Nader should apologize, not run again

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0915/p09s01-coop.html

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – Ralph Nader says he's considering another run for the presidency in 2004. But what I'd rather hear from him is an apology for his run in 2000.

As one for whom Mr. Nader's been a hero, I am pained to say so. But I think his 2000 presidential campaign was an immoral act. It brought disaster to the values that he has long purported to serve. Worse still, he must have seen that this was the likely practical outcome of his run.

Nader made George Bush president. Consider Florida, where the election teetered over a few hundred votes. Nader drew 97,000 votes. Nader voters overwhelmingly favored Al Gore over Mr. Bush. Without Nader in the race, Mr. Gore would have won that state - and the presidency - decisively.

Instead, we now have an administration more wedded than any in our lifetime to the big corporate interests that Nader has long fought; an administration more indifferent to environmental concerns than any since environmentalism emerged; an administration perhaps more plutocratic and less populist than any in American history.

more

[Q]

1. Ask the Bushies to 'apologize' first...

...

[FauxNewsBlues]

4. Nader is a liar

I don't object to his right to run. He is over 35, a natural born citizen, and it is his right. However, when he kept insisting even after facts were produced to the contrary, that there was no difference between Bush & Gore, that is when he absolutely lost me.

Nader didn't steal votes from Gore. Gore didn't earn those votes, but I am not going to play a part in Nader's psychopathological self justification for playing a part in turning this country over to Shrub.

Ralph can repeat that Gore=Bush til his face turns blue, we do know the difference.

[Terwilliger]

63. you're right

because Al Gore is running for Pres in 04, right?

The DLC what?

The Democrats did WHAT?!?!? Voted for Ashcroft? The Patriot Act? The War resolution?? THE DIFFERENCE?!?!?

[NNN0LHI]

71. How mant Greens did not...

Vote for Ashcroft? The Patriot Act? The War resolution?? Quick. Give me a number.

Don

[ShimokitaJer]

80. Good plan: blame those not in power

After all, those who are in power are so scary since they have all that power. It's far safer to avoid giving power to anyone else and then blame them for not taking action with the power you didn't give them.

How many Greens didn't vote for those? All of them.

[NNN0LHI]

87. Wrong. No Greens voted against these things. Not a single one

They had no votes. Don't hold it against the Dems that the Greens could not win one single seat in Congress.

Don

[Terwilliger]

89. hahahahaha

I hold it against Democrats that Greens need to run for anything in the first place. maybe if there was a LIBERAL party in America, they might want to work from within it!

[ShimokitaJer]

100. That's right. I forgot. Only winning matters.

That's why the GOP must be on the side of justice: because they won more seats.

Come back when you've got something to talk about.

[Terwilliger]

86. Ok Don...Greens aren't in power

who is?

So, when Democrats dont do what they should, your argument will be that the Greens aren't there to vote the right way. WONDERFUL logic :eyes:

[NNN0LHI]

91. You arguements are beginning to border on the ridiculous now

See ya.

Don

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JVS]

115. The correct answer to your question is....

All of them. Every single green out there is free of the guilt associated with voting for Ashcroft, the patriot act, and the war resolution. Every hand in the Green party is completely clean of these horrible decisions. Maybe you meant to phrase the question another way?

[StopTheMorans]

120. kind of like if we were all standing in a park

someone was getting stabbed to death, and most of us (the dems) helped, while some of us (the greens) just kept our hands clean of the situation and did nothing, right;)? whatever it takes for you to sleep at night...

[JVS]

123. don't forget that many of the dems took part in the stabbing

On edit: The greens also are not going to try to put one of the attackers into the whitehouse. We don't know yet whether the Democrats will be trying to put one of the attackers in the white house, but it is quite probable.

[StopTheMorans]

128. you shouldn't have edited it

you just made it worse. Would Dean be one of the attackers? that seriously sounded like you just pulled a Nader there (i.e. incinuating Dems and pukes are the same). They're not, they never will be by a long shot. On some issues, they are closer than I would like, but on most, they are worlds apart.

[JVS]

132. My edit stands

It is very possible that the Democratic candidate will be one of the attackers.

[StopTheMorans]

133. so are you saying that

there will be no difference between the Dem. candidate and Shrub? If so, then don't mince words, just come out and say it:) Ralph, is that you?

[JVS]

134. Did I say that?

[StopTheMorans]

136. sorry, I don't have my decoder handy here at work

what exactly were you incinuating back there that I missed?

[JVS]

137. You were trying to put words in my mouth.

I never said that the some of the Democratic candidates were the same as Bush. But as we can see in the metaphor of the war as a stabbing that there are some democratic presidential hopefuls that did align themselves with Bush. Does this make them the same as Bush? No it doesn't. But it doesn't exactly differentiate them from Bush either.

[StopTheMorans]

141. I already admitted

that on some (read: A FEW) issues, SOME (read: none of the dems that I support) issues, SOME dems. are a littler closer to * than I would like. I still think you're obfuscating the issue here though, none of the dems (except for L**berman) are even CLOSE to shrub on any issues, and they are diametrically opposed on many more issues. I think you do a disservice to the truth when you continue to incinuate that the differences are minimal; they are not, have never been, and never will be.

[TioDiego]

2. Poor old Nader.

Nobody understands him.

[liberalnurse]

16. Oh, I do believe I understand Mr. Nader....

I know he has an IQ higher than an eggplant and recognizes that a vote for Nader is a vote for *bush.

My question is this, in light of the current state of this country that is a direct result of the 2000 election:

Is he so narcissistic that he would run once again and risk polarizing votes of an already devestated nation, thus resulting in the people enduring yet another 4 years of *bush?

[StopTheMorans]

25. in response to your last question,

in my opinion, without a doubt. His shameless political grandstanding in 2000 left me with no respect for the man.

[sujan]

3. I'd support him

[DogKing]

5. Rather see Nader than Leiberman or W. Clark....

[NNN0LHI]

7. Actually you mean you would rather have 4 more years of Bush n/t

[sujan]

9. I guess so

but no to warmongers and bushlites.

[NNN0LHI]

10. Still got a job, do ya? n/t

[sujan]

12. yes

[NNN0LHI]

19. Pretty secure one too? Own your own business perhaps? n/t

[Forkboy]

204. I dont have a job anymore

but I sure as shit don't blame someone who did what every American has a right to do.

[sujan]

208. I bet 10 dollars

that electing anybody stamped with 'D' in the ballot sheet wont return your job back.

[Hamlette]

35. sujan and dogking

Clark is not a warmonger.

You apparently have assumed so just because he is in the military. That's a prejudice you should try to overcome. If you have some evidence he is a warmonger, let's hear it.

Powell, by every account I have read, was the one person in the Bush administration who fought going to war in Iraq. He was the only one with a military background. He lost because he was outnumbered and/or Bush is a warmonger.

Some people in the military hate it more than those of us on the outside because they have seen how bad it can be.

It is a necessary evil, but not all in it are evil.

[sujan]

107. Powell didn't fight

[Hamlette]

112. didn't "fight"

what do you mean? Powell was behind the effort to get UN approval. I admit he eventually caved but I'm not so hard on him about that either. (It was a done deal (I'd use that fancy french phrase, fait acompli but I don't know how to spell it). At that point it becomes a very difficult moral decision whether to support the president or resign. In making that decision you have to consider first, what is in the best interest of the country. If you know the Bushies are going it alone and are more and more overrun by war mongers, do you abaondon ship and leave them to it or do you stay and try to work from inside to lessen the damage? I'm not at all sure he made the wrong decision.)

Before you rewrite history to meet your definition of "fight" you should review the reports at the time. Why would Woodward report that Powell talked himself blue trying to get Bush to wait for UN support? It's terribly paranoid to assume Woodward would do that. It makes all of them look bad and Woodward is shilling for the lot of them.

[sujan]

162. UN approval for what?

Last time I checked no war was authorized by the UN. So no Powell didn't fight for anything. That's what they would want you to believe.

[Samaka 3ajiba]

190. Rather Arrogant Position

I think its arrogant to assume that Nader owes anyone an apology. After all, the Green Party is its own party and not a "subsidiary" of the Democratic Party.

[wtmusic]

6. Disagree

If Gore had a clear message and new ideas it wouldn't have been an issue.

Or alternatively, if Anthony Scalia had done his job it wouldn't have been an issue.

The blame lies at other feet.

[Kolesar]

8. Message is everything--I agree Gore was floundering

Please tell me what the Green candidate's message was, as you interpreted it. (no sarcasm intended)

[wtmusic]

15. Nader had a much stronger voice

against corporate malfeasance and for human rights. His commitment resonated with many Dems (BTW, I voted Gore).

[Kolesar]

21. The corporate domination of America was the message I recall

I had a discussion with a nice liberal man at an activist training session who said that before we do anything, we should change the election finance laws to total public financing. He was correct in the latter, but that will never happen at the rate America is progressing (or regressing). I told him that we are going to have to go with the best candidates we can get for now. We have work to do to develop the issues and build a base yet.

Thank you for your response.

[Gman]

11. Nader and the Greens are the enemy--- this is another example

Nader & the Greens would much rather have 4 more years of Bush in the insane "hope" that the country would then see things in their distorted reality. Rather than unite with the Democrats to take our country back Nader and the Greens would rather take the country further down the toilet, into the sewer and out to sea. That makes the Greens the enemy; an enemy no different than the most vile right wingers.

[Mel]

14. no corporatists

are the enemy of our democracy be they Democrat or Repuke.

[Gman]

18. No Greens are the enemy of the Democratic Party

Stop shifting the focus. Greens are not with us. They are against us and would rather see Bush (re)elected.

I don't buy into the Green bullshit. Greens are not sincere about the struggle against the GOP and radical right wing. Greens have their own agenda and it has nothing to do with the good of the country. It's all about Green's and their bullshit.

Greens are the enemy of every good Democrat and we better start acting like it and treating Greens as the enemy they are.

[ShimokitaJer]

22. No wonder so many refused to vote Democrat in 2000

I believe your attitude echoes that of the Democratic Party in the 2000 election, and it is precisely why Nader did so well.

The assumptions:

1) If you are a liberal you OWE your vote to the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party does not owe you anything and need not pay attention to the issues that are important to you.

2) The primary goal of every election is to get your side of the two-party system into office, without concern for where that candidate actually stands on the issues.

3) Anyone who suggests any differently is the enemy.

These, by the way, are the same assumptions that have mobilized the Republican party, so they are effective for taking power. However, they are also the reason that one of the most radical wings of the Republican party have been allowed to take control of the agenda. And it's the reason so many less radical Republicans are turning against their own party.

You can tell me that this election is critical, just as you can tell me in retrospect that the last one was critical. But you can't build a functional representative government on one election, and you can't do it on the basis of giving one faction, Republican or Democrat, a guarantee of support whatever their actions.

Do you even realize how much you sound like the conservative pundits? If you hate them as every "Good Democrat" should, why embrace their strategy of simplification and demonization.

[John_H]

23. Another missed point.

Stop whining. If Greens had guts, they'd try to change the party from within. No? See ya. And get ready to rumble, 'cause you're no indistinguishable from rethugs.

[Iverson]

24. another missed point

Failure to agree with you uncritically is not the same as "whining."

[ShimokitaJer]

27. Another unclear point

What point did I miss exactly? The one where I have no guts? Do you have an actual point you'd like to contest, or is this all about name calling?

How is it okay to claim that Greens and Republicans are identical, but not okay to claim that Dems and Republicans are identical? It's all about the belief that you are owed a vote because you hold power. Well, if the Democratic Party refuses to stand up to Bush on the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, and corporate malfeasance, what exactly have we gained by voting for them?

[Terwilliger]

54. We're indistinguishable to you, because you're closer to Repubs...

and Repubs have hate issues, so I assume that's your problem here as well.

