outside where one can criticize without ever having to take a meaningful stand.
sounds like he should be a media pundit!
K&Y: you forgot the hooded guy on the box; also Nader's fault 
Kerry wins (in part because we vote for him)
Rethugs react in time for the oath in January, with another "unavoidable event"
or
Rethug majority in congress and courts kills democracy anyway
it's not just Kerry
/i
Sorry; new contact lenses coming next week.
Why should I vote for Kerry since his policy on Iraq and the middle east is exactly the same as Bush.
This crap about internationalizing or bringing NATO in is so false. The UN doesn't want to bail us out and is not capable of helping and NATO forces are already extended by the Balkans and Afghanistan.
There is only a slow defeat or a quick withdral in Iraq.
Who wants to be the last man to die for the failed policy in Iraq?
We would feel better about this completely Republican lockstep hatred of Nader if we saw some criticism (or even awareness) of McAuliffe, some mention of what an asshole and a good Republican Clinton really was, and some reality in the insane chant that with all the things that happened in 2000, Nader is the all-powerful arbiter of elections. Actually, no we wouldn't. But the numbers don't lie: Clinton, Dukakis and Mondale all obeyed this stupid lie that the Right can be Nazi as they wanna be, but Democrats must be "centrist", and it cost all of them (Clinton in midterms and total vote numbers).
New Hampshire. Fuck Florida. Fuck Ralph. New Hampshire.
Thing is, and 2000 doesn't enter into the picture on this, Nader really isn't doing anything except being there. He's basically sitting like a big ol' lump in the whole process, and like a supermassive object curves space-time, he's warping the playing field. Read today, Bush has like 46%, Kerry's got 43% and Nader's pulling in 7%. I'll wager that 7% is just saying Nader because, and I'm quoting here, "there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats".
I think the idea of Nader running against Lieberman's a good one...but it won't happen. Like a couple said above, a senatorial seat or even a cabinet post would require not only daily work, but also a certain amount of scruitiny. Given the current media climate, were Kerry to win and appoint Nader to a cabinet post, he'd be under the microscope daily, which is a place, historically, Ralph hasn't really cared for.
Do check out Skeleton Closet. It's most illuminating.
http://tinyurl.com/25hur
Someone elucidate this poor country boy. Is Ralph running on any particular ticket? If my rememberin' serves me, the Greens are treating him like Marshall Tucker Band fans treat the Dixie Chicks.
This crap about internationalizing or bringing NATO in is so false. The UN doesn't want to bail us out and is not capable of helping and NATO forces are already extended by the Balkans and Afghanistan.
That is certainly true right now. How do you know it will be the case with when Kerry becomes the President?
"Why should I vote for Kerry since his policy on Iraq and the middle east is exactly the same as Bush."
It is not the same as Bush. Bush has privatized the military and made it a lawless band of mercenaries for hire.
Bush has alientated all of our allies.
Bush has plans on the table to reinstate the draft.
Bush has indicated a desire to invade Cuba and Iran over the past week.
Kerry is none of the above. Vote for Nadar at your own peril.
"Someone elucidate this poor country boy. Is Ralph running on any particular ticket?"
No, Independent. Akin to Mercenary.
What about the fact that Nader was and is not "stealing" Democrat votes but attracting the disaffected?
we're headed towards freedom and you liberal pussies want us to change horses midstream and elect kerry. bush is saving our lives, you fucking idiots. who cares if it's nader or kerry, it's not bush!
four more years!!! four more years!!!
javier
Certainly Bush has done all those things. But I was talking about Iraq and the middle east. Explain to me how Kerry's position is different than Bush.
He agreed with Bush about Sharon's land grab and is even talking of sending more soldiers to Iraq than Bush.
"What about the fact that Nader was and is not "stealing" Democrat votes but attracting the disaffected?"
Should those disaffected not be attracted to Kuchinich or Dean?
I predict both have major roles in a Kerry admin, but no chance in Bush II.
We would feel better about this completely Republican lockstep hatred of Nader
K & Y, with all due respect (I often agree with you), this is bullshit. It isn't "Republican" to be permanently pissed at Nader. Indeed, it is not difficult to find considerable evidence that some of Nader's biggest fans are Republicans and that he has had at least one overtly friendly meeting with Norquist et al., who are evil but smart enough to recognize that Nader does their bidding.
As for Clinton, McA, etc. being Republican: that's bullshit too. Clinton was flawed, no doubt, and was farther to the right than I would've liked, but he did a lot of good things that a Republican would never have attempted. It is absurd to call him "Republican."
No, Independent. Akin to Mercenary.
The mercs are violent sociopaths. Brownshirts smashed dissent with force. Exactly how do you imagine Nader or Naderites to be either of these? IDF is off-limits for Nazi comparisons, even when they do exactly the same things, but Nader is instantly a bloodthirsty murderer? Are you counting the not-so-bad Corvair as a human life?
zeke: we meant Republican functionally. Nobody seems to be able to have an case, but they're all singing along to the refrain, as at a Rethug rally/revival. Of course the Republicans flatter themselves that Ralph's ego is some clever trick of theirs. Rove is as delusional as he is nasty.
we're headed towards ...
we're headed for disaster, liberal media, anonymous, et cetera, et cetera.
Look, kid, you're out of your league.
Come back when you have a clue.
