Help Me Not Hate Nader

[Jack_Dawson]

After Kerry's double-digit lead evaporated thanks to Nader, I started getting really pissed at this guy - and even more pissed at the knucklehead democrats pledging to vote for him. Why is he running? Was the feedback on his exploratory website not overwhelmingly "don't do it!"??? Could there be a more foolish choice to make for a Bush-hater than voting for Nader?

Someone help me understand. Someone help calm me down.

JD

:grr: :nuke: :grr: :nuke: :grr: :nuke: :grr: :nuke: :nuke:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. cant help you calm down

but can empathize...selfish pigheaded nader!!

[liberalmike27]

71. Best Way

Open your mind, and listen to him closely. See if you agree with what he's saying. Look closely at him, and try to decide if he looks like a guy who's taken by his ego, or is he, has he worked toward the higher purposes of man for all of his life, instead of simply pursuing profits. You might find you are more in agreement with him than you are either of the Skull and Bones candidates.

All of the Dean supporters were telling you all, that we felt Dean encorporated far more of Nader's positions than any realistic candidate for president. It would seem most of us were dismissed, and many bought into the media ruse, about Kerry's electability. You the voters can keep making that mistake repeatedly, choosing more centrist candidates, and fogoing our votes if you like. But we are a force to be reckoned with, and you'd better "reckon."

The media, the news and the comedy shows, the whole of it really, have the capacity to destroy anyone. We are seeing them do a number on Marth Stewart now, during the election they did it to Howard Dean. They executed his campaign, and many defected from him, not realizing they were heading to the weaker candidate, the one more likely to lose, in Kerry. If DU voters get nothing else from this election, accept the fact that when you hear Wolf, Chris, or other pundits talking, huge corporations are setting the agenda, and apparently some were even contributing to Kerry's campaign as they were using their television news-shows to trash Dean. They are not your friend, and they will manipulate you toward their purpose, corporate purposes, that are in direct opposition to real people in America.

[digno dave]

72. Let's get Bush out in '04, in '08 & '12 we can worry about Nader's concern

We need to suppoort Kerry now.

[ludwigb]

74. Evidence?

Do you have any evidence at all to back up your claims?

Now television news-shows are the culprit? And I thought it was corporate America buying out our system! But now I see that voters were too taken in by corporate manipulation of the media to notice Dean's ads (far outspending everybody else)! Indeed, all that "Dean is inevitable", "Dean is the front-runner" mediawhore chanting up until like 2 days before Iowa--that was all part of their diabolical plan! Build him up and take him down!

Dude, the GOP wanted Dean. They wanted him badly. They weren't the ones who took him down. It was the people of Iowa, aided by various Dean campaign mistakes, that took Dean down. If anything, the media's lousy horse-race coverage helped Dean.

Please help us send Bush packing in 2004. There is reason enough to oust Bush without resorting to evil corporate conspiracies.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. No way dude!

Fuck Nader!!! Hate him as much as you can!

[H2O Man]

29. Ecclesiates 3

There is a time for every season ....a time for silence, a time to speak; a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace." It's good to be very angry at Ralph and those who support him. They are our enemies. It's good to talk about it.

[K-Spar]

3. I hate the f*cktard.

And I'll never like him.

[The Magistrate]

4. Not My Patch, Mr. Dawson

Wecker Naser and the splinterists who support him are in effect the left auxiliary of the Republican Party; willing allies of the worst elements of reaction in our polity.

"Kill one, wan one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[morgan2]

5. He's got his point of view

its a very valid to believe that the Democrats and Republicans aren't large enough to vote for Kerry. You may disagree, but no reason to hate the guy.

[OKNancy]

6. Just don't think about him

because I really don't think he is going to be able to get on the ballot in too many states. Of course the Republicans could help him, but Nader wouldn't accept their help now would he?

[LandOLincoln]

78. Why not? He did in 2000, and he's working for them again...

[MurikanDemocrat]

7. He's not going to be that significant.

He's not raising any money, can't get on the ballots in many states, and most of those that voted for him last time have already vowed they won't again this time. Don't worry - he's just a gnat in the ointment.

[Jack_Dawson]

8. I hope you're right

Reassuring post all the same. :toast:

[mdmc]

11. why won't Nader be able to get on the ballot in most states?

NYS has strict, archaic election laws, but Nader has plenty of time to comply with all regulations in this state. Why won't he be able to do it across the country? Perhaps he might even avoid some battleground states.

[MurikanDemocrat]

21. I don't know all the technical details, but he has to apply state by

state now, and he didn't get on every state in the last election either. Wish I could recall the article or program I heard or saw it, but he's not raising much money either. Frankly I think the recent poll numbers are a bunch of hype. There's no way he's going to get MORE support than last time - he will get much less.

