Worried Democrats work hard to keep Nader off the ballot

[CShine]

Democratic party activists and officials are campaigning to stop the independent candidate Ralph Nader's name appearing on the ballot, because they believe it could threaten their effort to defeat George Bush. They are using every possible legal means to deny voters the chance of voting for Mr Nader, including advising Democrats not to sign his petitions to get on the ballot, challenging the signatures he does get, and showing ads attacking his candidacy. Mr Nader is running as an anti-war and anti-corporate candidate.

A recent email from a Texas Democratic party official to members, obtained by the Guardian, was headed Keep Nader off the Texas Ballot and continued: "We need to make sure he is nowhere near a ballot in Texas."

Other pressure groups attacking Mr Nader have grown out of the primary campaigns supporting Wesley Clark and Howard Dean.

Michael Frisby, communications director of the Stop Nader Campaign, said: "The point is not just to keep him from getting on the ballot but to make him spend money and time in all of these places so he has less money and time to spend getting votes."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1228613,00.html

[notbush]

1. I'm no Nader supporter

But.....I am a fan of democracy. Democrats would be better off spending our time and money convincing voters "why they should support our candidate" instead of keeping "a competitor" off the ballot.

[Nlighten1]

5. Exactly.

[No Passaran]

6. Totally agree

We shouldn't try and keep anyone's name off the ballot no matter how much it could hurt us in the end.

I don't believe in actions like this. This is something GOP would do.

[struggle4progress]

11. Absolutely. And it's a waste of time and energy. SMUSH BUSH!

[Voltaire99]

17. Shameful and desperate

As any power broker traditionally does when discussing his price to bow out of a race, Nader will have told his to Kerry at their recent meeting. No doubt he wants Kerry to abandon certain right wing positions and embrace progressive solutions.

Instead, party apparatchiks would rather cram Kerry's untenable positions down the throat of scared voters while trying to keep Nader off the ballot.

That's not democracy, it's electoral terrorism.

[RapidCreek]

24. This is why I am no longer a registered Democrat.

To bad they aren't so industrious worming themselves of the parasitic Third Party infestation called the DLC. That little group has done the Democratic party more damage than Ralph Nader ever has or ever will.

RC

[Triana]

42. I agree - the DLC is a cancer upon the party...

...and is a larger lesion than Nader (though I have no use for him, either...)

[dolstein]

51. Sorry, but Nader is the cancer, not the DLC

Last time I checked, Nader was the one trying to keep a Democrat out of the White House.

[Just Me]

53. Sorry, BUT,...this is the most silly "obsession" I've ever witnessed. n/t

[chimpy the poopthrower]

58. when Nader stops running against Dems..

...we will stop "obsessing" about him - if that's what you want to call fighting back against an opposition candidate.

[Just Me]

62. Sorry, BUT,...this is the most silly "obsession" I've ever witnessed. n/t

[RapidCreek]

64. Nader isn't running against a Dem....there isn't a Dem running

Those in the DLC are not Democrats.

RC

[RapidCreek]

65. No he isn't...maybe you better check again.

There isn't a Democrat running....DLC candidates are not Democrats...nor do they claim to be. They are a third party, they are the "new democrats". Real Democrats owe them no allegiance...no more so than any other third party candidate.

RC

[RapidCreek]

69. Nader is a seperate entity...he doesn't hide in the tisseu of

the Democratic Party, stealing it's sustanance, it's health and it's identity. That's what a parasite does Dohlstien. That's what a cancer does. That's what the DLC does. If you remove a tumor...or a tapeworm from it's host...it will wither and die...just as the DLC would if it were excised from it's host, the Democratic Party.

RC

[minkyboodle]

52. agreed

I wish they had concentrated this hard on the FL 2000 debacle instead of telling us to get over it etc... Actions like this one only reinforce Nader IMO.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

57. insisting that Nader obey the law reinforces him?

or treating Nader as the opposition candidate that he is reinforces him?

[Claire Beth]

56. yup, you're right! n/t

[leesa]

2. I doubt this is much of a worry.

[DieboldMustDie]

3. Why would anyone care if he's on the ballot in Texas?

Just keep him away from the swing states. :eyes:

[jpgray]

4. So long as it's legal, I don't see a problem

These folks could perhaps better spend their time working to convince people to vote for Kerry--but doing something negative is always easier than doing something positive.

[dansolo]

7. Just because it is legal

Doesn't mean it is smart. Heck, there was nothing illegal about getting a blowjob in the Oval Office, and look what that got us.