What about the fact that Nader was and is not "stealing" Democrat votes but attracting the disaffected?
k&y, I think you guys are right. I think the normal dems are pretty solidly behind Kerry, whether he's their first choice or not. Hopefully, Nader will draw equal numbers from the anarchists and those Repubs who don't like Bush but can't bring themselves to vote Dem. We'd be better of if they didn't cast their vote at all, but nevertheless people are gonna do what they're gonna do whether it makes sense or not. Some people take pride in throwing their votes away. That way, they don't feel responsible when things get fucked up.
we meant Republican functionally
Well, I still disagree. No President who's "functionally" Republican would've raised the rate on the top income tax bracket while lowering the rate on the bottom (via expansion of the Earned Income Credit). That's just one of many examples.
And of course there were many examples, equally valid, of Clinton playing footsie with Gingrich et al., which were disgusting. But the Democrats were playing by a set of rules that the R's had long since discarded. It's only now that they're starting to figure out how to play on a level field.
Javier,
Thanks. That's what I thought. It's a little silly, in my opinion, to tar the entire Green party with an anti-Nader brush.
What about the fact that Nader was and is not "stealing" Democrat votes but attracting the disaffected?
kei & yuri | Email | Homepage | 05.08.04 - 11:13 pm | #
Therein, a good point. People who're squarely in the Nader camp wouldn't vote for Kerry for any reason. A friend of mine is amazed that I, a righteous anti-corporate, anti-materialist liberal, am supporting a "rich asshole" like Kerry. She does not or will not understand the nuances of the electoral process, particularly this one. Is Kerry liberal perfection? No, but neither is Nader, and frankly, I'm a whole lot more anti-Nader these days than I am pro-Kerry (again, it has absolutely nothing to do with the 2000 election, but what he's done - or hasn't done - since).
As for your comment concerning MacAuliffe, Clinton, the DLC, et. al., I agree wholeheartedly. It amazes conservative friends of mine that I don't worship at the alter of the Clenis and, in fact, remain highly critical of his administration. They're also amazed my criticisms have nothing to do with a blue dress.
Clinton, however, isn't running this time around, and the question of the DLC and MacAuliffe is a tricky one to navigate. You either abandon the Democratic Party outright, or you work from within to change it for the better. Thing about Nader is, I don't see him as a viable third option. Which isn't to say a third party isn't a viable option; Nader just isn't it. That whole kerfluffle has basically degenerated to a different kind of partisan bickering, along the lines of two fans of different SEC football teams arguing over which is best.
Too much stupidity being rolled out here for the likes of me...
Some people take pride in throwing their votes away. That way, they don't feel responsible when things get fucked up.
Phredd nails it.
We'd be better of if they didn't cast their vote at all
But if they're not taking votes from Kerry and, as you point out, taking votes from Bush...*sigh*
We'd be better off if Kerry met with Nader, found some thing he could move left on (hint: IRAQ, you draft-imposing hypocritical warmonger), and then secured Nader's support in this way-Nader campaigns, but kind of like Kucinich, and in the last period throws all support behind Kerry. If he did it wouldn't do a bit to stop the irrational Nader hatred, and there's no reason to suppose he would, but that would be ideal. Keep pressure on Bush and on the Democrats.
Running for president is an easy way to get one's voice heard with no risk of being tied to a government job for the next four years. Only one of two candidates has any chance of being elected. If Nader were to run for Senate, or any office other than president, and then he would have to serve in that position. I doubt that he is interested in that. Ralph Nader is not Jerry Brown.
The only thing that makes sense is that Nader is excessively greedy and the repukelicans have bought him.
=======
People who're squarely in the Nader camp wouldn't vote for Kerry for any reason...She does not or will not understand the nuances of the electoral process
Right, this is the gist of the problem. Whether people like it or not, we have a 2-party system due to the state-by-state, winner-take-all nature of our elections. The system is geared to minimize the influence of 3rd parties. There's a case to be made that this is what needs to change, that we need to move to some sort of instant-runoff system where we rank our preferences on the ballot, or to a system of proportional representation. I wouldn't hold my breath on either of these becoming reality, but it is important for people to consider these issues when thinking about how best to change the direction of our country. As it stands, a symbolic so-called protest vote for Nader accomplishes nothing but taking away a potential Kerry vote.
Lemmings: steady leadership in times of change
I'd give money to Ralph in a nanosecond if he announced that he'd drop out this year to run against Lieberman in 2006.
zeke, we meant Republican functionally, re YOU. As in the mindless chanting about evildoers being the same melody from both tents, regardless of the actual policies of the two preachers (and to be sure one is worse, but that doesn't make an athiest of the other).
Nader not viable: guh! The point is to pressure DLC, which is certainly not "tricky" (where do you think Dean went? Underpants gnomes get him?), and which is why the DLC is so shrill at the thought of him.
gak-so why isn't Nader trying to steal votes from Kerry? Why wouldn't a vote-stealer resemble more closely the recent internal Rethug campaigns Atrios was supporting with Pennsylvanian Rethugs?
As it stands, a symbolic so-called protest vote for Nader accomplishes nothing but taking away a potential Kerry vote.
But let's be honest here. Nader is anot a viable presidential candidate.
And I'm beginning to wonder about people who insist on promoting him.
I'm not going to vote for someone who has absolutely no experience governing or representing a city or a state, let alone the country!
Nope. No way.
kei & yuri,
You're assuming Nader would even speak to Kerry. Would he? Has he made any ovetures at all to the Democratic party? In a perfect world, this would be an ideal solution and would go a long, long way towards healing the massive schisms on the Left.
