I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
I tried listening to it live yesterday, but I got too annoyed with Ralph. My wife (who works for Vermont Public Radio) said it was good. Her fave line from Dean to Nader: Lighten up.
Article about the debate in Salon today.
http://tinyurl.com/2qjlr
Dean sounded great! Almost as good as when Rank Rhodes called him her first week on AAR.
Nader, of course, being an egotistical boob of the fratboy coward variety, is unphased and unpersuaded by Dean to hang it up.
He's a tool of the fascists, and he cheneying revels in it.
I heard it yesterday, and I hate Nader, but I think he killed Dean. Divorced from reality, Nader makes unarguable points. Given the reality of his help for Bush, he MUST be stopped. But hearing his self-righteousness and anger on full display, he's not going anywhere. I have a feeling that in the last two weeks before the election, Democrats will be fanning out across any states in which he is a threat and pulling no punches on the danger and stupidity of pulling the lever for this egomaniac loon.
I wish they were the two candidates running for any position. That'd be a great day for America.
Republican support for Sharpton didn't work, so now they're left with supporting Nader. But all the Repubs are doing is galvanizing more Dems. IMO Nader'll be cancelled out by the Deaniacs who would've withheld their vote.
Thanks Pie for posting...
I find I'm wondering whether there's an unpleasant "linen" trauma in Nader's psychohistory...lots of references to Dean as Linen. The "detergent of the dirty Linen" comparing him to a "linen handkercheif". Should we be talking to his mother?
Nader is narcissism incarnate. And that's saying something in the political world. Nice to hear Howard...sigh
[Seventh!]
Nader is such a tool. Once respected by the left for his crusades against corporate totalitarianism and crass commercialism, now he's so deluded that he can't see the big picture. Why doesn't he care that Republicans and right-wing fascist orgs are the ones getting him on state ballots?
And BTW, how ethically reprehensible is that (plugging a candidate -- indeed, one with values so diametrically opposed to your own -- for the sole porpoise of siphoning votes from your opponent)???
Oh, that's right. This is American politics we're talking about...
/What would Sean Hannity think?
God forbid people be allowed to run for office if they want to. Whats the world coming to.
>run for office if they want to
cant fool me, he aint running for office.
maybe Nader can get Ross Perot to run with him...
Democrats prefer a Saddam type election...99% for Kerry
Though I agree with most of Nader's positions, I did not vote for him in 2000 & will not do so in 2004. I vote pragmatically - what will most advance my progressive agenda, not who in a theoretical state I most agree with.
That said, a meme by progressives has developed about Nader that disturbs me: 1) its all about ego - what evidence do you have of this? 2)he's nuts - No, maybe he's thinking about the long haul of changing the direction of the country & thus willing to have Bush take 2004 to grow a strong progressive movement.
Now, I don't agree with Nader's approach to changing things; I don't think the man has any tactical sense at all,of when you hold your cards & when you fold them. But that should be the criticism rather than calling him crazy.
Democrats prefer a Saddam type election...99% for Kerry
Thanks for stealing my line about Bush, thief.
Can't you come up with anything on your own, kid?
If the wrong people run, it makes a mockery of democracy and is not right because we know.
Your right Hubris, he's doing it just to annoy you. You do realize that since the Dems have picked such a boring loser like Kerry who's defeat is a certainty, that any vote for Kerry is just a wasted vote, and only ends up working against getting a real third party.
pie - don't feed me...
Bush has become the Democrats boogieman that they wave to try and keep real progressives in line. Screw that. I'm willing to let Bush win to show the Democrats that tactic won't work and the only way they will ever win in the future is to become a true progressive party, instead of just bullying progressives to vote for them.
My disappointment was when Ralph was hypothetically offered a position in Kerry's cabinet he turned it down flat.
Dean's consistent message was "we need you on our side Ralph" and "let's not let the Perfect become the enemy of the Good."
Super debate, though.
Of course we all want Kerry to win, and Bush and his thugs to be gone, BUT:
Ralph is bad, Ralph is an egotistal boob, I hate Nader....
Y'all are starting to sound like Freepers.
Kerry supports the Israeli wall, voted for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act along with most of the other Democrats and along with them, has rolled over time and time again for the GOP, and I am supposed to view them as the saviors from GW?
They are practically like the GOP. Are the Dems that frightened of Nader that they can't support the democratic (small "d") ideal of all voices being heard?!?!
Dean is hardly progressive, he just found the backbone to criticize Bush, which the other Dems weren't doing. But he ain't progressive, and neither is Kerry.
Ralph may be hysterical and all the other things the "open" minded Dems say he is, but for the most part, he speaks the truth, and even Dean could not refute that.
Sheesh.
Yipee!!A two minute Nader-hate, count me in!! 
Among other things, he's got stinky britches..
>I'm willing to let Bush win to show the Democrats that tactic won't work and the only way they will ever win in the future is to become a true progressive party, instead of just bullying progressives to vote for them.
So you would allow this country to become a fascist state on purpose?
Nice going.
Now go Cheney yourself, asshole.
> getting a real third party.
who wants a third party, this is were you morons lose me. whats the point of a third party? Crikey, lets just get the parties we do have to work correctly. This was like creating the jack booted thugs at DHS when the FBI couldnt do their job. As I understand it there already was a bunch of people responsible for domestic security.
and there already is a opposition party in the US. we just fell asleep. well we are awake now!
third party my a**
I'm willing to let Bush win to show...
Well, well, well. Where have we heard that before?
I knew we couldn't get through a discussion without the idiots appearing. Why don't you discuss some of the points that were made in the debate, Aslo? Or didn't you bother listening to it?
the Dems have picked such a boring loser like Kerry who's defeat is a certainty
Hardly.
I'm willing to let Bush win
Lovely. This Independent will remember that when Bush invades Syria.
Evidence of Hubris:
1) Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm pretty sure politics always involves Hubris. (The best we can hope for is that there is a noble wish to do good for people combined with the hubris. And that the wish to do good spreads from people like the candidate to people UNLIKE them.)
2) Nader accepting republican money and republican signatures given for the express purpose of supporting Bush indicates that he has less interest for people than he has for recognition.
Imagine what he has to say to himself about himself to watch the last election and be ready for this one? Imagine what he has to say to himself about himself to be the candidate for the Reform party in seven states? The same party that put forth Pat Buchanan?
I don't think Hubris is a meme. I think its an logical observation.
Gee, Howard must have really kicked that old geezers butt. you guys are sad...
Piss off Nancy, this country will survive four more years of Bush, your silly hysterics notwithstanding. And if living under four more punishing years of Bush makes the Dems wake up and reembrace it's progressive roots, then it will be worth it. You can wave your boogieman "fascist state" all you want. That tactic is getting old.
Sorry, I think the argument that we should "let Bush win" so that we can build a really progressive movement down the line is misguided. I personally believe that if Bush wins another term, where he has no need to worry about re-election or the voice of the people (not that he worries a lot now), he will do more damage to the United States of America and its founding principles in four years than has been done in the preceding 238. I don't believe there will be enough left to build a progressive movement in.
I'm willing to let Bush win to show the Democrats that tactic won't work and the
ZZZZZZzzzzzz...
When the Bushites roll back the right to abortion and the right to dissent, dismantle Medicare and Social Security, increase the tax burden on the poor and middle class, jail citizens for having the wrong color of skin or believing in the wrong deity, continue to torture, rape, and murder innocent civilians in foreign (or even our own) countries, sell our national parks to oil companies, and make it easier for megacorps to pollute the environment, you can comfort yourself, in your cold 6X6 "terrorist" jail cell with the fact that you really made a difference.
Why would anyone vote for a whiner like Nader? "Boo-hoo-hoo," Saint Ralph cries, "it's so unfair for the Democrats to attack me after I've made a political career attacking them."
Hothouse flowers like Ralphie running for president are a joke, and not a good one.
Of course we all want Kerry to win, and Bush and his thugs to be gone, BUT:
Ralph is bad, Ralph is an egotistal boob, I hate Nader....
Y'all are starting to sound like Freepers.
Kerry supports the Israeli wall, voted for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act along with most of the other Democrats and along with them, has rolled over time and time again for the GOP, and I am supposed to view them as the saviors from GW?
They are practically like the GOP. Are the Dems that frightened of Nader that they can't support the democratic (small "d") ideal of all voices being heard?!?!
Dean is hardly progressive, he just found the backbone to criticize Bush, which the other Dems weren't doing. But he ain't progressive, and neither is Kerry.
Ralph may be hysterical and all the other things the "open" minded Dems say he is, but for the most part, he speaks the truth, and even Dean could not refute that.
Sheesh.
Piss off Nancy, this country will survive four more years of Bush, your silly hysterics notwithstanding.
Then it will also survive four years of Kerry-Edwards. So what the hell are you afraid of?
>he speaks the truth
Liar, you sir are a liar, and so is ralph.
The differences between Kerry and Bush are not great enough to throw away what you believe is right.
You can just sleep on Scooter, and try selling those paranoid fantasies to somebody else. Ignoring the Dems boogieman is the only way for real progressives to show the Dems that they are serious. They can come talk to us again in 2008, once they have seen we can't be intimidated back into line and they can't win without us.
Carter:Those two things come from a pretty broad cache of reasons.
#1. The ego card. This popped up about half-way through the 2000 election, when Nader started running his campaign ads. Which were nothing more than a whole bunch of puff pieces. At the time, this made liberals (who up to that point tolerated Nader really, thought that he would attract non-voters more), really scratch their heads.
However, after reading about Nader, he is one of those guys that is doing it for the sake of the fame. He's not about the cause. He's about being the leader of the winning team. Believe it or not, that's not at all unique in the movement world. Actually it's pretty common. But it doesn't help get things done.
#2. The nuts card. How else can you explain him saying the two parties are exactly the same? I mean, he must watch the same media we do. The two parties are not at all the same. You have the Republican party, the party with fascism brewing just below the surface. And you have the Democrats, who believe in civil debate, and stupidly believe the other side is as well.
And that's why the vote for the Iraqi war. They believed that there would be no way that Bush would lie and misrepresent the evidence as much as he did. (And if you took them at their word..there really was no other choice)
As well, the Democrats for..well..since the Vietnam days, have had absolutly NO grassroots backing. Sure, they had groups, the Sierra Club, Unions, even Public Citizen. But there was no grassroots effort to actually move the debate among people. Absolutly none.
Now there is. And the Democrats are showing more and more of a backbone every day. Because the grassroots are watching. And fighting. And everybody can see them. It's moral support, true backup.
So basically, Nader's message is actually a cultural artifact. He's so behind the times it's not even funny. If he had half a brain, he'd say. Ok, I'm not running. Vote for Kerry, but I'm going to lobby a grassroots effort for my issues to be adressed. Then open a 527 and start running issue ads.
Easy as pie. But he's not concerned about that. He's concerned about HIM winning and HIM getting the credit. ANd that hurts everybody.
Heard some soundbites from the debate on NPR yesterday, and of course I saw Nader on The Daily Show earlier this week.
In both appearances Ralph acted like a phony as far as I am concerned. I voted for the guy twice before, but never again.
Aslo: Yeah. Maybe in the future, Ralph-like candiates will get 3, 4, may SIX percent! And in a non-Parliamentary system, with no representatives anywhere near DC, that's real progressive power! Meanwhile, back here on Earth, real people get more and more screwed, the environment goes further to hell ... but the true believers like you can feel noble about it all.
If any greenshirts show up here and start arguing, I'll burst into flames.
>reembrace it's progressive roots
Yeah, I remember the old Bader-Meinhof rationale for terrorism was to allow oppressive forces to take over, so the people would rise up to throw off the authoritarian regimes, and we would all live in a socialist paradise.
Well, Aslo....that didn't work in Europe and it sure won't work here, so learn a little about the socalled progressive roots of the Democratic Party, and you will find.....
you have once again been fucking misinformed.
>The differences between Kerry and Bush are not great enough to throw away what you believe is right.
geez, you guys really are nuts.
"I'm willing to let Bush win to show the Democrats that tactic won't work and the only way they will ever win in the future is to become a true progressive party, instead of just bullying progressives to vote for them.
Aslo | Email | Homepage | 07.10.04 - 12:36 pm | # "
Nice. Meet me at ground zero right before the apacolypse. I'd like to be the first to bitch-slap you for being so stupid as to make said apacolypse happen.
Piss off Nancy, this country will survive four more years of Bush, your silly hysterics notwithstanding.
-----
Then it will also survive four years of Kerry-Edwards. So what the hell are you afraid of?
---
Since it will "survive" pretty much under either, then I will use my vote to it's best effect. By refusing to reward the Dems for being an imitation of the Rethugs, and punishing them into taking the progressives of America seriously.
Here's what I don't get about the hardcore, never-say-die Naderites: they know that Nader is eagerly courting the support he's getting from the right, they know that he's been on Pat Buchanan's show to say that it's time to start cracking down on immigration, they know that he fucks over unions at the companies he runs, they know that he pulls shady accounting tricks to hide his millions from the press, they know that he abuses and underpays his own workers... but they still pretend that he's a progressive.
