To critics of Nader

[makhno]

Those who continue to hold Ralph Nader responsible for the ills that have befallen our country in the last three years would do well to consider the following:

The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race. - Al From, DLC founder and CEO, Blueprint Magazine, January 24, 2001.

The viciousness of the attacks on a respected progressive figure is leading me to believe that much of the offensive rhetoric is a product of Republican operatives intent on further straining the already tenuous relationship between some the more liberal members of the Democratic party and its mainstream. The counterfactual assertions about Nader's role in the 2000 elections, the disregard for a citizen's right to support any candidate, the shameful attacks on the candidate's personality are all typical Republican tactics. If nothing else, the blunt intolerance of any deviation from the official Party platform is not a Democratic value. Or so I hope.

[salinen]

1. I love Ralph

But I'm not going to vote for him.

[makhno]

11. As is your right

What concerns me is the belief some obviously hold that we cannot make the right decision this November without constant, vicious attacks on a candidate with a proven progressive track record. That is not helpful and reminds me of the slander campaign against McCain perpetrated by the Bush campaign in 2000. One would hope that Democrats can rise above that.

[still_one]

13. It is not slander

there was a difference between Gore and Bush, and there is a difference between Kerry and Bush. The slander comes from Nader!!!

[makhno]

19. "He's doing it because of his ego"

Or "he's doing it to split the Democratic party", or "he's doing it to help Bush." That's what I'm tired of hearing. For all I know, he's doing it to have some airtime to highlight important issues, something he'd never get otherwise.

[still_one]

2. That is CRAP

In Florida, and other states where it was close, Nader made the difference, but the most important thing was when Nader said there was no difference between Bush and Gore, and for that alone, Nader deserves the verbal attacks. In other words, NADER IS A LIER!!!

[Syrinx]

3. Bullshit

If not for Nader, the Bush Crime Family would have never been selected.

Nader, whatever good he had done in the past, is bought and paid for by the GOP. Sorry to see a former idealist sell his soul to the dark forces that are running the country and the world into the ditch. Nader is just as evil as Bush.

[makhno]

4. Is Al From a liar?

What basis do you have for this assertion?

[Syrinx]

7. Do you mean Al Frum?

And what did he say?

[makhno]

17. From

The head of the DLC quoted in the post.

[Syrinx]

20. okay, I got his name wrong

I thought it was "Frum."

I still think you are a troublemaker who has no interest in Democratic ideals.

[makhno]

22. Gee

Thanks for making my point. What Democratic ideals would that be? A living wage? Universal health care? Reduced military spending and an end to the doctrine of pre-emptive violence? Affordable quality public educatation K-through college? These are the ideals I support, not badmouthing candidates on unsubstantiated grounds.

[Syrinx]

24. tell me the truth, do you think Nader can be elected President?

[makhno]

26. No, of course not [nt]

[Syrinx]

31. so what is the point?

[makhno]

34. The point

The point is that I find baseless, vicious attacks on a committed liberal absolutely appalling. No one here is promoting Nader's candidacy.

[BeFree]

48. Counter point

"...attacks on a committed liberal..."

In your original post, you assert that those who voted Nader, by a 2 to 1 margin, would have voted * if Nader were not running. Can't you see the contradiction there? You are saying liberals should vote Nader, but that they would have voted for * if Nader were not in the race!!

BTW, what has happened to the Green Party? Why didn't Nader work these past few years to build up the Party under which he ran? Methinks he used and abused the Greens, and now he has no more use for that Party. Shamefull.

[makhno]

76. Hold it

In your original post, you assert that those who voted Nader, by a 2 to 1 margin, would have voted * if Nader were not running. Can't you see the contradiction there?

It's not inconceivable that a Buchanan-style Republican would be sufficiently disillusioned with his party's mainstream to vote for a different candidate.

You are saying liberals should vote Nader

Please, you know full well that I said no such thing. Are we so insecure about our platform that any challenge to it provokes immediate panic and knee-jerk reaction?

[BeFree]

94. Hold what?

It may be conceivable, but it sure ain't likely a Buchanan voter would vote for nader. But one must have an open mind, no?

Well, if you are not saying liberals should vote nader, then I must ask: are you saying liberals should NOT vote nader?

What was the point of your thread then, if not to garner support for that two-timing user of the Green Party mechanism, just so he could run with * in 2000? Either you wnat liberals to waste their vote or you don't! What is it?

[ProfessorGAC]

82. I'll Go Ahead And Say It

Al From is wrong! Whatever data on which his statement is based is either from a flawed sample, or is bogus. Or, he mistinterpreted that data.

It defies logic that highly liberal voters went Nader instead of Gore, but would have voted for Bush had Nader not been a choice.

It completely strains credulity that people who were not happy with Gore, because he wasn't progressive enough, would have voted for a silver spoon twit with a governmental track record of conservatism.

So, i'll repeat. If you're using Al From as your reference, your argument bears no weight. He's wrong, and if he is your touchstone, so are you.
The Professor

[still_one]

8. Many of Naders' large contributors this year are Republicans

who do not believe in his issues, but just want to see Kerry lose...

[makhno]

23. Is that his fault?

Does he actively seek their contributions? I see vicious business interests contributing to both Repug and Democratic campaigns. That makes me question our campaign finance laws, but not the integrity of the candidates.