You can probably get psychological counseling close-by...check your phone book.

[sujan]

108. the columnist is whining

and the rest of the bushlite democrats.

[charlie]

30. Yep

And downstream from this post is the hackneyed retort:

"Hey, Greens? No wonder you won't get two-percent of the vote--you whine every time someone attacks you. Get used to it."

Which begs the question: if Greens can't muster more than a soft fart in the electoral breeze, why the overwrought concern about what they're up to this campaign season? Seems they've managed to pull off an amazing trick -- they're utterly inconsequential and the mighty destroyers of the Republic.

[Prodemsouth]

40. No more people voted for the Democratic party in 2000, than a long time

five Senate Seats, increase in Congressional Seats, undisputed majority vote winner Al Gore.

[ShimokitaJer]

52. True.

I misspoke. I should have said "voted for the presidential Democratic candidate." Gore did have the greatest total number of votes of any presidential candidate since Reagan, but Bush was #2 in that reckoning. 2000 was a year with an extremely large number of voters period, and I chalk that up to the closeness of the race and the increased attention caused by "spoilers" such as Nader and McCain.

As for the Senate and Congressional seats, just as Nader said, having Nader supporters show up for the presidential election also means having more spillover for the Dems in seats where a Green candidate isn't running.

Personally, I don't give Nader credit for those wins. At the same time, I do give him credit for helping to increase turnout at the polls. And if we are debating whether or not Nader "cost" Gore the election, that issue needs to be acknowledged.

[Terwilliger]

60. People were petrified by the alternative to the Dems

which is why Nader has been attacked so viciously this whole time: Dems hate Bush, Nader pointed out problems separating the two parties, Dems USED Nader as a focal point for their fears and overwhelmingly voted Gore. This was not Gore inspired...I know many people here like to think that, but the only reason he did so "well" is because everybody recognized the threat George Bush brought to the table.

So Democrats, who claimed they didn't like Bush and that the Greens were idiots not to distinguish between the two parties, CONCEDED THE STOLEN ELECTION and you tell me about why Dems are the only choice to vote for.

You're out of your gourd.

[Gman]

82. Voting Green amounts to mass political suicide

Re #1, No one says if you're liberal, you "OWE" your vote to the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party includes people from Zell Miller on the right, to former Greens that now see that the only way to save the country is to unite behind the Democratic presidential nominee. (Well, maybe not Zell Miller, but that's another topic.) The Democratic Party includes Blacks, Latinos, GLBT, labor, consumer advocates and many many others from the widest variety of groups regardless of the "liberal" label. They all have one thing in common. That is working for the betterment of people. Given this huge coalition of interests, the issue then becomes, if you want to defeat the right wing, you go with the party most likely to do it, the party with the widest base, the Dems. Not some fringe, narrow issue group like the Greens that want to take down the Democratic Party at the expense of wrecking the entire country permanently. If you don't like the Democratic Party, fine. Vote Green. However, understand that you become the enemy.

All this reminds me of some training I had many years ago along the lines of if you want to create a complete revolution, you must destroy everything completely in order to rebuild it completely. That's what the Greens intend to do by allowing and being complicit in the (re)election of Bush.

Re #2, Yes, the primary goal of every election is to get your side of the two-party system into office, without concern for where that candidate actually stands on the issues... True because politics is the art of compromise. I would very much rather have someone that votes my interest 70% of the time than someone that screws me 100% of the time. If you don't believe in compromise then vote Green. However, understand that you become the enemy.

Re #3, Suggesting differently makes you the enemy? You are confusing ideology politics with party politics. They are not one and the same. Greens within the Green party hope to (re)elect Bush in order to hopefully seal the coffin on the Democratic Party. That makes the Greens the enemy in party politics. You're either with us or against us. If you're with us, united we have the best chance of restoring sanity to this country. If you're against us and with the Green Party, you're no different than any vile Republican that hopes to see the same demise of the Democratic Party. That makes Greens every bit as much the enemy as any right wing Republican.

Yes, these are the same assumptions that have mobilized the Republican party, so they are effective for taking power. So that makes it wrong?? It's time we quit letting Greens get in the damn way. We, as a party, have been entirely too nice to Greens in the last 2.5 years. The Greens would rather string us along hoping to (re)elect Bush in the meantime. That's why I say fuck the Greens.

You say, "you can't build a functional representative government on one election, and you can't do it on the basis of giving one faction, Republican or Democrat, a guarantee of support whatever their actions." This government is functional and very flexible. That's the reason it has gotten so bent to the direction of the right. It can be bent back to the left using the same system we have in place right now. This statement by you alone proves my contention that the Greens intend to tear down the Democratic Party and allow the destruction of the country by Bush in order to rebuild the country the way the Greens think it should be.

You ask, "Do you even realize how much you sound like the conservative pundits?" So just because a conservative pundit says something, that automatically makes it wrong? In fact, this strategy works wonders and is the only way for the Democratic Party to go. As I said previously, it's just very good political strategy.

Then you say, "If you hate them as every "Good Democrat" should, why embrace their strategy of simplification and demonization?" Because a smart person learns lessons about what works from his/her enemies.

The Greens intend to help (re)elect Bush in order to destroy the Democratic Party and the nation. Then, the Greens delusionally think they will rebuld the country the way they think it should be. Reminds me of a bunch of people that "found" that spaceship behind that comet so they all committed suicide.

[Terwilliger]

98. Well, Dems have certainly drunk the Kool-Aid, so your analogy could work

except the Dems are the ones with the power and they STILL dont do anything with it

Gore in the White House today? And, who's fault is that again?

[ShimokitaJer]

99. You've made my point far better than I could have

I voted for Nader in 2000 because I believed the Democratic Party was more interested in holding onto power than they were in supporting traditionally Democratic issues.

Clearly, you agree that the goal is to gain power. The only difference is that you believe the Democratic party will hold true to its Democratic roots once it has power. Clinton said all the right things about health care, gay rights, etc. in 1992 and I voted for him wholeheartedly. He failed to make good on those promises, but I voted for him again in 1996. After he gave us NAFTA and deregulation and more conservative supreme court justices, I realized that maybe it wasn't enough to just vote for whoever the Democrat happened to be. And now that many Democrats have voted for action in Iraq, for the Patriot Act, etc. it only reinforces my decision.

I am certainly not registered Green, but I am not registered Democrat either anymore. I don't owe my vote to Nader anymore than I owe it to "anybody but Bush." If a candidate comes to the forefront who I trust to make good on promises, then I will vote for that candidate. If not, I won't. That choice is mine to make, and you may consider it foolish, but it is not a betrayal. It simply means that I believe empowering the Democratic Party may not be the best way to empower the American people.

You may have more faith in the Democratic party than I do. Maybe they are incorruptible and are only using corporate funds and support for Bush as a means to an end. Or maybe they will gain power and then sacrifice anything to hold onto it. That's what is ripping the GOP apart right now, and it can certainly happen to the Dems as well.

[Gman]

111. Yes, there are some leaps of faith involved here

in putting complete faith in the Democratic Party. But, my only point is that as things are right now, the only hope of getting rid of Bush is by working within the Democratic Party and it's many member organizations.

Is the Democratic Party without fault? Hell no. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Is the party in bed with corporate interests? To a too large extent, yes. However, the party's grass roots are not. The bottom line then becomes keeping your constituencies happy in order to get reelected. If more people in the country in general were as upset with corporate control as those of us that are more informed, the system would have changed long ago. For example, in a completely NON-PARISAN election, Prop 12 in Texas that was backed by corporate insurance companies and corporate medicine passed by 25K votes Saturday out of some 13 million registered voters. Only 5-6% voted. What does that say about the level of concern among the electorate in general. And, believe me, Texas is NOT near as conservative as many people would have you believe. There's just a lot of disgust and apathy. Hell, I'd like to see John McCain switch parties and run for president as a Democrat. That's one man that would clean up all the financing of elections by corporate interests. He wouldn't just talk about it.

Being independent is, on the other hand, anything but being "the enemy". Independents have not declared that they intend to destroy the Democratic Party and the country by partnering with the GOP to (re)elect Bush, then rebuild the country in their own image and likeness. The Greens have decided this is their mission. That makes Greens the enemy of every person that has been laid off or every veteran having his/her benefits cut, or anyone that will not have Social Security there when they need it and many other things.

[Mel]

32. crazy talk

I do not consider Greens the enemy and no amount of Nader bashing is going to change it. Democrats are known for their big tent and I for one am a part of that way of thinking!

Other Americans are not the enemy when their ideas are similar to mine as the Greens are.

My enemy is anyone who is against the little guy and democracy.

Stop falling for the wedge issues, Nader is being used as a scapegoat just like the pukes play the race card, the welfare card, and on and on. The Pukes loved Nader and they are using it to further divide the people against one another!

'Good democrat' is that anything like saying a 'good repuke' and people should tow the party line? Baaah!

[Terwilliger]

51. Gman, you are quite insane

Greens are BETTER Democrats than Democrats are...that's why you hate them so much

Example: Bill Clinton was a better Republican than Republicans were...Republicans hate him for that more than anything else

It seems eerily familiar :shrug:

[Gman]

85. Terwilliger, why do you even post on this board?

You violate the very basis for this board's existence. You have nothing in common with the Democratic Party, nor do you intend to work for the same things as the Democratic Party. Why are you even here disrupting? Go find some other Green board.

[Terwilliger]

88. I'm a Democrat, and as much as you think not, I'm trying to save your

stupid FUBAR party you ignorant moron!!! DONT YOU GET IT YET?!?!?!?!?!?!? I need a bowl.

[Gman]

101. You're a Democrat? Yeah, right...

"Greens are BETTER Democrats than Democrats are...that's why you hate them so much"

If you really were a Democrat, you wouldn't be defending Greens. But when you say "I'm a Democrat,... that's good enough to technically keep you posting on this board and to continue disrupting.

[Terwilliger]

102. that and a little capitalist scrilla

but your Freeperish love of the Democratic party makes you more suspect than me

Hey, support Dems like freepers support Pukes...I'm sure you can rally the hateful Dem masses and maybe make a nice little intolerant, judgemental group of political hacks like the Christian coalition.

More power to ya on that! :eyes:

[Terwilliger]

103. oh, and I love your sig

the Democrats killed all those people in Iraq...from the 50's when they authorized the Ba'athist takeover, through the 90's when they allowed 1 million Iraqis to die over 11 years of horrific sanctions

[Gman]

113. Spoken like a true non-Democrat

Nothing else can be said. Just go ahead and acknowledge that you're not a Democrat. It's ok....

[Terwilliger]

124. deny it

[JVS]

117. Calm down, dude.

Calling someone an ignorant moron is a personal attack. I'd hate to see you get banned.

[Terwilliger]

142. Hey JVS

thanks :-)

Don't you worry....bout a thing....

Cuz every little thing...is gonna be alright....

[Tinoire]

138. Don't you dare tell someone who worked their ASS off for Gore and Dems

that they're not a Dem and should leave this board! What intolerance and ignorance to assume that people who who have been posting here for years are Democrats because they see things differently than you do and are not afraid to objectively examine the Democratic party and criticize the pathetic caving in to corporate interests that drive progressives away from it daily.

Pretty soon, the Democratic Party will be made up of Centrists and Dinos all wringing their hands that the Greens are stealing our votes. No the Greens are not stealing our votes, the intolerance and the utter disregard for the progressive voice is what drives people away.

YOUR POST violates "the very basis for this board's existence" which is to get Democrats and Progressives working together.

Nice going Pal...

[charlie]

150. Right you are, Tinoire!

If I've heard once, I've heard 1000 times that Greens should fold themselves into the Big Tent and work for change within.

Seems to me that Terwiller's (a Democrat!) lot is effectively what Greens can expect if they come in from the cold:

Bring your issues and concerns and we'll...