Nader is a progressive in about the same way that Bush is.
For the real inside scoop on Nader, from people who worked side-by-side with him for decades, go check out the piece on Salon posted last week.
He's an asshole, or as BlakNo1 once said so eloquently, "a goat-blowing assclown."
lk:Maybe not. But electing Kerry in a landslide will pull the debate in a way far to the left that we can actually have a real discussion about the important issues.
Allowing Bush the WH again only pushes the debate further and further to the right.
And oh, BTW, there are immense difference between Bush and Kerry. So please don't bring out that lie. If you're going to say it, say there is no difference in the issues that matter to you. That's an accurate statement. (Whenever Nader says that, that's what he means. So I basically consider that any idea that the parties are different on, Nader doesn't give a fuck about. Which is quite a lot of important stuff)
There's still half the population out there that doesnt' even vote. I don't vote. (watch how everyone flips out and starts bagging on me as if I were some sort of crud in the kitchen sink. I think me and my constituents don't vote is that we're sick of your rhetoric. Take an honest look at yourselves for once.)
I might vote this time around. But this time only for Nader. I think some of you forget that of all of the public figures out there, he's one of the few that's truly delivered.
And believe me I understand "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" and the rest of the self-rightious rhetoric out there--but to me, someone who is already at the bottom of this society, there's no real difference between Kerry and Bush.
At the end of the day I'll still be poor and eating top ramen watching your stupid war on television.
I'm paraphrasing another poster, possibly from the comments on another site (probably Pandagon), but for you Nader defenders:
Where was Nader in the aftermath of election 2000? Why wasn't he fighting to get the recount or fighting to help those disenfranchised black voters? Where was Nader in the ensuing four years, while Bush ran roughshod over this country? If Nader is so committed to progressive values, why wasn't he doing, something, ANYTHING for progressives between November 2000 and now? If Nader is so committed to really building a viable third party, why wasn't he organizing the Greens to fight the Republicans as they rammed the Patriot Act down our throats? The Greens, with Nader as their figurehead, could have provided the dissenting voice we needed when pussies like Daschle rolled over for Bush and his brownshirts. But Nader never piped up once until it was time to serve in his capacity as spoiler again. He's a front for the Republicans, and deep down every one of you knows it, but you're too god damned proud to admit that maybe, just maybe, you've been duped.
Nader appeals to the disenfranchised progressives because they like to feel like rebels. On some embarassingly juvenille level, they feel they're really sticking it to the man or something by supporting Nader, but in reality they're only feeding the beast they claim to hate. They cling to this fantasy despite all evidence pointing to the fact that the Republicans, using Nader as a figurehead, are using their cynicism and naivete to keep them from making any real difference.
They're LAUGHING at you, people. Wise up kids, I did, and I feel a whole lot better.
The differences between Kerry and Bush are not great enough to throw away what you believe is right.
Maybe not for straight white guys with mommy and daddy's trust fund to fall back on, like you and Aslo.
I don't expect you to see that, though - it's obviously more important for you to feel good about yourself by stickin' it to the man than it is for you to do what's right.
So go Cheney yourself.
All you young'uns out there, take heed to what Aunt Nancy R. is saying, these Naderites' are the old hard left, the socialists, the leninist. beret wearing anarchist's... old school...
old, worthless, and annoying, but slightly curious breed of destructo types.
By refusing to reward the Dems for being an imitation of the Rethugs
You are one brainwashed turkey. Wow.
Karmakin - thanks you are right...but there is just no way it will be a landslide...
All you young'uns out there, take heed to what Aunt Nancy R. is saying, these Naderites' are the old hard left, the socialists, the leninist. beret wearing anarchist's... old school...
old, worthless, and annoying, but slightly curious breed of destructo types.
--------------
Wow, thank you Ann Coulter. Yep, not a whit of real difference in the world between the Rethugs and you guys.
>Naderites' are the old hard left, the socialists, the leninist. beret wearing anarchist's... old school...
Nope, they aren't...but I am a Democratic Socialist, who actually knows something about the political history of this country,
AND NOT SOME self absorbed child who thinks these elections are about "me getting my way, or else I will give it all to Bush."
THe right wing has triumphed culturally when the normally civil liberals start sounding like Freepers, which a certain number of you are starting to sound like.
I am a liar?
Where's the "neener, neener, neener" part? Or the "pants on fire" part.
Well, I guess I have been put in my place!
Hubris, your scathingly intellectual answer to my assertion that Nader speaks the truth about many issues has left me with no answer.
How could I have been so misled?
Must be the same way the Dems were misled by the Bushies.
I'll just shut up now and unquestioningly vote for Kerry.
Aslo:Actually, the best way to have the Democrats take progressive ideas seriously, is to vote Democratic, and to vocally encourage other progressives to do the same. That way, progressives will actually get seats at the table, so to speak.
Doing the opposite, only forces the Democrats, and the electorate at large, further to the right.
Actually by FAR the best thing you can do, is to donate money to Democratic candidates, and bundle it through the blog of your choice. Because the louder the voice of the grassroots, the louder the voice of progressives.
TJ - minorities have put themselves in a position where they have to support the Democratice nominee selected for them by the Northeast Elites. The elites do not care about you. Kerry does not care about you...but you have nowhere to go...
lk, Aslo, and Eustus = paid GOP trolls.
Nader = paid GOP troll.
Betcha a quarter.
Great, thanks Joey!
The only true Democratic candidate is Lyndon LaRouche.
Just kidding.
Since it will "survive" pretty much under either, then I will use my vote to it's best effect. By refusing to reward the Dems for being an imitation of the Rethugs, and punishing them into taking the progressives of America seriously.
So you admit you don't give a shit about progressive causes, you only care about "punishing" the Dems.
Why am I not surprised? You are truly a sad, bitter little man.
...he's one of the few that's truly delivered.
Delivered what? Please elaborate.
I'll still be poor and eating top ramen watching your stupid war on television.
Whose war??!!!
I think you Naderites should adopt this as a campaign slogan:
Roaches for Ralphie!
It reflects the fact that once Bush is re-elected and destroys the world in a nuclear Holocaust, the cockroaches (one of the few species to survive) will see the error of making the good the enemy of the perfect, and will all rush to support St. Ralph.
Scooter = overdosed on the Koolaid
Oh, and one other thing. Because the vast majority of the Kerry campaigns money is coming from normal people instead of benefactors and groups, they're going to have to listen to us. Mainly because the spigot can be turned off for 2008.
If the corporations can buy a candidate...why can't the people? I think you're seeing that right now.
Yesterday on the News Hour, Mark Shields commented that while most of the electorate doesn't want to vote for Bush, they really haven't been convinced that they should vote for Kerry. When friends question why a left wing progressive like myself is going to vote for Kerry, the best answer I can give them is because he isn't Bush. Joe Paranoid listed a few of the areas where mainstream Dems have buckeled under pressure from the Thugs. Kerry even talked about having "conservative values", as if anybody really gives a Cheney.
You can go apoplectic about Nader if you wish, but it won't gain any more votes for Kerry. The bottom line is that Shields is correct. Nader voters aren't crazy. It isn't difficult to find out why they support Nader. Just ask them. When I ask, I find the answer is because Nader supports the ideas that they support, and Kerry is too busy talking about conservative values. If Kerry continues to allow the Thugs to set the terms of the debate, he will lose.
Democrats prefer --
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
God forbid people be allowed to --
ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
'm willing to let Bush win to show --
To show what? Unka Karl how well you suck his dick?
Crawl back under your rocks, greenshirts. Don't come back.
lk, Aslo, and Eustus = paid GOP trolls.
I notice they never have anything positive to say about Nader and only seem interested in slamming the dems. If they're really Nader supporters, he should find some smarter ones to advance his candidacy.
These guys are a joke.
Glad to see that my Nader jabs are worth remembering...
I can't believe that there are those who try to pass themselves off as progressives spouting the "destroy the village in order to save it" crap. Selfish spoilt brats, every last one of them.
Why cant we get smarter GOP trolls to practice on? these Nader Trolls are tired.
Oh, yeah - remember:
Want Bush? Vote Nader.
'Nuff said!
lk:NORTHEAST ELITES? WTF ARE YOU A REPUBLICAN?
HOLY SHIT
Sorry about the caps. Wow. What a Nader you pulled there. Wrapping right-wing paranoid rhetoric around your leftist ideas.
Gee whiz.
Yeah I'm positing a lot. But I'm mad. So sue me (Actually, I know nobody cares, but I digress).
But in reality, the current K-E message of a new form of optimism-pessimism is a VERY virulent meme. It's a very good one too for progressive ideals.
Just for everybody, I am a Green. I just happen to believe that the blogosphere is the best thing to ever happen for progressive ideals. Within 10 year, major parts of progressive platforms will be adopted as common sense by the mainstream. So why fight against it when you can fight with it and for it?
Nader is self-exploding in front of our eyes. He acted like an angry teenager half the time and is shameless about the GOP money. The fact that he refuses to see the GOP funding as a spoiler strategy is beyong me and should give Nader supporters pause.
Nader will always have his 'ites, but its becoming clear that he has nothing to offer this time around but smart-ass replies, unrealistic policies, and the possible handing of the election to Bush.
I've asked this many times, but why the hell doesnt the SCLM mention the libertarian (or other right wing) candidates? Or the pollsters? Its not fair to have the GOP running two candidates.
Nader just said "Democrat Party." See, he is a tool of the repugs. Only they say that and not "Democratic Party."
The defining Nader quote/lie:
"Al Gore would have started a war in Iraq, too."
Apparently St. Ralph is not only holier than all the Democrats combined, he's a psychic too!
Ever notice that when Ralph is questioned about the unethical tactics he himself employs, that his response is "so and so is WORSE!" or something to that effect? Those of you who are convinced that Ralphie is purer than the driven snow are willfully ignorant of the real Ralph Nader. Go on over to Salon and read all about what a great guy he is.
Karmakin - your making good posts - give me a better name for the Massachusetts/New York extremely rich crowd who picks the nominees. Or maybe Kerry is a reflection of the Democratic base...I do not think that is correct...
lk - I like to call them "Democrats".
Jennifer:Actually, if Gore were president, I could pretty much tell you with 100% certanty that Iraq never would have happened.
Why?
Way more troops would have still been in Afghanistan, hunting elements of Al Queda. The personal just wouldn't have been there for an Iraq operation. As well, you would have seen smaller strikes on rpetty much every known Al Queda camp on the planet. Even if it's empty now, looking for any sort of evidence or clue of future operations.
Well, here is the real deal for me.
I am not really much of a Nader supporter. If I lived in a swing state, I would most definitely NOT vote for him.
I agree that Ralph's ego and expediency hardly makes him a good progressive choice.
And I have been commenting to friends that Kerry/Edwards have the potential to be the greatest leadership since FDR. I definitely want them in office rather than Shrub.
However, I am saddened by the vitriol I read from many so-called liberal, open-minded and progressive people in regards to Nader and "Naderites."
I keep saying it, y'all are starting to sound like Freepers. Listen to yourselves.
And the Dems did roll over many, many times in the last few years, and the Dems do take plenty of corporate money (even Dean could not refute that), and the Dems have rarely, if ever, delivered on the things important to me in the last 20 years. It's been more like Repubs and Repubs-lite.
Hence my frustration. But I ain't no dummy to see that another 4 years of Bush could be very, very disastrous.
Maybe some of you should actually listen to the debate before littering this thread with your propaganda. Dean was far kinder and more respectful to Nader the man and Nader the politician than you folks are.
Truly, this is your two minutes of hate.
lk:Actually, you overstate the reason for the Dean meltdown, so to speak. It wasn't because of any sort of party elite or anything like that. Both Dean and Gephardt played Iowa too hard. There was a state-wide burnout. Kerry was the 3rd choice. Edwards was the forth.
It's something that happens in multi-candidate elections.
I don't admire Nader for taking the GOP money, but that's part of the reason why I won't vote for him. I really don't feel comfortable with all this anger toward him. I don't think he's a spoiler, honestly. Dean did a good thing for the Dems by debating Nader, because a lot of the Deaniacs will go to the polls in November and vote for Kerry. They might've stayed home or voted Nader otherwise.
Anyway, it just doesn't seem right to get someone not to run at all.
Note to Aslo, lk, et. al.:
Vote for whomever you like. Nader got 2% of the vote in 2000. Big whoop. While it would have swung the '00 election, it will not this time around.
If these clowns are not paid repukes, or just narcissists like Ralph, then they are too young to understand what most of us from the '60's learned the hard way: you will not change the system from the sidelines.
Nobody:The reason you see so much vigor about this, is that frankly, the story of Nader we're seeing is not pretty. It's the story of a con-man. And how anybody else can not see that. Well..it's rather upsetting.
I'm shocked that the Naderites are not screaming at the top of their lungs for Nader to release his tax documents. I mean, that's a VERY questionable move.