Still, I don't see it happening. A whole lot of "leftists" are quite happy to be spoilers. They're content to be anti-establishment in word and thought, but don't give a tinker's cuss about actually making things better for everyone. I'm not saying all or even most Nader supporters are this particular stripe of "anarchists", but he'd definately loose a sizable percentage of his backing if ol' Ralph was perceived as "consorting with the enemy".
zeke, we meant Republican functionally, re YOU. As in the mindless chanting about evildoers being the same melody from both tents
Sorry, I'm having a lot of trouble parsing this. I don't see anybody on either side "mindlessly chanting" that Nader is evil. The Rethugs are only too happy to have him in the race, since in their calculation (which may well be incorrect this time around), he helps Bush and hurts Kerry. So for now they won't say anything bad about him. The D's are justifiably mad at Ralph and will not forgive him unless and until he throws his support behind Kerry sometime before November. There is not any sort of common ground between R's and D's on this one.
Maybe I just don't understand what you're trying to say here.
But let's be honest here. Nader is not a viable presidential candidate.
Right. Not even the Nader fans are suggesting otherwise.
And I'm beginning to wonder about people who insist on promoting him.
Me too. I'm still inclined to believe they are naive and more interested in their own feelings of purity than in the practical (and devastating) effects of another 4 years of the Unelected Fraud.
Kerry could pick up ~5% by admitting he was duped and wrong on the Iraq vote. Why won't he?
I don't see anybody on either side [WTF?! Were there ever antiNader rethugs?!!] "mindlessly chanting" that Nader is evil
rrright...we just imagined it...
Right. Not even the Nader fans are suggesting otherwise.
They're suggesting Kerry needs to listen to Ralph?
About getting out of Iraq?
Does Kerry need Ralph to tell him that?
rrright...we just imagined it...
What we have here is a failure to communicate. Let me try to boil it down to a couple of simple questions.
1) Are you saying that Republicans are presently opposed to Nader being in the race?
2) Do you think the anger that many Democrats feel towards Ralph is justified?
Does Kerry need Ralph to tell him that?
No. of course not. I think what many Naderites -- and probably Ralph himself -- want to see is Kerry making a public display of kissing Ralph's ass. It's just more of Nader's egomania, of course, and it would be a fairly disgusting sight; but if it makes the difference between winning and losing in November, I say Kerry should hold his nose and do it.
Kerry could pick up ~5% by admitting he was duped and wrong on the Iraq vote. Why won't he?
He'd lose a bigger percentage of voters of he did.
Sorry. Too many people in this country believe that the war was justified.
Sad, but true.
if he did
I think all this Nader bashing is very childish.
The fact is that Nader will be getting a whole lot fewer votes this year than he did in 2000. He is not the same risk that he was then.
But if you're really so AFRAID of Nader, you should figure out why he did so well in 2000...
Here's a hint: He didn't tell Democrats they were stupid.
Ever heard the phrase "liberal elitism"? That's why the Rs are doing so well... for better or worse they have got us painted that way... and judging by the comments on this thread, it is at least somewhat justified.
I say Kerry should hold his nose and do it.
Last comment.
It'll never happen.
Most people would ask *Ralph who?*
He disappeared about 2000. Now, his campaign gets little or no coverage. If I didn't blog, I wouldn't even know he was running.
Kerry's Iraq position has moved so close to Bush's because of the ABB crowd. After Dean's collapse, they were so scared, you couldn't say a mildly critical thing about Kerry without being called a Bush supporter. All that money sent to Kerry from blogs could have been sent with a note encouraging him to renounce the Iraq war as a mistake & focus on getting America out, & subtly suggesting that you'd support Edwards or Clark if he didn't. Now that the other (viable) Dem candidates dropped out, Kerry can do what he wants & say to Dem voters "What are ya gonna do? Vote for Bush?"
If Democrats had anything to offer the voters they wouldn't be so worried about Nader. If you're worried about somebody getting 3 to 5 percent of the vote you better take a look at your own platform.
Furthermore, people aren't dying because of Nader, they're dying because Gore ran a lousy campaign.
1) Are you saying that Republicans are presently opposed to Nader being in the race?
zeke, don't take it the wrong way, but you are completely insane.
2) Do you think the anger that many Democrats feel towards Ralph is justified?
*SIGH* No, as was apparently very hidden and hard to discern in our posts.
But if you're really so AFRAID of Nader, you should figure out why he did so well in 2000...
It would be silly to ignore the possibility that Nader could once again make the election close enough for Chimpy's minions to steal.
As for "why he did so well in 2000," well, he didn't. His poll numbers were consistently 5% and above right up until the election. But he ended up with less than 3% of the the vote because many (not quite enough) of his supporters realized that in a close election they needed to hold their noses and vote for Gore. Something similar presumably will happen again this year, and given that Nader doesn't have the Greens to get him on state ballots, his support will be even smaller.
Look, we'd all like to feel like we were voting for a really great candidate who fully represented our positions. We'd feel better and our candidate would probably do great things, yadda yadda. It's all pie in the sky. The world doesn't work that way. We simply have to pick the lesser of two evils, and the choice now is even clearer than in 2000 (and it was plenty clear then).
after 2000!
Here's a hint: He didn't tell Democrats they were stupid.
Has Kerry said Naderites are stupid?
Did Gore?
Please. Enough whining.
I am so tired of the Democrats whining about how Nader cost them the election in 2000 and threatens to curse us with four more years of Bush. If those people the Democrats are worried about voting for Nader are so important to Kerry being elected, how about he do something about trying to win their votes? What a pathetic self-pitying bunch of losers the Dems have become.
Now that the other (viable) Dem candidates dropped out, Kerry can do what he wants & say to Dem voters "What are ya gonna do? Vote for Bush?"
That is really unfair. You seem to ignore the fact that Kerry has no control over what's going on in Iraq, knows it's screwed up, and is hardly going to continue Bush's policies.
He went to war. He knows the cost.
You need to give him a chance.