...marginalize you...

...drum your non-Democrat ass out...

...so we can castigate you for sabotaging our progress...

...and implore you to join us...

...rinse...

...repeat...

[Gman]

155. Then I suggest you leave and join the Greens

You're either with us or against us. If you're against us, you're the enemy just like any other vile puke right winger.

[Terwilliger]

172. ENEMY?!?!?

Just how do you expect to win over the swing and independents calling Republicans "the enemy"??

DOES THIS MEAN YOURE INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO GET BUSH RE-ELECTED?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

[Gman]

191. Its hopeless to try to win you and hard core Greens over

Why waste anymore effort? Greens have had their chance to join us. They apparently have chosen not to. Greens made that choice. Therefore, that makes Greens, just like Republicans, the enemy of working people everywhere in the country.

[Room101]

116. Gman- you are on my ignore list

:)

[Terwilliger]

143. Beforeathought

don't do that :shrug:

Voices need to be heard.

[Rowdyboy]

176. Its okay....

He has me on ignore too. Can't stand any difference of opinion...

[Mel]

13. Nader

didn't bring disaster the Supreme Court 5 treasonists and *Bush did.
Impeachments and blame needs to start with the 5 USSC judges.

People can whine all they want but corporations had a hold on our government (most of the politicans) long before Bush* was selected. This country needs to stop their crying and send those people home. Blame Nader all you want it's not going to fix it.

Blame blame blame while it all burns what another great wedge issue that furthers the dividing of people that agree more than they disagree. :eyes:

[madfloridian]

17. Did Nader agree not to run if Kucinich is the nominee?

I heard that somewhere. I would say that is a form of bl......., no, I won't say the word.

[John_H]

20. You're utterly missing the point

Greens are the enemy because they want us to lose. They want to beat us. As far as elections go, that makes them indistinguishable from rethugs.

I may agree with Ralph Nader more than I do George Bush on some issues, but that doesn't mean I or any other democrat should pull any punches. Hey, I agree with McCain more than Chimpy--if McCain were the nominee should we take it easy on him because we agree on more issues?

Plus, Nader's a fucking hypocite of the worst sort. At least Chimpy promotes the same tactics he profits from. Nader rails against "corporatism", profiting personally from corporate criminals all the while. On top of it, he avoids filing financial statements to let his supporters see what he owns.

Hey, Greens? No wonder you won't get two-percent of the vote--you whine every time someone attacks you. Get used to it.

[Hamlette]

31. blame?

You seem to condemn blaming yet in the same breath tell us to blame the USSC or corporations... ANYONE but Nader.

There is no doubt the Greens and Nader have more interest in being right than doing right. And now they want us to thank them for showing us that politics is corrupt. That's rich!

[Gman]

192. That's a nice way to ignore the indisputable fact that

but for Nader, Florida would never have happened. Nader votes in not only Florida, but several other states that Bush won were more than the difference between Bush and Gore.

Nader and the Greens can NEVER get over the fact that they are THE REASON we are in the mess we are in right now. Bush and the right wing simply took advantage of the situation.

[MadHound]

26. Nader and the Greens should run again, they're this country's best hope

Look, both Dems and 'Pugs have been taken over and corrupted by the power of corporations. The only way to break this corporate stranglehold is to run a party and candidate who is not a bought and paid for corporate whore. Can you tell me in all honesty that any current Dem candidate(excepting Kucinich, and possibly him also) aren't going to be bought and paid for corporate whores? Can you tell me in all honesty tell me that these candidates, when faced with the prospect of doing what is right for the people and what is good for their corporate donors, won't cave and back their corporate masters?

Look, the Democratic party of our fathers and grandfathers was a fine upstanding orginazation that backed the working man. Such is no longer the case. Many of us were proud to work long and hard for the party's continued success. Now the party has been reduced to a whimpering shell of it's former self, beholden to the corporate dollar and the corporate masters who hold it. The party has made it amplely clear that those of us who were once the base and backbone of the party are no longer wanted and needed, for we have no money to compete with the corporations. Thus our voice is drowned out.

The only way to combat this corruption via corporate cash is not to take it. This is what the Green party does, it refuses all corporate donations. Thus it puts the will of the people first. Granted, it is not a large party, nor a strong one. But as more people wake up and realize what is happening to this country, the Greens power will grow. It is not the short term victory the Greens seek(unlike the victory at any price strategy of the Dems), but the long term success of controlling the corporations' power over all of our lives.

Many of you rant and rave about how Nader stole the election. What useless fucking posturing, blaming the perosn and party who had the least to do with the Florida fiasco. Talk about projection!. I think that it has been well proven time and again that Gore, his corporate handlers, Bush and his corporate handlers, along with the supreme court were the ones to blame. I know the truth is painful to many people, but there it is.

And yet many continue to rant and rave. Fine, but one of these days you too will wake up and realize that you've been screwed by your beloved Dems and their corporate masters. When that happens, you to will go Green.

[Deja Q]

170. I agree with you, BUT

America is doomed either way. Americans are happy with their pseudo-one party system (corporate control).

Greens are vastly superior to Dems, but they're not going to win. The sheeple are too conformist, too scared, too chicken, too stupid, you name it. They will not vote Green.

Unless the Greens win in droves, America is ultimately doomed.

And Nader had nothing to do with the loss of Florida; Jeb and Kathleen's illegal actions and contrivings to disqualify as many voters (aiming at the Dem voters, naturally). Somehow the 1.2% that voted for Nader are more powerful than the 48% who are either the Dems or Repukes. :shrug:

[NNN0LHI]

28. The Strangest Bedfellows

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/Nader_020612.html

Conservative Strategy Meeting Gets a Dose of Naderite Populism

<snip>Nader arrived at Norquist's downtown Washington offices 10 minutes early and took a seat at the mahogany table around which the weekly activist meetings are held. He shook a few hands. The younger conservatives in the crowd, less inured to Nader's superstardom, just stared.

For an hour and a half, Nader waited as 20 speakers, representing Republican policy staffs, anti-regulation groups, family-policy organizations and political candidates updated each other on their respective contributions to the fight against liberalism, taxes and bureaucracy.

Most proceeded as if an ideological arch-nemesis was not there, listening, nodding, and arching an occasional eyebrow. (One regular meeting-goer, the American Land Rights Association's Mike Hardiman, casually referred to a group Nader founded as "spoiled suburbanites." Nader smiled wanly.)

When it was Nader's turn to speak, he took on the basic assumptions of his audience.

"Some of it is arguable, some of it is not so bad," he said of what he had just heard. "But the thrust is, strengthen the oligarchy, and strengthen the concentration of power."

more

[Iverson]

33. If you actually read that article ...

... then you will quickly see that your excerpt was designed to promote an impression exactly opposite to the facts.

You omitted this:
"...where the capital's most powerful Republican groups wage war, trying to deconstruct nearly every piece of legislation Nader has pushed Congress to pass over the years."

and this:

""Neither he nor we are under any delusions that we now agree," Norquist said."

... but that doesn't fit the agenda to demonize the Greens now, does it? Well, you're in the majority, so expect to get away with it.

[NNN0LHI]

50. I thought this thread was about Nader?

So why would it be important to post quotes from the writer of this article or Norquist as you have? Why not let Naders own words and actions speak for themselves here? You got some kind of problem with that?

Don

[Iverson]

58. uh, accuracy?

To the extent that I understand your rejoinder, I can only tell you that representing an article accurately should not result in conveying an impression opposite to the article's meaning or intent.

I am astonished that that position might be controversial.

[NNN0LHI]

64. OK. You accurately quoted Norquist and the writer of the article

Just what does that have to do with Nader's actions and words? I must be missing something here?

Don

[Terwilliger]

67. Nader's actions and words

what were the ones you refer to, Don?

[NNN0LHI]

72. The ones in post #28 n/t

[Terwilliger]

75. OK Don, I'd like you to point out what Nader's actions and words are...

that they are so terrible and wrong.

[NNN0LHI]

81. Why should I point anything out to you? Whats the purpose?

As I said once already. Let his actions and words speak for themselves. End of story.

Don

[Terwilliger]

84. lie about what he said and did, and then claim some sort of superiority

yep, I've seen THAT enough times before...you wouldn't be the first

[Punkingal]

29. I defy anyone to say at this point in America.....

that there is no difference between George Bush and Al Gore. That was bullshit when Nader said it, and we now have definitive proof of it. Nader had every right to run, and people had every right to support him, but a lie is a lie, and that was a big one.

[MadHound]

34. So you're saying you would rather be boiled slowly eh?

That's really the only difference between the two. Let's see, under Clinton you got NAFTA, FTAA, WTO, welfare "reform", the Telecom act, various bombings and pre-emptive attacks abroad. Under Bush you've gotten the Patriot Act, Gulf II, Ashcroft and homeland security. Yes their is a difference, but it is simply a matter of degree. We the people still get screwed, and gee guess what! It is all done by the same corporate masters who pull the strings of both parties!

WAKE THE FUCK UP AND SMELL THE COFFE!! Nader was pretty much spot on, and if you can't see that then you are blinded beyond the point of outside help. Go do some research, go do some reading. Then maybe you will wake up.

[Punkingal]

48. I'm awake enough to know.....

the Bush administration is an absolute disaster, not only to this country, but to the world. I said Nader lied, and he did. At least Al Gore has intelligence, and a conscience, and the ability to think about the longterm consequenceses of his actions. But that doesn't matter, I guess. What difference does it make if we have a narcissistic sociopath in the White House? Heaven forbid anyone should criticize Mr. Nader! He is above reproach, I take it?

And BTW, I did plenty of research before election 2000...on Bush, and none of his actions come as a surprise to me.

[Cocoa]

53. "research and reading"

I lived through Reagan-Bush, then through Clinton, now with George W. Buh.

Mabye "research and reading" will prove your theory true in theory, but what the hell good is that? It's worth zilch compared to what's true in reality.

Unless, of course, one is among the lucky class that's not really affected directly by these things. :shrug:

[JVS]

122. Isn't that the kind of anti-intellectualism that we hate when it comes ...

from the Republicans?

[ShimokitaJer]

37. Bush and Gore

Would Gore have attacked Iraq? No. Would Gore have given a tax cut to the wealthy? No.

But would Gore have increased accountability for corporations? Created a national health care system? Strengthened environmental controls? We don't know, but Clinton didn't and that's the basis on which we had to judge Gore in 2000.

Nader's point was that, as long as the same corporations are the primary donors to both parties, and as long as both parties are content to focus on retaining power (accepting gerrymandering, for example), and as long as both parties fail to enact election finance reform, we're going to see more and more power and money go to the same wealthy and powerful organizations. You can talk about enacting change from within, but Al Gore made NO claims that he would enact change in his 2000 campaign.

It is in the Democratic and Republican parties' interest for the Republican and Democratic parties to retain power, and their methods are getting more and more similar every day. The 2002 election fiasco is evidence of how poorly this strategy works for the Democrats. Many of those who voted for Nader did so out of a belief that both parties are growing more willing to sacrifice their core ideals (can you actually identify any fiscal conservative ideals in Bush's actions?) for a tighter hold on power, and a belief that this change would not come from within.

It remains to be seen whether or not it can with the 2004 candidates.

[chadm]

39. Don't bother explaining it

They aren't listening.

[Cheswick2.0]

41. think again please

But would Gore have increased accountability for corporations? Created a national health care system? Strengthened environmental controls? We don't know, but Clinton didn't and that's the basis on which we had to judge Gore in 2000.......

Gore said he would do all those things. You might have been too busy listening to the Nader lies to hear him. In any case to judge Gore for what Clinton did puts you right with the freepers in political sophistication.

[ShimokitaJer]

44. Actually, Bush said all those things too

but we knew from his record that we couldn't trust him to follow through.