I too voted for Ralph in 2000; I won't again. What he believes and what I believe haven't changed, but he's lone-gunning it now. His candidacy won't help get a legitimate progressive voice out in public (whereas I would have loved to see the Greens get their 5% in 2000 so the funding would be fair). Now, he's as nasty to the Greens as he is to the Dems and the Rethugs. On the Daily Show the other night, he just barely admitted that Kerry might be better than Bush. SO yeah, this is all about him now, and not about progressive politics at all. That's what I heard last night, anyway.
Dean for Secretary of Health and Human Services, anyone? He sounded great.
Karmakin - that may be - it might be the primary schedule was hosed to favor the NE. Zell Miller is allowed to make his points because Kerry is the nominee. Edwards helps some, but we are hearing Edwards isn't going to bring NC.
Actually, I'm not 100% sure that this country WILL survive four more years of Bush.
I'm old enoigh to remember the Goldwater / atomic cloud commercial of the 60s, and that's the way I feel about the Bush/Cheney ticket.
Yes, PROBABLY they won't lead us into a catastrophe of holocaust proportions, but I'M NOT SURE.
(And I'm not talking just ideology, I'm talking competence here. As John Stewart got Bill Kristol to admit, why should give the wheel back to the guys who drove you into the ditch.)
Seriously, I don't want to take the chance.
Another discussion about whether Nader throwing the election to Bush could somehow help the progressive cause and not a word about the SCOTUS--end of disussion.
Tomato - I just seem to have this life-long hatred of, and intolerance of, people who lie and through their lies convince others to do things that are antithetical to their best interests. St. Ralph is no exception, regardless of good things he may have done 30 years ago. He's lying now, and the consequences of his lies will be to hurt people who are foolish enough to follow this Pied Piper and support his hubris.
Joey Paranoid is correct. The level of discourse has deteriorated around here recently.
Actually, I'm going to put it more in depth.
Most of the people here are pretty damn rational and moderate. most of the people here also think that there are some progressive planks that are good ideas.
So when Nader attacks the "Democrats", as being just like the Republicans, at the same time, people here feel like he's accusing us of being just like Republicans.
Which is obviously not true.
So that's whre a lot of the anger comes from. As well, a lot of people feel that it wasn't just the votes he took in 2000 that cost Gore the election, it was the lies he told, that Gore=Bush, that kept even more people from voting at all. He backed up the GOP spin back then. That gave it bipartisan appeal, (Something swing voters ALWAYS listen to)
Gore didn't equal Bush. It was that Bush was a lying fuck. Period.
So that's the origins of the anger. That Nader stands by everything he does says that the anger isn't going to go away. There's just as much anger towards GOP liars..why not Progressive liars?
Look ... there are approximately 6% of the people in this country who feel that pursuing the corporations and preventing american incorporation trumps actual laws against pollution, actual restoration of the corporate taxes and the capital gains taxes and so on, civil rights for all minorities and oppressed groups.
They may think that they endorse these things, because they believe themselves to be progressive, but they are simply interested in being anti-corporatists.
The problem is two-fold.
One, Democratic attorneys general are still making convictions, so it's not as if these crooks are totally getting away with it.
Two, they own the government. They own Bush. They donate to Kerry. They donate to Nader. They donate to the Green party.
You want a non-corporate candidate? Vote for yourself.
You want someone who gets most of their money from small donors? Vote for Bush. That's right.
You want to actually write down your list of priorities and then go to different campaign websites and voting records and see who matches up? Good for you.
I'm an internationalist. I believe that Kerry may have voted for the wrong war at the wrong time, but I also believe that he is good at getting along with foreign leaders, which is the only way we will fix our messes.
Bush is BLECH.
Simply said.
BLECH.
Nader won't be able to negotiate with other leaders. He'll keep us out of treaties because they don't do enough.
His whole platform looks like it was written by a genie. I am a strong proponent of change. But it's change, not a magic wand. We need to get hybrid cars and less clean hydrogen cars out there on the roads and start a market. We cannot start on the premise of Green cars or nothing.
We cannot go from our current system of taxes to a land tax that no government in the world and no liberal economist other than its author has ever endorsed.
(Besides the fact that a land tax does not tax the wealthy any more money than the middle class, on average. It's not regressive, but it's not good)
But, there are 1-6% of the people who SHOULD vote for Nader or Cobb, because that IS their priority. They should just sit down and realize what that means.
I realized that I'm a liberal capitalist internationalist. That is demonic to some of you, but it's what I am.
So I backed Dean, and now I'll happily back Kerry. Nader is not too left for me, he's too left and too right at the same time.
I don't have a crystal ball and I'm not a psychic so I couldn't predict each event since 2000, I just knew it would be bad with Bush in there and it has been. Just look at the freak. He's a goddamn disaster. This time I know it will be much worse.
Karnakin - right -it is just disappointing that with Kerry in office, progressives only get to claim a small victory...
lk:The Democratic message of real optimism is not only going to carry NC, it's going to carry Virginia this year.
I said that while Dean, (to be honest, someone who comes across as a kind of a geek) was saying it. With Kerry-Edwards, (Vice-President of Charisma +3), it'll become even more the case.
It really is a realigning message. And when it catches on. Well, the skies the limit.
Good observation, Karmakin. Nader is a lot more like Bush than Kerry will ever be in this important regard: he's unable to admit that he's ever wrong or ever makes mistakes.
We've already seen what the consequences of that type of egotism are, which is all the more reason not to vote for Ralph, even though he has no chance of winning or even getting enough votes to win third party financing.
lk:That's not the end of the fight!!!
That's what you don't get. Once Kerry is elected, we'll still be here campaigning for liberal/progressive ideals. Even criticizing when Kerry fucks up.
That's not the end of the story.
It's the beginning.
But you know something, the most important part.
It's OUR story.
Dan:I don't agree with everything you said, but it was very well said.
Are Ralph's stockholdings publicly disclosed? Does he have interest in Bechtel? Halliburton? CACI?
Seriously; does he have any clue how reviled he'll be if 2004 ends up a 2000 redux? This from someone who doesn't pin the 2000 fiasco at his doorstep.
At some point, he may see the writing on the wall, and as gracefully as possible pull out.
Wishful thinking?
Seriously; does he have any clue how reviled he'll be if 2004 ends up a 2000 redux? This from someone who doesn't pin the 2000 fiasco at his doorstep.
Because of his ego, we wouldn't see it as his fault just like the first time.
Notice how he Naderites aren't refuting anything I brought up? It's because THEY CAN'T.
I said this about Kerry when I was supporting Dean during the primaries, but it applies to Nader as well:
I don't give a flying fuck what you did 30 years ago, it's what you're doing for this country TODAY that concerns me. And by that measure, Nader is coming up very short indeed.
Imagine a person with some potentially fatal, untreated disease (say, cancer) being taken to the ER after a terrible accident. The patient is bleeding out, but the doctor obsesses over the cancer instead of trying to stop the hemorrage...To my wy of thinking, that's the Nader campaign. There is a malignant growth in our political life (domination by big money, big corporations, etc.) BUT - we've also been in a train wreck called the Bush pResidency, and I'm not as optimistic as some others that that we can survive another four years of it.
RJ:No, they're not. He says that his finances are "his own business".
Unlike all of the other candidates.
That is a major red flag, like the huge American flag you see at car dealerships.
>Where was Nader in the aftermath of election 2000?
Nader's first public campaign after the 2000 fiasco was against high ATM fees.
The level of discourse has deteriorated around here recently.
Baloney.
Or I can agree and say that we can attribute this unfortunate deterioration to the recent example set by Dickie Cheney. heh.
Piss off Nancy, this country will survive four more years of Bush, your silly hysterics notwithstanding.
Hey Aslo, tell that to the thousands of people who are now maimed or dead because of the first Bush term. I'm sure they're happy to know their suffering serves your greater purpose.
Look, this debate between Nader and Dean is great. Both of them are airing progressive views along a spectrum. Be glad we have these men, with enough confidence to dedicate their lives to the fish bowl of public service, to negotiate ethical terrain under the public microscope.
Real questions and perspectives on the tools of democratic governance are aired in this debate. Both men are giving us yet another gift, after lifetimes of giving to the American people, in this debate.
Please, quit treating it like a sporting event to be cheered for or hollered at by fans with painted faces and funny hats.
If you listened to this debate, you've listened to the best in democracy. You owe these men your best, most thoughtful, activist response.
I ignore the Naderites. I had my fill of them back in 99 back when I thought debating them was productive. Just like I don't argue with wing nuts but I do like ridiculing them.
Oh, and as far as the differences between Kerry and Bush go - they are too many to list here, so I'll settle for two easy ones - about 100 IQ points and a soul. That's good enough for me.
Just finished listening to the debate. Dean was awesome. Nader came off as a slightly senile pie in the sky crank.
Here's an article that discusses some of the highlights of the debate if anyone's interested.
Democrats != Republicans
But -- and it is a big but -- both parties are hopelessly corrupted by big money politics. That is what the Nader people are trying to say. Yes, yes, some Democrats are OK, but the DLC seems to be still running the show. And really -- do the Democrats have much to be proud of lately?
We all agree that Bush is an unmitigated disaster for the country. What we disagree on is the cure. It seems like most people on this board think that if only we can elect a Democrat than everything will be OK and we can then go back to sleep. Sadly, I disagree -- I think the problem is much, much worse. I've been closely watching the Democratic leadership since 2000 and I have not been pleased by what I saw.
It is true that Bush is so bad that democracy itself is at risk. For that reason alone, I might be able to force myself to vote for Kerry. But that will do little to address the underlying forces that got us to this situation in the first place.
Remember Nader is not somehow hypnotizing 3% of the population to vote for him -- that 3% represents a seriously pissed off group of voters. Why aren't the Democrats trying to court some of these voters? It wouldn't be that hard and it would cost little. Are we really trying to win hearts and minds here?
Dan, Karmakin, slatsg...thanks for your thoughtful and non-vitriolic commentary.
I might be best described as a progressive in pain, who feels abandoned by the Democratic party. Hence my reluctance to be a huge Kerry supporter. Maybe that makes me a bit of a swing voter, in a sense.
Many of the critiques (the civil ones) of Nader can have the effect of convincing a progressive swing voter that voting for Kerry/Edwards for starters, and continuing to work the Democratic party for change is the way to go.
The name calling and hysteria does not. It just makes me recoil.
This is interesting, apparently "progressives" can be just as hate driven and apoplectic as the most irrational right winger. All you have to do is say "Nader".
"These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others"-Groucho Marx
Incognito -- I agree that Dean was awesome. I supported him very early in his campaign and am continually impressed at how his skills as a communicator have grown. But I deplore your characterization of Nader. And am saddened by your generalized review of both debaters. Why specifically was Dean awesome? What specifically sounded "cranky" to you. Why, in your ideological frame, is advocacy for change catagorically "pie in the sky"? What role does the realm of creative possibility play in your world view?
Naderites are politically naive - they see the US Presidency as the source of power that if Ralph had control of, then everything would be fine.
Look at the damage that Ralph did to the Green Party - they have been set back 5 years due to their embrace of celebrity politics and St. Ralph. Did Ralph stick around and try to help them out?
The question seems to me - is the US Presidency the way to signficant political change in the US, or is it a choice of the Evil of Two Lessers and we find another way to change things.
I don't agree with the "if the world goes to hell under Bush then the US citizens will rise" theory. Germany experienced that in the 1930's - been there done that, doesn't work.
If the Green Party would focus on getting 10 to 20 House seats over the next 10 years - that seems to me to be a reasonable electoral strategy (once they apologize to the Dems for 2000, they may get some support).
For the rest of us who believe that electoral politics is about 5% of true political change, we need to work on other avenues besides the US presidential campaign.
Which doesn't mean that the US presidency isn't important - I don't have illusions about Kerry, but if you are considering that Bush would be "good" for political change, you need to get your head examined.
>We all agree that Bush is an unmitigated disaster for the country. What we disagree on is the cure. It seems like most people on this board think that if only we can elect a Democrat than everything will be OK and we can then go back to sleep. Sadly, I disagree -- I think the problem is much, much worse. I've been closely watching the Democratic leadership since 2000 and I have not been pleased by what I saw.
>Remember Nader is not somehow hypnotizing 3% of the population to vote for him -- that 3% represents a seriously pissed off group of voters. Why aren't the Democrats trying to court some of these voters? It wouldn't be that hard and it would cost little. Are we really trying to win hearts and minds here?
Exactly. Thanks, Odyseus.
Why aren't the Democrats trying to court some of these voters? It wouldn't be that hard and it would cost little. Are we really trying to win hearts and minds here?
It's hard to court those voters who believe that a rational response to a 48%-48%-4% split electorate is for the 48% to roll over for the 4%.
I think the real heat about this debate was that this was the imaginary conversation many wished they could have with Nader, and that we'd be able to talk him out of...whatever we call whatever it is he's doing. Dean did as fine a job as anyone could have done, and it made no difference, none at all.