[OKNancy]

26. New york is not as hard as some

only needs 15,000 signatures ( non-voters in either the Dem or Rep primary)

go to this site...it's about 2/3 down on the page.

http://www.ballot-access.org/2002/1201.html

[mdmc]

9. okay, easy buddy.

I'm a Nader voter; let me see if I can help you.
We all want the same thing, a better America.
Most people don't vote. Wesley Clark and Howard Dean have reached out to many people from this category. We can work with these Democrats to get MORE people out to vote.
Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton have addressed many of the ISSUES that third party voters require to be addressed; perhaps Sharpton and Kucinich will be able to bring this group of voters over to Kerry.
Nader is running because we live in a Democracy, and he wants to run. People will vote for him because they are allowed to.
Democrats should build their party, and let the Greens / third parties build around their issues.
I have never replied to Nader's exploratory web site with "don't do it."
There are two choices that are more foolish than voting for Nader; 1] voting for Bush
2] not voting
Most Americans will do one of the above. Don't worry about the Greens, worry about Bush voters and non voters.

[lams712]

10. Nader is AWESOME!!!!

Ralph Nader is one of political heroes, and he should not be villified for running for President (this is STILL the USA, we still have SOME freedom). The Democrats are going to have to do better than name-calling to neutralize the Nader threat. Almost everything Nader says re: the Democratic Party's failure to offer a REAL ALTERNATIVE to the Republicans IS TRUE. The Democrats, led by the DLC/"New" Democrats/centrists created this mess. Nader should not be crucified for calling them out.

All that being said, I WILL VOTE FOR JOHN KERRY IN NOVEMBER. John Kerry, despite his flaws on a lot of votes, is actually the type of DEMOCRAT Nader should be supporting.

[Jack_Dawson]

13. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush

That's all I'm saying. And anyone who thinks differently is pretty naive, especially this year.

[mdmc]

18. nope... only a vote for Bush is a vote for Bush

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Kerry, and against Bush.
A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader, and against Bush and Kerry.
Not voting is supporting Bush, or not helping Kerry.
GOTV

[Jack_Dawson]

23. yep

If the Nader vote steals Kerry's vote (which it almost always does) then it is in effect a vote for Bush.

[The Magistrate]

24. Not So, Sir

A vote by a person of left orientation for Wrecker Nader has the effect of increasing the proportion of the vote enjoyed by the criminals of the '00 Coup against the standard-bearer of the Democratic Party. That is the way our electoral system works, and it is not going to change, certainly not between now and November. If you are a rightist libertarian or other reactionary accustomed to vote for Republicans, and you vote for Wrecker Nader, than your act could be viewed as a vote for the Democrats. Such persons will account for only a small proportion of Wrecker Nader's deluded followers, however. Third parties, in our system, function only to subtract votes from established parties, and when one does so disproportionately from one, its only effect is to benefit the other.

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[mdmc]

31. So... Nader voters know they are killing the Democratic party

its part of the plan.
The electoral college is not going to change. The political parties will change.

Third party voters want change. It is their right to cast their votes for change.

I would prefer that they NOT exercise their right to vote for a third party, especially in a contested state, but I won't despise a person of conscience for the way they voted.

[The Magistrate]

34. Good To See It Stated Openly, Sir

Those who intend the destruction of the Democratic Party can hardly complain when treated as enemies by the adherents and allies of that Party: on their own showing, that is what they are. They become, in effect, a coalition with the Republican Party, which has the same interest, and it is a solid one, for the true basis of alliance is shared interest, not mutuality of feeling.

The plea for exemption from stricture for a person of conscience makes no mark on me whatever, Sir. That is in most all instances a shabby pretense that serves only to mask vanity and foolishness and disregard of consequences to others. As Mr. Orwell observed some years ago: "Saints should be judged guilty till proved innocent." Damned few of them are so proved, Sir.

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Vladimir]

73. You Sir,

are one hard-edged operator (that, in case of confusion, is a compliment). Your political analysis is spot on, I just wish you would have more sympathy for those who have given up on 'the system'. Its not only a question of conscience, in a lot of cases it is a matter of despair.

V

[mdmc]

91. I prefer to think of them as allies

I don't think of Greens as enemies, I think of them as a voter group that can be courted toward the Democratic party. That goes for non voters too.
By counting them as possible allies, as opposed to certain enemies, we have the option to reach out to them. Once we get our base out to vote, we can consider reaching out to the non voters and Greens.