I certainly don't blame Gore for Clinton's failures as a man, but it is absolutely valid to have him share the blame for Clinton's failures in policy. Gore was "standing by his man" at every turn until Clinton's personal scandals made Gore turn his back on him at election time.

After all, if Gore doesn't share in the blame for the bad policy decision, how could he have shared in the credit for the booming economy? Double standards aren't valid no matter who is spouting them.

[Terwilliger]

83. I suppose that's your power of faith, Ches

you believe all the people you don't like aren't politically sophisticated, but then it's Democrats that lose all the time.

That is SOOO funny :D

[gully]

153. Responding to one point...

you said~But would Gore have increased accountability for corporations? Created a national health care system? Strengthened environmental controls? We don't know, but Clinton didn't and that's the basis on which we had to judge Gore in 2000.

This is GP rhetoric and it seems the GINO'S buy it hook line and sinker.

Here are some facts surrounding the issues you have expressed concern about.

Health Care

"Clinton/Gore....Enacted Most Comprehensive Medicare Reforms in History. In the 1997 Balanced Budget, the Clinton-Gore Administration protected, modernized and extended the life of the Medicare Trust Fund while offering new options for patient choice and preventive care. New preventive benefits passed include coverage of annual mammograms, coverage of screening tests for both colorectal and cervical cancer, and a diabetes self-management benefit. The President proposed a plan to reform and modernize Medicare’s benefits, including an optional prescription drug benefit that is affordable and available to all beneficiaries. The President has also proposed a reserve fund to help Medicare beneficiaries with extremely high prescription drug costs. Extending the Life of the Medicare Trust Fund. When President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, Medicare was expected to run out of money in 1999. Now, the life of the Trust Fund has been extended until 2023. Medicare is now in the soundest shape it has been since 1975.

Enacted Single Largest Investment in Health Care for Children since 1965. The five year, $24 billion State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) will provide health care coverage for up to five million children. Two million children have already been enrolled, and in October 1999 President Clinton announced new outreach initiatives to enroll millions more uninsured, eligible children. Last year, the President launched a nationwide “Insure Kids Now” campaign that will bring together major TV and radio networks, healthcare organizations, religious groups and other community-based organizations to help enroll more children in the Children's Health Insurance Program, with the goal of enrolling 5 million of the estimated 10 million children eligible for health insurance under CHIP within 5 years. This year, the budget includes several of Vice President Gore's proposals to accelerate enrollment of children in CHIP.

Clinton also fought for corporate responsibility and the Republicans fought him on it. Remember the Republicans? Here is a Clinton quote on that very subject. "There was corporate malfeasance both before we took office and after ... The difference is I actually tried to do something about it, and their party stopped it"in Congress.

Clinton/Gore did strenghten enviromental controls.

Environment

The Clinton-Gore Administration has protected tens of millions of acres, from the red rock canyons of Utah to the Florida Everglades. The Administration reached agreements to protect Yellowstone from mining and save the ancient redwoods of California’s Headwaters Forest. In the FY 2000 budget, the President and Vice President won $651 million (a 42 percent increase) for Lands Legacy, a historic initiative to strengthen federal efforts to preserve national treasures and provides communities with new resources to protect local green spaces. This year, the President's budget includes a record $1.4 billion for Lands Legacy -- a 93 percent increase and the largest one-year investment ever requested for conserving America’s lands.

Created Four New National Monuments. The Clinton-Gore Administration has created four new national monuments: Grand Staircase-Escalante, protecting spectacular red rock canyonlands in Utah; Grand Canyon-Parashant, protecting deep canyons, mountains and buttes on the north rim of the Grand Canyon; Agua Fria, protecting extensive prehistoric ruins in Arizona; the California Coastal monument, protecting thousands of islands, rocks and reefs along the California coast. The Administration also expanded Pinnacles National Monument in California to better protect the area's unusual rock formations.

Preserving Our National Forests. The President directed the National Forest Service to develop and propose regulations to provide long-term protection for 40 million acres of “roadless” areas within national forests and ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy the pristine wilderness. The proposed regulations would ban road building in these areas and could also prohibit logging or other activities that harm their unique ecological value.

Accelerating Toxic Cleanups and Brownfields Redevelopment. The Clinton-Gore Administration has completed clean up at 525 Superfund sites, more than three times as many as completed in the previous twelve years. Clean up of more than 91 percent of all sites is either completed or in progress. The Administration has leveraged nearly $1 billion in private sector investment for brownfields redevelopment.

Keeping Our Drinking Water Safe. The President proposed and signed legislation to strengthen the Safe Drinking Water Act to ensure that our families have healthy, clean tap water. The Clinton-Gore Administration has required America’s 55,000 water utilities to provide regular reports to their customers on the quality of their drinking water. The Administration also proposed new rule to reduce dirty runoff and strengthen protections for 20,000 rivers, lakes and other waterways too polluted for swimming and fishing. Ninety-one percent of America’s tap water from community drinking water systems now meets all federal standards.

Clearing the Air of Unhealthy Pollution. The President and Vice President have adopted the toughest standards ever on soot and smog. They proposed significant reductions in tailpipe emissions from cars, light trucks and SUVs, and launched long-term effort to restore pristine skies over our national parks and wilderness areas. Since 1993, the number of Americans living in communities that meet federal air quality standards has grown by 43 million.

Reducing the Threat of Global Warming. The Clinton-Gore Administration negotiated an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in an environmentally strong and economically sound way. The President and Vice President secured $1.1 billion in FY 2000 for research and development of energy efficiency and clean energy technologies, and set a goal of tripling U.S. use of bio-energy and bio-products by 2010. The President issued an Executive Order directing agencies to dramatically improve energy efficiency in federal buildings, saving taxpayers over $750 million a year when fully implemented.

One source here.

http://pearlyabraham.tripod.com/htmls/bill-legacy2.html

Man, I hate getting sucked in to these debates about a man who isn't even running for president *sheesh*

You'll be glad to know the *Bush admin is working hard to un-do the progress Clinton/Gore made in these areas.

Interesting brochure outlining Clintons vision for America before he took office.

http://www.4president.org/brochures/billclinton92.pdf

[Monte Carlo]

46. Depends how you took it.

When I was a Nader fan in 2000, the way I took it was that there was no difference between Bush and Gore because I could not tell where one ended and the other began - that they formed a single superset. With Gore and his lousy campaign combined with the extra baggage of Lieberman, I believed it. Honestly, in the same sense, I still believe it today.

[Terwilliger]

74. so THAT's why Gore lost, eh?

couldn't be because he couldn't be a successful candidate, could it?
couldn't be because the DLC (you know, Lieberman and gang) were in charge of the party, could it?
couldn't be because when speaking of the DLC you ARE talking about two groups (along with Republicans) that are intensely similar?
couldn't be that Gore was not allowed to have a populist message because the corporate DLC didn't like it, could it?

Looks like Nader was right...or maybe you haven't been looking at the actions of the Democratic party since November 2000 :shrug:

[Cheswick2.0]

36. thank you for posting this

I agree with this author 100 percent.

And that leads to another unsupportable Nader campaign rationale: that he'd teach the Democratic Party that it must move in his direction to win elections. Is it possible that Nader really believed a winning electoral strategy for the Democrats was to move away from the American political center? In all these things, Nader either knew better, or should have. Either way, he seriously discredited himself as a political actor.

Had he worked simply to move the center in his direction, and then gotten out of the way, he'd still be a hero. But in America's two-party, winner-take-all system, the only conceivable consequence of his campaign was to hand power to those most opposed to his political values.

[ShimokitaJer]

42. I believe Nader was quite successful in 2000

and three of the four pictures in your signature line are proof of that. If Gore had been elected in 2000, do you really think the issues championed by Kucinich, Mosley-Braun, and Sharpton would be being discussed now.

Yes, Nader's goal was to get the party to acknowledge his issues. Unfortunately, Gore and the DLC didn't budge in 2000 and Nader did not drop out of the race. Nader was working for change and he believed that the two parties in control would resist that change. After all, eight years of Clinton had made Democrats relax, thinking they were in power, while their president enacted NAFTA, etc. Nader accurately predicted that four years of having Bush in power would result in a liberal backlash and a return to traditional Democratic principles.

Perhaps this lesson was too harsh and the damage done too great, but the fact that so many liberals are mobilized and candidate such as the ones you seem to be supporting are even being considered is due to the extreme incompetence of our current "leadership."

Ask yourself whether you could have expected from Gore attention to the kind of issues that Kucinich, Mosley-Braun, and Sharpton champion.

[Cheswick2.0]

59. since you can't seem to separate Gore from Clinton

let me tell you that had he been elected, there would be a lot less reason for any of these people to be talking about these issues. Again, I think you were listening to Nader too much and have no idea who Gore is.

[ShimokitaJer]

70. He's the guy who conceded an election he won in 2000

Listen, I'm not trying to attack you for voting for Gore in 2000. I'm not saying you are stupid and didn't see the writing on the wall. I voted for Nader in 2000 because my state was sure to go for the Democrats and, had it not been, my vote might very well have been different.

What I am trying to do is say that we don't know that Gore would have done because he didn't do a good job of telling us in the 2000 campaign. The DLC was too concerned with demonizing Nader and courting swing voters to appeal to liberals. Personally, I believe Gore is a better man than that, but nothing I saw in the campaign told me that. And the fact that he followed the DLC line to the letter in refusing to hold fast on the ridiculous lies being spouted by Bush and the media told a lot of people that he didn't have the strength to stand up for anything. Whether that is true or not, that's how it looked in campaign 2000. Combine that with Clinton's record on "liberal" issues, and you don't have a convincing picture of a candidate for change.

You can talk about what "would have been" all you want. What happened in Florida, with Gore more concerned with recounting those districts that voted Democratic than getting an accurate count of the entire state, not calling attention to the thousands of voters who had been disenfranchised, and failure to hold accountable those responsible for the fraud reinforced my image of him having no backbone.

Now how much of that do you want to blame on my being unable to see past Clinton and the DLC to the "real Gore" who only seemed to appear after the election?

[Prodemsouth]

43. Notice the Greens are coming back, could it be they are changing from

their Deanie outfits to their Greenie outfits. Notice most staunch Green defenders had either a Dean or Kuchnich Avatar. THEIR BAAACCCKK. They claim to be progressive then turn right wing as they get older. Most of the lefties that stick with center left politics are pragamtic progressive moderates. These star struck youngsters will be voting for Repugs 5 years from now. It only makes sense their with Nader, this is their "rebel yell", Repug parents tolerate it because it is no real threat and actually helps the party, so thanksgiving dinner is peaceful. The other part of the Green party is made of has been- still think "they got it" Phil Donahue types.

[Terwilliger]

47. why dont you shove it and then take a look at the people in your own party

who can only lose elections, take donations from big fat-cats, and blame everybody else for their problems

[Iverson]

49. Be calm.

I strongly recommend against telling people to "shove it." That is not persuasive, and it will only drive up your blood pressure in the end.

Let us make a progressive case in the best spirit.

[Terwilliger]

55. ok...shove it with vaseline, but shove it

that calm enough? :-)

[Gman]

194. Very VERY well put!

They'll all be neo-cons in 5 years! LOL! And how true! I've seen it happen way too many times in the last 30 years of being involved in Democratic politics.

[JVS]

216. If that's what you need to believe

[tabasco]

38. Nader doesn't care about the USA

And the members of his cult are a bunch of chumps. Nader knew how close the Bush/Gore election would be, and that his run would seriously jeopardize Gore's chances. Anybody who claims that Nader didn't put Bush in the White House is either ignorant about political reality or simply stupid. Splitting a vote is a political tactic just like a flanking maneuver is a military tactic. Nader knew what the results of the split vote would be, and he is responsible. The USSC wouldn't have come into the scenario if the vote wasn't so close. So Nader and his brainwashed cult can kiss my ass. A bunch of chumps.
Think of the environmental damage being done to our country RIGHT NOW due to Bush's insane policies.