>We all agree that Bush is an unmitigated disaster for the country. What we disagree on is the cure. It seems like most people on this board think that if only we can elect a Democrat than everything will be OK and we can then go back to sleep. Sadly, I disagree -- I think the problem is much, much worse. I've been closely watching the Democratic leadership since 2000 and I have not been pleased by what I saw.
>Remember Nader is not somehow hypnotizing 3% of the population to vote for him -- that 3% represents a seriously pissed off group of voters. Why aren't the Democrats trying to court some of these voters? It wouldn't be that hard and it would cost little. Are we really trying to win hearts and minds here?
Exactly. Thanks, Odyseus.
lk: You're disappointed that it would just be a small victory? Get used to disappointment dude, it's par for the course when you value progress over slavish devotion to tradition, dogma, and the status quo. Human nature is pretty much in opposition to progressivism, because people fear change. Throughout history we've had to drag them, kicking and screaming, inch by inch into the future, and every time it turns out for the best, but they never learn and every change we need to make, we have to fight like hell for. It's our lot in life, and if you're not prepared to accept that reality, then you're in for a world of disappointment.
I accepted long ago that most people, in their hearts, want change and peace and progress. But when it comes to actually making the changes necessary, it's like pulling teeth, and we just have to deal with that.
Folks, I am sorry about the double posts. I hit that submit button only once.
Must be my lack of brains.
good points by cs and peBird.
Davis X. Machina-I sure don't want the 48% to roll over for the 4%, but something more than lip service (which there isn't much of) or denigration would be nice.
Okay, I am hitting that OK button just once....
I too will vote for Kerry, despite the fact that he ignores the progressive wing. I will even put up a yard sign, contribute to the campaign, and join the local campaign. But if he wins, (and unless he changes tactics he won't win) I will again fight for the progressive agenda, and that will mean fighting against Kerry if he doesn't start moving this country back to the center(I have little hope of it ever tilting left).
joey paranoid -- I' with you 110%. This was a debate between two true progressives and major political figures on our nation's public broadcasting system. Been awhile since we've heard anything like it. I think everyone on this thread should be applauding these two men for what they are trying to do to change the direction of politics in this country. They are showing us that there are there are substantive issues for debate on the left of the spectrum; both men are advocates of popular participation in determining directions in policy; both men are statesmen, but too many here view them as animated contestants in some video game. When they're not doing that that talking image (upthread, Dean as "geek", etc., or engaging in broad-brush psycho-babble about those whose positions they find threatening. We've a long way to go to unlearn the shallow habits inculcated through media mindlessness of recent decades.
I sympathize with the Nader supporters, but what confuses me is why Nader?
In my opinion the man is far from the perfect progressive. He was a poor spokesman for the green party as he rarely spoke directly about environmental issues and the message he does push sounds like McGruff the corporate crime dog. Even there he seems to be the corporate crime dog from the past (bringing up images of pinkertons and manufacturing unions) -- not convincing me that he would really know how to address national health care issues, microsoft antitrust lawsuits, or even campaign finance reform (from the debate -- "as long as the donations are legal, I would accept them").
In fact his inability to grasp certain logical paradigms about three opponent election math, to realize that our Constitution's immutability is inversely related to the Supreme Courts myopia, and to recognize that his public image is rapidly diverging from his self image -- puts him in that category of people that I wouldn't trust to feed my fish while I'm away -- let alone be President.
Instead of voting for Nader you might consider:
1) Writing in someone who is actually aligned with your beliefs.
2) Campaigning for platform items at the DNC (instant runoff voting?)
3) Writing and lobbying Kerry on issues you care about (threatened no votes should be as effective as threatened Nader votes).
4) Get your fricking progessives elected at the local level.
5) Protest Bush campaign events (I hear naked pyramids and hooded people in stress positions are getting popular)
Nader's crusade has a big downside for the future of third parties -- even at the local level.
peBird - The greens will apologize for their part in the 2000 election disaster right after the DNC, Clinton and Gore apologize for their contribution to the fiasco. Don't hold your breath for any of them to admit their errors.
>Piss off Nancy, this country will survive four more years of Bush, your silly hysterics notwithstanding
Proof the only Naderites out there are really scared shitless Republicans.
Okay, I'm late to the debate here, but I've read the Salon stuff on Nader and I'm perplexed. He jabbers about the lack of third parties, yet he couldn't even be bothered to become a member of the Green Party, which nominated him in '00 (and which wisely rejected him this time around). Apparently he now is courting the Reform Party but with little success thus far.
Am I missing something, people? Is it outrageous to think that if Nader actually WANTED a third party to start in America, he'd fucking start one instead of trying to thumb rides off whichever party happened to be handiest? Is he anything other than a political opportunist who doesn't want his reputation soiled by actually getting involved with the day-to-day grind of getting a party up and running?
Hell no. If it came down to it, he'd hook up with the Libertarians or the Democratic Socialists or the Know-Nothings or the Whigs or the who-the-hell-evers if only they'd give him a platform from which he could promote himself.
peBird -- Not sure I'd agree that the Greens are naive or were so to hang their hat on Nader in 2000. Look at your local tv coverage of politics. How much attention is given to local issues/candidates. Nader/LaDuke brought progessive politics to a wider public in 2000, attracting media attention not possible on the local or regional level. I'm a historian and take a long view of how things are developing, support Dean's position in this debate that the best way to keep things developing is to support Kerry/Edwards this time 'round. But part of the reason Kerry/Edwards are able to present the critiques and policies they have in this campaign is because first Nader, then Dean and Kucincich (and Mosley-Braun and Sharpton, too)helped forge a path at the national level for progressive challenges to reactionary-dominated debate.
I voted for Nader in 2000, and am not about to bow to those who name-call and think I should "apologize" or some such nonsense... But I think zzzz's list a few posts up is about the most reasonable, comprehensive summary of my views at this point. I'll be continuing to vote for Greens and progressive Dems at the local level for the forseeable future, but my vote for Prez in Novemeber goes to Kerry. (Especially now that I can rest easy that he, at the very least, has a Democrat on the bottom of his ticket, albeit a somewhat unpalatable one.)
-mes
As somebody who supported Nader in '96 and 2000, I join with others to say that I will support him no more. I was always more compelled by membership in the Green Party and the idea of building a true, environmentally aware grass roots movement. Nader's swift disappearance after 2000 was shocking and disappointing. And his near total silence in the wake of the stolen election was unforgivable.
The real point this time around is not that global corporate hegemony shouldn't be challenged. Or that the democrats being held captive by commercial dollars shouldn't be directed toward more humane and responsive politics. The point is that there is a real cost to be paid in HUMAN LIVES by the continuation of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld axis of power. Many many thousands of lives have been lost due to the sociopathic policies of this undemocratic administration. I always bristled at being labelled an elitist for supporting Nader in 2000. But this time around, it carries real resonance with me. How could I ever look an Iraqi or Afghani in the face and say 'sorry about your dead family, but we had to address the corrupt electoral system in my country's government.' The argument is morally untenable.
And finally, all this talk about perhaps the democrats learning their lesson for 2008, and fielding a true progressive next time around is an incredibly risky proposition. When you have people in power who have no use for our constitutional system of laws, who's to say that there will even be an election in 2008? I couldn't agree with Dean more when he says our country is in a state of emergency. Let's do everything we can to wrest power away from these evildoers before it's too late.
Nader voters: 4 more years of Bush = Scalia x 2 or 3, Thomas x 2, Guantanamo x 2 or 3.
Look before you leap.
First of all, progressive is a chickenshit word. People on the left allowed the GOP to define the term liberal. They gave it up and took on the "progressive" label. Fuck that. Be liberal and be proud.
If liberals believe that the Democratic party is too conservative, they have two choices. They can stand outside the circle and hurl insults or than can get involved and change the party from the inside. Local polotocs matter. Local committees decide policy. State conventions make decisions that effect the direction of the party.
You have a choice. You can make an effort for change or you can throw a temper tantrum and vote for Nader. Scream Bush Lite until your throat bleeds. You're not convincing anyone.
"This was a debate between two true progressives..."
Opposing the war doesn't make one a liberal. Dean's political record is actually quite moderate.
I’m one of those people that think its ridiculous to blame Nader for Gore loosing the 2000 election. Gore lost because he ran a pretty awful campaign. He never figured out how to use Bush’s dumbness against him without looking smug. That being said there was another factor in 2000. Not only was Gore running against Bush, he was running against the press.
Now here it is 2004 and that has not changed one bit. Kerry has to fight two campaigns. The one against Bush and the one against the press. So it seems to me that if Kerry starts leaning to the left to satisfy the Nader people he looses. The bottom line is there isn’t enough of you Naderites out there make that worth while.
Meanwhile the country is full of voting Baby Boomers (which I am one of) who are scared for good and not so good reasons. Why else would reasonably intelligent people support Bush? Remember the line from ’72, “Why change Dicks in mid-screw?” It applies here with a lot of these people. I know its stupid, but that’s the reality.
Kerry has to convince these voters that they should go with him instead. He isn’t going to convince those people by adopting the Nader line because the press will savage him, and you Nader people know it. So if you want to vote your “feelings”, by all means do it. It’s your vote. But you can give up this bullshit about teaching the Dems a lesson for ignoring you. It’s not you guys whose votes count this time around. Who knows, maybe later, but not now.
I'm not willing to sacrifice another 1,000 or so 18 year-olds in the hope that doing so will pull the Democratic Party back to its progressive roots. Sorry, but I'm just not. Funny thing about giving birth, nursing a baby, raising it, etc. It's made me lots less willing to sacrifice even one more 18 year-old on the altar of anyone's philosophy.
I only caught the last 30 minutes or so, Nader looked old and tired and Dean jumped on him for endorsing that stupid "none of the above" idea: if we had that, we'd never have an election because nobody would vote for anybody. Political process nonwithstanding, if people don't get more involved in politics above and beyond just pulling a lever every couple years or so then no political system based on self-rule is going to work.
I happen to agree with Nader about a great many things, but it takes more than just agreeing with someone to make them a viable candidate. Even if by some miracle (and that's what it would take) Nader manages to pull this off, how is he going to be able to get anything done? Gov. Dean was right when he said that this election isn't about any one person, it's about changing the tone of the country. Nader would only be successful if he was the head of a larger organization that was capable of accomplishing the tings he's talking about. He can't do it by himself, you know.
The Greens mistake was abandoning the Democrats rather than simply taking them over, just as the hardcore right took over the GOP. They played the game the way it's supposed to be played and now they have the power to get their way. If the Greens had tried that, they could have forced the Democratic Party to really listen to them, but what do you expect them to do when you openly declare they want to destroy them? Did Ralph think they would just fold over?
I honestly don't know why Gov. Dean even bothered with this debate, Dean is doing the work Ralph and the Greens should have been doing ten years ago, and he has no need to even bother with the increasingly irrelevant Nader. And Dean has something Ralph has never had, practical experience in running a government. Ralph has never been elected to any position in his entire life, and while his successes in getting things done have, in the past, been tremendous, that doesn't translate into being able to change the entire system overnight, which is what he seems to want to do. Like it or not, the system is still the system and you have to work within it if you want to change it, your only other option is to overthrow it, and if you look at history, that rarely makes things better.
Truly, this is your two minutes of hate.- nobody
Absolutely. I haven’t had a chance to hear the debate, it’ll be on the radio later where I live but I decided to see what people were saying about it knowing full well there would be some who made me angry. So I did, and I am angry.
I’m planning on voting for Kerry and I understand why Nader is running. Its encouraging to see that some people are willing to try to have a civil conversation about the subject in a way that might actually persuade potential Nader voters to vote for Kerry but those voices are in the minority here. That approach is drowned out by obnoxious bullshit that fankly is a disservice to the Kerry campaign.
clonecone -- Progressive is a word with deep historical roots in regulation, public ownership, education, labor rights, etc. There's nothing chickenshit about it. Liberal is a fine word, too, and one I've never abandoned, but I consider progressivism to the left of liberalism and a better term for me.
Wow, this thread sounds like a right-wing blog, with some key words swapped around. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Progressive, indeed.
antiphone, after the initial, expected insults died down and the trools left (some quite suddenly when they were called on their phony notions), many people actually made some very cogent, calmly stated comments.
Just ignore the former and focus on the good things that were said.
trools? trolls and tools
cj_ - if it was a right-wing blog, we'd all be repeating lies. I haven't seen anyone "smear" Nader with anything he hasn't done or said. He's been caught in lies, he attacks but expects to be given a pass and never be challenged in return, and he's accepted the help of rightwing supporters who freely admit they will be voting for Bush and are just trying to help Nader get on the ballot in order to help Bush win.
Truth hurts, I know. No true "progressive" would conduct themselves the way Nader has in this farce. Go over to Salon and read the "Dark Side of Ralph Nader", and try to reach any conclusion other than that it's all about Ralphie's ego.
Progressive, indeed.
Dean has totally sold out, and has allowed himself to become a front man for Kerry and the DNC. What a pity.
Is it just me, or do there seem a lot more trolls here lately? They are clearly trying to divide Democrats, but worse, they're wasting my time.
slats g:
The reason for the Greens to apologize is not to make the Democrats feel better - its to acknowledge a real mistake and to bring non-aligned progressives back to the Greens.