[jpgray]

8. People use the same argument to say Nader shouldn't run:

'Sure he CAN do it, but why in the hell SHOULD he?!' Nader has a right to run, and other folks have a right to do what they can within the law to limit his candidacy. Whether either 'should' be doing what they are doing is open to debate. I personally have no problem with Nader running, but the above actions are not something I would endorse or be a part of.

[Beatrix]

54. So you don't have a problem

with repub challengers at the polls? Or do you only take issue with dirty political terrorism if it isn't to your benefit?

[SOS]

63. If McCain ran

on a third party ticket this November, the Bush political machine would do everything they could to keep him off the ballot in every state.

[JayS]

9. If we are worried about what Nader does or doesn't do...

...then we really should be worried.

[AndyTiedye]

10. Yes We Really Should be Worried

Because Nader on the ballot means Bush* only has to get within 20 points
to steal the election, if that.

Nader is correct that he did not cause Gore to lose the election.
Gore did not lose the election. The election was stolen from him,
and Nader made that possible. He is doing the same again this year.

Our chances would be much better if we could keep Nader off the ballot.
That is, unfortunately, impossible in most states, so we should not
take the heat from trying unless it is a swing state and we are sure
we will prevail.

We need to focus our efforts on creating the biggest landslide ever.
We will need it.

[JayS]

12. If we cannot trounce a mental midget like Bush, Nader or...

...no Nader, then we really need to figure out what we are doing wrong.

[KG]

19. nail, meet hammer.

[Nlighten1]

38. No no no...

Never mind that my friend! It is far easier to find a scapegoat than to be introspective and see why the hell it is people won't vote for us. Or even to try and understand why on earth anyone would want to vote for Nader. Screw thinking for ourselves, irrational hatred is so much more fun!

[AndyTiedye]

46. We Already Know

> If we cannot trounce a mental midget like Bush, Nader or no Nader,
> then we really need to figure out what we are doing wrong.

But we already know.
We have allowed our media to be virtually all owned and controlled by the other party.
We have also allowed that party to obtain control of a significant
number of voting machines, and by extension, the votes cast on them.

I don't know how we could have prevented either of these things from happening
due to the secrecy involved in such transactions.

We are fighting the introduction of the Diebold Republican Electing
machinez, of course, and have had some successes lately, but Diebold
will still be counting a great many votes in this election. Even
optical-scan machines are not safe if the law limits recounts to
"close" elections or prohibits recounting by hand (as it does in
some jurisdictions).

Such a situation greatly increases the amount of damage a Nader candidacy does to us.

Bush*'s own mental capacity doesn't even enter into the equation.

[Beatrix]

59. With all due respect Andy

"We have also allowed that party to obtain control of a significant
number of voting machines, and by extension, the votes cast on them"

The vote conspiracy people need to get with the program and realize everytime we lose an election it just MAYBE may NOT be due to a rigged election. Believe it or not, sometimes the other candidate wins.

If we lose this next election I sure as hell hope the vote conspiracy people are not sitting on their asses crying about rigged elections. If we lose it's because we didn't get out the vote. And if we didn't get out the vote it means WE screwed up - not that the vote was rigged.

For example - if Nader costs us a state it won't be because the vote was rigged. It will be because of actually giving people a REASON TO VOTE FOR KERRY INSTEAD people were too busy trying to get him off the ballot instead.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

60. Maybe the Dems could do more...

...with respect to GOTV and verified voting if they didn't have to fight a war on two fronts -- fighting Bush and Nader at the same time. There are only so many resources to go around, and whatever the Dems have to spend to defend against Nader's attacks is less they have to spend elsewhere.

[Beatrix]

67. I don't think you understand

Giving someone a reason to vote for you and defending are two VERY different things.

You don't have to fight Nader. Simply adopt a more progressive platform and he will quickly become irrelevant. Why? You have just given all of his potential voters a reason to vote for you.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

75. Dems could just as easily go in the other direction.

When Dems move to the center to capture moderate voters, they're accused of selling out. But you want them to move to the left to supposedly capture those who would otherwise vote for Nader. Why is one better than the other? Just because you say so?

Did being far to the left keep Nader and the Greens from going against Wellstone? No. Has any Dem candidate ever been pure enough for the Nader supporters? I voted for Kucinich in my primary. I would have loved for him to be the nominee but that's not going to happen. He had a chance just like Dean, Clark, Sharpton, and the rest. But most Democrats voted for Kerry. I accept that, and when Kerry gets the nomination, he'll have my support and my vote in November, even though I don't consider him to be an ideal candidate.