[Rich Hunt]

68. the cult of personality

The cult of personality exists in all parties. The Democratic Party is no exception - if one reads this board thoroughly. I don't really feel I have a dog in this fight, but calling one side a "cult" is really laughable, especially when this board is full of Clinton and JFK worshippers.

[Room101]

125. gsh999 - you are now on my ignore list

I'm tired of freeper logic being spewed on this board.
And yes I voted for Gore in 2000 :)

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cocoa]

56. who voted to save overtime?

the Dems, and a few republicans. No greens.

[Terwilliger]

61. thanks, Cocoa

but there's no point arguing with a lunkhead

[Terwilliger]

62. wait a second...why was my post removed?

My thoughts were political...is political disagreement now a matter of moderator removal?

[Forkboy]

57. I'm giving this thread a batch of muscle rub

for the people whose knees will hurt after such a jerking.

[Terwilliger]

65. This is the reason that Greens should and will run

because Democrats still don't get it...they still think they simply own the vote of the left. It's not going to happen folks. Run another DLC and/or mainstream, squarely plunked down in the middle of Demopublican, and see how many votes you lose THIS time

[lifelong_Dem]

77. So the Dems should be punished if they run a "mainstream" candidate?

Wow. I don't believe I've heard anyone suggest THAT before...

[Terwilliger]

79. oh goody! We have head-n-the-sand Dem Numero Uno right here

won an election lately? like Lieberman much?

[lifelong_Dem]

92. Still with the straw men?

I've never said I liked Lieberman.

[Terwilliger]

96. but there it is, l_D

you'll bitch about Nader all day, but not attack the right-wing of the Democratic party? You'll bitch about Nader not fighting from within the party, knowing that the DLC had the power to shut out ANY left or left-leaning core values? You think Nader should have been like Kucinich...yelling, kicking, screaming from within the same party that wont let him anywhere NEAR the presidential nomination?

You keep talking like people have to stay in the party to change it. That's like not going to a doctor when you're sick, because you'll just redouble your efforts at "feeling well".

[lifelong_Dem]

135. Still pushing the DLC boogeyman?

In case you haven't noticed, the DLC is borderline irrelevant these days. Why do you think there was all the recent chatter about Hillary Clinton? They see their man (Lieberman) collapsing in the polls and they realize that they've alienated so much of the party that their influence is at an end.

But I'm still wondering why you think the Dems should be punished for nominating a mainstream candidate.

[Terwilliger]

145. AMAZING!

You just posted this!!!!!!!

lifelong_Dem (947 posts) Mon Sep-15-03 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #79

92. Still with the straw men?


I've never said I liked Lieberman.


THERE IT IS! THE DLC! WHY IS THAT NOW A BOGEYMAN?? HE WAS THE FUCKING VEEP CHOICE 3 YEARS AGO!!! HELLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dems need to figure out what makes them lose things. The DLC had a point. I think Democrats better find a new angle...this same-ole, same-ole doesn't seem to work.

[boilertommy]

66. Naderites are childish

They'd rather make a gesture that assuages their ego than do the serious work of getting things done. Perhaps it's a social thing to differentiate themselves from the Great Unwashed who vote straight Democratic, like being "Liberal" and driving a non-union foreign car. These people are not serious. I have contempt for them.

[Terwilliger]

69. good for you...when Bush wins again, we'll do lunch

and you can cry in your wine about what bad people the Greens are for having taken a crowbar to the Democratic party knees...there there...it's allllllright :eyes:

[StopTheMorans]

73. just ignore them:)

I'd rather spend the effort registering and informing another 2% of the population than pander to the greens. 2% is nothing, literally. To make the concessions that the greens demand, dems would lose way more votes than they would gain.

[Terwilliger]

76. ignore them...thats good...who started this thread???

or can you decipher that?

[StopTheMorans]

104. I wasn't making any points about who started the thread

I was saying that when Greens who have an inflated sense of worth of their party with respect to the whole electorate (read: I think Greens are not worth bending over backward to b/c they encompass such a small percentage of the electorate) need not be answered.

[Terwilliger]

106. that's right...let's look at these WACKY Greens

1. GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY
Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives and not be subject to the will of another. Therefore, we will work to increase public participation at every level of government and to ensure that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them. We will also work to create new types of political organizations which expand the process of participatory democracy by directly including citizens in the decision-making process.

2. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and homophobia, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law.

3. ECOLOGICAL WISDOM
Human societies must operate with the understanding that we are part of nature, not separate from nature. We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet. We support a sustainable society which utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation. To this end we must practice agriculture which replenishes the soil; move to an energy efficient economy; and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems.

4. NON-VIOLENCE
It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to society’s current patterns of violence. We will work to demilitarize, and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments. We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations. We promote non-violent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace.

5. DECENTRALIZATION
Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.

6. COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
We recognize it is essential to create a vibrant and sustainable economic system, one that can create jobs and provide a decent standard of living for all people while maintaining a healthy ecological balance. A successful economic system will offer meaningful work with dignity, while paying a “living wage” which reflects the real value of a person’s work.

Local communities must look to economic development that assures protection of the environment and workers’ rights; broad citizen participation in planning; and enhancement of our “quality of life.” We support independently owned and operated companies which are socially responsible, as well as co-operatives and public enterprises that distribute resources and control to more people through democratic participation.

7. FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY
We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control with more cooperative ways of interacting that respect differences of opinion and gender. Human values such as equity between the sexes, interpersonal responsibility, and honesty must be developed with moral conscience. We should remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want.

8. RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY
We believe it is important to value cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious and spiritual diversity, and to promote the development of respectful relationships across these lines.

We believe that the many diverse elements of society should be reflected in our organizations and decision-making bodies, and we support the leadership of people who have been traditionally closed out of leadership roles. We acknowledge and encourage respect for other life forms than our own and the preservation of biodiversity.

9. PERSONAL AND GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY
We encourage individuals to act to improve their personal well-being and, at the same time, to enhance ecological balance and social harmony. We seek to join with people and organizations around the world to foster peace, economic justice, and the health of the planet.

10. FUTURE FOCUS AND SUSTAINABILITY
Our actions and policies should be motivated by long-term goals. We seek to protect valuable natural resources, safely disposing of or “unmaking” all waste we create, while developing a sustainable economics that does not depend on continual expansion for survival. We must counterbalance the drive for short-term profits by assuring that economic development, new technologies, and fiscal policies are responsible to future generations who will inherit the results of our actions.

DAMNED QUASI-MARXISTS!!!!!

[sujan]

109. Trumps

DNC's 'pseudo left' or 'centrism' bullshit point anyday.

[ShimokitaJer]

78. Concessions?

Since when are promoting corporate oversight, upholding workers' rights, protecting the environment, and opposing the death penalty considered "concessions" by the Democratic Party?

[jonnyblitz]

95. The Green Party platform SHOULD be the DEM party platform.

DEMS calling it "radical" just goes to show how far to the right the party has moved...

[StopTheMorans]

105. I misspoke:)

my apologies:) I meant, and should have said "when the Green party refuses to try and work with the Democratic Party, and continues to run Nader, even when they see what happened in the last election, it's better to write their votes off and focus on the votes we can gain to win this election". I really don't have any problem with the Green party platform.

[Terwilliger]

110. then you shouldn't have a problem with these...

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=3&kaid=86&subid=84&contentid=2919

"The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data." -- Al From


AND


This fits in well with the liberal myth that Gore lost the 2001 election because of Ralph Nader. In fact, Gore lost the election because he was a poor candidate, ran a bad campaign, and failed to separate himself morally from Clinton. Further, not only the Democratic Party, but the liberals within it, made it absolutely clear over eight years that they had no interest in, nor would respond to, the sort of politics espoused by Greens.

A study by the Review of national and Florida polls during the 2000 election indicates that Ralph Nader's influence on the final results was minimal to non-existent. The Review tested the widely held Democratic assumption that Nader caused Gore's loss by checking changes in poll results. Presumably, if Nader was actually responsible for Gore's troubles, his tallies would change inversely to those of Gore: if Gore did better, Nader would do worse and vice versa. In fact, the only time any correlation could be found was when the changes were so small - 1 or 2 percentage points - that they were statistically insignificant. On the other hand when, in September of 2000, Gore's average poll result went up 7.5 points over August, Nader's only declined by 1 point. Similarly, in November, Gore's average poll tally declined 5.7 points but Nader's only went up 0.8 points. In the close Florida race, there were similar results: statistically insignificant correlation when the Gore tally changed by only one or two points, but dramatic non-correlation when the change was bigger.

During almost all of 2000, Bush led Gore with the major exception of a month-long period following the Democratic convention. During this high point for Gore, Nader was pulling a running average of 2-4% in the polls. While it is true that during October, Nader began pulling a running average of 6% at a time when Gore was fading, Gore continued to lose ground even as Nader's support dropped to its final 3%. In other words, despite the help of defectors from Nader, Gore did worse.

Further, as Michael Eisencher reported in Z Magazine, 20% of all Democratic voters, 12% of all self-identified liberal voters, 39% of all women voters, 44% of all seniors, one-third of all voters earning under $20,000 per year and 42% of those earning $20-30,000 annually, and 31% of all voting union members cast their ballots for Bush. In other words, Bush did better among these traditional liberal constituencies than did Nader.

[StopTheMorans]

119. I don't have any problem with those

the Greens knew damn well what they were doing in the last election cycle, yet they led the whole country over a cliff anyways. So in the future, I say treat them as the enemy and marginalize them whenever possible. It's simple, stop running Nader without any Greens in the House, Senate, or any MAJOR positions of power. The man can't win, you know this, and if he DID win, he couldn't do anything, b/c he doesn't have any party support to back him up. You can have him, he's a self-aggrandizing, lying SOB, and the Democratic party is better off without him and people who keep believing the lies he feeds them.

[Terwilliger]

139. are you reading what I'm posting?

You are trying to characterize a group of people as wholly wrong....very "liberal" of you :nuke:

By the way...what makes a consumer advocate a monster? Was history just surreality? He was always trying to make government so much worse that we'd end up with the fascists we have today?

So Nader's attempts at stemming the corporate tide for 40 years == advocating things designed at promoting the rise to power of corporations?

I can't reconcile that. Nader is not perfect, but you (the global "you") cannot possibly say that Clinton is anything other than honorable, or that Gore did not run a BAD campaign (whatever reason he ultimately made those decisions), OR that the Democratic party is not entirely liberal.

I will not accept that I have to vote for the system that produces such bad outcomes.

I'm still NO/Bustamante, but that may be it for me.

[StopTheMorans]

149. yes, I'm reading what your posting

and no, i'm not one of those dems. who cannot admit that Gore shot himself in the foot with his horrible campaign (just his horrible showing in the debates against shrub alone was enough to make me want to vomite), nor that Clinton's presidency was not perfect. That being said, Clinton's presidency was 1000 times better than Shrub's has been, and if you can't see that, then you can't see why I'm criticizing Nader. I know that Nader has been a wonderful consumer advocate for much of his adult life, and I used to be a proponent of his. UNTIL he started saying that there was no difference between the parties. Again, if you can't see the difference between Clinton's presidency, all that was gained then, and possibly more importantly, all that wasn't lost, and Shrub's misResidency, all that has been lost and will be that much harder to ever get back, then you can't see.

[ShimokitaJer]

140. I think most would agree with you on the Green platform

These used to be the key issues of the Democratic platform. In 2000, they weren't, and many flocked to Nader's camp. Some of them seem to be back with the candidates this time around, and I have no doubt that many will flock back.