If you realistically think the Dems would apologize for the mistakes they made in 2000 (I understand it's sarcasm) - that assumes the Dems have the internal qualities to admit political mistakes and correct them - which contradicts the Greens theory that they are a corrupt party.
I am assuming that the Greens are still recoverable from their mistakes in the 2000 fiasco (hell, I voted for Matt Gonzales in SF). But they need to do so real soul searching, regroup and provide not just a vision, but a real strategy for change.
I would dump the presidential visions at this time (I know you get matching funds, etc.) - and focus on the House. I think a lot of left-Dems would embrace that plan:
1) it's achievable, 2) any "damage" to the Dems is minimal, 3) if you can't win a House seat, why the hell are you running for the Presidency, 4) a split House - no party with a majority would be a real change for the US.
It's just an idea.
Actually, if Gore were president, I could pretty much tell you with 100% certanty that Iraq never would have happened.
Word, Karmakin.
Clinton and Gore had Saddam in a box through containment, and they didn't have the Bush/PNAC Captain-Ahab-like mania to take him down. President Gore would have done Afghanistan PROPERLY, with enough boots on the ground and without pulling troops out prematurely or witholding resources needed there to invade Iraq. And he wouldn't have had Rumsfeld's bee in his bonnet for using too few troops. We might have even stood a chance of getting bin Forgotten long ago, with Gore in the White House.
it's all about Ralphie's ego- Jennifer
Aside from the fact that the premise is debatable this is not a particularly persuasive counter argument because it assumes the voter expects Nader to win and is locked into the standard “its all about personalities” mode of thought. If the person you’re trying to convince sees their vote as a way to register dissent and is focused on issues, this is an ineffective approach.
cs:
Good point - I understand that you need these voices to moderate the rightward move of the Democratic party.
Still, I think there is a fine line between advocacy and real political damage - we need to find leaders on the left that recognize this and act accordingly.
I don't see that in Nader - he is good for fireworks and laying out the issues - actually much of what he states I think the a greal deal of general population already believes (the two parties are alike, big business controls things, etc.), but there is no political vision, no sense of organization, what's the next step?
I can't figure out his political motivations - something doesn't smell right. I have a strong sense that if there wasn't this "Nader is helping Bush inadvertantly" cultural theme, the media would just ignore him.
antiphone - if you haven't read the piece at Salon, mosey on over and do it. Once you have, any doubts you may have about Ralph's ego being the controlling factor in his Quixotic runs for the presidency will go up in smoke.
I'm not trying to change anyone's vote of dissent - merely trying to point out to those convinced that Ralph is the white knight on the charging steed that it just ain't so. And I'll still continue to assert that if Ralph is going to throw mud, he's delusional if he expects to not get dirty himself. That's politics, and if he can't handle it, he has no business even pretending to run.
I'm not trying to change anyone's vote of dissent
Why not? If the election is worth debating it’s worth debating persuasively.
antiphone - because, unlike Nader supporters, I learn from experience. There's no reasoning with hard-core Naderites. And for those who insist on getting everything they want in one bite from one candidate, logic doesn't work. Otherwise, they would already realize that no one is ever going to live up to the perfection they demand.
Is it even conceivable to you that someone would like more of what Nader has to say than what Kerry has to say, yet still vote for Kerry? Without being assaulted for having a differrent viewpoint than your own? I'm sorry, but your opinion of Nader's intentions notwithstanding, he made a fool of Dean in open debate. Dean may have charisma, but he has nothing interesting to say, except "don't vote for Bush." I agree, don't vote for Bush. The audience already has that message. How about something more "progressive" to enrich the debate? He has nothing. He's a tool.
Many of you have an extremely narrow idealogy that you fight viciously for when challenged, then resort to ad hominem to drive your point home. Anyone who DARES to not support your candidate is a troll, a fucker, and asshole, a jerk-off. I've seen more civil threads at LGF (and believe me, I hate those fuckers). You should take a good look at yourself and contrast that to your unending rhetoric about how nasty the Freepers and other conservative asswipes are. Pot, Kettle, Black.
If it makes you feel better, I will be voting for Kerry. Just want to make sure you approve of my personal choice, wouldn't want to come off as someone who thinks differently than you, or anything radical like that.
On contrast, your message I may agree with, but your tone and indignation at rational debate is really off-turning. (Disclaimer: by "you," and "your" I speak generally to people contributing to the "fuck you naderite" camp; obviously some people here have more class than that. I salute you.)
Peace.
My wife (who works for Vermont Public Radio) said it was good. Her fave line from Dean to Nader: Lighten up.
NTodd
She know any of the Panther players? I really miss that show.
Is there anyone more deluded than a Naderite who believes that something good would come of Bush to get four more years to establish corporate despotism here and around the world? If the past three and a half years have taught them nothing then nothing will.
Nader's Nutters the Know Nothings of Now.
And believe me I understand "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" and the rest of the self-rightious rhetoric out there--but to me, someone who is already at the bottom of this society, there's no real difference between Kerry and Bush.
Doesn't this argument, with its bullshit tag line, EVER end? Two words should end it, regardless of any other issue: Supreme Court. The differences between Kerry's potential nominees and Bush's will affect us (maybe ESPECIALLY those at the "bottom of this society") for decades. If Naderites can't or won't recognize that little disaster waiting to happen, they're either hopelessly naive or hopelessly stubborn -- and there is no talking sense to them, let alone trying to "woo" or "persuade" or "court" them. It's like trying to nicely persuade a toddler not to walk across a highway.
I just listened to the debate/Q&A session. a few thoughts:
Sounded great to me. Both men have a lot of overlap - Dean's only real point is that Nader shouldn't queer it for Kerry because Bush is too dangerous. As far as airing the issues, it was probably better than any Kerry-Bush or Edwards-Cheney debate is going to be.
In re: Ralph's ego - Please, what do you suppose the ego is on any politician who deigns to run for president? Nothing new here, and definitely not something to harp on - glass houses and all. Ditto for the funding issues.
That's politics, and if he can't handle it, he has no business even pretending to run.
Yes, but you might call it asymmetric politics. It’s worth thinking about whether going negative is effective in that context.
There's no reasoning with hard-core Naderites
If you really think there are no votes to be gained or lost on this front I’d have to say that I disagree with you. I am also wondering why you’re bothering to argue about the subject at all.
Ralph has accomplished some good works, but his actions now are just irresponsible to progressive values. I used to believe in the one-party Republicrats, but being in a swing state, I never once considered giving my vote to Nader. I see I was wrong on the former and dead on right on the latter.
Dean said it best (paraphrase) when he said we need to get behind the candidate that more closley aligns himself with us...then work hard to be sure our voices are heard in the policy debates.
Dean was good. I can't help but wonder how this debate managed to happen and why. It just seems unusual that valuable air time would be spent on a third party candidate at this time.
I think, or really suspect, Dean had the foresight to see this as a possible venue to point out to his former constituents that they really should avoid the Nadervote trap. I really did not observe this to be a presidential candidate debate in any way.
Janet - granted, politicians by definition have large egos.
The difference between Nader and others is that Nader would rather see a cause he supports go down in flames rather than let anyone else get the credit for it. Successful politicians are generally those who spread around the credit. Go over to Salon and read about Ralph's inability to do this.
Jumped to the end so sorry if its a repost but the debate is in Cspan right now
Nader's Nutters the Know Nothings of Now
It’s really too bad that so many people under the big Kerry tent are unable respect others when it comes to discussing how best to deal with Nader’s candidacy. When wingers say stupid insulting things the question is raised about why no one on their side disagrees with them and this is used to imply that they share responsibility, because they don’t speak out about it.
I’m speaking out about this. It's stupid.
Heard some soundbites from the debate on NPR yesterday, and of course I saw Nader on The Daily Show earlier this week.
In both appearances Ralph acted like a phony as far as I am concerned. I voted for the guy twice before, but never again.
Holden Caulfield |
I did too and I agree completely. AND I'll hold my nose and vote for Kerry.
But what baffles me are the Democrats who from 1996 on have had it out for Nader just because he would dare challenge their little "liberal" hegemony. And some here seem to be espousing their viewpoint. This is the Democrat party that I will fight from the day Kerry takes office. They are the ones that support Ralph's argument that the two parties are the same. Yes fascism boils below the surface with the Repubs, but is the government's job to keep the President in check. We shouldn't have to vote out of a fear that our legislative and judicial branches can't protect us from our own government. If that's the case, then in 2008 the Dems will so "whoa, you have to vote to re-elect Kerry because looks whose coming down the pipe now" (be it Jeb or some other Rebub slob).
Those that question even trying to support a third party movement... I wonder what world they're living in where a TWO-party system is a good idea. Apparently they like politics to consist of little more than name calling and legalized bribery, as exploitation continues rampant in the background. I just can't hang with that. We need real debate about issues and a media that covers them and informs the citizenry. IF you think either of those things are happening whether Kerry or Bush win in November, you are sadly mistaken.
The best way to treat Nader's candidacy is to treat him as you would any other political opponent - because that is what he is.
Which means, point out his hypocrisies and lies. For some reason, certain people only see this strategy as being "out of bounds" when it's applied to Ralph, who, let's face it, does plenty of this himself.
Attacking Nader is not the same as attacking people who have been fooled into supporting him, or even those who haven't been fooled by him but are for whatever reason supporting him anyway, though for some reason there are a significant number of posters on this site who insist on equating the two.
"...so many people under the big Kerry tent are unable respect others..."
I'm tired of the Bush-lite references. I'm tired of the DNC trashing. I'm tired of people saying there is no difference between my party and the Republicans. I'm tired of people trashing Kerry/Edwards because they don't perfectly match some pie in the sky standard of purity.
Nader has been trashing Democrats since 1996. I'm sick of it. I don't need to be scolded when I choose to defend my party and my beliefs.
Dean may have charisma, but he has nothing interesting to say, except "don't vote for Bush."
You make a comment like that, and I really have to wonder if there's something wrong with your hearing.
janet said: "Ditto for the funding issues."
umm so its OK that Nader is getting his funding from the GOP cuz Kerry is too?
funny, i havent seen any reports of Kerry getting massive funds and volunteers to work ballot petiton movements from right-wing fundie anti-immigrant movements.
Hmm, last time I checked Nader garnered less than 5% of the vote in 2000. I hate it when the stupid fringe lefties (all two of them) talk about being the progressive base, the silent majority that needs to be courted.
I'm sorry, we moderates are in the majority. It's not that we just want to win and remove Bush but that we also have substantial policy disagreements with Nader and his ilk. I'm sick of rich, white, "liberal" kids who are fine and dandy with Bush's demolition of the Constitution provided that they can go protest globalization with other spoiled brats. Screw you! Young people are dying in Iraq as the partial result of the cynical self-righteousness of the way left.
The best way to treat Nader's candidacy is to treat him as you would any other political opponent - because that is what he is.
With all due respect, different opponents call for different tactics. There are different issues raised by different candidates. To compete for votes that might go to your opponent you have to speak to the priorities of their potential voters. This is not controversial, personal attacks are not the only tactic and they can backfire.
Doesn't this argument, with its bullshit tag line, EVER end? Two words should end it, regardless of any other issue: Supreme Court.
Silleigh | Email | Homepage | 07.10.04 - 4:00 pm | #
Here's where I part company with the vast majority of dKos and Atrios readers/posters. Our democracy is hijacked because we are supposed to vote in fear over ONE judicial appointment. In theory, jurists are supposed to base their decisions on established case law and to make judgements based upon societal norms. So why am I supposed to vote in fear because we have judges who use their positions to promote their conservative political agendas? How is one vote really going to stop the tide of right-wing appointments from Reagan down through Bush II? It won't.
That is why people say there's no difference between the parties – because on some levels, there is no difference. The whole damn system is one of legalized bribery for international corporations. We have, in essence, given over control of our government to an unelected business elite that cares only about one thing – making more money, and by any means necessary. That is why it is MUCH more important to me to get a real and viable third party working in this country. In fact, I want a crazy Italian or Indian style multi-party system with scores of minor parties and coalitions forming and morphing and falling apart – ie, politics. Politics with real debate and exposure of issues. Kind of like what we have here except for the adhominum attacks on Nader and "Naderites."
Interesting debate. But the ending baffled me in a troubling way. Adler asked why a woman can't be nominated for president and neither one of them answered, even when she followed up with the same question. Dean started talking about "taboos" against various subjects in presidential campaigns and I don't remember what Nader said. Really a sorry ending to a good discussion.
adhominum attacks on Nader and "Naderites."
ad hominem.
Well, you may want those things, Planet B, but I question whether you'll see them in your lifetime.
How about working on the possible changes that can be made?
While I believe that Nader's ego kept Gore out of the White House (along with Gore's patriotism in willingly giving up the White House over the objections of millions); I believe that the best strategy is to ignore Nader. His campaign will get legs if Kerry takes a big lead in the Fall. But if the election is close or if Bush (God forbid!) takes a lead; I can't believe that the general philosophy of the average Nader voter will lead them to throw their vote away in a meaningless protest.