[AP]

93. So were some of Deans.

[roguevalley]

5. I wouldn't disbelieve anything anyone said about a Repug. However,

as a supporter since 1971 of Ralph, my current lack of
support is because of his ego tripping, not his lack of
good ideas or whatever. It's his ego pure and simple.
Its really had for a Naderite from WAAAAAAAY back when,
when being one cost you, to say that but so it is.

He gets my respect if he earns it. Right now, he isn't
earning it. I doubt that he will lose any sleep over
that but that's the way it goes.

[aquart]

6. Tell Ralph to print it on biodegradable paper and eat it.

And I hope the smug self-righteous bastard chokes.

Was he noble once? He's an arrogant worthless prick now.

[MrPrax]

9. Expect the attacks to get worst...

Since the 'choice' is a 'walking talking argument' for any critic that has said there is NO difference between the two parties for the past forty years...you will probably find more 'operatives' (doesn't matter which 'party') denouncing 'Nader' as an 'articulate' of this obvious fact.

Explain 'democratic value' again...I missed it?

[Fenris]

10. If you are a devotee of the Nader cause, why do you believe Al From?

[makhno]

15. I have no basis to challenge his assertions

Why would he lie, especially about something like this?

[usregimechange]

12. It isn't our consistent with our values but...

I just want Bush to go. I would love to have Nader helping us do that.

[Beloved Citizen]

14. Hilarious

People can speak the worst crap ever about John Kerry, and you won't hear a peep from the Nader Indignancy Board. But dare to utter any kind of criticism of St. Ralph? Such as his accepting money from the GOP right?

They howl like you were caught with your hand up Mother Theresa's habit.

Ralphies? Meet Bill Bennett. Feel his pain yet?

[makhno]

28. Criticism of the platform is fair game

Nothing wrong with discussing a candidate's ideas. But whence the need to portray Nader as a Republican puppet or as an egomaniac, all without a shred of evidence?

[Beloved Citizen]

44. Here's your evidence

GOP Donors Double Dipping w/ Nader
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0327-05.htm

Bush Supporters Donate To Nader
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001889252_nader27.html

Nader is taking money from the same reactionary corporate sources Bush rceives his money from.

It's time to subject Nader to the kind of crtiticism being leveled at Kerry.

[makhno]

78. Please see #23

Every single candidate who chooses not to actively reject contributions based on some ideological criteria has a host of troublesome backers.

[Beloved Citizen]

85. Uh oh. Bush blames Clinton, and now Nader blames Kerry?

Is Nader becoming another "no buck stops here" candidate?

After claiming a trillion times that one of the reasons for his running is taking corporate influence out of our government, now Nader feels it's OK to take corporate money because, "Kerry does it, too?"

:crazy: The mind boggles.

[bluestateguy]

16. A correct argument...

in 48 out of 50 states.

What matters is the electoral college and nothing else. Nobody can say with a straight face that out of the 97,000 Nader voters in the state of Florida Al Gore would not have netted the needed 537 votes to win the state, and thus the presidency. Nader's presence also arguably swung New Hampshire to Bush, though the result was inconclusive.

[Dogmudgeon]

18. That "blunt intolerance"

Have you ever heard or read any of Nader's speeches in the 2000 election? He spent most of his time complaining about how horrible Al Gore was.

Of course there's going to be some hard feelings. I was nearly kicked out of my apartment because my landlord was a Naderite and I thought Nader was doing harm to the anti-Bush effort. Many (though not all) of the Naderites were just plain viscious, and wanted Bush to win to "punish" the Democratic Party.

Personally? I don't hate Nader at all. I still think he was as spoiler, and not for the reason of the vote count, either. He comes off these days as a silly little man. I have very little inclination to bash on him, but the pro-Nader partisans should realize that the problem has more than one dimension. Nader's culpability was well-established before the voting took place.

--bkl

[PurityOfEssence]

21. Nader won 94,000 votes in Florida

Let's say that 99% of the Nader voters simply hadn't voted and the other 1% had voted for Gore. He'd have won. (Well, he did, actually; I just mean it would have been harder to throw.)

This is idiotic. Nader's spokesperson said yesterday that Kerry shouldn't fear him; it should draw him closer to his base.

This is all incredibly foolish and unsupportable. What does any of this mean? Kerry should suck up to the far left and aggressively bash corporations and do all sorts of other things that will cost him many votes in the center, just so he can nullify the point of voting for Nader? This is sheer imbecility.

I'm sorry we can't live in fantasyland. Hell, I'd like to crack down on religion, tax it, get rid of the "under god" crap and all of the faith-based crap, but I'd never say that now; we need to win, and there are going to be many compromises necessary.

There's a tiresome narcissism among extremists on the left right now, and anyone who can't see that Nader's candidacy hurts Kerry is absolutely blind.

Even with all of the stealing, lying, disenfranchising and everything else, the Republicans could only pull a margin of 537 votes in Florida. The Nader votes were overwhelmingly from people who would have voted Democratic. This is fact.

What is the matter with you people?

Fine. To those who will actively sustain this line of reasoning or vote for Nader in '04: be vain and above lowering yourself to supporting a sullied politician, but at least admit the recklessness and responsibility for the act.