I may be idealistic, but I believe Nader was motivated out of a simple desire to get these issues talked about rather than a desire to be the president. Had the Democrats spoken out about them, they would have effectively undermined Nader's base, and I believe Nader would have been happy to step aside. Instead, the DLC chose to ignore those issues and instead courted the center while embracing corporate money. Thus, Nader stayed in the race. And the Democrats attacking of Nader convinced his supporters more fully that they were against his positions. Why was it so hard for the Democrats to champion Democratic ideals!?!

I don't think Nader will ever be elected president, and I don't know if I will ever vote for him again. But until the Democrats start embracing their traditional values, I hope he keeps running. If nothing else, he will keep the DLC from doing to the Democratic party what the PNAC has done to the Republicans.

[Terwilliger]

147. PNAC?

So, is PNAC part of the right-wing attempt to create Armageddon?

I think the Repubs have been infiltrated by holier-than-thou fundie types...we can get to how many people we kill in our Dem/Pub foreign policy later, right?

[StopTheMorans]

114. read the post I made right after this one Terwilliger

or maybe you just chose to ignore it. I have no problem with the Green platform, I admitted that I misspoke earlier, and then I stated what I had actually meant.

[Terwilliger]

118. great...then you shouldn't have a problem with their democratic choice...

to be the Presidential nominee of the party in 2000: Ralph Nader

Maybe you just disagree with their tactics :shrug: Maybe you should respect their choices.

Did you read the article above about Nader meeting with Norquist and the Republicans? Did you see anything in there suggesting that he wants to help the Republicans? Is the "two-party" mantra able to trump reason as well?

[StopTheMorans]

126. alright, here's how I feel about the Greens

if they really wanted some respect, they would nominate someone other than Nader for the next election. Someone who does not perpetuate the lies that Nader won't let die.

[Terwilliger]

144. heh

REFUTE THEM!!!!!!! What lies? Give me specifics! Nader has never said a bad word about Democrats, except that their corruption by corporate influence seems to be in charge of their decision-making process.

And don't give me crap about the transient concerns of the day to day world...corporatism is the problem and it must be addressed. Show me REAL opposition to the policies that perpetuate these problems, and then call yourself "liberal."

I'm not extremist...I just don't find accession to the extremists on the other side a comforting thing.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

[StopTheMorans]

148. "there is no difference between the two parties"

Nader can go to hell for that one, that's the single biggest lie I've ever heard, and he's never going to live that down in my book. Nominate someone else who won't perpetuate that myth, and the Greens might start getting a serious look from some people who just write them of b/c of their presidential candidate.

[Terwilliger]

171. Can you find a quote for that? Nader never said it.

so... I guess that's your argument right there

[gully]

175. Heres a quote for you...

“The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door. That’s the only difference,” he said. “The two parties ... are becoming one corporate party, with two heads wearing different makeup, and that is not a good enough choice for the American people.”

In a speech at Amherst College, 10-04-00

http://halogen.note.amherst.edu/~astudent/2000-2001/issue05/news/04.html

There are many more 'strange' quotes from Nader if you do a bit of research.

Now we have many people touting corporate sympathy in the Democratic Party yada yada yada. It's like hearing Limbaugh drones, same stuff, different idealogue.

[Terwilliger]

184. How is he wrong?!?!?!?!?!??!

Have we talked about Terry McAuliffe yet? We've covered so much other ground...it's hard to say....

This is not saying they're the same people, but dammit the fucking corporations rule, and they rule our party as well. Now you can call that peace and loveliness, but I don't, and it's not helping for your chances to stop the hoard of drones from taking over. YOU are the problem.

[gully]

187. You changed the subject...again.

Start a new thread Terwilliger. First you said Nader didn't say what he did in fact say, on several occasions, then you change the subject and use a Nader talking point to do so...

I'm not going to debate this here as it's off topic...

However, I will say this on the subject. We do need campaign finance reform...And, it's strange how 138 democrats and only 2 rethugs voted in favor of such reform being there's no difference between the two party's and all :eyes:

:hi:

[JVS]

129. You couldn't ignore them if you tried

They are the greatest scapegoat ever.

[Rich Hunt]

94. I thought that many of the "Naderites"

....were long-time activists - people who have been fighting for change in their communities for years.

But what do I know, other than knowing many Greens personally?

[Room101]

121. boilertommy- you are on my ignore list

And yes I voted Gore in 2k:)I can't stand the Freeper logic you spew.

[StopTheMorans]

127. read a few of my posts

I think that I should be on your ignore list too, I mean hey, fair's fair:)

[lifelong_Dem]

90. My thoughts...

1. I estimate that about 50% of the people who voted for Nader in 2000 will NEVER vote for a Democratic candidate under ANY circumstances. Not ever. Not even Dennis Kucinich. They WOULD find a reason to stab Kucinich in the back if he were to win the nomination (maybe by bringing up his rumored late seventies "white candidate" rhetoric). We Democrats need to get that in our heads right now and stop wasting time and energy trying to win these people over. These are the people who ran a candidate against Paul Wellstone and are planning to run a candidate against Barbara Boxer. You'd have a better chance of converting an Islamic Mullah to orthodox Judaism then you would getting one of these people to vote Democrat. IGNORE THEM - they are just as much the enemy as Bush* and the PNAC.

The other half of those who voted for Nader, on the other hand, are reachable. I think that the past 2 3/4 years of Bush* and the PNAC running things will have opened their eyes. While we should try to reach them -- and encourage them to (a) settle their differences within the Democratic Party (if they are Democrats) or (b) convince Greens to be more pragmatic this time (if they are Greens) -- Democrats should also not "unilaterally disarm." That is to say, make it known that Nader won't get a free pass this time; highlight why Nader is unacceptable (esp. to those who "voted their conscience); and figure out a way to craft a Democratic Party message that would appeal to them without angering moderate/center-left voters.

2. Nader blew all of his goodwill in 2000. He literally has none for 2004. No-one can credibly say, as they could in either 1996 or 2000, that he's "a man of unimpeachable integrity" or any such thing. If he wants to be a politician, he should be treated no differently than any other. If he and/or his supporters whine that this is somehow "unfair" and bring up the sickening "Saint Ralphie" nonsense again, we should use his numerous faults against him (just as we should use Bush's numerous faults against him). Remember, this is Mr. "I'm not interested in gonadal politics"/"I busted a nascent labor union in my own shop"/"I hijacked a political party to use as an egocentric vehicle"/"I supported impeaching President Clinton" - you get the picture. Above all, he gets no free ride this time - 2004 is war, and if he runs he's as much the enemy as Bush* and the PNAC. Period. No ifs ands or buts.

3. Above all, the most important thing we, as Dems, can do is to GET A MESSAGE AND STICK WITH IT. Let's not give Bush* and Nader another opportunity to screw us over by not having a message and/or failing to communicate that message clearly.

[Terwilliger]

93. If Nader saw the Democratic party he's always been with

in 2004, he wouldn't run

[ShimokitaJer]

130. Some excellent points here

But I have a few points of contention

1) I don't know where your estimate of how many fervently anti-Dem Greens there are comes from, but I think it is severely flawed. I was completely disgusted with the Minnesota Green's decision to run a candidate (and a conservative candidate at that) against Wellstone and I agree that anyone with that kind of skewed attitude fully deserves the name "spoiler." It was a bone of contention within the Minnesota Green party, and many other states' Greens did not agree. I believe that those who pushed for this are far fewer than 50% of the Green party. More importantly, since not all who voted for Nader were Greens, former Nader supporters who refuse to vote Dem make up a far smaller percentage than 50%. Given that, I think there are far more people who are on the "willing to be convinced" side than you think.

I agree in part with your analysis of how to get those (like myself) who are willing to be convinced to vote Dem, but I think the emphasis has to be on the last point, which I thought should have been given it's own letter "c" rather than being included as an afterthought to point "b." There are some who will come back to the Democratic party out of pragmatism, but there are far more who will come if the Democratic party makes an effort to champion real Democratic issues, many of which are in common with the Green's key issues. At the same time, this will appeal to the estimated 20% of registered Democrats who voted for Bush in the last election. Attacking Nader will foster nothing but division, while addressing Nader's issues will gain far more for the Democratic candidate. So far, I have been extremely encouraged by the Democratic candidates statements of position and I fully intend to vote for any of the Dems but one (the one I didn't vote for for VP in 2000 either).

2) Nader should be a non-issue. Feel free to ignore him, but don't ignore his issues. They are real issues and they have a genuine appeal to the Democratic base, not to mention to many of the disillusioned former Bush supporters. Attacking him will make many feel the Dems are attacking those issues (that is exactly how I felt in 2000) when they are key to rebuilding the strength of the Democratic party. Rather than co-opting the Republican agenda as Clinton did, why not co-opt the Nader agenda instead? After all, most Dems already agree with it.

3) Absolutely! We need a clear message to raise as a contrast to Bush. But why do you insist that it be used as a contrast with Nader? Attacking Nader in order to attract his supporters is like the RIAA suing file-sharers in order to get them to buy more CDs. Don't alienate what should be your base. Nader voters are NOT the enemy, and treating them like they are is no way to recruit them.

Most importantly, I think many artificially inflate Nader. It was not a cult of personality that made many non-Greens vote Green in 2000. And it certainly wasn't Nader who made many Dems vote Bush. It was a lack of leadership among the Dems and the attacks on Nader fed that image of a party on the defensive. This time around, Nader's issues are OUR issues and former Nader voters don't "owe" the Dems votes, but they will freely give them if they feel it is justified.

[lifelong_Dem]

189. I think you make a few good points...

And I'm all for incorporating whatever parts of the Green message that won't alienate too many swing voters.

The bottom line, I think, is that we Dems need to think long and hard about what we stand for, and do a better job of communicating that to the public. We need to realize that there are plenty of progressive causes out there that a majority of the public will support. And the Greens need to realize that they are not going to be able to get everything they want, and that as of right now, there are unfortunately many progressive causes that a majority of the public won't support.

[ShimokitaJer]

206. Why are you more worried about alienating swing voters

than about supporting the traditional issues of the party? The DLC seem ashamed to acknowledge the New Deal, civil rights, social welfare issues that have formed the ideological base of the party over the course of the last century, and that's why I call myself a liberal but won't automatically call myself a Democrat.

What exactly are the Green platform issues that would be so repugnant to the centrist voters you want to appeal to?

[gully]

154. Great Post,

:thumbsup:

[no name no slogan]

167. Gotta respond to this...

These are the people who ran a candidate against Paul Wellstone

You're making a lot of assumptions in this one line.

I'm from MN. I have friends that are activisits/leaders in the DFL (Democratic-Farmer-Labor) Party and the Green Party MN.

The Senate endorsement issue RE: Wellstone was a difficult issue for many Greens in this state. Almost half the Greens were either 1) in favor of "cross-endorsing" Wellstone, or 2) didn't want to endorse a US Senate candidate, because Wellstone was running.

I know a large number of Greens supported and campaigned for Wellstone, even though the Greens had endorsed a candidate. You see, Greens are typically not of a single mind in regards to issues like this: they can be pragmatic when they see a need to be-- which was especially the case in Wellstone's 2002 race.

I think the demonization of the Green progressives by the Democrats will only hurt them in the long run. If we somehow think that luring the 3% of the "swing voters" to the party (swing voters, I might add, who are usually not activisits of any sort) instead of an untold number of left-progressives (who usually ARE activists) makes more sense, then in the future we'll lose more elections than we'll win, IMHO.

[gully]

173. Hi there...

I am in MN and also worked for Wellstone and later Mondale. :hi:

I don't recall many Greens, but then again, I didn't ask.