If I'm wrong, of course, we're all screwed.
in other words, you cant make an omelette without bombing a few poultry farms.
my eyes hurt.
welcome discussion, but there are differences between the Dems (even moderates) and the Repubs (even moderate)
Sure, individuals may morph over each other on key issues. Sure, our capitalist society seems to be driven by money...But they are different.
even if they have the same tailor.
I used to think if they work in the same system, and they're wearing a suit, they're the same.
Since this war... I'm not really following that logic anymore. I'm convinced Gore and the Dems would have done it differently.
Kerry getting massive funds and volunteers to work ballot petiton movements
Neither the Democratic or Republican party have to petition to get on the ballot.
Paul Wellstone was as liberal as they come. He understood that ideology and grassroots activism have to operate within the electoral system. Otherwise they are just noise. The Naderites can't seem to grasp this concept.
"We need real debate about issues and a media that covers them and informs the citizenry."
You are sadly mistaken if you think a third party will provide real debate and force the media to do its job. Third parties do not work at the national level. History has proven that time after time. All they do is aid the party furthest from thier core beliefs. Vote however you want, but don't act like a third party vote is some huge act of rebellion. Don't act like voting for Kerry is noble sacrifice you're willing to make for the good of the country. Martyrdom is so passé.
You know, there's definitely a difference between Gore and Nader, regardless of whether there's one (I think there is) between the Republicans and the Democrats.
When Gore thought that it was the best thing for the country for him to concede the stolen election, that's what he did. I don't imagine that was very much fun for a man who's wanted to be president all his life and who knew in his heart that he'd actually won. I'm not even saying that Gore was right to concede when he did (with 20/20 hindsight, I think more of a broohaha might have been a good thing), but what I am saying is that he was willing to put what he saw as the ultimate good of the country ahead of his own interests.
I'd like to see Nader do the same and put the ultimate good of the country ahead of his own interests. He could do that by announcing now that he wont' try to participate in the debates and that he wants all his supporters to vote for Kerry/Edwards. It would allow me to continue to have the respect for Nader that I've had most of my life.
Nader may have the right message, but he is the wrong messenger. Yes, dramatic change needs to occur, but it's not going to occur via a political neophyte running for a presidency he can't possibly win.
Dean's Democracy for America, the DKos 8, and related group efforts that are working at the grassroots to elect progressive candidates in local, state and Congressional elections have the right idea. Yes, we need change, but it has to be done from the BOTTOM of the pyramid, ground-up, not top-down. And if it takes time, so be it.
That Nader is taking money from Republicans and anti-gay Fundie nutball groups proves that this isn't about any kind of "virtuous quest", but about his vendetta against the Democratic party.
Yes, the Democratic party has sold us out. But does anyone honestly believe that another 4 years of Bush will make things better?
I'm disgusted with Kerry too, but I'm going to be a good soldier, because I firmly believe that if Bush is allowed to stay in office past January 20, 2005, there won't BE any more elections, because he will declare martial law and name himself dictator-for-life.
Does anyone honestly believe that would be a GOOD outcome?
As a moderate democrat myself, it amazes me how Nader and his followers don't see the HARM they do to their cause with their tactics.
Does it not occur to them that the country has been pushed right, in part, because they have now set themselves up to be perceived as the far-left version of the right's neocons? Moderates want nothing to do with extremists, be they left or right.
In leadership ESPECIALLY, there simply MUST be a willingness to hear all sides.
Nader has hurt the greens, and hurt progressives (i.e. far-left liberals) more than they can probably ever appreciate in the eyes of moderates.
I don't need to be scolded when I choose to defend my party and my beliefs
Sorry if I offended you. I’m suggesting that there’s a more effective way to defend that party.
Don't act like voting for Kerry is noble sacrifice you're willing to make for the good of the country. Martyrdom is so passé.
Why is it of consequence to you if some one should look at it that way? If a person told you they'd been a Republican but were now going to vote for Kerry would you berate them for having a bad attitude about it?
I figured out what Nader was all about when he refused to become a member of the Green Party. What an ego! Yet he uses the need for third parties as his reason for running?!?
If he cared about making the Green Party viable, or even about public service, he'd run for something he could win, like a House seat from a liberal area. He could leverage his win into other House seat candidates and create a coalition with some power like the CBC within 8 years.
I fucking hate the son of a bitch. I fully expect him to get rocks thrown at him if he campaigns in swing states. I look forward to Fox giving him as much air time as he wants to hammmer Kerry with down the line.
In leadership ESPECIALLY, there simply MUST be a willingness to hear all sides.
Well then they need a willingness to hear the left too, right?
Yes, antiphone, they do...but Nader is actually marginalizing his cause with his actions (thereby making the progressive left a lot LESS likely to be taken seriously by moderates).
I used to be willing to vote for all parties (and I have voted Democrat, Republican, and Green in the past). I'll probably never vote Republican after Bush again, and I don't see myself voting Green either after Nader (this could change in the future if the Republican and Green parties can get their acts together, and offer something other than bull-headed stubbornness and Dem-bashing).
Someone is ALWAYS going to get left out of the political process (because it just isn't possible to please everyone). Voting for people so extreme in their views (i.e. Bush, Nader) is not the way to make sure a majority are represented.
After all of the rubber-stamping of anyhting and everyhting any of us can bitch about the Bushies for, the Democrats prove that they have learned their lesson by signing off on the intelligence investigation.
The Democrats have no tactical sense. Winning battles involves fighting them. Folding under to the opposition solves nothing.
I was dead set on voting for Kerry, but the Democrats have to prove that they offer something else- not that they will just sit back and vote for whatever the sitting administration wants.
That's something of a simplistic view of politics.
When you're the minority, if you want to preserve hope of ANY initiatives going through, you have to preserve ties with the majority as best you can.
In addition, all the information that we now know to be bogus was, at the time of the votes, thought to be essentially true. Also, the votes went the way they did with the assumption that weapons inspections would be completed, and also that the international community would have more of a say than they did (both in the decision to go to war, and in coalition-building efforts).
In the end, though, rejecting a party who you think "rolled over" (when there was a lot more involved than that) to go with a party who you know 1) has royally fucked things up, and 2) will continue to royally fuck things up, is maybe not the best way to operate (and this is what ANY vote other than Kerry is doing - helping to put Bush back in office).
Nader has been trashing Democrats since 1996. I'm sick of it. I don't need to be scolded when I choose to defend my party and my beliefs.
Well said.
You can make an effort for change or you can throw a temper tantrum and vote for Nader.
Wait, nevermind. What's your point exactly? You are sick of people trashing your beliefs? Only your beliefs count? Intresting.
I am sorry, but the concept that Nader will "steal" votes from Kerry is fundamentally absurd. People will vote for Nader because they don't believe in your party. Republicans will vote for Bush because they don't believe in your party. Some people will vote for no one because they don't believe in any of the parties. The simple fact is, Kerry as a representitive of the DNC, does not represent everyone's beliefs. I am voting Democrat because in my pragmatic world-view, the DNC does represent my beliefs. Hey, I would like it if Conservatives agreed, as well as Green's. But to become hostile towards someone because they don't believe what you believe is exactly what pisses me off about the ranks of the right wing. But it pisses me off even more to see the same attitude present in great quantity among people whose ideas I choose to align myself with.
The pure hatred for Nader expressed here is irrational. It has a chilling resemblence to the Conservative response to Michael Moore's new movie, and borders on the pathological. "This guy is saying something I don't believe in (because I'm worried about losing the election). Omigod, he said it really well, and others might believe what he has to say! Time to completely trash him, everything he stands for, everything he says, and anyone who aligns with him!!"
Nader has a lot to say; a lot of it is very, obviously true and none of the Democratic front-runners will address these issues. Maybe they can't safely do so, politically. I am just glad that someone who has a voice is saying them.
Ooops. Missed a closing tag. I suck. 
Nader is actually marginalizing his cause with his actions
It really depends what that cause to be. In order to refute the logic it’s good to have an understanding of what it is. If it’s understood to be him becoming president, that’s a misunderstanding . Some see it in terms of competing for votes by creating pressure for his competition to adjust their positions to take issues away from him. Some see it as raising issues that have been removed from the debate and wouldn’t otherwise get attention. If we want to have productive discussions with people who feel this way it’s important to first understand their priorities and then make the case for why those priorities would be better served by voting for Kerry.
If we refuse to listen, we're yelling at straw men rather than talking with our fellow citizens about why our candidate is the best choice.
Some see it as raising issues that have been removed from the debate and wouldn’t otherwise get attention.
antiphone, if people don't like or don't trust the messenger, his influence is minimal.
That's become Nader's problem.
You've got to find a new, vibrant, charismatic leader.
I voted for Nader 4 years ago, primarily because I was in an overwhelmingly red state. I had heard him speak in person ex tempore for 3 solid hours without notes and stay another hour or so till every single person who had a question had received an answer. I was impressed with his knowledge, his energy, and his history. I wanted to see the Green party get some recognition. Not this time.
Please excuse the extended metaphor, but I see it this way: the roof, the roof, the roof is on fire.
Bush and his supporters say there is no fire. When forced to look at the growing flames, they will grudgingly admit that there may be a fire, but if so, it's Clinton's fault, and it will burn itself out if we give tax cuts to rich people.
Kerry and his supporters say the roof is, in fact, on fire, and they have a 10 point plan to increase funding to firefighters and to reduce the tax burden on the people who make roofs so that they can make them more flame retardant. They also favor (in principal) collecting water to address the fire situation.
Nader and his supporters are standing to the side watching the Bush and Kerry people. Their position is: we don't need no water, let the motherfucker burn! Burn, motherfucker, burn!
Twenty-something percent of the country is standing with Bush, and a roughly equal number are standing with Kerry. A few percent are hanging around Nader hoping that it doesn't rain. A few percent are so confused they couldn't tell you for sure whether aliens might not have set the fire. And half the country is standing a safe distance away, figuring it's none of their business, and anyway they don't want to get involved.
If I would like to see the fire put out and the roof saved or repaired someday, what choice do I have? If I do nothing, vote for Bush or for Nader, the motherfucker is going to burn. Kerry's not my progressive ideal, but he's the only game in town. Support now, argue later is my view. But then, I'm just a dumb white guy.
antiphone - it's very possible to raise issues missing from the debate without lying your ass off.
Unfortunately, Nader doesn't do that. He willfully destroys whatever value he might be able to bring to the discussion by saying things such as "Al Gore would have invaded Iraq too" or by claiming that the people who got him on the ballot in Oregon aren't rightwing activists when the evidence is already established that they are.
He's the worst enemy of his own credibility, and then whines when the people he attacks respond in kind by attacking him for that lack of credibility.
You've got to find a new, vibrant, charismatic leader
I’m not that interested in charismatic leaders, as I said I’m voting for Kerry. I see the people we elect as representing us so the responsibility for making our wishes known is ours.
Well said, Jimmy Pop. I quite like your analogy of the burning roof and the response of the various factions to it.
antiphone, if you're a member of a third party, you've got to offer the people something more.
Charisma.
antiphone, if you're a member of a third party
Actually I’m a registered Democrat who voted for Dean in the primary. Is this like red baiting or something?
"I'm disgusted with Kerry too, but I'm going to be a good soldier, because I firmly believe that if Bush is allowed to stay in office past January 20, 2005, there won't BE any more elections, because he will declare martial law and name himself dictator-for-life"
Accenture recently won a $10 Billion Dollar contract to develop a border security system to keep people out. But couldn't the system also be used to keep people in?
I think we are witnessing the beginnings of a totalitarian regime.
If Bush gets reelected, I'm going to flee the country as fast as possible. The EU is looking awfully good to me... how hard is it to get a work visa?
I thought the debate was terrific, and Howard Dean got exactly what he wanted -- a national platform where he was able to make his case for progressive unity.
As Dean said in the debate, when your house is on fire, you don't waste time rearranging the furniture. There will be a time for debating the future direction of the Democratic party, but 2004 ain't it.
The Dems and the Naderites shouldn't be angry at one another. We have to hang together.
As Ben Franklin once said, "We will all hang together, or surely we will all hang separately".
Is this like red baiting or something?
Let me rephrase: If someone is a member of a third party...
I did not mean to imply you were.
Cloncone - Better reread your history. Third parties often have been absorbed into the two major parties when the big 2 adopt the programs of the third party. The populists of the late 19th century and American (George Wallace) Party of the late sixties are but two examples.
And Andrew, you moderates might be a majority, that's debatable. But you can't get your guy elected without progressive(A wonderrful word, by the way) support. Be civil and actually pay some attention to the ideas of the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party", and you moderates might have a chance of winning. Oh yeah, cut the nonsense with your righteous indignation, holier than thou attitude about the kids being killed in Iraq. I'm an educator in a small rural community, and quite a few of our kids are over in that hell hole. I am as upset as anybody about this criminal war. And my candiadte - Kucinich - didn't support the war legislation like certain senators did. The "moderates" suported the war measures and now their mea culpas ring a bit hollow.
peBird - I agree that the local approach is probably best for the Greens. My point has been that name-calling, and blaming the Greens for 2000 without the Dems doing some serious soul searching about their mistakes and how to capture many Nader voters, could cost the Dems some votes and perhaps even the election.