The problem with Nader supporters is that they don't appreciate democracy, for all their talk of being more progressive and left-leaning than the rest of us. Their candidate could never win a Democratic primary, and since they can't have their way on every single thing they want, they've decided to leave the Party. Fine. But don't expect any special treatment. You can't have it both ways. You can't attack Democrats and expect Democrats not to fight back just as hard as we would against Republicans.

Nader reminds me of the character Curly from "Of Mice and Men"? Remember him? George described him as a little guy who was always picking fights, but if a bigger guy beat him up, he'd act like the bigger guy was a bully for picking on a smaller fellow. I'll say it agin: if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Democrats haven't done a single thing wrong here. I'm glad someone is making sure the rules are followed and that the democratic process isn't trashed any more than it already has been.

[Beatrix]

79. Oh christ

"Why is one better than the other? "

Please tell me this is a joke?

In case you haven't noticed republicans are the rightward party while democrats are the more leftward party.

People who vote republican WANT the republican positions. (some of them vote repub and they would even prefer are greater right party)

People who vote democratic want LESS right leaning positions. (otherwise they would be voting republican)

When the democratic party moves right in an attempt to capture right wing votes it does so under the assumption that republicans will go for the imitation over the real deal. This doesn't work out logically. Why do that?

Let's put it in our perspective.

Let's pretend today Bush and the republican party as a whole came out in full support of abortion. Further, let's pretend they also came out supporting higher minimum wage, civil unions, and repeal of the patriot act. Well hells bells that's a major policy change for them! They've just moved left to a degree.

Now - REALISTICALLY - are you going to vote republican instead of democratic now? I sure as hell know I'm not even though those positions are desirable to me. So what have they just accomplished? They have almost certainly royally pissed off the base. The christian nut jobs are not going to be happy with civil unions and abortion. The rich are not going to be happy with higher minimum wage.

So what did they get in the end? They didn't get any sizeable amount of democratic votes. I'm sure they got SOME, but did they get enough to compensate for the loss of votes they suffered from pissing off the rightward elements of their party? Not bloody likely.

The same thing is true on the flip side. It's empirically apparent that going to the right is NOT giving us enough votes to floor the repubs. This is obvious from the slaughter in 2002 and the loss in 2000. We should have done better when our guy was running against a near illiterate moron with a disgraceful history a mile long. Instead, we got screwed (as some would say) by Nader.

If we could bring in the green vote we should be able to win various key states easily. More than likely we will NOT be pushing the base to vote republican as a result. Much of the green platform (no, not all of it) is palatable to most democrats.

Anyway - this is why it's better to move left rather than right.

[RapidCreek]

68. Instead of playing Republican Games...why doesn't the

Democratic Party fight Nader in the political forum? In other words...If Nader's positions on the issues are wrong..why doesn't the Democratic Party tell us what is wrong with them? The Democrats DON'T defend against Nader's attacks. They attempt instead to derail his campaign. This is chickenshit and disingenuous. What are they afraid of? Why not lay their cards on the table, grow a set of balls and debate the man? What is it that causes them to be so clearly frightened of addressing him on a level playing field, face to face, in front of the voting public?

RC

[chimpy the poopthrower]

73. I believe Nader is the one playing Republican games...

...since he is the one going to court to get around the law. Dems didn't make Nader miss any deadlines and Dems didn't prevent Nader from getting as many legal signatures as he could get. Nader can't win fair and square so, just like Bush, he is hoping the courts will let him break the rules. If that isn't subverting democracy, I don't know what is.

[Beatrix]

74. You NEVER go to court to get around the law

That's not how it works buddy.

You go to court to have the court decide if 1. The law is being applied the way it is written or 2. To decide if a law is constitutional. (or in compliance with higher law i.e. state vs federal)

Nader is going to court to have the court decide if UNDER LAW it is appropriate for him to be denied a space on the ballot. The court will decide this. This is not "getting around the law". If he was "getting around the law" he'd go (for example) personally put his name on the ballot regardless of what a statue or court said to the contrary.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

76. Bush did.

Bush v. Gore had nothing to do with the law. Five Supreme Court judges ignored the law so that they could get their own guy in. The Republican Party loves Nader and I could easily see them doing the same thing for him. But if there's nothing wrong with Nader going to court (and I agree that under normal circumstances there is nothing wrong with going to court -- it's just that Bush v Gore has kind of soured me on how far we can trust courts to do the right thing), than there is also nothing wrong with Democrats doing what they can to oppose Nader in court, is there?

[Beatrix]

80. And of course you point to the exception

rather than the rule. I wouldn't be surprised if I said the sky was blue and you came back saying "well you know the northern lights..."