I did resent Naders additude about the Wellstone campaign when he said, (Regarding Senators Russ Feingold and Paul Wellstone) that he is willing to sacrifice them because "that's the price they're going to have to bear for letting their party go astray." *In the Times, 10-30-2000

But if you parellel that statement to Winona LaDuke...

"If Wellstone loses this November, it is a defeat for the Green Party, for all progressives, and for the agenda we share." Winona LaDuke, 2000 Green Party Vice-Presidential candidate. *The Hill, 7-10-02

There is a clear difference of philosophy.

I hope the Green Party embraces more people like Winona LaDuke, Granny D, and Ronnie Dugger.

The Ralph Naders of the world are not worthy of such company.

[ShimokitaJer]

207. "Greens are typically no of a single mind"

I think this is the key to the problem I have with Nader-bashing in general. The idea that the Democratic party owns the vote of every liberal implies a cohesiveness of purpose which isn't, and shouldn't be, there. The neocon pundits attacks on liberals paint us as one big group of like mind, when our differences of opinion are our real strength. They allow us to adapt to changing circumstances and help us understand, if not accept, competing ideologies.

But if DU is any indication, the strategy is starting to resemble that of the GOP. Everyone must vote in lockstep and accept the consequences for the sake of holding on to power. The demand that we all toe the line and vote Democratic regardless of the candidate is a response to the perception that the GOP is in power precisely because of this cohesiveness. And yes, I do believe it will gain us presidents and seats in Congress.

But it will cost us the reason for voting Democrat in the first place. There are many in the GOP who do not approve of the fundamentalist, fiscally irresponsbile policies which has taken over the GOP agenda. They bought into it for the sake of party unity and are only now realizing what they've gotten themselves into. I don't want to look back on my decisions in four or eight years and realize I've made a deal with the devil.

Yes, we are in a moment of crisis with G.W. and our primary goal needs to be assuring he does not get reelected. But what insanity is it to think we need to do that by abandoning Democratic issues in favor of appealing to those that appeal to Republicans? The GOP have spent so much time telling us that the American people care only about family values and military strength that we seem to have forgotten they overwhelmingly support education, health care, workers' rights, and environmental protection. Don't let them set our agenda, and don't let them force us to attack those who, like the Greens, share many of our issues.

[Oracle]

131. No one should have to fucking "apologize" if they want to run

for president. What in the fuck is wrong with you. People should and do vote for who they chose...who in fuck are you to say?????

[ulysses]

151. you forget, Oracle

The Democratic Party owns your vote. You owe it to them.

:silly:

[jonnyblitz]

157. I agree. I dont think people realize how outrageous they sound. n/t

[Oracle]

193. Seems only you two and Terwilliger get the point!

[FDR2004]

146. How many of those Nader voters would've sat out the election

if there wasn't a viable candidate besides Bush and Gore. Those votes would NOT have automatically gone to Gore. It might have been enough to have made a difference, but we just don't know. Florida could've still been fixed anyway.

I left my California ballot blank on the last gubernatorial election because I was so disgusted with the choices (not to worry, my vote's no on recall and yes on Bustamente this time around).

FDR2004

[Woodstock]

181. Many of them would have gone to Gore

I haven't seen a poll/survey yet that did not confirm this.

One reference: "The Emerging Democratic Majority" Teixiera/Judis

[loyalsister]

152. The worst kind of hypocrite

is one who claims to have good intentions but does this thing that has foreseeable horrible consequences for people. The 2000 actually hurt people. It has literally trashed the lives of numerous people who I personally know and live amongst. Nader knew that was not only possible, but likely. The worst part is he is of a sick mind that that very circumstance is a good thing because he thinks it will bring about a desirable outcome. Allowing\ultimately wanting people to get hurt to get somewhere is not honorable OR acceptable.
He has lost all credibility, and I know several Greens who agree. They have a very practical view this time around and would probably go as far as to campaign against him. They feel betrayed.

[noiretextatique]

156. those who betrayed american voters include

katherine harris
jeb bush
george bush
anotin scalia
william rhenquist
sandra day o'connor
clarence thomas
and the rebublican party

they are the worst kind of hypocrites

those who disenfranchised voters in florida, and those who disenfranchised all of the voters in 2000...those people are the WORST KIND OF HYPOCRITES.

[noiretextatique]

158. typical: everybody loves to forget about the disenfranchisement

planned and executed by the GOP. THAT was actually ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL. it's almost as if NO ONE GIVES A DAMN because many of the voters in question were african-american. focus on blaming nader and the green instead...so fucking sadly typical of this "colorblind" society. exempt the real culprits, while ignoring the REAL issue :puke:

[gully]

159. Yes, and...

let's not forget Naders contribution to that 'dis-enfranchisement.'

We are now a nation and in fact a world dis-enfranchised.

Nader knew we'd see a change in foreign policy were Bush elected. He knew we'd see greater poverty. He knew we'd see a lesser standard for enviromental controls. He knew...but he didn't care.

He said Democrats needed to "learn a lesson." Guess he didn't think about the people and the planet who are also learnin' a lesson in the process.

But, to be fair, there are many 'players' here who are partially responsible for where we are today.

1. Nader, because while Nader claimed there were no differences between the two major party's, he knew it wasn't true, and he didn't care what happened to: the poor, the enviroment or the globe, all of whom he so passionately claims to advocate for.

2. People who don't vote, but bitch about the direction of our country.

3. Gore, because he didnt' fight to the end. :shrug: Just trying to be fair here. I honestly don't bare Al Gore any grudge. I do wish he'd fought like hell though.

And, the ultimate player in the disenfranchisement of the American People.

4. The supreme court of America. This goes with out saying.

We can thank them all for the situation were in today.

[noiretextatique]

161. what a load of nonsense

nader didn't disenfranchise anyone...katherine harris, jeb bush, and scotus DID. this is so typical of the kind of intellectual dishonesty of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY itself. its COWARDICE in not confronting the REAL disenfranhisment of its MOST LOYAL constiuency is as shameful and RACIST as the act itself.
as i said, NO ONE GIVES A DAMN.

the republians knew it was safe to target african-americans, beause they knew the demoratic party would be too CHICKEN to challenge them. when they do it again...will you still be whining about nader? nader disenfranhised people...:hurts: even from you, that's an absurd stretch.

[gully]

165. Talk about a stretch...

You said~"this is so typical of the kind of intellectual dishonesty of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY itself. its COWARDICE in not confronting the REAL disenfranhisment of its MOST LOYAL constiuency is as shameful and RACIST as the act itself. as i said, NO ONE GIVES A DAMN."

Oh I see now Democrats are "dishonest cowardly racists" who don't 'give a damn' about people of color :eyes:

Talk about a 'streeeeeetch.'

US racist, dishonest, cowardly people are working hard on the next election to prevent the stealing of said election in 2004.

Might I also remind you the racist, cowards ie Democrats, took the issue to the Supreme Court.

BTW, are you assuming I'm caucasion?

[noiretextatique]

168. i don't care what YOU are

the isssue is that democrats were to cowardly to challenge to racist voter purge scheme of the republicans...the one that cost gore florida. the reason they chose not to do that is as racist as the scheme itself. at a mimimum, 50,000 eligible voters, most of them likely demoratic voters, many of them african americans, were disenfranchised INTENTIONALLY by katherine harris and co.
and yes, the reason the DLC and others advised gore not to touch that issue was RACIST to the core. it's the real travesty of 2000...the purge and the silence about it.

racism is an american political tradition...that it works so well in this instance shouldn't be a surprise to any honest observer. it always works well, and it works across party lines.

[gully]

179. When I said Gore should have fought harder I meant it.

And, I was as pissed off as anybody that we as Democrats didn't purse every angle and fight like hell. I think it would have been great for Nader and Gore to fight together on this issue, but as you know, neither party pursued it.

I think Mr. Gore had much on his mind, and might do things differently today. Hindsite is always 20/20. But, I don't think they didn't pursue the matter for 'racist' reasons. That's rhetoric that is found all over the web by so called progressives, and I question their intent frankly.

Al Gore had confidence that the NAACP was handling the matter of dis-enfranchised voters, as they pursued it immeditately in the courts. Al Gore publically supported their efforts in the matter, and spoke out about the issue openly if you recall. I remember him speaking on the matter, and he said the voters were pursuing it and he fully supported their efforts. He believed to much in 'the system' to do the right thing. We all know that was naive.

I did feel frustrated that the Democrats/Greens and or anyone concerned with our civil rights did not stand together to speak out against the travesty in Florida. I think Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush and co ought to be jailed, personally.

But, we all know what happened there. Ol' Jeb is still Gov and Katherine was elected to office. Pathetic.

[gully]

164. Typical Green Party rhetoric...change the subject...

regarding Naders role in this process. :puke:

[noiretextatique]

174. typical dishonesty...nader's role is not an issue

the issue, the one even this author OVERLOOKS, is that some people who were eligible to vote couldn't. i have no issue with those who participated in the process, after all, i think democracy is a grand idea. however, i do think it's odd that so many seem to have such a huge issue with participation in the democratic process, while ignoring the disenfranchisement issue completely. i guess those who didn't have the oppotunity to participate really don't matter...and certainly not as much as they should. it shows some true colors, so to speak.

this type of argument completely exempts the illegal, and immoral behavior the of the republicans in florida and on the supreme court. if anyone owes US and APOLOGY...it's them.

[gully]

182. It seems Nader disagrees with you

"The Democrats are going to have to lose more elections. They didn't get the message last time."~Ralph Nader

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0304-02.htm

There are many quotes/stories about Nader stating his goal is to 'take out Democrats.' He knows what he's doing. He's smart and calculating.

"Nader claims he is trying to bring Democrats to the left. If Democrats and GOPs are just about the same, then why does he bother trying to save us? Nader is using mutually contradictory rhetoric to suck the life out of the progressive movement. Nader aims different pitches at different people to hurt our cause as much as possible."~Mike Hersh

http://www.mikehersh.com/article_11.shtml

I have no problem with the Green Party. But I do have some serious issues with Ralph Nader and his faithful 'followers.'

Repent!!! ;)

http://www.repentantnadervoter.com

[Terwilliger]

185. Mike Hersh and "repentent" voters....how enriching

Nader was right.

[gully]

188. You always thought he was 'right' didn't you? N/T

Including in 2000 when you voted for him ;)

[noiretextatique]

199. the same mike hersh

who is an ex-DUer and rabid naer-hater? :nuke: yeah...he's real credible :eyes:

[Clete]

160. And that was his intent, to help those corporate interests

by appealing to the idealism and naivety of a block of voters who felt disenfranchised by the other parties. Nader is a brilliant man. He knows the score. He didn't do this accidentally.

[mlawson]

163. The 97,000 FLA Nader voters

are the ones I wonder about. What were they thinking????

I assume that they did not agree with bush, or want him to win (except a few in the 'Leninist' manner of having the far right win, so there would be a Leftist revolution). But assuming that *most* were in extreme disagreement with the bush agenda what did they think would happen?? Knowing how critical FLA was in the Electoral College, and how close the election would be, did they think they could vote Green, and still SOMEhow, bush would lose, and Gore would win??? :shrug:

[no name no slogan]

169. Nobody knew how "critical" FLA would be until polls were CLOSED

Which means that ALL Florida voters (Gore, Bush, Nader, Buchannan) had NO IDEA at the polls that their votes would be the subject of such scrutiny.

If you recall, almost all initial projections, based on responses taken at the polls, showed that Gore had WON in Florida. These early projections tend to be very accurate, for the most part.

Studies have also shown that if ALL the ballots had been properly recounted, Gore would have STILL WON Florida-- and that's not even including the shenanegans pulled by K. Harris and the Florida Sec. of State office (see www.gregpalast.com). That's ALL the ballots in the election, NOT just the ones where Gore demanded a recount.