I thought the debate excellent. It was reminiscent of the bygone age when words and discourse were not robbed of meaning.
Any Democrats screaming at the slimy Republicans who are "funding" Nader? Probably not, too skeered.
I live in Cali, which should be a "safe state" to vote for Nader or the Green candidate. Are there any free sites that have state-by-state prez polls?
Anyone who thinks there will be a progressive movement to build on after Bush is "reelected" sure hasn't studied their middle twentieth century history.
Are you Yahoos so bereft of an imagination that you can't conceive of what these guys would do when they don't have to be face another election??
And while the rest of us do the real work of taking back the Democratic Party....all you can do is jerk yourself off and congratulate yourselves on your fucking political purity.
You want people to die and suffer because John Kerry isn't liberal enough for you.
free sites that have state-by-state prez polls?
Shystee, try here daily kos
Nader is employing a hazardous and highly flawed strategy, but it has occurred to me that he has spent his life working to reform corrupt institutions. He views our non-parliamentary, winner take all system as needing to be dismantled and replaced with a more inclusive form of government. Perhaps, at the end of his life, he sees himself fighting one final reform battle, this time the reform of our dysfunctional U.S. electoral system. Perhaps he believes that like in war we have to take on casualties in order to win the long-term fight. That at the end of the day we will all be better off when we finally have a truly public government, unbeholden to corporate power.
His seeming indifference to the suffering others will be forced to endure as a result of his reform effort reminds me of the attitude of the neocons. Yes, perhaps some people will be killed, the sick will get sicker, the poor will get poorer, but in the long run everybody will be better off. Perhaps we have to fight a war in Iraq, say the neocons, in order to remake the Middle East into a beacon of freedom and democracy. If we have to sacrifice a few lives in the course of doing so isn't it worth it?
Just as the neocons diminished or dismissed the chaos war in Iraq would unleash, Nader dismisses the danger posed to the world by another four years of the Bush administration. When reality doesn't conform to your worldview, just ignore it and impugn the motives of those who oppose you!
Nader supporters do not want people to die and suffer Nancy. To even suggest that indicates that your emotion has superceded reason. What people want is for the Democrats to stand for something again. They want reasons to vote FOR Kerry not just against Bush. They are weary of voting for the lesser of two poor candidates. They want something to believe in. It is not about charisma. Wellstone was not charismatic. He had a set of values that are central to progessive thinking and he fought for those values. I don't want everything. I don't expect ideological purity. What I do expect is for Democrats to quit allowing to terms of the debate to be established by the right wing thugs. Kerry had courage once. He needs to show that courage again. The Gore campaign proved that we cannot expect to win by debating Rethugs on their terms. Gore ran away from Clinton and he ran away from his own liberal values. Kerry needs to quit talking about conservative values. Those values include hate, intolerance, greed, imperial ambition, and a reckless disregard for the lives of ordinary people. The John-boys need to start talking about liberal values. Define those liberal ideas that are the core of our value system and he will win.
I'm willing to let Bush win
Don't expect many people to stand by you when the Ministry of Homeland Security breaks down your door. We'll all be in Camp X-ray, keeping your bunk warm for you, looking up and out at the guns on us.
A little late for this charming chat, but I have a question for the green-hating democrats ?
First a disclaimer: I will vote for Kerry, not just because of the fiasco at the green convention that matt taibi summarized so well, but for strategic reasons that so many of you are jamming down my throat (would have done it anyway, but thanks for the help- reminds me of a few lines in william burroughs 'thanksgiving prayer').
Seriously, what if it was Matt Gonzalez that was running for president as the green party candidate.
Skip the qualification criteria and just think about him and his positions. I know its a leap since he has no foreign policy experience but so much of your hatred for Nader is personal, I wonder if you would allow some progressives to vote their conscience if it were a more respectable candidate (without being green-baited) ?
slats g ? you seem to be the most rational here, could you weigh in on this admittedly strained hypothetical?
Oh Lordy, this place never changes. Liberal Democrats are the most sorry-assed deluded idiots there ever were.
Resident psycho Gary Frazier wants to talk about fascist idiots? Let's start with the bi-partisan committee that just hung the war lies on the CIA.
Idiots.
Nickname, you pick the third comment on this thread and ignore all the other truly incisive ones that have been made.
Shame on you.
Aslo: "I'm willing to let Bush win to show the Democrats that tactic won't work and the only way they will ever win in the future is to become a true progressive party, instead of just bullying progressives to vote for them."
I would like to share with you an exceprt from a 2003 interview with Tony Award-winning playwright Tony Kushner (Angels in America), which was published in Mother Jones:
-------------------------------------
MOTHER JONES: What about the Democratic Party? Can it effectively oppose Bush?
TONY KUSHNER: "I have said this before, and I'll say it again: Anyone that the Democrats run against Bush, even the appalling Joe Lieberman, should be a candidate around whom every progressive person in the United States who cares about the country's future and the future of the world rallies. Money should be thrown at that candidate. And if Ralph Nader runs -- if the Green Party makes the terrible mistake of running a presidential candidate -- don't give him your vote. Listen, here's the thing about politics: It's not an expression of your moral purity and your ethics and your probity and your fond dreams of some utopian future. Progressive people constantly fail to get this.
"The GOP has developed a genius for falling into lockstep. They didn't have it with Nixon, but they have it now. They line up behind their candidate, grit their teeth, and help him win, no matter who he is.
MOTHER JONES: You're saying progressives are undone by their own idealism?
TONY KUSHNER: "The system isn't about ideals. The country doesn't elect great leaders. It elects fucked-up people who for reasons of ego want to run the world. Then the citizenry makes them become great. FDR was a plutocrat. In a certain sense he wasn't so different from George W. Bush, and he could have easily been Herbert Hoover, Part II. But he was a smart man, and the working class of America told him that he had to be the person who saved this country. It happened with Lyndon Johnson, too, and it could have happened with Bill Clinton, but we were so relieved after 12 years of Reagan and Bush that we sat back and carped.
"In a certain sense, Bush was right when he called the anti-war demonstrations a 'focus group.' We went out on the street and told him that we didn't like the war. But that was all we did: We expressed an opinion. There was no one in Congress to listen to us because we were clear about why they couldn't listen. Hillary Clinton was too compromised, or Chuck Schumer -- and God knows they are. But if people don't pressure them to do better, we're lost. ...
"... If you really believe that it's your place to leave the world a better place than it was when you arrived, then how do you get the power? In this country, the most powerful country on earth, you get it by voting the right people into power.
"There are means of getting the power out of the hands
TONY KUSHNER (cont'd): "... of the very rich and the very wicked. It still flabbergasts me that people didn't see this during the last presidential election. We had had 12 years of Reagan and Bush to prepare us for this outcome. It couldn't have been clearer who we were dealing with. George W. Bush was -- is -- a little robot programmed by his daddy to punish Saddam Hussein and get as much money for the petrochemical bandits. It's absolutely jaw-dropping that Democrats saw that and decided instead that they wanted to send a message to their own party that they weren't happy with it for some relatively minor offense. Why didn't we turn out in vast numbers for Gore? Why did we vote for Ralph Nader or not at all? We would absolutely not be in Iraq today if we had a Democratic president in the White House, and I don't need to know any more than that."
Nickname: "Oh Lordy, this place never changes. Liberal Democrats are the most sorry-assed deluded idiots there ever were.
Resident psycho Gary Frazier wants to talk about fascist idiots? Let's start with the bi-partisan committee that just hung the war lies on the CIA.
"Idiots."
OK.
I'm willing to wager better-than-even odds that you've not even read the Senate report you cite -- because if you did, you also would have surely noted from that report that it is only the first part.
The second part of this Senate report, which deals with the White House's role in manipulating intelligence, will be released after the election.
Idiot.
antiphone I compared the hard core of Naderites - who are willing to risk democracy on the fantasy that a period of corporate despotism will bring about some kind of golden age - to the Know Nothings because they have a lot in common. One of these is the willingness to risk everyone's freedom for their, I don't know what to call him, their hero? Another is their unwillingness to respect people not in their cult.
It is unfortunate that this offends you but I take a threat to the liberty of everyone in the country rather seriously and, less importantly, rather personally.
I'm not going to pretend that I respect people who are so willfully blind and irresponsible.
OK so this post will be lost amidst the cacaphony of a flood of sophomoric Nader bashing...thats cool 'cause I gotta say my piece anyway.
Democrats you are living in denial. Your last President was really a Republican who supported NAFTA and GATT, threw single mothers and children off welfare without regard to what would happen to them and without the courtesy of job training or child care credits. Clinton sowed the seeds that resulted in 9/11 and helped make the DLC the organisation that dragged the democrats to the right, silenced the left and doomed your party to failure after failure in the mid term elections.
Howard Dean was a very conservative Governor, was a Lieutenant Governor under a Republican administrataion, and upon assuming office due to the death of that GOP Governor, got along well with the repugs and feuded constantly with his own democratic legislators.He weakened environmental protections in Vermont for the benefit of IBM and other corporations and his posing as a liberal was simply a self serving effort to climb into Paul Wellstone's role, which undoubtedly had that fine moderate rolling in his grave.
John Kerry is a puppet of that DLC, one who voted for the invasion of Iraq, for the Homeland Security Act, for the Patriot Act and is just another product of a corrupt system.He refuses to call for the recall of our troops from Iraq, refuses to consider a reduction in the bloated military budget and is just a Bush redux.
I read what Nader has to say at least monthly, at votenader.org , and I find nothing there to brand him a tool of the GOP or a spoiler or any of the nonesensical and childish accusations hurled by the foolish, the naive or those unwilling or unable to self criticise their own party and must seek scapegoats to blame for the failures of their own party.The charges of his accepting republican monies is just a bunch of bullshit, quite frankly, and his every word condemns Bush, his every action denies that stupid insult.He is angry at the betrayal of us all by your sellout Democrats and so am I.
We do not have a two party system in this nation any longer as both parties are seeking the same exact voters and ignoring the left.The only hope I find for rescuing us from the control of the rich and powerful corporations that run this nation is the candidacy of Nader and the growth of the Green Party. I intend to cast my ballot for Nader in November simply because John Kerry is just more of the same.
pie?
are you the one censoring posts?
there were 200+ on this thread at 8:30.
now its down to 170 something.
this calls for a...
WTF?
Ardee, let me know how you feel when Ashcroft or his successor has finally repealed the Bill of Rights, with the approval of the Scalia court, of course. But better be very careful how you do it. By that time saying how you feel about it will probably be punishable by death.
You'll probably still be pretending that Kerry would have done the same thing and feeling very pure about it.
self, the little blue numbers are always doing that. It's a feature of the software that doesn't really work. pie is honorable, she wouldn't censor.
Thanks, EPT. And I can't anyway. We don't have the power.
self, after a while, the number starts decreasing. As EPT said, it's a feature of the software. The comments are all still there, however.
some of you are real dickheads. i voted for nader last time but im not this time. i think his run this time is purely selfserving and not productive and not constructive. but i swear reading the idiotic things said about nader and his followers makes me want to switch. i hope it's just paid trolls saying that because i don't want to be on your team.
some of you are real dickheads. i voted for nader last time but im not this time. i think his run this time is purely selfserving and not productive and not constructive. but i swear reading the idiotic things said about nader and his followers makes me want to switch. i hope it's just paid trolls saying that because i don't want to be on your team.
the vitriolic attacks on naderites aren't going to help your cause. it might make you feel better for a moment but it's not going to sway anybody.
http://www.thenaderfactor.com/
me, read all the posts and try to understand the points they make, instead of choosing only the few that feed your outrage.
ETP and pie,
thanks for the response, guess i can buy that. The way the shit flies in this place, i just had to ask.
My WTF is hereby withdrawn.
Self - Sorry about the tardiness of this reply. I have been out enjoying a pleasnt Michigan evening. Regarding your question as to whether or not it is personal with Nader. I rather doubt it. Oh there are some who really view him as a saint and others who believe he has morphed into the second coming of Lucifer.
Like all powerful people ( And he is powerful - he has been extremely influential over the years)he most likely has the ego the size of the Great Lakes. So do Kerry, Edwards, Dean and the rest. These are highly succesful men who are surrounded by folks who agree with them. It could hardly be any other way. Power corrupts.
Now if Nader were to drop out and throw his support to Kerry, with the caveat that Kerry adopt a more progressive stance on some issues, not only would most of those chastizing him here sing his praises, but many would be recommending a cabinet level position. Moreover he would also win plaudits for forcing Kerry to listen to his base.
People here are extremely fearful of another Bush victory. I share that fear. During his first term, the Bush administration has set precedents that are so harmful to the Constitution and international law, that it could take decades to undo the damage. A second term could be even more disastrous.