[makhno]

25. As you say

Gore won. Electoral fraud is what put Bush into the White House. We agree on that.

What we disagree on is the need to be so vocal in attacking Nader. Do you not trust liberal voters to make the right decision in swing states this Fall? Do you think constantly blaming those who voted for Nader in 2000 and attacking their erstwhile candidate will somehow shame them into voting for the Democratic nominee? I personally don't know anyone who plans on voting favoring Nader over Kerry, even in my safely blue state. People aren't idiots. But that doesn't mean some might not be sensitive to conscious, consistent efforts to alienate them from the Party.

[yorgatron]

27. i am utterly,utterly SICK of

nader apologists on here.this is DEMOCRATICunderground,not NDAERunderground or GREENunderground.talk about DEMOCRATIC candidates or GO AWAY!!! :mad:

[G_j]

79. it really is inappropriate to tell

anyone to 'go away' who hasn't broken any of the DU rules. Who died and put in you in charge?

[PurityOfEssence]

39. Point by point: how you're shockingly wrong (dammit)

1) Yes, Gore won both the popular vote and what should have been the electoral vote too.

2) It was stolen partially because it was close enough to steal; this IS the fault of Nader and his camp.

PARAGRAPH 2

3) There IS a need to vocally attack Nader, because he and his people need to be shocked into some semblance of reality: they will suck media coverage time, misguided votes, money, activist efforts and general energy that is sorely needed. Since gentle reason doesn't seem to work, it's time to go into full red-faced screaming paroxysms of dudgeon to wake them up or send them slinking back to that superior place where they dwell.

4) No, I do not "trust" liberal voters to make the right decision in the swing states. This is the same logic as the '00 election. How many people have you heard mumble that they'd never have voted for him had they known how close it would be or that there actually (what a shock) is such a big difference between the Dems and the Republicans? Why even suffer such a thing to happen? Learn something from the conservatives: don't allow things to exist that threaten you. Recovering alcoholics stay out of bars. Ya don't swim near piranhas. I hardly ever smoke near a gas pump.

5) No. I don't think that the hardcore blockheads will be swayed. What worries me are the sincere idealists who think that they can influence the future by a protest vote, or a replay of '00 where cockiness for a Dem victory causes people to go that way.

6) I HATE THE "I PERSONALLY DON'T KNOW ANYONE..." arguments. How many damned people do you personally know who will vote? How many of their votes are you sure of? A hundred? MAYBE?! I doubt it. That's a lot of people. Not only that, but there are lots of people who might shock you by how they vote, so you can subtract some more. There were over a hundred million votes cast in 2000. New Mexico was won by something like 400 votes, New Hampshire lost by 7K, etc., etc., etc. I live in Los Angeles, and I know quite a few people who voted for Nader: most in California, but some in Florida, Colorado and other states. Learn to know your own level of ignorance; it's one of the warning signs of intelligence.

7) People ARE idiots. They're shockingly intelligent, insightful, stupid, ignorant, pompous, oblivious and all sorts of other things. More than anything else, they're herd animals who refuse to recognize their own failings and shortcomings. People have a sick need to be correct even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and a vanity to be "in the know". I've seen both sides of it, and I deal with lots of people in pretty tense and high-contact situations. It can turn on a dime, and it's best to just not leave any dimes laying around. Why even allow things to go wrong like this?

8) This is life and death. If the gentle souls who just can't abide the co-opted grime of the Democratic Party still want to be welcomed, they need to get in step at the critical junctures. Splitting the left vote is an attack on progressivism and a de facto support of fascism. People who can't lower themselves to compromise deserve the heaped and ear-splitting rancor from those of us who can. The very idea that Naderites are "hurt" and "wronged" because they're not treated with love and respect by the people whose dreams they're destroying is astonishing. Those who need to feed their vanity by allying themselves with altruistic impracticality should be impervious to the derision from the inferior; it makes no sense at all, unless narcissism TRULY IS THEIR BASE MOTIVE. If supporting the pristine candidate is the honorable thing and the true motive, being hectored by fools and slaves to corporatism shouldn't bug them in the least, but since it is an endless recurring cry that the mainstream Dems "are being so mean to them", it clearly shows that the principal motivation for Nader supporters is self-worshiping, holier-than-thou mega-vanity.

8 1/2) How can people who support a fractious third-party candidacy bellyache about consistent efforts to alienate them from the party? That's like somebody going to a formal wedding and throwing a bucket of dog shit in the face of the bride and then sniveling about not being welcomed; if you actively try to undermine the party's candidate, you have no right to complain about the party's impoliteness. Why does something so obvious as this even have to be said? A party is a group of people who know when to put the differences aside and band together.

8 3/4) Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

[Lexingtonian]

29. That's all irrelevant or not the truth that matters

The central fact is that Nader offered a chicken-out option from the two sides that define the society's present central conflict. Nader was the Pied Piper telling people "Come here, going AWOL from this fight is okay, voting this way will give you the happiest outcome."

Nader is not a progressive. He is Left, but it's at bottom a very conservative kind of Left. It's not very clear that it was at all a culturally American run he did with the Greens in '96 and '00- more than half of his voters were Arab-Americans...quite the electorate that is the hotbed of social and economic progressiveness, right? People around Nader made jokes about people who once had green cards being the center of the campaign, or ones about how whitebread American environmentalists didn't grasp that Green is the color associated with Islam. (Personally, the only thing I thought gave the '00 run any credibility was Winona LaDuke.)