[chimpy the poopthrower]

83. But a pretty significant exception, don't you think?

That "exception" changed the course of history. Because of that "exception", billions of dollars and, much more importantly, thousands of lives have been lost. Our Constitution has been trampled. Our moral standing in the world has plummeted. The environment is still endangered. And the divide between the haves and have-nots has grown considerably. So I no longer have much faith in the legal system to do the right thing when it comes to electoral matters.

However, if an unbiased judge can be found who actually will adhere to the law, I have no problem with Nader taking his case to the courts. Just as I have no problem with Democrats having a legal team to fight Nader's team and present their own side. I just wonder why the Nader supporters here have a double standard where the Democrats are using "Republican" tactics simply by having their own legal team to oppose Nader's.

Political campaigns are not fought solely through public debates and anyone who thinks they are is incredibly naive. Nader himself seems to understand this. He's not the idealogue his supporters here seem to think he is. Nader supporters like to say that Nader beats Kerry on the issues. So what? I beat Kerry on the issues, if by "beating" we mean being more idealogically pure in terms of left-wing principles. That's because talk is cheap. Nader can say anything he wants because he is not a serious candidate and has nothing to lose. Kerry is actually trying to win. And the more Nader siphons off votes from the left, the more Kerry has to move to the center to make up the difference. The claim that Kerry could move to the left and win back those voters from Nader is nonsense. Even Paul Wellstone wasn't "pure" enough for Nader's crowd to back off.

Nader supporters like to pretend that Nader is at a disadvantage because our political system makes it so much harder for third-party candidates. But I could just as easily argue that the system gives Nader an advantage. Think about it. Nader actually captured a very tiny percentage of the vote last time. Yet he was able to have a large effect on the outcome of the election. That is because of this country's screwy Electoral College system (combined with the fact that we don't use IRV - Instant Runoff Voting) which Democrats have been opposed to since long before Nader was in the picture. If Nader has such a problem with the way our system is set up, why doesn't he focus on helping us change it instead of taking advantage of it to tip the election to Bush?

[RapidCreek]

25. Nader Made it possible?

I'd say the 300,000 Florida Democrats who voted for Bush made it possible.

Then again blaming those who react to your short comings is much easier than addressing the short comings, themselves. In this case, The Democrats failure to worm itself of a parasitic third party infection called the DLC.

RC

[AndyTiedye]

34. Boll Weevils Are Endemic to the Area

There is a boll weevil problem in Florida. Always has been.
It comes with the climate I guess. We have to factor in a large number
of DINOs down there. If you press them at all they'll switch parties
and we lose even more seats.

The Democratic Party can do nothing about its boll weevil problem
without moving even further to the right, which you as a Nader supporter
wouldn't like, and neither would I. We have to win without them, and
Nader made that impossible in 2000.

Nader provided the usurpers margin of victory in New Hampshire as well as Florida in 2000.
It's 2004 and here he comes again.

[RapidCreek]

50. I reject your premise

We don't have to factor in a large number of DINO's. Never had to and don't need to now. Pressing them has nothing to do with anything...if they're going to vote Republican then let them....they do anyway....as is evidenced by the 300,000 or so in Florida who put Bush in office. Let's consider the math. 90,000 Florida Democrats voted for a man who represents Democratic principles because of a DLC infestation. 300,000 Florida Democrats voted for Bush in spite of the very pervasive DLC stink. How is moving to the right a cure? If you must hand your party over to the enemy to win...what have you won? You have won a VINO. You can keep your DINO's and your VINO's. I personally, would prefer that my party distinguish itself from one which is evil even if doing so causes their loss. The house of cards that those with evil motives build, ultimately falls. It falls not only on the builders but the public that they have convinced to habitate it. When it falls, those of the voting public crushed in the wreckage will resent the politicians who built it and convinced them to step inside. I would prefer that my party be clearly distinguished from those who have earned the publics resentment.

Lastly, I am not a Nader supporter. Nor am I a Nader detractor. I voted for Gore. Gore won the election...but Bush was selected as president....and the DLC made it quite clear that, that was ok with them. After all...the Bush ideology is not distinguishable from their own. Six and one half dozen of the other....it's all the same in the end...."get over it...it's time to move on".

RC

[chimpy the poopthrower]

55. I think you missed the point.

It's silly to point out a large number of Democrats voting for Bush as some sort of failing of Gore's. You will always have large numbers of Dems voting GOP and vice versa, because people in the U.S. in modern times don't display the same kind of party loyalty as voters in many other countries. Party affiliation is essentially meaningless for a great many Americans even though they may be registered as one or the other. Gore still won Florida - or would have if the votes had been counted fairly. But let's look at some other states. Wisconsin, for example, went to Bush. But the margin of victory was much smaller than the number of votes that went to Nader. It's not farfetched to assume that if Nader hadn't been in the race, Gore would have won Wisconsin and made Florida irrelevant. A few other states had similar patterns. Nader had an effect on the election; that is undeniable. If Nader truly believes there are no differences between Gore and Bush, why does he try so hard to spread the lie that he had no effect? Why not just say it doesn't matter that Bush won because Gore would have been as bad as Bush? He doesn't have the guts to spout such an obvious lie anymore because anyone would laugh in his face now to think that there are no meaningful differences between the two.