:dem:

[Iverson]

32. false

"A vote by a person of left orientation for Wrecker Nader has the effect of increasing the proportion of the vote enjoyed by the criminals of the '00 Coup against the standard-bearer of the Democratic Party."

This assertion depends upon the popular but untrue assumption that the Democratic Party enjoys an automatic claim upon the vote of the hypothetical lefty. Only by the presumption of ownership of that vote does one record its loss and conclude mischief about proportions.

A more mature perspective would abandon the notion of a proprietary claim upon votes, and may one day even acknowledge the obligation of a candidate to appeal to voters in order to get those votes.

"Third parties, in our system, function only to subtract votes from established parties,..."

This is merely restatement of the unsupported premise. In fact, third parties act to expand democratic choice. What a shame that that is considered objectionable, especially when it takes a miracle to get half of eligible registered voters to the polls.

"If you are a rightist libertarian ... than(sic) your act could be viewed as a vote for the Democrats."

Anything "could be viewed as" anything else. All that's needed is a viewer. This says nothing.

[The Magistrate]

37. Nonesense, Mr. Iverson

You know perfectly well how our system works, however much it may please you to play Candide in Election-Land. The coalitions are formed before the ballots are cast, not afterwards. One coalition ranges leftward from the center, and one ranges rightwards from the center, broadly speaking, though there can be odd pockets and regional peculiarities. Persons on the left who will not join in the appropriate coalition simply weaken it, and augment the proportional strength of the other grouping. One may pretend this is not so, as one can pretend invulnerability to bullets, but action on that belief will invariably result in the vindication of reality, and not of the cultivated illusion. If a sufficient number of left and progressive persons vote for Wrecker Nader, the result will be the continuance in office of the criminals of the '00 Coup. We both know that; you simply do not feel it is a thing worth avoiding at any cost, and in that, Sir, you are flat wrong.

"Reality is that which, when you cease to believe in it, continues to operate."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Iverson]

43. If only you had responded to my point.

Perhaps someone else will make the same point, so that you might deal with it on its merits instead of with the stock maneuver called diversion.

Glad to see you're using literary references. Next step is responding to what was actually presented rather than something distantly akin to it.

[The Magistrate]

45. You Are Laboring, Sir, Under The Illusion You Made A Point

You did not succeed in that endeavor, nor did you effectively rebut mine. You simply made a statement that is at variance with the facts of the situation, and for reasons that remain unclear to me, expect it to be taken seriously.

"If a man will continue to insist that two and two do not make four, I know of nothing in the power of argument that can stop up his mouth."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Iverson]

46. eh?

Of course I made a point. If you need help understanding it, I offer my services.
Otherwise, a careful (and unjaundiced) reading of my first response should be disturbingly illuminating.

hint: Claims of fact often have unstated underlying assumptions.

Now I know you're not stupid, so you might consider actually trying.

[The Magistrate]

48. Claims Of Fact, Sir

Are generally based on knowledge and study of the matter being discussed; facts cannot be gained in any other manner.

Claims of another's "unstated underlying assumptions" are generally indicative a person intends to present some peculiar and ideological view without much support in fact, and claim it is actually the case even though it cannot be supported without prior assent to the narrow a priori view being pressed.

"It is a mistake to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Iverson]

49. You've got it completely wrong.

See, this is where the real article will spot a pretender every time.

I suggest that you crack open almost any textbook on argumentation. I'd recommend a few, only that would probably be the most efficient way to get you never to read them.

Look up "Toulmin model."

You're entirely welcome.

[The Magistrate]

53. Wear It In Good Health, Dear

[Dhalgren]

54. How about this senerio, Mage:

I am a brand new voter - just registered. I am a budding leftist and can stand niether established party. I see the CPUSA and think, "There's my home!" And I vote for the Commie. Now is my vote a vote for Bush? I think not, but let's hear what Maggie thinks.

[The Magistrate]

61. Well, Mr. Dahlgren

A little more flesh on the bones would be of use in making a genuine assesment; what is demonstrable in the aggregate does not always hold in the singular.

One thing it would be helpful to know is why your budding leftist can stand neither party. It would also be helpful to know if this budding leftist is serious about enacting left-oriented measures and opposing rightist designs.

The "not a dime's worth of difference" line is not peculiar to the present day left, after all. It was the refrain of George Wallace in his 1968 campaign, and he was hardly the originator of the phrase. A great deal of ultra-right criticism of the Republican Party in the fifties followed this line, denouncing "me-too Republicans", in Phyllis Schlafly's phrase. It can be found in the Perot movement, and the Buchananite right, in the present day as well.