I don't have any problem with Arab-Americans voting for Nader, or for any other people who have little understanding of or no ability to cope with the American mainstream (and its great present internal conflict) in politics doing so.

I have a problem with the pretense that Nader represents any kind of serious answer to the issues that the mainstream is struggling with. Nader represents a copout, and people vote(d) for him because it is/was easier to vote for an easy illusion or protest that they weren't being offered an easy solution than vote for real (yet slow, small, and painful) progress.

[Terry_M]

30. "real (yet slow, small, and painful) progress"

Progress to the right you mean?

[Lexingtonian]

38. Now there's a perfect example

of exactly what I mean.

Trusting Gore, or Kerry, or Clinton, or really anyone who refuses to promise the Moon is simply too hard on the frail-faithed and reality-free Green supporter.

Clinton, for example, was unable to do anything he promised that was of any real size. Still, he got an awful lot done- mostly preventing Republican overreaches, at the time- by his lower level appointments at Justice, at the EPA, at the Treasury, at the IRS. By using his small powers to snag e.g. the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument lands. By preventing changes to logging roads and by refusing to nominate Right-leaning folks for federal judgships.

The progress made during the Clinton years was small, painful, and slow. And it was real. There were setbacks when conservative Democrats gave way to Republicans- but the electorate was simply what it was, and Clinton did as well as he could with a 43% and 46% support level.

And along comes Nader and claims 'They're all alike'. To people who mean to solve all problems with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, and there isn't much difference in appearance among nails.

You really can't pretend to be serious and knowledgeable and vote Nader- you have to be a defeatist and a dreamer. I'm just happy that Kerry stands to with with a majority. The country was split closely enough for only about three years for the Greens to appear important. And that screwed up the 2000 election, but it won't affect the 2004 election in a substantial enough way.

[Old and In the Way]

32. By all means keep plugging a candidate whose only effect will

be to siphon off votes from Kerry. You won't mind if I exercise my right to tell you that Nader's supersized ego is being stroked by the Republican Party?

Only a moron would vote for Nader this election cycle. Hindsight's 20/20, but if I had known what his contribution was in throwing this election to Bush in 2000, I believe there'd have been a lot more attention paid to him by Democrats.....no free ride this time, that's for sure.

[makhno]

33. Please

Please read what I posted. Was that a call to support Nader? No. It was a call for Democrats to introduce a bit of civility into a specific aspect of the debate.

[Old and In the Way]

35. What's to debate?

A Nader candidacy helps Bush.

[makhno]

36. Are you sure?

I'd say anyone on the left who is not ABB/Kerry at this point is extremely unlikely to vote at all in the absence of a third-party candidate. Just a hunch based on personal observations.

[tkmorris]

37. BUT........

Nader is trying to convince those on the left to do just that, ie, not vote for Kerry but for him instead. He CANNOT win but by running he CAN help Bush win.

It's a pretty fucking simple equation and I know Ralph understands it. Since he chooses to run anyway, anyone with two functioning neurons is forced to conclude that he cares more about getting his 3% than about getting Bush out of the office. Ergo, he's behaving like an asshole.

He doesn't deserve civility. He deserves a public, and VERY loud, dressing down, by all peoples everywhere who understand what the Bush admin has cost this country. If he wants to deliver his message than that's great, it's something people need to hear. If he wants to denigrate the only man who actually has the opportunity to beat Bush and steal votes from him he is going to get every ounce of ire I can muster and if you cannot understand that there is little further I can do to help you.

[Bunny]

41. Well , that sums up my feelings almost exactly.

I'd just like to add: I hope all those Nader voters who "voted their conscience" in 2000 are fit, healthy, and sleeping great. Their precious consciences are soooooooooo much more important than the health and welfare of every other American. I mean, there's no difference between Bush and Gore, right? :eyes:

Sleep well, (expletive deleted).

[Old and In the Way]

57. My personal observation is that you are completely wrong with

your hunches.

Nader will still con a few young political virgins to waste their vote. However, I think even the far left is astute enough to realize that voting Nader is a vote to retain Bush. And if they haven't figured it out yet, they'll get plenty of education in Political Duplicity 101 this year from Democrats who know what the Nader campaign is all about - keeping Bush in office.

[silverpatronus]

58. perhaps instead of attacking nader...

you should be wondering WHY he'd be siphoning off votes from kerry. could it be because kerry's race rightward to the centre and his 'new boss, same as the old boss' approach to some of the screwed up policies put in place by the bush administration is turning a lot of democrats off? not to mention completely alienating the more progressive elements in the party? not everybody cares to toe the party line and vote blindly for 'the guy'. some people actually want to ensure that 'the guy' is going to effect some change. it makes no sense to jump from frying pan 1 into frying pan 2.

[NinetySix]

91. It's obvious...

...that what you call the "race rightward to the center" is a political device used to gain more moderate, swing votes during the course of a geeral election campaign. DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT.