Can some Democrat just admit that there is this very nasty anti-Nader snark, justified or not, so we can go back to our silly games? You froth and compare him to Hitler and then act like you didn't.
(And Zeke at 12:13 is making sane sense, by the way.)
What a pathetic self-pitying bunch of losers the Dems have become.
And why don't you make another generalization as ridiculous as that?
You're a riot.
Kei & Yuri, I asked two simple yes or no questions. You dodged them both. If you'd like to have a sincere discussion, sans name-calling (notice I've been respectful towards you but have not received the same in return), please answer them.
One interpretation of your dodge is that you can't answer those questions without undermining your own position.
Has Kerry said Naderites are stupid?
Did Gore?
Please. Enough whining.
pie | Email | Homepage | 05.09.04 - 12:14 am | #
No.
I'm not talking about Kerry. I'm talking about people who get online and call Naderites "morons".
Many of the people who voted for Nader in 2000 are the most likely to vote Democrat in this years election. (Sadly, some of them will also vote Republican.)
None of us is going to bring them to our side by insulting them for who they chose... or will choose to vote for.
It is immature and counter-productive.
javier, what is it about Kerry's actions so far that lead you to believe that Kucinich or Dean have seats waiting for them in a Kerry cabinet? Kucinich is still running an active campaign precisely because Kerry has made no effort to bring Kucinich and his supporters into the fold. And yes, these are very much the same people who support Nader. If Kucinich is frozen out at the convention, these disaffected voters would do well to wonder why Kerry deserves their votes. Since becoming the presumptive nominee, Kerry has been drifting rightward, not that it was much of a drift to begin with. He voted for the Patriot Act and now says it only needs a little tinkering, he voted to authorize the commander-in-chimp's Iraqi adventure, and he has not advanced a practicable alternative to Bush's own strategy for getting out of Iraq. The best you can say for Kerry is that he probably won't get us into any more of the kind of trouble that Bush has gotten us into. It's not clear, though, that he has a clue of how to get us out. I don't either, but you know what? I ain't running for President.
k & y: anti-Nader snark located at
Alex | Email | Homepage | 05.08.04 - 9:35 pm
pie: well, maybe Kerry is just echoing Bush's 'stay the course' bit so he can draw away soft Bush voters, I don't know. But since he no longer needs to appeal to Dem voters because he has no competition there, his appeals to the soft right might be scaring some hardcore lefties into Nader's arms.
spiritraveller, no one has done that here tonight, right?
Nader would never make a good prez, and I've given my reason.
This is a crucial election, and I'm appalled that people don't get it.
But it's easy to throw your vote away on principle and abrogate responsibility for the outcome of the election.
Sleep well.
None of us is going to bring them to our side by insulting them for who they chose... or will choose to vote for.
This refers to those who are open to the possibility of voting for Kerry rather than Nader. But I think what we're really talking about here is the core of Nader supporters who refuse to acknowledge the reality of the situation, as I've tried to outline above (namely, that in a 2-party system, a symbolic "protest" vote in a close election can have disastrous consequences).
Nobody here has called Nader a Hitler, or evil, or anything comparable. At least not that I've seen. If you or anyone else want to attribute such sentiments to that pathetic asshole McAuliffe and/or other DLC'ers, please provide the proof in the form of quotes or links. (I can't stand McA, but I'm not going to attribute sentiments to him that I have not seen or heard myself.)
I can't vouch for anyone else, but what I've said and will continue to say is that Ralph's an egomaniac and shares blame for the 2000 fiasco. And I do not want to see a repeat this year.
If Kucinich is frozen out at the convention
I hope the Kerry people are not that stupid. Kucinich has earned a prime speaking slot at the convention. I believe Kerry respects Kucinich and understands the need to bring him and his supporters into the fold.
Zeke, your response is formulaic but without any basis. We already responded to the first crazy one (see the Rove comment above), though it is obvious you want us to admit Republican glee at Nader proves they're in it together. We also already answered the other one with just about EVERY ONE OF OUR COMMENTS. Rethugs might think they run Nader, but as we said, they don't. Democrats are blaming Nader for everything, to include things he has no control over. There. Your questions are answered. Without any change in the points, by the way.
Nobody here has called Nader a Hitler, or evil, or anything comparable
greenshirts
wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire
there is worse, etc
it is obvious you want us to admit Republican glee at Nader proves they're in it together
Of course that's not it. You misunderstand. Let me try to set you straight: Nader is doing the R's bidding. He's doing it for his own reasons, but the reasons are irrelevant; it is the impact he has on the race that matters.
Democrats are blaming Nader for everything
Aside from being overly dramatic, you're simply making an assertion without the slightest effort to document the charge. If you have persuasive evidence for this, now's the time to show it. I'm ready to be convinced if you can back this up.
Let's look more closely at what you charge. You seem to be getting emotional and hyperbolic, and you've made a couple of mistakes. First, you're saying "Democrats" when you're in fact referring to a subset (yet to be named or documented) of Democrats. Second, you say these unnamed, naughty Democrats blame Nader for everything. Again, I rather doubt it. Every Democrat I've heard blames Bush for his atrocious, blundering, failed leadership. Nader is on the list of those who can be blamed, certainly; he earned his spot. But nobody is so confused as to believe that he is the worst of our problems.
Though you usually argue carefully, this time you've slipped into broad, vague generalities, and you haven't provided any proof to back up some pretty serious charges. Time for you to do a bit of backtracking, friend.