So there is no reason to suppose that a budding leftist who holds that view does so out of any great degree of perspicacity, or through any deep thought or sound political understanding. It may just as well be no more than an unexamined assumption instilled from who knows where. Indeed, it is much more likely to have been instilled at a retrograde kitchen table this person is rebelling against, or by a charismatic teacher this person is seeking to imitate, than to be the product of thought or consideration by this person at all.

There are also considerations of personality which must enter into any such calculation. Some persons approach political action as a means of self-expression: a form of artistic endeavor, so to speak, that is valued for the statement it makes about themselves, and not for any effect it may actually achieve. So long as the posture struck brings a personal thrill, all is well, and no more than that is required for a feeling that success has been achieved. Actual implementation of programs, actual balking of harmful things, actual holding of office, are not what is aimed at; they are extraneous to the more seriously regarded business of personal realization.

It would seem to me much more likely than otherwise that a person acting in the manner you describe would be moved by such considerations than by any serious analysis, though that person might well angrily deny such a description. Attachment to the Communist Party in this country cannot signify any serious desire for effective action, since there is no prospect whatever for that party to achieve the slightest degree of influence in the affairs of the people and the country. It does, however, offer great opportunities for striking postures of heroism and victimization, and the ineffable thrill of superiority to the common herd. Such urges, however, can be as easily satisfied in the militia movement, or in opposition to the Freemason's cabal, or through any of a variety of crankish economic or social nostrums readily available to those who wish such delights.

A person who is serious about seeing the left achieve greater influence in national affairs would consider the present situation of the country and the left within it. Several items would quickly stand out. One is that reactionaries of extraordinary virulence are currently in power, and that as long as they are in power, the left can have no measureable influence in government. Another is that the only available means to wield immediately against these most reactionary elements is the Democratic Party; there simply is no other weapon available that can possibly have any measureable effect as matters currently stand. Another is that only a very small proportion of the people of the country are willing to identify themselves presently with the left, uncomfortable as that may be for leftists to acknowledge, and the Democratic Party is the only one in which they might enjoy even a small degree of influence. Indeed, that Party needs the left, as it is not a unified bloc but a congerey of small bodies which together total larger than the unified bloc of traditionalists and free-marketeers which constitutes the mass strength of the reactionaries. But for it to cater exclusively to any one of its small constituent bodies is to ensure that portions of others will calve off in dismay, and therefore this dependence cannot be pushed too far by any single body without ruin to the whole, for each holds a sort of veto over the chances of the group for any degree of success, and none can succeed without success for the others being part of the bargain.

Bearing these things in mind, the choice would seem clear to any person with a serious interest in seeing the left achieve greater influence in national affairs: adopt the tactic of Popular Front and work within the Democratic Party coalition. Any other course, pursued en masse by leftists, will certainly ensure the continued dominance of government by the most virulent reactionaries, and doom the left to permanent impotence, if not extinction as a political force. Working within the coalition offers the hope, at least, of expanding power within it as success is achieved. Those who assist victories gain reward within a group; those who produce defeats are ostracized. Leftists are well suited to contribute to victory, by their energy and commitment, providing these can be exercised in a disciplined manner.

A person acting as the one you have sketched, Mr. Dahlgren, is unwilling to do any of these things. That person is, foremost, unwilling to provide even any effective oposition to the worst elements of reaction, now occupying the seat of our nation's government. By refusing to join the only effective medium of opposition to these, that person is making a contribution to their effective strength; the same contribution a soldier who deserts the firing line in battle makes to the strength of the enemy. He does not actually shoot his fellow soldiers, but by reducing the fire directed at the enemy, he makes that stronger relative to the fire of his fellows who remain, and makes it more likely they will be shot in consequence. He contributes to the victory of the enemy, without any doubt. Any leftist who does not take for an enemy the worst elements of reaction in a polity is not worthy of the name.

"An election differs from a civil war only as the bloodless surrender of a force outnumbered in the field differs from Waterloo."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Dhalgren]

70. Your assumption is that there is a place for leftists

within the Democratic Party. If one would look at the history of this country's politics it is easy to see that both major parties have been great enemies of leftist movements. Now, it is true that of the "two" major parties, the Democratic is the more "left". However, what we have at the moment is a far right radical party (Republicans) and a centrist/moderate party (Democrats). Now, it is also true that Democrats will tolerate leftists to a degree and that the Republicans will not tolerate, at all, but that seems to be a fairly lukewarm call to embrace. I will grant you that if you have one party who wishes to kill all peasants and the other party wishes to help the benighted underlings, you might, in your heart of hearts, prefer the latter, but you still might not embrace it as a calling.