Do you think that the positions Kerry took during the primaries and caucuses have now been undermined, and that he has had some epiphany that is causing him to retreat from the ideals he spoke of during that aspect of the race? Understand this: that the electorate is split roughly 40% to the right, 40% to the left, and 20% in the moderate middle-of-the-road. Remember George Dubya's "Compassionate Conservatism?" Did it allay your fears that he might be some kind of religious-right wacko, soothing your conscience enough to allow you to vote for Nadir despite the real possibility of installing an activist right-wing Administration? What if Bush moderates his tone this year, too? Will you then perceive him differently, as though he has perhaps come to his senses and will now govern from the middle? He didn't have a mandate last time (or even a plurality), and just look at all the shit he tried to pull, much of it successful.

If Kerry seems to be drifting rightward, it is simply a necessary political expedient, one which Bush will also employ. In Bush's case, however, it is one designed to hoodwink moderate independents into believing that they will be adequately represented by his candidacy before he takes office and blows them off, for good this time, as he won't be needing them again. In Kerry's case, there will probably be some effort to satisfy the middle while in office, but the differences between a Kerry Presidency and a Bush Presidency will clearly be substantial.

Ask yourself: "is Bush the right man for the job?" Please cease to ask yourself: "is Kerry the right man for the job?" You know one of them will be President, and you clearly know which is preferable. If Kerry's first term is as horrifying as Bush's first term has been, by all means, vote Nader in '08, and I'll be right there behind you to vote for him, too.

[silverpatronus]

95. well...

i won't be voting either way, since i'm not an american. but a growing number of people are increasingly disgusted by the 'politics as usual' approach to this year's race. this year cannot be 'politics as usual'. 'politics as usual' will lose the democrats this election. the democrats need to regain their balls and FIGHT!

[SlavesandBulldozers]

40. Isn't there a Nader site somewhere?

cant you post stuff there?

Maybe you should, go talk about airbags and shit, we're busy trying to reclaim this country from the plutocrats.

[TreasonousBastard]

42. Iam not a Republican operative, and...

I think Nadir is an over the hill egomaniac who has no interest in this country other than getting his name in the news.

Progressive my ass. He had a few good ideas, but let most of them founder when he couldn't run the show his way. What the hell has he actually done besides be a gadfly?

He was dead wrong about no difference between Bush and Gore, and rather than sheepishly hang his head this year, he's back again with the same bullshit.

I am one of the more liberal members of the Democratic Party, and I'm damn close to being a socialist. I would love to see most of Kucinich's ideas in place. But, that is not to be, and I am damn sick and tired of Sunday Socialists whining about how Kerry isn't "left" enough for them, so they have to scurry off to some hopeless asshole like Nadir.

Forget Nadir and vote for one of the socialists or communists on the ballot. There always are a few. One year I voted for one of them, just for the hell of it.

[Guava Jelly]

43. Screw nader hes helping bush

Koolaide comes in many forms.
Ralphs is stirred and served by those who want him do carve away kerry votes.
How can anyone who lived through these last four years help insert bush for 4 more by voting nader in a protest vote since nader has nil chance of winning hes a spoiler people dump the koolaide and wake the f up.

[mrgorth]

45. Voting for Nader is voting for Bush

it's the same thing.

[mrgorth]

46. Voting for Nader is voting for Bush

it's the same thing.

[silverpatronus]

59. 'you're with us or you're with the terrorists'...

nice to see that democrats and republicans can still agree on some things...

[John_H]

81. In this case the terrorists names are Ashcroft, bush, and Rumsfeld.

You still have a choice: Vote to continue the chimp state. Vote for the only guy who can end the chimp state. Or enable Chimp by wittholding a vote from the only guy that can beat him.

[silverpatronus]

86. i'm not an american...

and therefore cannot vote in the american election. but if i could, i'd definitely look hard before leaping onto anyone's boat. and as a lot of people keep conveniently forgetting, kerry ain't the official nominee yet...

[GreenPartyVoter]

47. I still respect Nader very much. Think he would make a great

Veep or Sec'y of Commerce or AG for Kerry.

[BeFree]

49. Where is the Green Party these days?

Why hasn't Nader worked these past few years to build up the Greens? Why isn't he running under the Green Banner again?

Looks like he used the Greens, and now he has no use for the Greens. And you continue to support the man? Wow.

[GreenPartyVoter]

51. He opted to announce before our convention

The greens may still choose to back him, though it's hard to say as we are all arguing over what we need to do this time: back the dem, run a quiet candidate who keeps the party alive but won't hurt the dem much, back Ralph and go all-out etc etc

[BeFree]

52. So, Nader doesn't work within the Party anymore?

He cut and ran, eh? Looks like he used ya'll and spit you out.

You suggest the discussion is ongoing on how to keep the Party alive: Well, what has your candidate done to keep Greens going, anything?

[GreenPartyVoter]

56. We won't have a candidate until the June convention

If it weren't for the stupid rule that we have to get a certain percentage of votes to stay alive politically, you might find more greens willing to vote for the Dem. But as it stands now, not all of them are willing to commit hari-kari to get $hrub out.

So I think as far as building the Greens this year, it will be done at election levels lower than the Presidency. We are running more candidates than ever before.

[Sparkly]

50. Who's "more liberal?"

This "polling data" contradicts everything I've heard and read before, but if it's true, does that mean the "more liberal" Nader voters would have voted for Bush in a two-way race? I don't understand that.