My last thought on the whole Nader '04 issue...no one ever gives a really good reason why I should vote for him. It's always either "He's not part of the system" (which isn't true, he is) or "He's anti-corporate", which is simplistic as hell and not a hundred percent accurate.
greenshirts
wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire
Sorry, I don't think those rise to the level of calling him a Hitler. The reference to greenshirts is to mindless loyalty of followers, not to Nader himself. "Wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire" is about at the level of calling someone an asshole. Really, those are pretty mild.
spiritraveller, no one has done that here tonight, right?
Uh, wrong. For just one example, do a search for the word "moron".
Nader would never make a good prez, and I've given my reason.
You're preaching to the choir.
I think it's counterproductive to whine about Nader every time his name comes up. But I never said I would vote for him.
... (continuing)
In fact, my point is that bitching about Nader does nothing but take attention away from Kerry, and thus hurt Kerry's chances.
Zeke, are you completely new here? Did you not see the comment about Nader being responsible for the deaths? Did you not see the earlier posts erlier in the week? This is not something we need to prove. Somebody brings up Nader, a lot of bile gets opened, Naderites react as you might expect them to, and the threads get bogged down with infighting. Also, you have a grasp of pure technique, but you don't seem to understand we are right and none of these Pharasaic criticisms are legitimate. We are hardly dodging a question we answered an hour ago by not answering it. Are you 12? Or--are you McAuliffe?
This thread was supposed to be about the idea of Nader running against Lieberman... which if it weren't so impractical and unlikely would be a good idea.
But as soon as Nader's name came up, the hate spewed forth, and this became a "why we all would like to burn Nader at the stake" thread.
Fuck that. We don't have time for that. It's stupid. It's childish.
And it's the kind of attitude that turns "normal" people away from liberalism and the Democratic party in general.
bitching about Nader does nothing but take attention away from Kerry
A certain amount of bitching is justified by what he did in 2000 and its consequences; additional bitching is justified by the intransigence of some of his followers and their refusal to learn the obvious lesson. But in the larger sense you're right, bitching gets us nowhere. At some point, I hope in the near future, there has to be some sort of accomodation. Nader might not throw his support to Kerry until very late, but in the interim perhaps he can at least agree to stop making the patently absurd "there's no difference between the two" statements, and instead concentrate on bashing Bush (for which he has a real talent).
Roflmao. You're better off voting for Nader since Kerry can't win anyways :D
K & Y, you have lapsed into insults, mockery, and evasions. It's unbecoming.
Look, many people are here to vent their spleens. They're justifiably mad at Nader. So what? Telling them condescendingly that they are wrong to be mad is worse than pointless, it only pisses them off more and hardens positions. We (Kerry supporters) need to find accomodation with Nader supporters in order to avert another 2000-like disaster. To do that requires more than each side drawing crude caricatures of the other and calling names. The process of accomodation will be distasteful to both sides, but the consequences of failing to find some bit of common ground will be far more distasteful.
Would it not profit the Democrats at least to ignore Nader, brush him off like dandruff, act they don't see him? "Oh, did you hear something?" What they do now is embarassing. The guy can't get a party endorsement, kids. Not over 3% and you act like he decides elections. And what the hell is "the obvious lesson" about? It's not like there are that many Naderites or they are taking votes from Democrats.
"No, Independent. Akin to Mercenary.
The mercs are violent sociopaths. Brownshirts smashed dissent with force. Exactly how do you imagine Nader or Naderites to be either of these? IDF is off-limits for Nazi comparisons, even when they do exactly the same things, but Nader is instantly a bloodthirsty murderer? Are you counting the not-so-bad Corvair as a human life?
kei & yuri"
No party is supporting Nadar this go around. He has to realize that his affect on this election may result in four more years of Bush, which WILL result in countless more lives lost. Ralph, along with any other reasonably intelligent person, knows that Bush and his cronies are murderous sociopaths who will stop at nothing to get what they want.
Make no mistake about it, anyone who helps Bush this year has blood on his/her hands.
K & Y, if you don't think 3% makes a huge difference in a close election, there's no point having this discussion.
You seem to think Kerry would get 55% or more if he'd just move to the left. (I know you didn't say that but it seems implicit.) I'm here to tell you that it just isn't so.
To take your argument one step further, Javier, if Kerry doesn't try to appeal to Nader's supporters and loses to Bush as a result of those votes he didn't even try to win, then he has blood on his hands, too.
Nader cannot win in November.
Nader supporters think they need as much support as possible.
Most, if not all of that support will be drawn from Kerry, reducing his support, ensuring a larger percentage of the final vote count goes to Bush.
Therefore:
Support for Nader means you are comfortable with Bush winning in November.
Why Nader wont go for a seat he has a legitimate chance at winning is beyond me. I guess as was said up thread.
It would be too much work.
"javier
Certainly Bush has done all those things. But I was talking about Iraq and the middle east. Explain to me how Kerry's position is different than Bush.
He agreed with Bush about Sharon's land grab and is even talking of sending more soldiers to Iraq than Bush.
BM "
BM,
I think the reality is that we are in Iraq, and that we need to stablize it lest it become a cauldron that will suck up the entire Middle East. While we should have never invaded in the first place, that point is now moot.
So the question comes down to who will be more likely to properly manage the Iraq problem, Bush or Kerry? Let's keep Ralph out of the question cuz he ain't gonna win anyway.
Bush scares the crap out of me, and I really do believe that four more years of his shenanigans will get us into WWIII.
This really isn't the year for a protest vote. So all I can do is try to appeal to your logical, common sense side, and try to make you see that Kerry is the better of the two choices this year.
zeke, you don't seem to recall Gore's laziness, his failures, and the whole vote theft thing.
if Kerry doesn't try to appeal to Nader's supporters and loses to Bush as a result of those votes he didn't even try to win, then he has blood on his hands, too.