So in a rather wordy reply, the candidacy of a more appealing Green candidate than Nader would most likely spark even more vitriol than what you see here, because a more plausable candidate would draw even more votes away from Kerry and increase the liklihood of a second and even more dangerous Bush term.
Unfortunately, when they ratchet up the rhetoric, the good folks here don't understand that they driving away people who could be convinced to their side. What they need to do is to stop the nonsensical blaming of Nader for the 2000 election debacle, admit that the Democrats were the primary blame for the loss, analyse what the Dems did wrong, and act to prevent the Dems from making the same mistakes once again.
Ardee - So you find no posts critical of Nader at his website? How amazing! Why, every week when I log onto the Bush/Cheney website, I find that the webmaster has posted all of the information about the current status of the scandals the candidates are embroiled in. If there's nothing bad about Nader at his own website, well then, that proves that the man is the second coming of Christ.
/sarcasm off/
Seriously, you can't be this big of a tool, can you? Toddle on over to Salon and read "The Dark Side of Ralph Nader" about how he's screwed people who served him faithfully for decades, and how he torpedoed various causes he claimed to support when he didn't get his way or someone else might get the credit.
If anyone's still reading this thread I just read the Salon article about the debate and this quote jumped out at me:
""I wasn't aware he was a corporate criminal," Nader said in defense of Egan. "He's an American citizen. He might be a Republican, but he just happens to believe in civil liberties, maybe. I don't even know the man. But Republicans are human beings, too." At this, Nader's supporters applauded vigorously, a moment that crystallized how unmoored from principle the consumer advocate's movement has become."
I think that basically says it all. So Republican's are people too, but not Democrats? Come on! If the Republican's are backing Nader, that just logically screams out against him running! The Republican's represent EVERYTHING bad about corporate greed that Nader supposedly stands against.
I agree that Republican's (for the most part) are human beings, and really with most of the issues that Green's and Progressive's care about.
However, as Dean said during the debates:
"My argument simply is, When the house is on fire, it's not the time to fix the furniture."
Look, I don't particularly like Kerry much either. I for one, and there are many others on these boards, am not just going back to life as usual after Kerry wins. I plan to keep up on what's going on and help to organize and keep the pressure on POLITICIANS.
Yes our system (the furniture) is broken and needs to be fixed. Yes there should be a viable 3rd party (at least). But you give (House Fire) Bu$h 4 more years and there's not going to be any chance of fixing the system short of armed resistance.
Vote your conscience if you must, I will be voting mine. I'm voting for Kerry because my conscience (and logic) tells me that Bush is an EVIL man who has already done great harm to our Nation, and will do far worse if given the opportunity.
One more thing, voting is not therapy (Kudo's to whoever on these boards came up with that), it's a civic duty.
If you really care about making a difference in your vote and changing the system, vote for Kerry this time. I guarantee you that you'll have my help if and when the time comes to hold his feet to the fire. And I will be one of the voices shouting for a 3rd party and substantial changes to our political process.
Cheers 
I would've said, again: Kucinich's nomination would have rendered the Nader factor completely obsolete. But after listening to the debate, it seems that no longer applies either. Nader only seems to want "an alternative voice" just for the sake of an alternative voice. Despite his constant mouthing of progressive values, he doesn't give a flying fuck about them. Never once does he mention that an anti-corporate voice could reside WITHIN the Democratic Party, despite the fact that his opponent is a prime (well, maybe not PRIME, but better than Kerry or Edwards) example of such.
The Left DOES need its own voice. And it WON'T be Mr. Nader.
Does Nader have any executive experience? I mean, the guy convinced me I would never ever want a Corvair, but do you think he could convince a Republican congress to compromise on anything? For all you folks who want to ¨¨send a message¨, remember, our current president has been all about sending messages.
Assamite, they used to joke that Dorothy Day was in favor of anarchism as long as she was the anarch. The difference between her and Nader is that Day used to laugh along with everyone else.
Just like Zaphod B., if there is anything bigger than Nader's ego around he wants it caught and killed.
It is unfortunate that this offends you but I take a threat to the liberty of everyone in the country rather seriously and, less importantly, rather personally.
I'm not going to pretend that I respect people who are so willfully blind and irresponsible.
EPT
second try:It is unfortunate that this offends you but I take a threat to the liberty of everyone in the country rather seriously and, less importantly, rather personally.
I'm not going to pretend that I respect people who are so willfully blind and irresponsible.- EPT
Wow, sorry for interfering with your world EPT, no doubt your lack of respect alone will shame everyone in to voting Democratic.
The only hope I find for rescuing us from the control of the rich and powerful corporations that run this nation is the candidacy of Nader and the growth of the Green Party.
That is one strategy Ardee but the growth of the Green party does not depend entirely on Nader’s run for president. A case can also be made for more competition within the Democratic party either way, a tactical choice to vote for Kerry does not necessarily represent a validation of everything about the party or a judgment on Nader’s character. Personally, I don’t buy the argument that things have got to get worse before they can get better. That’s a leap of faith I’m not willing to make. I see a vote for Kerry as part of a process not the be all end all.
slats g,
thanks for responding. I think your last graph gets closer to my side of the table. I think we can all sit at this table (ok. ridiculous metaphor alert) and feast on a carcass of bush.
The mainstream Dems need to understand that without Nader, who undeniably is at his ethical nadir, they really don't have a voice. Note, voice not vote. They can obviously roll over and do the smart thing here but not without getting that dirty feeling inside regarding the corporate influence in the Dem party.
I think Edwards helps on this point and that is probably what motivated Nader's clumsy endorsement. Without a doubt that 3-4 % (more like 6%, but whatever) is not going to incorporate itself into the present party platform.
This is where you come in. As long as left of center Dems can convince their centrist friends that greens are not to be feared or ridiculed, progressive leaning Dems like myself can sacrifice principle for effective voting strategies.
Now let's kick some ass on the media and the fat lady starts singing.
ok I'll vote for Kerry but don't think you're winning my heart and mind. I'm sick and tired of the political machinations.
It's so damned cynical on both sides and everyone on these boards is just in a little competition to see how clever their little insights can be as if they mattered.
At the end of the day we're just competing for economic power so we can go buy more stupid stuff. These last four years have only shown me that the dems whined about a leadership vaccuum and the republicans called the dems stupid names and gloated with their milkshakes.
As if it were a big, stupid game.
The dems I'll vote for because they actually questioned themselves. A little. They're the ones that educated themselves and tried to make the best of things. The reps just spouted toxic rhetoric and killed people.
But this country is so far from learning to truly question itself, I really don't have that much faith.
Eat rice for a week and turn off the television please? I'll vote but I'd appreciate it if more people got off of their self-indulgent rockers.
And please stop spouting stuff that you read somewhere else as your own opinion. Most of you are out of college by now. We know you can do the thesis and we know you're smart. Give me real insight--I need it. Not some copy/paste crap.
Nader at least USED TO BE a great man. Can we all agree on that? Also, I think it's reaching to say the Dems voted for PATRIOT and the Iraq war because they "believe in civil debate, etc., and they naively believed the Repugs would never lie about such matters." They voted for that stuff because they were afraid. Afraid to rock the boat. Afraid to speak up. Afraid to have Rush say mean things about them. The Dems' philosophy of "Go along to get along" is weak! Still, I won't be voting for Nader again. (Twice is enough.)
Dear Eustus,
Why are you feeling so abusive and angry toward the folks who post here? It seems like a pretty interesting civic-minded debate to me. Like the sort that's supposed to happen in a functioning democracy. Peace to you, friend!
Jennifer,
I realise that reading comprehension is a lost skill due to the decline of our public education systems (making McDonald workers rather than physicists and such)but you should rein in your vituperative nonsense until you at least read what was posted, think it over and make an accurate assessment of the content.You post ( in bloody ignorance, sorry):
Ardee - So you find no posts critical of Nader at his website? How amazing! Why, every week when I log onto the Bush/Cheney website, I find that the webmaster has posted all of the information about the current status of the scandals the candidates are embroiled in. If there's nothing bad about Nader at his own website, well then, that proves that the man is the second coming of Christ.
In this universe, Jennifer, what I posted was:
"I read what Nader has to say at least monthly, at votenader.org , and I find nothing there to brand him a tool of the GOP or a spoiler or any of the nonesensical and childish accusations hurled by the foolish, the naive or those unwilling or unable to self criticise their own party and must seek scapegoats to blame for the failures of their own party.The charges of his accepting republican monies is just a bunch of bullshit, quite frankly, and his every word condemns Bush, his every action denies that stupid insult.He is angry at the betrayal of us all by your sellout Democrats and so am I."
I understand that you are a kneejerk democrat, blindly defending your party and refusing the evidence of its betrayal of you and those who are not neoconservative democrats. But the least one can ask is that you either read and understand or get someone to explain what is written prior to blindly lashing out and making yourself look foolish. Perhaps you might actually click on votenader.org and educate yourself to the fact that Ralph Nader speaks the way the Democratic Party of old USED TO speak.
I, for one , note with sadness the numbers of people alienated by this system, the 50% or so who never bother to cast a ballot ,perhaps because they see your cherished Party as traitorous and useless.They vote for every Bush agenda with such relish and Kerry's campaign is one of me-tooism after so-would-I have done. It is with the salvation of the democracy in mind that I refuse to participate in this corrupt system any longer. I realise that third party politics will be a while in the building but I accept that challenge and look forward to the time when the emerging third party re-energises the disenfranchised 50%.Until that time I reject your meanspiritedness and your mangling of the facts,perhaps in support of the neocon DLC, perhaps in blind loyalty to what once was but is no longer.
Ralph's Fault?
Was Ralph Nader (or the 3,072,000 people who voted for him) responsible for Gore's poor showing at the polls? Many of Gore's supporters have said so. Many of them continue to blame Nader for every ill the country is now suffering and inflicting.
Initially, you might think they are right (never mind that Gore in fact got 540,000 more votes than Bush did nationwide, that his support in polls was declining though Nader's was not rising, that there were "spoiler" candidates on the right as well, that tens of millions of registered Democrats didn't even vote, that Florida illegally threw 70,000 people, mostly African-Americans, off the voting rolls, that ballots were so confusingly designed that Pat Buchanan won in Jewish districts, that the counting of votes in Florida was stopped by the Supreme Court, or . . . ). For example, a majority of Florida's 97,000 votes for Nader might have gone to Gore who then might have won that state's electoral votes and the presidency. Had just 600 Nader voters (or voters for Browne, Buchanan, McReynolds, Hagelin, Phillips, Moorehead, or Harris -- or Bush) voted instead for Gore, it might have overridden the rampant corruption of the vote in Florida, making up for Gore's loss of his and Clinton's home states and Democratic stronghold West Virginia.
Democrats who voted for Bush ought to be considered here, too. According to exit polls (no longer available at CNN.com), 13% of Florida Democrats voted for Bush -- that's more than 150,000 -- while only 8% of Republicans voted for Gore. Almost equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans voted for Nader.
In other states where Nader votes appear to have had a negative impact on Gore's numbers, exit polls show that 3 to 12 times as many Democrats voted for Bush as for Nader. In New Mexico, like Florida a late-called race, 16% of Democrats voted for Bush.
Only in Oregon can it be claimed that Nader adversely affected Gore's showing. There, only 10% of Democrats voted for Bush, not so much greater than the 6% of Republicans who voted for Gore. And Nader got, respectively, 3% and 1% of their votes.
Oregon is home to many committed activists against global capitalism, dams, old-growth logging, and other issues that Gore either defended or ignored. Some of them might have supported Democrats in the past, but Al Gore's party is far away from them on too many issues to claim any right to their votes. This was clinched by selecting the sanctimonious right-winger Joe Lieberman as running mate. [2003: Lieberman is now one of the Senate's most fervent supporters of George Bush and the invasion of Iraq.]
Gore won Oregon anyway. In the 11 other states that gave Nader 5% or more of their votes, only 2, like Oregon, were close between Bush and Gore -- Maine and Minnesota -- and Gore apparently won those states, too.
Gore won in Washington, even though 6% of Democrats voted for Nader. He also won in Minnesota despite 13% of Democra
Ardee - perhaps you're the one with poor reading comprehension skills. Otherwise, you'd realize, as illustrated in my several posts to this thread, that my issue is with Nader himself, not with third party members or third parties.
There's ample evidence that Nader's only concern at this point in the game is in feeding his own ego, since he no longer has the excuse of even trying to gain enough of the vote to get federal funding for the Greens. His reaction to the Green Party, after it dared to withhold its nomination from him is quite instructive. All the evidence is out there for anyone to see; only those who are convinced that Nader is not of this world refuse to see it.
It's a pity the way Ralph abuses the idealism of people who geniunely want to see a third party grow and thrive, because in my experience, these people are very idealistic, though some fail to balance that by being realistic as well - but in any case, that's their right as citizens. As I said, it's a pity the way Ralph abuses their trust, though to the people who have known him the longest, it's no big surprise. Screwing the folks who support him has been his M.O. for at least the past 25 years.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