Maybe it's time to stop thinking that the Nader voters are "more liberal members of the Democratic party." I don't think they're any more liberal than I am, nor do I understand why they'd be "members of the Democratic party" and support an opponent to the Democratic candidate.

In my view, they're people who care too little about what this dangerous administration is doing to this country. Just my opinion.

[makhno]

53. I was unclear perhaps

But this is not written from a position of a Nader voter, but rather someone who believes in Nader's honesty, if not political acumen, and finds it rather sad that people who ostensibly believe in many of the same things would attack him and those who dare so much as to utter a word in his defense with such viciousness.

This is not about alienating Nader activists. It's about projecting a vindictive, negative and ultimately very weak image of the Democratic Party to the voters.

[Sparkly]

55. Image of Democratic Party

I don't understand how supporting the Democratic candidate, and by implication opposing his opponents, projects anything "vindictive," "negative," or "weak." It would make sense if we were talking about infighting within the Democratic party, but Nader is not a Democrat. Somehow that seems to be overlooked quite often.

If we're going to talk about his "honesty," let's start with the fact that he harms the very causes he claims to champion, making it difficult to believe that he believes "many of the same things." He is acting directly against them, and the effect is potentially disastrous. I don't see the honesty in claiming to believe something and then effectively endangering it.

[NinetySix]

92. That reminds me of a previous post.

I'll reprint a response I posted in another Nader thread which addresses your point exactly:


The most infuriating thing about Nader is that when I watch him speak, I agree with every Goddamn thing he says. But what it appears Nader fails to understand, and what you evidently fail to understand, is that the way in which the electoral system is set up, the winner takes all--without recourse to the overtly expressed preference of the electorate.

Imagine a situation in which an incumbent conservative Governor of a state wins his bid for re-election with 34% of the electorate because the progressive vote was split 33%-33% between two parties. While a scenario like this may be the most extreme and unlikely example of possible election outcomes, it nicely highlights the practical difficulties with third-party candidacies under the current winner-take-all design of the electoral process, absent such reforms as proportional representation or instant run-off election provisions.

Ralph Nader running as an independent against Bush reminds me of that old Monty Python election returns skit in which the Sensible Party candidate received 8766 votes, the Silly Party candidate received 8765, and the Very Silly candidate, encased in a block of cement, received two, thus splitting the Silly vote.

I agree that Nader has very important ideals with which to infuse the political dialogue in the United States (anti-corporate positions which, maddeningly, I FUCKING AGREE WITH!!), but until he and his followers understand that the only practical way to institute the kinds of reforms that, as he says, are necessary is to do so within one of the major parties, specifically the Democratic Party, and until he stops trying to pick the fight he wants with the DLC from the outside, he will remain the Very Silly Party candidate.

[Killarney]

54. Nader is a liar and a Bush enabler

There's a reason so much of his campaign's funding has come from Republicans.

[Tina H]

60. Alternatives to Ralph??

I have heard of people saying that they support Nader to prevent Candidate Kerrey from moving too near the political center during the election and if/when he becomes president.

Personally, I am concerned that Kerrey will become too pro-corporation and too pro-war, but I don't know whether supporting Nader is an effective way of trying to counter this concern.

My question is this: If one is concerned about keeping Candidatre Kerrey away from the center and wants to pull him reliably toward the left, what are some other strategies for accomplishing this *other than* support for Nader?

Some people would probably say: "support Dennis K.," but I don't think Candidate Kucinich can really put the fear of liberal voters into Candidate Kerrey the way Nader can. Any other suggestions?

[GreenPartyVoter]

61. Welcome, Tina

I know how frustrating it is. The big parties complain about the minute power of the little parties and independents, but they haven't exactly rushed to take steps to keep this from happening by enacting real election reform.

I wonder how many more presidential elections I am going to be stuck with agonizing over supporting a candidate who can't win under this system, or checking off a name in order to vote AGAINST the candidate I like least? :eyes:

[Sparkly]

70. "pulling Kerry to the left"

Supporting Nader does not pull our candidate left; what does is growing a constituency. For that, I think it's more effective to work with Sierra club, NOW, ACLU, and other groups that work to promote particular causes. Just my opinion.

[Zero Gravitas]

62. Its simple

Either Kerry or Bush will be sworn in as President on Jan 20 2005.

If you can't see the danger of having another four years of Bush then there is no hope for you. It boils down to this, do you want to help get rid of Bush or not? If yes, the only thing to do about it is support Kerry. Doing anything else can, at best, have no effect and at worst help Bush. Its time for the Naderites to get off their high horses and do something constructive for a change, now is not the time to continue to indulge in political masturbation.

[GreenPartyVoter]

63. So when IS the time

When CAN we start voting for our own candidates and have it count toward something and stop getting bashed because our opinions don't jive with the DNC's?

[sangh0]

65. The time is never

IMO, there will never be a time when you are free of criticism. Your desire is understandable, but your whining about it is just another example of the far left's self-absortion. This might shock you, but many of us get into politics for reasons that are not "I want everyone to approve of the choices I make"

No matter where you go, your opinions will be judgede and possibly criticized. That's life, and Nader isn't going to change that.