See, that's just the kind of silly thing we get from Naderites. It's nonsense but it sounds good if you don't read it closely.
Look, John Kerry is going to try to win the election. He will undoubtedly make mistakes along the way as all candidates do. Offending Naderites and losing their votes might be a strategic decision if the consequences of embracing Nader would in fact lose more votes than it gains. That's a decision they'll have to make as the race evolves and the polling data improve. I will support Kerry whichever way he goes on this question, because to me by far the most important thing is ousting the Chimp.
I will not go so far as to say that Nader voters, even those who vote for him this year, will have blood on their hands should Bush be elected. But I will say they're making a big mistake and they should be mindful of the consequences.
too bad the turd is so hyped on his own importance to consider it.
"To take your argument one step further, Javier, if Kerry doesn't try to appeal to Nader's supporters and loses to Bush as a result of those votes he didn't even try to win, then he has blood on his hands, too.
steve"
But Kerry can appeal to Nadar's supporters if Kuchinich is given a major role in the new adminstration. This is something that we Democrats can push.
To take your logic one step further, there's no way in hell that Bush will ever do anything to remotely appeal to Nadar supporters.
zeke, you don't seem to recall Gore's laziness, his failures, and the whole vote theft thing.
To the contrary, I remember his failures and the vote theft thing perfectly well. (However, Gore was not lazy; accuse him of a multitude of sins and I'll agree, but laziness wasn't one of them.)
People often make this an either/or argument. Did Nader's candidacy make it so close that the Bushies could steal it, or was it Gore's ineptitude that made it so close? In fact, it was the combination of the two. The fact that Gore was a terrible candidate does not absolve Nader.
To take your logic one step further, there's no way in hell that Bush will ever do anything to remotely appeal to Nadar supporters.
but surely that's not a logical construct, that's the truth.
I was against the war and I still am. Seeing it out with the help of the UN and NATO is the only humane option. Can you live with another Rwanda? The current Iraq would descend into civil war and genocide the second we pulled out. Whether we like it or not, BushCo fucked Iraq in our name. It's up to us to help the innocent people of Iraq establish their destiny.
Nader's cut and run policy would lead to the death of millions of Kurds and Sunnis. I can't live with that much blood on my hands.
No Javier, you're right. Bush will almost certainly do nothing to appeal to those who support Kucinich or Nader. It remains to be seen if Kerry will. Whether Kerry does or not, most people who now give lip service to supporting Nader will, I suspect, vote for Kerry in November, simply because they do recognize that four more years of Bush is just too dangerous. These voters will remain on the fringe of the Democratic party, though, particularly as the party continues its move to the right, and in future years, when the Republican choice isn't as repugnant as Bush, this marginalization will cost the Dems again, as it did in 2000.
The fact that Gore was a terrible candidate does not absolve Nader.
rrright...that would be the whole thing right there. They can field any piece of shit and we have to take it happily, and dissent is still the other guy's fault. This is the Godwin point.
"Nader's cut and run policy would lead to the death of millions of Kurds and Sunnis. I can't live with that much blood on my hands.
clonecone"
Well said. This is exactly why I like Kerry's plan.
BTW, I opposed the war from the beginning as well.
They can field any piece of shit and we have to take it happily, and dissent is still the other guy's fault.
See my above comments re: the electoral system that gives no chance to 3rd party candidates, and the consequent moral imperative to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Dissent all you like. I'll listen to it and probably agree with a lot of it. But please vote for Kerry. He is not a "piece of shit," not at all.
"These voters will remain on the fringe of the Democratic party, though, particularly as the party continues its move to the right,"
Steve, I believe Kerry is more to the left than people give him credit for. I also believe he is a top notch politician (not in a pejorative sense), and will manage the office in a balanced way.
As for the party moving to the right, I was impressed with the primary candidates this year, and the fact that Lieberman was thoroughly repudiated, and Kuchinich/Sharpton were given equal time with Kerry/Edwards/Dean during the debates.
I think the party can be salvaged, but we collectively need to work to make that happen.
Javier, you've hit the nail on the head. Nicely done.
"I think the party can be salvaged, but we collectively need to work to make that happen.
Javier Martinez "
Damn right we do. It's easy to stand outside and throw stones. It much more constructive, and fairly easy I might add, to get onto county and state party committees. That's where real policy change can happen. The state central committees are the ghosts in the machine.
"but surely that's not a logical construct, that's the truth.
kei & yuri"
Yes, but I fear that many who are claiming support for Nadar are not fully looking at how bad Bush really is. Consider what would happen with four more Bush years.
1. The courts, including SCOTUS, will be packed with right wing zealots.
2. The military will be wildly ramped up and we will continue the policy of OFFENSIVE action against soverign nations (something that Kerry will not do).
3. The Justice Dept will get deeply entrenched into domestic spying with a specific goal of squelching dissent towards Bush Admin policies and actions.
4. The separation between church and state will be removed.
These are serious issues folks.
That's because most Nader voters simply enjoy being outsiders. If there were three viable parties, Naderites would want four. With four they'd want five.
That's because most Nader voters simply enjoy being outsiders
Some of them also take narcissistic pleasure in voting for someone they (mistakenly) perceive to be "pure."
Yep. Good ol Ralphie the union busting progressive. Thanks for the seatbelts.
"That's because most Nader voters simply enjoy being outsiders. If there were three viable parties, Naderites would want four. With four they'd want five.
clonecone"
I think that's true to an extent, but I also believe they are looking for change from the top down. It doesn't work that way. If you want change, become an activist, get involved in the Democratic party at the local level, and work to make progress.
