Why do those who bash former Nader Democrats NEVER bash Nixon/Reagan Democrats?

[Ken Burch]

The double standard on that is really sickening, and it has to stop.

Those Dems that voted for Nixon in '72(even though McGovern did nothing to deserve their disloyalty)have the blood of thousands of Chileans, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, and millions of Cambodians(since it was Nixon's fault that the Khmer Rouge ended up taking over) on their hands, as well as the blood of half a million East Timorese who were murdered when Kissinger helped Suharto take over that country.

Those Dems that voted for Reagan(even though neither Carter nor Mondale deserved their disloyalty)have the blood of hundreds of thousands of Central Americans and the loss of the national independence of Nicaragua(which was forced to vote to put the rich back in power in 1990 and thus stop being an independent country)on their hands and would have had the blood of the entire freaking planet(including their own blood) on their no longer existing hands if Reagan had had the nuclear war he wanted(which almost happened by accident several times during his presidency anyway). Same for those who were Dems for Bush the First(when Dukakis had done nothing to deserve THEIR disloyalty).

Yet THOSE Dems, when they founded the DLC, were not only NOT bashed, they were given CONTROL OF THE PARTY in 1992 and allowed to turn our next Democratic administration into a Republican one, with NAFTA, more executions, and the racist welfare bill(in which the "Democratic" president allowed every Republican/Rush Limbaugh slur on the morality and work ethic of poor women, especially poor women of color, to go unchallenged).

So it's time for some perspective. If you're gonna bash some people for their defections in '96 and '00, you are EQUALLY obligated to bash those who defected in '68, '72, '80, '84, and '88. What they did was worse than any Nader voter did. And you never said anything about that. In fact, you kissed their asses.

Get real already.