[Zero Gravitas]

67. you can start voting

for "your own" candidates when someone gets of their sorry lazy rear ends and starts building an alternative political movement from the grass roots up. Simply standing by and doing nothing except for whining how you don't like the choices is less than helpful. Likewise voting for a vanity candidate like Nader.

Viable political choices don't materialize out of thin air. If you really believe that there are enough people out there that would support a party to left of the Democrats then you should be out there trying to organize it with an eye to maybe running a candidate in 2012 or 2016. But no, the Naderites do nothing but whine.

Politics is a messy business full of compromise between various views. No candidate is perfect, but do you really think there isn't any difference between Kerry and Bush, can't you see the incredible harm Bush has done and which will only accelerate in a second term. This is a FUCKING EMERGENCY yet people still want to posture about how they don't like the DLC and how Kerry doesn't say this or that. Well boo frickin hoo, whining about it doesn't help and its at least 4 years too late for a viable third party candidate. Here's an idea: don't like the direction of the Democratic Party? try and work from with in to change it, but for this go round the primaries are over. Better luck next time. In the mean time either help us get rid of Bush or don't, but don't claim you are opposing Bush by complaining about the only candidate who can beat him.

[opihimoimoi]

64. I agree w WPE... Time to call attention to Naders intrusion of

American Politics for personal gain. He is an ATTENTION WHORE
ATTENTION WHORE
ATTENTION WHORE
ATTENTION WHORE
ATTENTION WHORE,

And far worse, he helped Bush capture the White House 4 years ago.
Meaning, the Nation would be far better off today if Gore was our Prez.

So as far as I am concerned, Nader is at the root of many of our problems. If Gore was Prez, those 3,00- plus people at the WTC would still be alive as would the 700 plus American Heros who gave their all in Iraq. And we would be solving the National debt instead of piling on(up to $7 Tril Plus). With an annual deficit at $800Billion coming up, we are not looking fiscal sound here. The Dow would be somewhere areound 17,000 instead of the measely 10,000 we see today.

De Facto, Bush has been COUNTER PRODUCTIVE IN ALL ASPECTS.

[Tina H]

69. and if you don't see the danger that . . .

4 years of DNC style politics will have for progressive causes, then there is no hope for you.

I am not saying that Candidate Kerrey is a DNC type yet, but he could go that way in the process of becoming president. To me, a DNC style presidency would be slightly better for progressive causes (than a Bush 2d term) in the short run, but probably worse for progressive causes in the long run. In other words, 4 more years of * and the US may finally be ready for true progressive politics. It may be the only way to get there in the long run.

I don't ask you to buy into this mindset personally, but hopefully you can understand how a person might come to see things this way. It would be helpful if we had some stronger verbal assurances from Kerry that he isn't going run to the center and betray progressives for the sake of winning a first or a second term.

[Sparkly]

71. Four more years of Bush will HELP progressive causes???

Does anybody really believe that?!!

If Kerry needs to "run to the center" to work with a Republican Congress as president and get SOME measure of sanity back -- some fiscal responsibility, some global consciousness and credibility, some backbone restored to the Bill of Rights, some end to unfunded mandates for public schools, some requirements for polluters to clean up their own mess, some end to the assault on reproductive rights -- so be it. That's better than continuing the dangerous path we're on. Meanwhile, he needs to win the election -- that is Priority #1.

Being on the outside looking in the windows and complaining about what's happening, as Nader does, is NOT helpful in any way. I don't buy that Nader is above or beyond "DNC style politics" or is more "progressive" than George McGovern or Michael Moore or Maxine Waters or Dennis Kucinich or any number of others who are working WITH the Democratic party rather than against it.

[John_H]

83. Since the one percenters can't get anyone to agree with their

authoritarian policy agenda, so they want the country to plummet to utter destruction in the hopes that the resulting backlash will cataoult them to the absolute power they crave.

It's not quite as cynical as the Rove philosophy of polictics, but it's damn close.

[Zero Gravitas]

73. I understand the argument

and reject it completely.

how bad do they think it has to get before people will suddenly rush to the left? The worse things get the easier it will be for right wing nationalists and the religious fundamentalists to gain ground. Increasing corporate power is driving the ignorant to the right, not the left. Instead of trying to educate people the Naderites just smugly sit there and hope people will come to them.

Four more years of Bush will make things much worse but it won't help progressive causes because the right will be better able to misdirect people's anger. Four more years means more far right judges more pro corporate power, more damage to the environment and less ability for people to govern themselves. It means more gerrymandered districts and rigged voting machines.

Instead of complaining about the direction of the Democratic party, why not work to change it from within instead of embracing a tactic that will lead to perpetual republican control of the country?

[Tina H]

74. As to your last question, please see my earlier post #60.

Your suggestions (or anyone else's) would be appreciated in that earlier sub-thread.

Yes, I understand that many people think 4 more years of Bush will lead to nuclear holocaust or melting the ice caps or an Inquisition some other meta-tragedy.

My partner has gone through periods of honestly believing that Bush will close the borders to emigration and lock up all the political progressives in camps. I kid you not -- and he is (usually) a very intelligent man.

I can understand this mindset (especially since * really is so much worse than the other president's we have had in my lifetime). Still, I don't see the probabilities the same way as you do and I am therefore more concerned about 40 years from now than 4 years from now. We'll just have to agree to disagree on whether a 2d * term represents the (literal) end of the world or not.