Blaming Florida's Nader voters for Shrub's election makes about as much sense as blaming Paul Wellstone's death on the fact that he chose to run for a third term in the Senate. It's despicable, pointless, dishonest and doesn't do ANY good to the Democrats today.

[Woodstock]

180. But they knew they'd be critical

Even if they hadn't cheated, the margin of victory would have been relatively close - too close to risk.

All swing states were critical. That's why many of his own supporters urged Nader not to actively campaign in those states.

[noiretextatique]

195. they probably didn't know about the voter purge

and thought gore would win with those 50,000+ votes disappeared in the purge. no one else seems to know NOW (or care) much about those votes in these discussions.

[Hippo_Tron]

166. I just figured out Green party mentality

Democrats don't do what the Greens want, Greens vote for Nader, Bush wins the election, Democrats will do what the Greens want in the next election.

[edward]

177. Nader should be put on the cross.

[Woodstock]

178. What Gloria says goes for me

http://www.voters4choice.org/candidates/nader.shtml

TOP TEN REASONS WHY I'M NOT VOTING FOR NADER
(ANY ONE OF WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH)
by Gloria Steinem
President, Voters For Choice


10. He's not running for President, he's running for federal matching funds for the Green Party!

9. He was able to take all those perfect progressive positions of the past because he never had to build an electoral coalition, earn a majority vote, or otherwise submit to democracy.

8. By condemning Gore for ever having taken a different position - for example, for voting against access to legal abortion when he was a Congressman from Tennessee - actually dissuades others from changing their minds and joining us.

7. Nader is rightly obsessed with economic and corporate control, yet he belittles a deeper form of control - control of reproduction, and the most intimate parts of our lives. For example, he calls the women's movement and the gay and lesbian movements "gonadal politics," and ridicules the use of the word "patriarchy," as if it were somehow less important than the World Trade Organization. As Congressman Barney Frank wrote Nader in an open letter, "your assertion that there are not important issue differences between Gore and Bush is either flatly inaccurate or reflects your view that...the issues are not important...since you have generally ignored these issues in your career."

6. The issues of corporate control can only be addressed by voting for candidates who will pass campaign-funding restrictions, and by conducting grassroots boycotts and consumer campaigns against sweatshops - not by voting for one man who will never become President.

5. Toby Moffett, a longtime Nader Raider who also served in Congress, wrote that Nader's "Tweedledum and Tweedledee assertion that there is no important difference between the major Presidential candidates would be laughable if it weren't so unsafe." We've been bamboozled by the media's practice of being even-handedly negative. There is a far greater gulf between Bush and Gore than between Nixon and Kennedy - and what did that mean to history?

4. Nader asked Winona LaDuke, an important Native American leader, to support and run with him, despite his likely contribution to the victory of George W. Bush, a man who has stated that "state law is supreme when to comes to Indians," a breathtakingly dangerous position that ignores hundreds of treaties with tribal governments, long-standing federal policy and federal law affirming tribal sovereignty.

3. If I were to run for President in the same symbolic way, I would hope my friends and colleagues would have the sense to vote against me, too, saving me from waking up to discover that I had helped send George W. Bush to the most powerful position in the world.

2. There are one, two, three, or even four lifetime Supreme Court Justices who are likely to be appointed by the next President. Bush has made clear by his record as Governor and appeals to the ultra-rightwing that his appointments would overturn Roe v. Wade and reproductive freedom, dismantle remedies for racial discrimination, oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians, oppose mandatory gun registration, oppose federal protections of endangered species, public lands, and water - and much more. Gore is the opposite on every one of these issues. Gore has made clear that his appointments would uphold our hard won progress in those areas, and he has outlined advances in each one.

1. The art of behaving ethically is behaving as if everything we do matters. If we want Gore and not Bush in the White House, we have to vote for Gore and not Bush - out of self-respect.

I'm not telling you how to vote by sharing these reasons. The essence of feminism is the power to decide for ourselves. It's also taking responsibility for our actions. Let's face it, Bush in the White House would have far more impact on the poor and vulnerable in this country, and on the subjects of our foreign policy and aid programs in other countries. Just as Clinton saved women's lives by rescinding the Mexico City policy by executive order as his first act as President - thus ending the ban against even discussing abortion if one received U.S. aid - the next President will have enormous power over the lives of millions abroad who cannot vote, plus millions too disillusioned to vote here.

Perhaps there's a reason why Nader rallies seem so white, middle class, and disproportionately male; in short, so supported by those who wouldn't be hurt if Bush were in the White House.

Think self-respect. Think about the impact of our vote on the weakest among us. Then we can't go wrong.

[gully]

183. Gotta love G.L.O.R.I.A!

:toast:

[jiacinto]

186. I agree with you.

It is even more outrageous that Nader owns shares via mutual funds in good corporate citizens such as Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Clear Channel Communications, and the Altria Group, among others, in Fidelity Magellan. I don't have a problem with him owning stock, but he did attack Gore over owning stock in Occidental Petroleum. That smacks of pure hypocrisy.

[IranianDemocrat]

196. Nader is everything that is wrong with the left wing.

He's the one responsible for the de-unification of the Left and aiding the GOP in their victories by splitting the vote.

[jiacinto]

197. Of course

He believes in "heightening the contradictions".

[noiretextatique]

198. care to comment on the voter purge?

do any of you die-hard nader-haters? care to comment on why the party of those eligible voters disenfranshised in the purge didn't have the GUTS to make this an issue in the 2000 election? do any of you have an explantion for that?

there were enough potential voters lost in the purge who would have likely voted for gore...even with nader in the race.

sorry...i never will buy this faux outrage over nader as anything more than an attack on the left. it makes sense since most of you die-hards are not even liberals (in any real sense), and certainly not progressives (in any sense). not all, mind you...but most.

[jiacinto]

221. It's so funny how you will go to the most absurd and extreme

lengths to rationalize and defend Nader. You act as if his campaign did not influence the outcome at all. I disagree strongly. Nader lied about Gore, forced Gore to spend precious funds in states like IA, MN, OR, WA, and WI.

As for the purge it has never been in doubt that that was wrong. I don't see your point there--oh yeah I do, you'll go to any absurd length to rationalize and to defend Nader.

Point being, had Nader not been in the race, Bush et al would have had a much harder time manipuatling the FL outcome.

[FDRrocks]

202. Everything that is wrong with the left wing

is that it isn't equally represented in our TWO PARTY system.

Blame it on the Greens, eh, or, as it be, a single Independant. Deunification? The Democrats should be the champions of most Green key issues, they are supposed to represent the left, in a TWO PARTY system.

I guess it does not matter.

[U4ikLefty]

200. Whew, there you are Carlos. I was getting nervous ...I saw a Nader

thread and I scrolled down & wasn't seeing your name. I was relieved when I reached the bottom of the posts to find your old faithful anti-Nader post. Do you have this super-hero alert-thingy like Batman that shines in the sky when there's a Nader post here at DU?!?

I wish I could get Ralph to come over & give you a big hug.

[moondust]

201. When facing a major Supreme Court decision

one is reminded of just how important it was for the left/center to win in 2000. Nader was willing to risk a USSC tilted even farther to the right than it has been, perhaps for a long time to come. He should have had the wisdom and compassion to drop out at an appropriate time but he didn't. With such poor judgment and unrestrained egotism he should be considered unfit to hold public office at any level.

[noiretextatique]

203. poor judgement, unrestrained egotism

sounds a lot like bush. too bad democrats wouldn't risk offending swing voters to address the voter purge issue in florida. too bad they weren't willing to risk that, considering they also knew scotus was tilted to the right.

[gully]

209. We have a right to be angry about more then one issue.

Some things that anger me about election 2000.

1. Ralph Nader
2. Voter Purge issue
3. Clinton's (issues)
4. Supreme court decision

This thread happens to be about subject #1.

Let's stick to the subject shall we. If you'd like to start a thread, and see if any Democrats are 'angry' about the purging of voters in Florida.

[noiretextatique]

212. it's all connected...D'OH!

as in IF the republicans hadn't illegally and immorally purged voters, THEN nader wouldn't be an issue. still wondering why it wasn't and issue in challenging the 2000 results in florida though. still wondering why disenfranshisement doesn't garner the heat that nader does. oh, right...i KNOW why.

[gully]

213. Still wondering why Noble Nader didn't champion this issue himself

since it seems to be of such concern his followers. Could it be most of them are wealthy white males? :freak:

Voter purging is one of many issues in selection 2000, but as you know, the story referenced above, and subject matter HERE is Ralph Nader. Do start that thread though. ;) Ah, nevermind, I think I'll do that.

Here is a story on the subject you question, should make for an interesting topic...

"Had Al Gore not fought to have the uncounted Florida votes counted, the illegal felon purge, along with the additional illegal acts committed by the Bush campaign and its surrogates, would never have been discovered and there would not now be the NAACP's lawsuit, which is making its way through the courts. It is important to remember that the uncounted legal Florida votes that Al Gore fought to have counted were the votes of African Americans, Hispanics, the elderly and women."

And...

"Had the Gore campaign instead chosen to dispute the purging of legal voters who were illegally denied their right to vote on Election Day, this would not have added any votes to the vote totals. Rather, it would have blocked any attempt to count the legal votes that had been cast on Election Day and not counted because the 72 hour deadline would have passed -- and once that deadline passed, the campaign had no recourse."

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/04/29_Stolen_Election.html

[Rich Hunt]

215. bad logic

since it seems to be of such concern his followers. Could it be most of them are wealthy white males?

If they were all "wealthy white males", as you say, shouldn't they NOT be concerned?

I was at the selection protests - saw lots of Greens there. Also, absolutely none of the Greens I know are "wealthy" - they all have lower-middle-class or working-class jobs. Activism doesn't pay.

[gully]

220. My illogical response was in response to illogic...thus the illogic

in my reply.

[Forkboy]

205. Nader Haters sound just like the Clinton's Cock bunch.

[gully]

210. What about Dem haters? Who do they sound like?

[Forkboy]

217. I dont know any Dem haters

Terwilleger is the only one I know of here that would even come close to that,and he seems to me far more frustrated and angry at the coporatist turn the party has taken.I dont think he hates the Dems any more than I do,and I dont hate them at all.I am highly disappointed in them though,and even though you would prefer people like us to shut up and go away that isn't going to happen.I will continue to point out what I think the party could and should do better.If you prefer to bury your head in the sand and pretend everything the Dems do is just hunky dory that's fine.It's your choice.

On the other hand,this thread alone is full of genuine Nader Haters who see the world in very black and white terms.Sorry but I can see no difference between them and the Hillary Haters.

[gully]

218. Nader BASHED the Democrats and ran against them.

He bashed Gore, Wellstone, Feingold and others.

Also, the last time I checked Hilary was a "Democrat." Are you going to compare Bush bashing with Hilary bashing too? Criticism from within is one thing, but criticism from those who are not willing to help oust *Bush is another. Nader is not willing to help oust Bush. His goal is OUSTING DEMOCRATS. He said it himself.

*I think it's becoming clear now, it's small minded to bash Nader, and open minded to bash Democrats :eyes:

[MissMillie]

211. He won't apologize

He genuinely sees no difference between the Dems and the GOP. As far as he's concerned, it doesn't matter which of the two parties has control.

[rman]

214. one could blame Bush, election fraude, RW propaganda

But heck no, let's blame that perfectly legitimate 3rd party which is actually on our side. that makes much more sense.

If there'd been no Dem candidate would Nader have won? would that be reason to blame Gore for running?

Is the Dem party so weak that they consider three to be a crowd in the election?


"I order so that i can win, i'd rather you wouldn't run."

sure, whatever.
and someone called the greens "childish"?

[gully]

219. How the hell is Nader on OUR side?

Quick, somebody tell Ralph he's on our side. The poor fool doesn't appear to be aware of it. :eyes: