A vote for Nader is a Vote for PNAC !!!

[mzmolly]

Iran, HERE WE COME!

February 24, 2004

MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS

FROM: GARY SCHMITT

SUBJECT: Regime Change for Iran

We would like to draw your attention to the following op-ed by Michael McFaul and Abbas Milani in yesterday's Wall Street Journal ("Solidarity with Iran"). In the face of Iranian clerics' assault on the democratic process leading up to Iran's recent parliamentary elections, the authors argue that it is time for the Bush administration to demonstrate that its commitment to democracy in the Middle East extends to U. S. policy toward Iran.

Iran's leaders have begun to make gestures of cooperation with the United States - which is not at all surprising given the presence of American forces in the surrounding countries of Iraq and Afghanistan and the rapidly declining legitimacy of the regime with the Iranian people. Given the Bush administration's goals for stemming the WMD proliferation and reigning in terrorist groups, it may be tempting to pursue closer ties with the powerful clerics. However, as McFaul and Milani note, there is little reason to believe that a commitment made by the Iranian government on these issues would be anything but an expedient retreat or, indeed, that it would be honored at all. In the meantime, by engaging the regime, the administration would "send a demoralizing signal to Iran's democratic forces," who over the long-term could actually provide the U.S. with "more lasting gains."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iran-20040224.htm

See this titled "Going Soft in Iran" :eyes:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iran-20040301.pdf

They told us what was coming "once before" ... I sure hope we take them seriously this time.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-092898.htm

Will Nader drop out to prevent more bloodshed? :shrug:

[physioex]

1. Fuck Nader....

All he does is think about himself. The old goat, I wish Chevrolet would bring back the Corvair....

[Xipe Totec]

2. Nader is Bush's Pet Goat? N/T

[physioex]

3. Bwahahahaha.....Good one...

:evilgrin:

[blondeatlast]

29. Bwahahahahahaha! Excellent--can I put that in my sig line???

[Xipe Totec]

44. Go For It! n/t

[mermaid]

4. Darth Nader

Fuck the Corvair, I'd rather strap Ralphie-boy into a fucking Pinto, and slam a Corvair into the rear of the Pinto. That'd take care of our problem once and for all!!!

Want a pretzel, Ralph??

[physioex]

5. Bwahahahaha.....

:yourock:

[Xipe Totec]

6. No, No! I Want Nader To Run...

It's not much of a challenge if he justs stands still. Where's the sport in that?

[blondeatlast]

30. Falling off chair... tears...

Please! Make it stop!

[mzmolly]

32. He he.

:evilgrin:

[Radical Activist]

7. hmm...voting for a man of Arab descent is voting for PNAC...

Yeah...that makes sense...:crazy:
The Nader hate cliches are getting so fucking old. At least make a rational argument against him if you're going to bother bashing him.

[JohnKleeb]

8. my arguement against Ralph is clear

He can and will draw votes from the democratic nominee Kerry which will enable Bush's chances for reelection to increase. I agree with Nader on the issues but this is true, 2000 election is proof of it, and yes Florida was done by Harris and Jebbie, but Nader helped make it closer than it should have been, but I will be fair and say that I think Gore should have been more of a better campaigner.

[Radical Activist]

9. That doesn't mean that

people who vote for Nader in non-swing states are helping elect Bush, therefore a vote for Nader is not automatically a vote for Bush, as the oft repeated cliche on this board goes.

Kerry is most likely going to win and he will have a mandate. If liberals keep quiet while Kerry moves to the middle it will be easy for Kerry to claim a mandate for a moderate agenda that abandons progressive ideals. If Nader demonstrates a large constituency for progressive ideals by getting more than a few points in non-swing states, is that likely to make Kerry's agenda more or less progressive? I say it will make him more likely to be progressive.

I live in a swing state so I'm voting Kerry. However, I think the progressive cause would be better served by people in non-swing states voting Nader or Cobb. The Dem party needs to know that moderates are not the only swing voters they should be fighting for.