Nader has every right to run as a third-party candidate, as long as he follows the law. And in running as a third-party candidate, he owes the Democratic Party no special treatment. And neither do they owe him any. But he sure sounds like he expects it, doesn't he?

[He loved Big Brother]

70. Really?

"Nader has every right to run as a third-party candidate, as long as he follows the law. And in running as a third-party candidate, he owes the Democratic Party no special treatment. And neither do they owe him any. But he sure sounds like he expects it, doesn't he?"

You're absolutely right, except the Democrats as well sure do sound like they have this huge sense of entitlement to votes they might not have earned, don't they?

[AndyTiedye]

72. I Wasn't Advocating Moving to the Right, But it's likely to happen

We don't have to factor in a large number of DINO's. Never had to and don't need to now. Pressing them has nothing to do with anything...if they're going to vote Republican then let them....they do anyway....as is evidenced by the 300,000 or so in Florida who put Bush in office. Let's consider the math. 90,000 Florida Democrats voted for a man who represents Democratic principles because of a DLC infestation. 300,000 Florida Democrats voted for Bush in spite of the very pervasive DLC stink.

> How is moving to the right a cure?

because the Bible Belt is very conservative. We would have to sell out everything we
stand for to get those 300,000 DINO votes.

I am agreeing with you that we don't want to go there:

>>The Democratic Party can do nothing about its boll weevil problem
>>without moving even further to the right, which you as a Nader supporter
>>wouldn't like, and neither would I

so we need more votes from the progressive wing.

>> We have to win without them, and
>> Nader made that impossible in 2000

In 2000, they voted for Nader.
We got squeezed and it became Bush*'s election to steal.

Nader seems to be forcing Kerry to the right in search of DINO votes,
by closing off the possibility of many progressive votes.
I hope that this process does not continue.

[RapidCreek]

78. I disagree...

Nader isn't forcing Kerry to do anything that Kerry isn't choosing to do. If Kerry sought to appeal to the Democratic Base...with the same vigor Nader does...Nader wouldn't be running....and wouldn't be an isseu. He is not, though, hence Naders appeal to certain disenchanted Democracts.

RC

[AndyTiedye]

81. Nader Has Already Said He's In the Race No Matter What Kerry Does

so Kerry has had to give up on the progressive voters and make an extremely high-risk play for conservative Southern Democrats.
He has been forced to spend large amounts of money in states like Virginia which he has little chance of winning.
It's a long shot, but he took it shortly after negotiations with Nader failed.
If Nader had stepped aside, Kerry could have pursued a more progressive strategy,
and one far more likely to get him elected.

If Nader is in the race he splits Kerry's base no matter what Kerry does.
That is nearly always fatal to a candidacy.

[Doosh]

13. let him waste his time getting on the ballot in Texas

if you put a roadblock up there, he'll just put more time and effort into swing states

[Aidoneus]

14. You know..

First, I'll say that I'm not a supporter of Nader:--that is not where I come from on this subject. All the same, all bets are off after this November. If you guys beat Bush, great, if you don't, bad.. but either way:--fuck you. There is a very disgusting tendency flying from "two directions", as it were. It is not just this, though the "Two Minutes' Hate" sessions that the subject inevitably triggers is strong as an 'indicator'.

[depakid]

15. If Democrats fought this hard against Republicans...

maybe the country wouldn't be in quite as sorry shape as its in-

[notbush]

16. Thtat's where the energy should be going!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[LumitraC]

26. if nader hadnt run

this country WOULDNT be in the sorry shape it is in.

vote for nader, make sure you get ZERO progressive initiatives rolling.

[Nlighten1]

39. True but not true...

Did Nader cost Gore the election. Sure, if you isolate the problem down to the vote count. But that is looking at one very small part of the larger problem. Gore shares some of the blame himself and so do the Democrats. But why talk about those problems huh? So much easier to make Nader the scapegoat for ALL the problems in America.

[AndyTiedye]

47. What Goes On In Here Isn't Fighting...

...it is trying to persuade people who should be our friends to help us in our hour of need.

I don't hate Nader. I understand why he wants to destroy the Democratic Party,
but I really don't think that would be a good idea right now.
We have to take on the Republicans first.

Arianna Huffington had it right:

"You don't start remodelling when your house is on fire. Put the fire out first!"

[OKNancy]

18. It's called Hardball

The Republicans use every dirty trick in the book and are determined and organized. The Democrats have been accused of being weak and ineffectual. Well, now the Democrats are fighting back. Sorry, but if we want to win this thing, we have to do whatever legal method is available to us. I didn't see a lot of "Democracy" in Florida and the Supreme Court in 2000.

In fact, I bet the Republicans doing their dirty work already by helping Nader get on the ballots. Who needs BBV when they have Nader to steal votes.

[He loved Big Brother]

20. If somebody casts a vote for Nader

he didn't steal it. What an insulting term to use. Maybe earn is a more realistic term? :mad: Nice to see democracy-haters in full-swing.

[OKNancy]

22. I'm insulting Republicans

Republicans are using Nader. Hey, if Nader has earned your vote, go for it. I'm sure he will make such a fantastic President....he works so well with others.

[He loved Big Brother]

30. I didn't say he earned my vote

I was disgusted with the term "stealing"...if he breaks into my mailbox, fills out my absentee ballot for me in his favor, and mails it off, that's stealing. If I cast a vote for the candidate of my choice, of my own free will, they haven't stolen a damn thing.

[notbush]

21. Ahhhh a true democrat...................not

Think about what you are saying........

[Pachamama]

23. Yep, thinking like a Republican - Just what is needed this election!

I voted for Nader in 2000...he will never get my vote or a $$$ from me ever...I will happily work as hard as I can to make sure Nader has as hard a time as possible getting on ballots and also to make sure I raise money and awareness for Kerry and the Democratic Party. If I and others have to take a few pages out of the Repuke handbook, then you bet I'll do it and I call that democratic.....

:) :kick:

http://www.badbabes.org

http://www.codepinkalert.org

http://www.themmob.com

http://www.1000flowers.org

[notbush]

27. yea, let's keep "those people" from voting for their candidate of choice

That attitude reminds me of something that happened in our history.......when was that?......who did we not want to vote?...."You just get in line and vote the way I tell you"......
BULLSHIT!!! I welcome any and ALL candidates....
I'M A DEMOCRAT.

[LumitraC]

28. good for you, unfortunately

nader assisted chimpy.

im all for naders candidacy. when it doesnt jeopardize the big picture of kerry getting elected.

Voting for nader on principle is foolish..

he has good progressive ideas.

but he doesnt have a chance, unfortunately.

a vote for nader wont get you any of those progressive ideas, so he is the sacrificial lamb here.

not even the green party wants him running, that should tell you something.

[Pachamama]

29. You have a lot of anger....

...and you might try to see what I and others were trying to say regarding Nader...

If we had a true "democracy" with a popular vote and a run-off of the two candidates with the plurality of the votes, I would say the more candidates the merrier...and quite frankly, being that I am a Progressive who has voted for the Green Party and am a friend of Medea Benjamin who ran for Senate here in California, I'm all for other parties. But, I happen to love democracy more than fascism, and I am willing to do what I need to do in order to protect it....

How do you define being a Democrat?

:) :kick:

http://www.badbabes.org

http://www.codepinkalert.org

http://www.themmob.com

http://www.1000flowers.org

[LumitraC]

31. The green party kicked him to the curb, they are fascists?

I love democracy. But nader hasnt done JACK to push for third party candidacy. He just runs when theres elections,.. his own party outcasted him for a reason.. so by proxy you are implying the green party likes fascism.:eyes:

im as progressive as they come, and i think nader needs to earn his seat, lobbying for third party candidacy to those who decide who gets on the ballots.

you saw what happened last time.. this is "tough love" for nader. we all want whats best for the country, you know, the REALITY of it.

voting for him sure as hell isnt going to "protect" democracy.. it will protect georgey.. and he hasnt exactly done wonders keeping democracy afloat.

[Pachamama]

32. Welcome to the DU...

Always nice to see more Freethinkers joining in....

:hi:

Wasn't sure if you were answering me or the other postings...If you were asking me about implying that the green party likes fascism, I was doing none the such.