Nadar harping at the Democrats does nothing to impress me. Where's he been the past four years? Certainly he hasn't been working to oust Bush, which is what any candidate running for President this year is ostensibly doing.
"Some of them also take narcissistic pleasure in voting for someone they (mistakenly) perceive to be "pure."
zeke"
Nadar isn't pure, but no one is. The issue I have with Ralph is that in 2004, candidates are running *against* Bush. So, I have to ask once again, what has Nadar been doing the last four years to work against Bush?
Please educate me.
Nader's cut and run policy would lead to the death of millions of Kurds and Sunnis. I can't live with that much blood on my hands.- clonecone
It's such a comfort to know we're protecting these savages from each other. Without Rummy they'd be at each other's throats, right clonecone?
That's why I say that people who want real change should get on the committees. I got on the Minn State Central Committee because I happened to be the only one to show up at a nominating meeting. I got to make real and tangible party policy because I showed up. Sometimes it's that easy.
Please educate me.- Javier Martinez
What have you been doing?
The only savages are the ones who dehumanize an entire ethnic group for the sake of a political argument. Were the American Confederates a bunch of savages?
"I got on the Minn State Central Committee because I happened to be the only one to show up at a nominating meeting. I got to make real and tangible party policy because I showed up. Sometimes it's that easy.
clonecone"
Good for you.
The essence of patriotism support the Constitution of the United States, and by getting involved at the local level, you are doing just that.
Were the American Confederates a bunch of savages?
Is this the civil war?
"What have you been doing?
antiphone"
First, I'm not running for president, Nadar is. Second, I'm actively involved at the local level. And you?
BTW, answering a question by asking a question is avoiding the question. Please tell me, what has Nadar done the past four years?
You missed my point. It will be civil war in Iraq if we cut and run. I hate *HATE* that we are there, but to leave now would result in a Rwanda style civil war. I believe the only solution to a peaceful Iraq is its division into three countries. Its silly to blindly stick to borders arbitrarily drawn by the Bristish 60 years ago.
"It's such a comfort to know we're protecting these savages from each other. Without Rummy they'd be at each other's throats, right clonecone?
antiphone"
That seems like an arrogant assertion. Please define the term "savages."
The only savages are the ones who dehumanize an entire ethnic group for the sake of a political argument.
Your argument is based on the idea that Iraqis are unable to govern themselves better than American soldiers who do not even speak the language. A more appropriate historical parallel would be the occupation of the Philippines, not the American civil war.
Right wing definition of savage: Anyone not American.
IAnd you?
I’m, at least, informed enough to understand the strategic role Nader represents for the left in this country.
Please tell me, what has Nadar done the past four years?
You can go to common dreams and search Nader if you want a list. What has Bill Bradley done in the last four years?
"Your argument is based on the idea that Iraqis are unable to govern themselves better than American soldiers who do not even speak the language."
You obviously didn't read my original post. I said seeing it through with the help of NATO and the UN was the humane option. I don't think we should be writing their constitution and selecting their leaders. I do think that we have to provide security until they can form their own government.
If I had my way we would end our oil consumption and leave the region forever. But to leave innocent civilians to the whims of mercenaries and warlords would be criminal.
Bill Bradley isn't running for President in '04. Who gives a shit what he's done the past four years. The only strategic role Nader represents for the left is further alienation from the mainstream. Fuck Nader and his minions. In the grand scheme, Ralph needs Dems more than we need him. We already have a viable party. He can't even get on the ballot in most states without the help of Republican contributors.
"Your argument is based on the idea that Iraqis are unable to govern themselves better than American soldiers who do not even speak the language"
You have to remember that America destroyed much of the infrastructure of Iraq. You may recall all the looting that occured last year around this time, some would refer to it as anarchy.
I think the point is that we have a responsibility now to help Iraq get a semblance of a normal society. That ideally would come from a concerted UN effort. However, Bush has set a cavalier tone in Iraq by privitizing the spoils to US companies, and I think that the UN is unlikely to get involved until new policies are invoked by the US.
"I’m, at least, informed enough to understand the strategic role Nader represents for the left in this country.
Please tell me, what has Nadar done the past four years?
You can go to common dreams and search Nader if you want a list. What has Bill Bradley done in the last four years?
antiphone"
What does Bill Bradley have to do with anything? That's a red herring. Let's stick to Nadar, shall we?
If you're so informed about the strategic importance of Nadar to the left, please tell me, what party does Dennis Kuchinch represent? Also, how does Dennis' platform compare with Ralph's? Lastly, since both are in the presidential arena this year, what has Dennis been doing the past four years, and what has Ralph been doing?
I don't think we should be writing their constitution and selecting their leaders. I do think that we have to provide security until they can form their own government.
The U.S. is doing what you don’t want and not doing what you do want.
NATO is overextended and fairly irrelevant in real terms. The U.N. is playing the same game John Kerry is playing. There is nothing material they can do but don’t want to be entirely sidelined for the sake of appearances. The Bush administration is trying to use the U.N. for political cover, that is all. They will give no ground.
The UN and the rest of the world will be willing to help once the Bush arrogance is out of power.
Tell me, how will Saint Ralph's cut and run policy help the people of Iraq? A nation with no government, no infrastructure and no economy? It sounds like Nader is depending on social darwinism to sort out the nastiness. Can you live with civil war in Iraq? Do you honestly think that Sunnis and Shias will put aside a thousand years of animosity just to maintain artificial boundaries? The Balkins sure sorted out their thousand year old war in bloodless cooperation.
what has Dennis been doing the past four years, and what has Ralph been doing?
It seems as though you’re implying a choice between the two where none exists. They both play roles. Nader polls higher and poses a tactical threat to the Democratic party. Reform does not come from asking nicely and then giving up. Reform minded Democrats can better address that threat by identifying common ground with Nader supporters than by attempting to impugn their motivation.
There is nothing Kerry could do to please the Nader supporters. Anything he could do to gain their 3% would lose them 5% from the undecideds. Nader voters aren't worth the cost.
There is nothing Kerry could do to please the Nader supporters. Anything he could do to gain their 3% would lose them 5% from the undecideds. Nader voters aren't worth the cost.
You seem pretty sure about those numbers, what part of your ass did you pull them out of?
What percentage of Nader voters do you think would vote for Kerry? What would Kerry have to do for you to vote for him?
What percentage of Nader voters do you think would vote for Kerry? What would Kerry have to do for you to vote for him?
I voted for Nader in the last two cycles and I’m probably going to vote for Kerry. That’s why I’m in a position to understand both sides of the problem. For me it’s not a single issue or entirely about Kerry. The country is in bad shape, the party is in bad shape and marginalizing progressives is not the path to victory.
Kerry could loose my vote if he continues down the neocon, utopian path. His approach to foreign policy so far is not good and it’s beyond what can be explained as a tactical ploy to win election. There’s the matter of what mandate comes out of that victory.
Why the hell are we supposed to be civil to Nader supporters? We certainly aren't civil to Bushies. There's no difference between Bush and Nader. None. They both stand in the way of a Democratic victory, and we should treat them with equal contempt.
we should treat them with equal contempt.
Who’s too pure now?
Now bunny if you want to do this contempt thing, realize it’s worth doing right. Try not to sound like a freeper, that’s a start.
If the Nader supporters are so inconsequential to you all, why are you so upset about us?
I've posted the very same idea (as have others) many times on many web boards, spoken out for Nader to run for congress, and have seriously considered making a 'draft nader for congress' page, but in the end I don't think he's serious about ever holding office and simply wants to get his message out by any means possible instead of writing a book.
Nader knows he could run for congress and very possibly win. He's often said he doesnt want to hold office and I believe him on his words. His run is egotistical, stupid, and irresponsible. Its a shame he may well be handing the election to Bush this time around because of his contempt for the system.
disclaimer: I voted nader in 2000 and do not believe he cost Gore the election (that was Harris with SCOTUS at work there).
The Naderites want to be the neocons of the left. That is, they'll only be happy with the Democratic party if they're in complete control.
We can end up like the Republicans, held hostage by extremists if we try to court their votes, or we can tell 'em to go fuck themselves.
We can end up like the Republicans, held hostage by extremists if we try to court their votes, or we can tell 'em to go fuck themselves.
You already seem to have ended up like
a Republican. Give Lieberman a kiss.
Kerry is just Bush-lite, and will never get my vote. What does it matter to anybody who I vote for? I am sure I will have other choices than Nader on the ballot.
Everybody is just angry that I will not vote for their boy Kerry.
we can tell 'em to go fuck themselves.
Are you old enough to vote?
Everybody is just angry that I will not vote for their boy Kerry.
Well I'm not. I would just ask you what breaks the deal for you? Because if we work together we may be able to do something about it.
Iraq and the middle east in general.
His support of Sharon and Israeli's latest land grab. His statement that we must have a multilateral foreign policy except with Israel where we will stand against the rest of the world. The vote
in the UN general assembly on Sharon's latest land grab was 140-6.
OK, I totally agree with you and I think the Kerry campaign needs to hear from us on it, so does congress and I would also mention Latin American issues. I think we should press for what we want from Kerry before and after the election. Blind ABB lockstep has no future but if we are not open to negotiation there’s no incentive to keep our support.
Sorry about that link, this should work if you’re interested.Latin American issues.
I would vote for Nader against Lieberman--this is a terrific idea on so many levels--any chance Nader would do it?
There's a reason why the Naderites are always sniffing around the Democratic tent and not the Republican, even though they claim there's no difference between them. Obviously they don't believe it. They know their only real chance at change is with the Democrats, but they'll never be happy with any sort of compromise, just as the neocons weren't satisfied with compromise with the Republicans. They want veto power over everything our party does.
If they believe we share their core values, they should join the Democratic party. Even if we a) don't agree on every point and b) don't always live up to what we believe. If they don't share our core values, then there's no reason to waste time with them.
They want veto power over everything our party does.
as opposed to the generous and numerous concessions made by the ever reasonable McAuliffe. Is there any evidence of this bending-over-backwards everyone seems to remember so nonspecifically, or is it faith-based?
Ariel Lieberman Out!
Let's really start a movement to get Lieberman out of office. He's shames the word Democrat.
This thread is EXACTLY why people still back Nader. Because they see that Dems can be just as lock-stepping as the Repubs. Some of us see this issue as larger than just this year. The Duopoly must end.
Say Nader drops out this year (and tells all his peeps to vote for Kerry)... what happens in 2008 when he tries to run again and people say, "Oh, not this year. It's too important." The problem is there are always excuses why he shouldn't run for these people.
The fact is he has every right to run and we have every right to vote for him. If you can in good conscience vote for Kerry/Bush (both virtually the same on Iraq and Israel/Palestine, the two most pressing intl. issues), knock yourself out. I'm not sure I can, so I'm glad there's at least a real anti-war alternative. BTW, wouldn't an Arab-American be a good President to have considering our current situation in the world?
And for the record, the myth about Nader costing Gore the election has been laid to rest many, many months ago. Go to ProRev.com if you still believe that BS.
How boring. More ideas to marginalize third party candidates....
Please Please Please Please make it be true.
Ralph - you have a rendezvous with destiny.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