[JohnKleeb]

11. we dont know for sure

Well I am a democrat not an indy. I think the best way to get Kerry to truly move to the left is not by voting for Nader or Cobb but supporting left leaning candiates in your congressional areas, thats how tod o it. I think also many progressives give Kerry less credit than he gets, he plays to the center but his agenda by and large is quite progressive. I dont know what a true safe state is this time, so even if I lived in Montana, I'd vote for Kerry. I respect Cobb more than I do Nader though. I just think when it comes down to it, and I hate to say it because I do want more than 2 parties but its a two party system and like it or not these votes do take away from Kerry, it wouldnt kill me thogh if someone voted Cobb or Nader in Utah or Wyoming but in a state like Michigan or Minnesota, I would frown on that.

[blondeatlast]

33. Against an INCUMBENT, WARTIME president?

I've been campaigning for the past almost 30 years--don't kid yourself.

"Kerry is most likely going to win and he will have a mandate."

Win: tough call. Mandate: NO. Like it or not, he has to win the independent vote.

[Radical Activist]

36. Don't kid yourself

Bush is not going to win Illinois or California.
Kerry is not going to win Utah or Idaho. If he does it will be part of a landslide anyway.
I stand by my point.

No, Kerry doesn't really have to win that many independent voters if he turns out the millions of voters being registered by liberal groups and wins the support of a couple million people who voted for Nader last time.

[fujiyama]

12. Nader has

every right in the world to run.

However, what I hate about him are his lies. That's what I hated in '00 and that's what I hate now. He claims both parties are the same, that both candidates are the same. It's bullshit and it's fraud. Then he claims that dems are playing "dirty tricks" to stop him from getting on ballots. No, democrats are merely making sure his signatures are valid.

Aside from the lies he purpotrates, he sounds like a hypocritical ass hole. He busts unions. He gets homeless people to get his signatures and then stiffs em...or better yet he gets help from republicans to do his work. He associates with Grover Norquist and his band of thugs. He believed Clinton should have been impeached.

Whatever good he did in the past means little, because much of that is being destroyed and dismanted by the administration he is helping to keep in office.

[JohnKleeb]

13. right

Heck dude, Kerry is even more to the left than Gore is, some may disagree but if you do study these things, you'll find its true, not dissing Gore, nothing wrong with being moderate.

[Radical Activist]

15. I won't argue with most of your points except

that Nader has never said the two major parties are the same, and he has had to correct that attack against him repeatedly. He says the differences between the two parties are small, not that they are the same.

I think if you take the most liberal Democrat in Congress and the most conservative Republican in Congress there is a big difference between the two. However, Republicans and Democrats usually show their more similar moderate side in national elections and most major statewide offices.

He also has not made that his main argument this time like he did in 2000. His focus this year is attacking Bush, and he does it in ways that Kerry will not. How can we expect Kerry to attack Bush strongly regarding the war in Iraq and the jobs we lose to WTO/NAFTA when Kerry supported both of those big mistakes? Kerry can't, but Nader can. If the newsmedia reported the substance of what Nader says I believe it would help to elect Kerry, because Nader is spending most of his time bashing Bush.

[mzmolly]

19. Nader did say that Gore and Bush would be the same on foreign policy

the environment and other major issues. Nader was wrong. Why on earth anyone should listen to him again is beyond me.

Nader is one of over 200 candidates running for President by the way. Interesting that the Bush lovin' media gives him a voice isn't it?

Further, I don't see how a man who has NEVER served ONE day in his life in public office, can challenge anyone running for President, with a straight face.

Regarding WTO and NAFTA, I would ask why a Union Buster, homeless user, would care about workers rights?

[rhite5]

21. Scuze me, but Nader never said that Bush and Kerry

would be the same on the Environment. Nader admires many of Kerry's positions on the environment and has said so, and he has said that Bush is an environmental disaster.