I can't devulge my identity here on DU, but I can tell you I am a very active progressive in California who has pushed hard all my life for both environmental causes and the Green Party. Medea Benjamin and I are part of a group called "Bad babes and their buddies" and "CodePink". My reference to fascism was ofcourse about Bush and his gang and everyone is free to vote for whom they want. I can however say that nearly 99.9% of the Greens and Progressives that I know here in California and around the country are not going to vote for Nader or anyone else other than Kerry in this election (even if they aren't thrilled with Kerry) because there is no way that this planet can survive with Shrub as the President of the United States.

http://www.badbabes.org

http://www.codepinkalert.org

http://www.themmob.com

http://www.1000flowers.org

[LumitraC]

33. ah, simple misunderstanding then

i mustve misread your reply.. i didnt necissarily think you meant fascism, i was just kind of playing with words to make a point..

either way, to be honest, i would vote for nader in most every other circumstance.. I simply think bush is TOO extreme, that we need to sacrifice a nader to remove this guy. Kerrys got a stellar environmental policy, that exclusively has earned my vote. I really wish nader would just ask kerry for a cabinet position, something EPA related, for example.. i really had a lot of respect when i first saw him announce he was running, but then i kind of digested it all, and noticed he was being intillectually dishonest saying he was helping kerry.

perhaps if the libertarian nutballs carve a chunk of bush, which they may or may not at this point.. Id be more welcome to nader doing his principled thing.

thanks for the welcome, by the way. :toast:

[AndyTiedye]

35. Nader Doesn't Steal the Votes, He Enables the Theft

> Who needs BBV when they have Nader to steal votes.

Nader's role is to make the planned theft of the election plausable.

He doesn't have to know that he is doing so, and may not.

Rove can plant stories about how the left is breaking for Nader
and then program the voting machinez to give those results,
and people would believe it.

Without Nader in the race, Bush* would likely be too far behind on election day.

[He loved Big Brother]

36. I guess I'm not worried enough to spend my energy hating

If Dems are serious about winning, especially by these hoped-for landslides I hear talk of, they're going to have to start planning for third-party candidates, some of whom will be strong, especially with voters who feel ignored, which Dems will also have to plan for.

Each and every election we must factor in a 3rd-party progressive, if nothing more than to err on the side of caution.

Regardless of the legality of it, intimidation and hateful hysteria as attempts of elimination of a candidate positively stink of disenfranchisement, or at least dismissal, of an American voter's right to use the ballot box to show what they think of the system. It's undignified and COWARDLY of liberals to stoop to this...we have to start injecting values, practicing what we preach, and stop ignoring the REAL problems (i.e., the Democrats who voted for Bush in 2000, who far outnumbered the Dems who voted for Nader...young voters who have nobody to energize them and represent their issues...VOTE FRAUD...etc.)

Democrats REALLY need a more appealing strategy besides being "anti-3rd party". In fact, they could do without that strategy whatsoever and still win...probably more-so as America merges left and younger people start voting more.

This anti-Nader stuff is getting old and has sounded like a cop out from the very beginning.

(Remember the Dems who voted for Bush vs those who voted for Nader...and who outnumbered who.)

[LumitraC]

40. not hating, tough love, deal.

we arent "anti third party".. we are "anti bush" and when push comes to shove, nader must be sacrificed.

if you dont like kerry, fine, but we arent "anti third party".. kerrys a hell of a lot better then bush and nader doesnt have a sliver of a chance.

it isnt a copout.. follow the flash, if nader wasnt there, gore would be president, thats how it is.

he wont win, so i dont see how hes helping you, you get ZERO if you vote nader. you get a healthy portion, if you vote for kerry.

you vote nader, you know what happens, you wont have any place to criticize bush after voting for nader, especially when you look at the polling data and realize with your own eyes what naders doing.

[John_H]

43. Man, ya gotta love people who stand firm in the face of facts

Fact: Wittingly or unwittingly, Nader voters enable chimp by denying a vote from the only other candidate that can beat him.

Another fact: What the dems are doing isn't hatred.

Personally, I do hate Nader's guts in the same way I hate all lying, megalomaniacal, cynical hypocrite's guts. But what the dems are doing isn't personal and it shows that they are "planning for third-party candidates, some of whom will be strong." Explaining to someone that signing a Nader ballot petition enables Chimp isn't hatred, it's politics.

It sounds like you're doing the whining here. If Nader can't spend all his GOP money effectively enough to get himself on the ballot despite the Dems telling people the truth, the I guess he doesn't fall into your some-of-whom-will-be-strong category, does he?

[Vladimir]

37. Well nailed

go hard, or go home. I am about the last person who could be accused of being a moderate Democrat, but Nader is doing no-one any favours with his campaign.

When your opponent puts a gun to your head, do you lecture him about the niceties of civil discourse or blow his brains out?

[John_H]

41. Nobody's denying anyone the chance to vote for Fidelity Ralph.

The self-absorbed dim bulbs who plan to enable Chimp can write him in.