In the meantime, hopefully I will get some good suggestions under post #60, where we would seem to have some common ground.

[Zero Gravitas]

75. There is no common ground

I never said anything about the end of the world or internment camps, just the consolidation of corporate power.

We are seeing a divide between those who are trying to work within an imperfect system to effect change (Democrats) and those who expect the world to suddenly change to comply with their views without actually doing anything about it (Naderites).

[Tina H]

80. We do have some common ground . . .

I think consolidation of corporate power (and trade agreements, a related topic) are the biggest issue and danger we face. It is what *I* care about most.

My problem is that President Clinton did not do good on these issues (eg, NAFTA, botched Microsoft antitrust suit, big increases in FCC-allowable media consolidation). Nor did he appear to improve over time. While he didn't decrease taxes on the rich (that I know of), he sure did cut welfare.

Consolidation of corporate power and the uneven distribution of wealth in the US are bad problems. these problems will not destroy the US by 2008, but they will eventually destroy it if the US keeps going the way it has since Carter left office.

As far as working to change things, what have *you* done to try to get Kerry to utter the phrases "antitrust" or "repeal of unfair trade agreements?"

Maybe Nader is just waiting for Kerry to utter these magic phrases as a cue to leave the 2004 campaign. Maybe there are other ways to get Kerry to say these magical phrases, besides Nader -- that is why I am here. Any encouragement on this or just more discouragement?

[Zero Gravitas]

84. I don't care about "magic phrases"

I care about getting rid of Bush. Once thats done we can move on to other issues. And whether or not Kerry utters your "magic phrase" he will be a quantum leap forward over Bush in all areas.

Talk is cheap. Nader can talk about corporate power until he is blue in the face but he is not doing anything constructive about it. Instead he is helping Bush and the corporations by undermining Kerry.

[Tina H]

88. Dee En See! Dee En See! Go team, yea. n/t

[Sparkly]

87. Maybe that's the difference between Democrats and Nader supporters

Nader supporters apparently don't think 4 more years of Chimp is that big a deal. It sounds like you don't consider this an emergency, but feel we have the luxury of looking ahead 40 years -- is this right? In contrast, I think the danger of a theocratic, corporate-owned America, with courts stacked with rightwing zealots, is a very real and present danger -- closer than I've ever seen it. It IS an emergency!!

[Tina H]

89. yes, you have put your finger on the difference

And it is a difference we can't resolve without a crystal ball.

Now, on to what the two differing factions (for lack of a better term) have in common:

1. It is good for Naderites if Kerry moves left.

2. It is good for traditional Democrats if Kerry moves left.

3. Big corporations don't want Kerry to move left.

4. Points 1-3 should settle it. We really ought to do something to get Kerry to move left, whether the world (as we know it) is going to end in 40 years or just 4.

Our differences only come into play if we somehow fail in our joint effort to get Kerry to be a progressive rather than a DNC'er. When Kerry is progressive (like he was about Viet Nam 30 years ago), we are all on the same team and Nader quickly becomes a footnote. This is how we all want it to go down, I think.

[makhno]

90. Unfortunately

Regime change this Fall is a necessary but not sufficient condition for effecting real economic and political change in this country. The emergency has been going on for a couple of decades, and will go on if the root causes of the rise of fascism in this country remain unchecked.

[gpandas]

66. nader people are so tiresome n/t

[Skittles]

68. nice spin

Ralph is still an egotistical f***ing ASSHOLE.

[sangh0]

72. Is it OK if I don't blame Nadir for the 2000theft but I hate him anyway?

IMO, Nader is not the reason why Bush* was able to steal the election, so is it OK if I don't like him because he's a lying a-hole who's electoral runs have done nothing to help the people he claims to care about?

Am I allowed to think that his rhetoric is not much different than the Repukes, and contrinutes to depressing the turnout?

Or am I limited to only those "good thoughts" that have been pre-approved by the Naderites, who say that Nader runs to give us a choice, but who complains when people choose someone not named Nader?

[John_H]

77. Nice try. From cited a faulty exit poll to make the country look "Right"

You cite it because you apparently love megalomaniacal, union-busting, wal-mart investing, documented liar Nader.

The exit poll had a three percent margin of error so how can we know that Chimp would have won by a point?

http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/Rep1100.html

And what would have happened if it were a race between Buchanan, Gore and Chimp? Would Chimp have won?

Gimme a break.

[seabeyond]

96. how about if we let go of what he did then

and start bitchin about what he is doing now. that cool with you

[demgrrrll]

97. I know Hitchens is a crackpot but his article about Nader

in this month's Vanity Fair is stunning. Here is the lead in
"Ralph Nader's absolute incorruptibility has been key to his heroic stature, but his third presidential bid suggest a kamikaze attack on his own legacy. Even worse, In Hitchen's opinion, are Nader's new friends, an extremist bunch with ties to Louis Farrakhan and Pat Buchanan." I don't take anything Hitchen's writes at face value but
this is certainly worth looking into. Atrios had a good thread going
about those folks who start threads about "earning" their vote.
His view is that there is nothing that will change a true Naderites
mind, and it is tiresome to continue to try. I agree.