Nader is basically anti-corporate so he is angry about our environmental laws not being enforced against the corporate raiders and polluters. He also wants to break up the giant agricultural corporations that are poluting our water and genetically modifying our food.

Nader is absolutely against the Iraq War and believes we must bring our troops home as quickly as possible, nullify the illegal contracts with the likes of Halliburton, turn any policing over to a consortium of other countries. He believes the Iraqis must be allowed to govern themselves and retain their natural resources.

Nader is also against NAFTA. Kerry does not share his views on these two issues. On these issues, Kerry positions are much closer to those of Bush.

I believe Nader's candidacy will help defeat Bush because it will allow him to be out there criticizing Bush in ways that Kerry cannot. (as was said earlier in this thread)

It is important that we know our facts and not just blindly assume Nader is the enemy of what we want. Nader's positions are almost identical with the Kucinich positions.

[mzmolly]

22. I said he compared Gore and Bush, not Bush and Kerry.

And he was WRONG.

Nader is absolutely against the Iraq War and believes we must bring our troops home as quickly as possible, nullify the illegal contracts with the likes of Halliburton, turn any policing over to a consortium of other countries. He believes the Iraqis must be allowed to govern themselves and retain their natural resources.

Nader has stock in Halliburtion and he can't win. I was against the Iraq war too, and I'm against the coming war in Iran should Bush sit in office for another 4 ~ were surely headed there next.

Nader is also against NAFTA. Kerry does not share his views on these two issues. On these issues, Kerry positions are much closer to those of Bush.

Yes, he's supposedly Anti-Nafta, but busts unions and stiff homeless people who work for his campaign.

I believe Nader's candidacy will help defeat Bush because it will allow him to be out there criticizing Bush in ways that Kerry cannot. (as was said earlier in this thread)

I disagree totally, and so do the many Republican groups helping him.

It is important that we know our facts ... Nader's positions are almost identical with the Kucinich positions.

I couldn't agree more. I said before that Nader basically stole Kucinich's platform, of course they're basically the same. ;)

[rhite5]

24. Hmmmm.....

stiffs homeless people? He is using paid signature gatherers and some of them may be homeless people. Is that what you mean?

I am not particularly happy that Nader has accepted help from Republican groups in his signature gathering, but he has the right to accept help from whoever offers it.

The Republicans are helping out of a false belief that Nader's candidacy will attract progressive Democrats away from Kerry. In "safe" Red states that won't make any difference and could even hurt Bush if he attracts moderate Republicans who have turned against Bush. In the "safe" Blue states the Democratic margin is high enough that Nader could never attract enough Dems to make a difference. It is only in the Swing states you need to worry. In those states most progressive Democrats will go with Kerry. The stakes are too high to do otherwise.

I think you are making mountain out of a molehill, and possess a lot of misinformation about Nader.

[mzmolly]

26. No my information is correct. He failed to pay the homeless people who

gathered signatures for his campaign. He busted unions and he owns stock in the corporations he claims to abhore, such as those in the defense industry.

Stiffing the homeless:
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2004/07/nader-steals-from-homeless.html

Union Busting and worker abuse:
http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm#antiunion
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13141

http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm

http://changein04.com/

I think the mis-informed are those about to vote for Nader.

Read these before you vote for Nader. :hi:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/07/01/nader_jacobs/index_np.html
http://www.soc.qc.edu/Staff/levine/nader/THE-REAL-RALPH.htm

Vote for Cobb, he's a real alternative to the status quo.

[rhite5]

34. I read your links. Thank you.

Some are undated and some are old stories from 2000. There is no way to tell whether the homeless people eventually got paid. It does not explain how the office got trashed or what the "dirty tricks by Democrats" were that Nader claimed in Philadelphia. It suggests some of the signatures were phony and had to be checked, but it does not tell us how that came out. It is a one-sided and incomplete story. That's the best I can say.

by the way, I live in a swing state, so I will be voting for Kerry.
(in case you assumed I was voting for Nader).

My interest is fairness in our characterizations of candidates as well as fairness in the application of the rules for all candidates.

[mzmolly]

35. Glad your voting for Kerry. I am in a swing state as well.

Thanks for reading the links. :hi:

I believe in fairness too, but I don't think Nader has been treated fairly, thus my desire to do so.

I am voting for Kerry, but put him under quite a microscope first, I wish those voting for Nader would do the same.

~ Peace.

[Radical Activist]

37. The story about homeless people sounds fishy

I've run signature gathering and voter registration drives like this one before. These drives always attract a certain number of scammers. If you have a rowdy group of people who are dishonest enough to gather fraudulent or improperly gathered signatures then they're also likely to cause a scene and make threats when they don't get all the money they hoped for.
Otherwise, I think its a good thing that he was hiring homeless people who often have a hard time finding work.

An Inquirer article on a blog that doesn't tell the whole story doesn't do much for me.

[mzmolly]

39. I've got many more links to the homeless scandal here:

I can see why you might question that particular one.

Ralph Nader's presidential campaign this week abruptly abandoned the Center City office that housed its efforts to get on the Pennsylvania ballot, leaving behind a mess of accusations and a damaged building.

The office, on the 1500 block of Chestnut Street, was emptied Thursday after a raucous scene the night before. Police were called as dozens of homeless people lined up to collect money they said they were owed for circulating petitions on the candidate's behalf.

Many of the circulators were never paid, according to outreach workers and interviews with several men who had collected signatures.

"A lot of us were scammed," said Ed Seip, 52, who said he collected more than 200 signatures for Nader.

You probably won't see this on CNN or FAUX as they support the Bush/Nader ticket.

http://tinyurl.com/4yaj6

Here is a quick google:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&client=REAL-tb&ie=UTF-8&q=nader+and+homeless

This info was all over the place a couple weeks ago.

I hope people will re-think Nader as a great left hero, he is destroying his legacy more each day.

[Radical Activist]

41. From the article:

"Slevin said he would mail checks to the addresses people had given when hired."
OK, so what's the problem then?
Sounds like somebody screwed up and handled the situation badly. To suggest Nader has some kind of sinister agenda to screw the homeless because of that is a big stretch.

[mzmolly]

42. But he never mailed the checks.

Uhm, oops :shrug: And where do you send checks to "homeless" people?!

I don't care if he had a sinister agenda or not, would YOU or I for that matter, excuse this from the Kerry campaign? NOT.

[Radical Activist]

46. Also from the article

The 2-week-old effort to collect signatures using hired petition circulators also faced scrutiny last week after reporters witnessed several circulators repeatedly signing each other's forms and telling signers that they could use whatever name they wanted.

Slevin said circulators had been instructed to obey the law.

But one disgruntled circulator said they had not known the rules. "Everyone in the mission was just passing them around from person to person," said Michael Reed Jr., 21, who said he had not been paid.

--------

So some people were obviously committing fraud. People who engage in fraud should not be paid. This isn't even an issue.

[mzmolly]

47. And this from the article:

Petition circulators were told they would be paid from 75 cents to $1 for each valid signature. Half of the money was to be delivered at the end of the day and the balance paid by check the following Wednesday.

But people who showed up Wednesday described a chaotic situation. Lines moved slowly as Slevin and one assistant, protected by armed guards, vetted the petitions for obviously forged signatures. Many in line were shouting and claiming they had been underpaid. As tensions grew, police were called.

By day's end, many left without being paid. Those who returned the next day found the office empty.

Homeless people were NOT paid for VALID signatures. You wish this were a non-issue.

[Radical Activist]

48. The article doesn't say

people were not paid for valid signatures. It says people left angry claiming they were underpaid. As someone who has had to refuse someone pay for committing fraud on more than one occasion I will tell you that everyone who commits this type of fraud claims innocence. If they had to mail checks to people I'm sure there were also other that were very angry about not getting paid that day like they thought they would be. That doesn't mean they were never paid.

I see signs that the person hired to run this drive didn't know how to run it well. I don't see signs of a deliberate attempt by Nader to screw over homeless people. I think your obvious hatred toward Nader is coloring your view here. I don't agree with Nader's decision to run this time, but I understand it and don't think he's the devil.

[mzmolly]

49. OMG, this is humorous. So the homeless are lying?

:eyes:

The article says when people showed up to be paid, the office was closed. I believe the homeless over the liar, Ralph.

I suggest your love for Nader is coloring YOUR perspective. I questioned Nader long before this article, but I remain open minded about him, none the less. It's a shame so many are blinded by his hypocrisy.

:hi:

[Radical Activist]

50. Yes

People dishonest enough to commit voter fraud will also lie about it afterward. It says people showed up to get paid and had to wait in line, not that the office was closed right away. The article also says that voter fraud was clearly happening.

If a Nader campaign memo turns up advocating cheating people out of a few bucks then I'll believe it was an intentional plot.

I have personally had to fire and not pay people desperate enough to commit voter fraud in a voter registration drive. They get very angry and might cause damage to an office or person. They also deny the crime they have committed. I've been in these situations before so I completely understand what was happening in the article.

[mzmolly]

51. So now ALL the people who were not paid committed voter fraud?

Funny then that the Ralph camp claims they will 'send a check' now isn't it?

Checks in the mail you fraudulent homeless bastards! :eyes:

*yawn* Someone wake me when the so called left gets a friggin grip!

Confucius say: Union Busters don't generally care if people get paid what they're worth.

I'll consider Nader's history and say ... "I believe the homeless people" !!!

[mzmolly]

18. I totally agree. He has a right to run, I just wish he were upfront about

why. :hi:

[rhite5]

25. I think you know why

It is voter education, pure and simple. He certainly does not expect to win an election.

He wants to bash GWBush and call peoples attention to the extreme damage the PNAC agenda has already caused and will cause in the future (not just to our country, but to the whole world) if not stopped. He is very rough on the neocons, in a way that Kerry cannot be.

Somebody has to do it, and Nader can get the face time on TV and he gets print coverage. People do pay attention to him, and the public still has a lot to learn before November.

Have you ever heard him speak?

You might do a google search on his stock holdings. I would be VERY surprised if it includes Halliburton.

[mzmolly]

27. You don't buy that crap do you? Nader would drop out were this the

case.

Nader owns/owned stock in:

Halliburton Company, the Gap and the Limited (both of which have been the target of rocks by World Trade Organization protesters) as well as Wal-Mart, big pharma, the defense industry, the oil industry, McDonalds and many more...

http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/28/stocks/index.html

I think he's running to make money off a Bush win via his investments.

Here is what Nader said after assisting Bush the first time:

"The Democrats are going to have to lose more elections. They didn't get the message last time." ~ March 2000, Common Dreams

That statment seems quite different then what he's saying today. I'll take his actions over his ever changing words any day, and his actions tell me he's a Bush supporter.

[Radical Activist]

38. Considering the 2002 election I think Nader's statement was right

Remember how everyone turned into a coward and tried to cozy up to Bush in the 2002 election? It took that devastating loss in '02 to make some people wisen up and realize that being Republican-lite wasn't working. Maybe that's why so many Dems supported Dean based on his use of that accusation against moderate Democratic leaders. It took another loss for many Democrats to learn the lesson.

That statement may tell you he's a Bush supporter, but it tells me he views the issue the same way Howard Dean does.

And Nader may drop out at some point. We don't know that yet.

[mzmolly]

40. Nader and Dean clearly differ today on the issue of removing Bush.

While Dean and Nader agree that you don't win by being "Bush lite" they differ on one major point ... Dean put it best when he said to Nader, "it's about the people Ralph"

Nader doesn't seem to get that. We on the left are SUPPOSED to be concerned with PEOPLE. Dean is, Nader clearly is not. He's concerned with his ego first, and ending what he calls the duopoly second. :eyes:

There are over 200 candidates running for office. I wish Nader would have formed a group lobbying for campaign finance reform to effect the change he claims to desire. Such a group could have accomplished much over the past 3 plus years.

Instead he has decided to be a quasi Bush supporter ... again.

As for Nader dropping out, I won't hold my breath. He has said he won't and in this case, I believe him.

[Radical Activist]

43. Actually Nader DID form a group to lobby for campaign finance reform

and other laws to take the corporate influence out of government. He's formed several groups that have pushed for that.

What I can say for Nader is that at least he has been consistently progressive for years, unlike Dean who became a liberal for a short while during the primary and ran back to the middle last December.

Nader says his campaign will help to defeat Bush as well and he states that as his goal. Considering Kerry's inability to attack Bush a number of issues like free trade and Iraq, I think Nader has a point. I would like to see this campaign be based on the kind of issues Nader brings to the table.

[mzmolly]

45. Dean never claimed to fit into a box, and I suggest that Nader aka the

Union Buster isn't a liberal either.

Dean supporters never considered him anything but REASONABLE.

Perhaps Nader should have focused more on his "group" then running for an office he will never hold, again.

We don't need Nader's version of help. With friends like him, who needs enemys? Dean can and has challenged Bush in Iraq, so have Kucinich, Braun, Sharpton, and others with-IN the party.

[mzmolly]

16. I can't figure out why he wouldn't be concerned about it either?

Perhaps he's been "Americanized" :P

[blondeatlast]

31. Rational Argument:

He takes votes from Kerry, meaning Bush wins in the electoral college.

Bush/Cheney demolish: consumer, environmental protection, campaign financing; pretty much everything Mr. Nader ACCOMPLISHED in his lifetime; rendering him completely useless to ANYONE.

Sorry, but this is the funniest thread in GD2K in a while!

[jwirr]

10. Ralph is not capable of

ruling this country if he does not see the dangers of a Bush reelection. One of the reasons I favored Kerry in the primary was because of his experience in the Senate. To fight and fix what is happening in Washington today the NEW president, with NEW ideas, will have to know his way around the map from the first day. That was one of Bill Clinton's problems. He did not realize the insider system that set the traps for him. Nader not only has no inside political experience but his continuing race indicates that he is still hung up on the "both parties are the same" idiocy. We are in danger of loosing our democracy via the Patriot Act, placement of supreme court justices, monopolies in the media world, unfair tax systems, etc. and Ralph only see that ordinary people (democrats) are asking him to end his race.

[mzmolly]

28. Good point Judy.

Ralph is not capable of ruling this country if he does not see the dangers of a Bush reelection.

WELCOME TO DU! :toast:

[mdmc]

14. half of America loves PNAC and Bush

Most Nader voters feel that Kerry reps the PNAC just as well as *.

Go Kerry... whatever.

[mzmolly]

17. Well then they are greatly mis-informed. Kerry does not subscribe

to PNAC. But, whatever one tells one self to justify ones foolishness never ceases to amaze. :shrug:

[cynatnite]

20. A lot have never heard of PNAC

I didn't until I got here and then I was like :wtf:

I'm sure a lot of people would blow it off and not take it that seriously unless they had a strong mistrust of the government and were democrat.

Some of the dems I know don't like Bush, but don't think he's all that evil, just a bad president. They get their news mostly from TV and newspapers where it's never brought up.

Cyn:)

[rhite5]

23. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page has become an organ

FOR the PNAC. Whatever it says is intended to manipulate your thinking.

If you read anything from there, ask yourself these questions:
• 1 Why are they telling me this?
• 2 What is it they want me to believe?
• 3 Does this help raise the fear factor that will help Bush?
• 4. What are they trying to distract you from noticing?

Learn who the people are who write these editorials and op-eds and you will realize what I am talking about.

[oasis]

52. A vote for Nader is truly a vote for Bush and the PNAC gang.