[NNN0LHI]

44. Terrible. The Dem's should be helping Ralph put Chimpy back in again

What are those mean old Dem's thinking anyway? Darn them. Don't they realize that 4 more years of our current Crackhead In Chief would be a great thing for all of us?

Don

[chimpy the poopthrower]

45. heaven forbid!

Heaven forbid that Dems should actually fight back against Nader!

Come on, people -- Nader is the Democrats' opponent...as much as Bush is. Nader has declared war on the Democratic Party, so why should Democrats hold back from using any legal means necessary to stop him, just as they would do to defeat Bush or any GOP candidate? Nader is not on the same side as Democrats, and anyone who thinks so is simply not paying attention. Whether or not this is good strategy, I can't say, as I do not consider myself an expert on campaign strategies. But there is certainly nothing unethical or unfair in what the Democrats are doing. They are fighting against an opponent and that is all. Let's look at the facts. They are...

1. Advising Democrats not to sign his petitions to get on the ballot
(What's wrong with that?)

2. Challenging the signatures he does get
(If they're not legal, they should be challenged!)

3. Showing ads attacking his candidacy
(Just as they show ads attacking Bush. It's called campaigning.)

Now who has a problem with this? Who is actually going to say that there is something unethical about any of these strategies? Come on, I dare you.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

48. and another thing...

This is why I have come to despise Nader:

Mr Nader believes that the Democratic party is trying "to block an effort that reminds them of their past as a party".

"Why don't the Democrats go after the 8 million Democrats who voted for George Bush in 2000?" he said recently.

Why does Nader believe he should get some kind of a pass or be exempt from political attack? If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. I'm no fan of Perot, but at least he didn't go around acting like Democrats and Republicans were bullies for daring to campaign against him. Nader has every right to run, but he should not expect any special treatment. Some Democrats voted for Bush just as some Republicans voted for Gore. That's how it has always been and always will be, and for Nader to act as if there's anything unusual in that is just deceptive. The majority of voters in this country are not 100% loyal to one party or the other.

So far by a mixture of poor organisation and a late start Mr Nader has done a fairly good job of keeping himself off the ballot.

In Oregon, where a nominating convention of 1,000 voters would have sufficed to put him in contention, only 741 people showed up.

In Texas he missed the deadline and is now suing the state, claiming that its requirements are unconstitutional.

It sounds to me like Nader himself is reponsible for most of his own problems. That and the fact that a large number of people are unwilling to make the same mistake twice. And how unsurprising that he would run to the courts to try to fix his problems. Bush v. Gore anyone? I'm sure the right-leaning courts in Texas will be happy to make the law go away so that Nader can run there...because they're just so progressive in Texas. They really want to help out the left wing. (sarcasm)

[chimpy the poopthrower]

49. kick

...because I'd rather see people posting on this thread than the one in GD with the misleading title.

[dolstein]

61. Fact: Nader on the ballot costs Kerry votes

There's no denying this. The evidence from 2000 has consistently shown that having Nader on the ballot cost Gore votes. There's no reason to believe that things would be any different in 2004. Even if three-quarters of the Nader votes from 2000 supported Kerry this time around, Nader could still tip the election to Bush. Just look at Florida. Nader received more than 80,000 votes in Florida in 2000. Even if Nader only received 20,000 this time, his total would no doubt include hundreds of votes from people who would have supported Kerry if Nader wasn't on the ballot. Bush's official margin of "victory" in Florida in 2000 was a measly 537 votes.

The fact is, if Nader were truly interested in getting rid of Bush, he wouldn't be running. All this talk about how he'll take more votes away from Bush, and how his candidacy will ultimately benefit Kerry is simply a smokescreen designed to cover up the fact that Nader is an egomaniac who is still nursing a grudge against the Democratic Party. Apparently, elected Bush the first time wasn't enough to satisfy Nader. He's determined to do it all over again.

[He loved Big Brother]

71. Third party candidates are always going to be present!

We need to prepare for them, not whine about them "costing" our guy votes.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

77. That's what Dems are doing.

They are not whining about Nader; they are fighting him the way they would fight any opposition candidate. And people on this thread are criticizing Dems for doing so. Sounds to me like the Nader supporters are the whiners.

[He loved Big Brother]

82. Fact- Bush on the ballot cost Gore 8 million votes

If the Nader quote above is true.

I'd be more worried about them, for numbers sake alone.

[tranche]

66. Sometimes there's too much Democracy

these are the kinds of things that put a bad taste in people's mouths about any party. not that it wouldn't be effective or may in these times be a good idea.. but it sure would be refreshing to see this party talking about the sun rising and not trying to cloud it over..