There is no doubt that in this particular year of historic judgement, we must all stand together to crush the facsist goons now occupying the government, but do not talk to me of "working within" the Democratic Party for substantive change. The options I see on the grand scale (not just this year's election) is Republicans = kill the peasants; Democrats = keep the peasants right where they are; my option = peasants rule.

I think the main problem in our "great" nation is that the two party system and its media (or you could reverse the positions of these factors) have caused the huge population of peasants in this country to not realize that we are, indeed, peasants. So when the Republicans, in essence, say that they wish to kill peasants, there is no outcry, because "we aren't peasants!" When the Democratic Party says, in essence, that they wish to keep the little sub-humans right where they are, again, no outcry, because "we aren't peasants!"

The two parties must both take responsibility for the state of our nation - it isn't all one-sided. And it is ridiculous to talk of either party accommodating the "left" - one party won't, and the other only pretends to.

Let me just say this, Maggie, I get a real kick out of your posts, I really do. And although I disagree with alot (not most) of what you say - I do enjoy reading it.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

76. Thank You, Mr. Dhalgren

We are clearly more in agreement in these matters than otherwise, and it would seem that where we do differ, it is more concerning operational questions than basic views. Your analogy to peasantry is particularly good, and that has indeed been my own usage in private conversation for many years. Persons in this country who conceive of themselves as middle class are, in most instances, functional equivalents of peasants in earlier societies, albeit perhaps moderately prosperous ones in some cases. There is a tremendous gap between such people and the true middle class, let alone the wealthy. Some years ago, a Republican Congressman got himself in a good deal of hot water during a discussion of pay increases for the Congress by speaking to the effect that to be a member of the middle class required an income approaching $200,000. He was roundly denounced, because he had given away the whole game, for he was absolutely correct in his assesment, and even if income is calculated on a house-hold basis with multiple wage-earners, and cash value assigned things like employer provided insurance and travel and retirement contributions and increments of equity gained in mortgaged real property, or in the unrealized value of capital gains, not more than about an eighth of the populace enjoys such status.

The problem is, of course, that people do not want to believe they are peasants, and not only do they brindle at being told they are, but there are fundamental elements in the structure of our nation's culture that work to encourage their conviction they really are no such thing. If one looks closely at the history of the United States and its founding ideology of Liberty, it becomes clear that what that is, at bottom, is a sort of mass-marketing of the privileges and attitudes of the lower rungs of the old gentry classes, with its real founding slogan being neither "No taxation without representation!" nor "Give me Liberty or give me Death!" but rather "Every man a country Squire!" This feature of the culture goes beyond the "American Dream" of everyone being a small free-holder, and provides a great deal of the mental furniture of our citizens' minds. Such salient features of our national character as a touchy sense of pride and honor that leaves people comfortable with the idea they can be themselves the law in extremis, and willing to resort to violence in vindication of their rights and privileges as they perceive them, trace to this identification: indeed, the common caricature of our people bears a striking resemblance to the common caricature of a Georgian country gentlemen.

Most important for our purposes is that our people conceive of themselves as petty aristocrats in their hearts, and identify upwards rather than laterally or downwards in construing who are their fellows and where their interests lie. This is one of the basic differences between our political and social structures and those of Europe, and even England, with which we seem to share so much, and yet really share so little. There, peasants know they are peasants, bourgeoisie know they are not nobility, haute bourgeois and high nobility know just what they are, and no one expects to exercise the perogatives of the aristocracy if they are not born to it, or contrive to wrangle themselves into it by fair means or foul. People identify with their fellows within society, and not with the strata above them, which they perceive as something slightly foreign to themselves. Class conciousness and class action are as second nature there as the mass perception of aristocratic privilege for the individual is here.

No real solution to this difficulty, Sir, has yet impressed itself on my mind, but as the first step in solving a problem is to state it clearly, it seems worth doing that, at least. You will perceive that in my view it is neither the parties nor the media that has shaped this attitude, but rather the attitude that has shaped them, and that what the people are told is what the culture has long shaped them to perceive as the truth of their natures and station. It does seem to me that, like the fiction of an ever-expanding economy, there are inherent limits to this sort of structure. The Georgian Squire, and even his antecedent Saxon yeoman, had a good number of built-in inferiors about him, and at the foundation of this country there were many such as well; men without property, slaves and Indians, women and children. The structure is fast running out of such, from the point of view of the average peasant who must preserve the self-image that he is really a petty aristocrat, but who has in fact become the bottom rung of a society in which he believes his station is near the top. It seems some effort is being made to supplement the supply of inferiors by incorporating foreigners through Imperial venture, though it seems unlikely to me the people driving the policy are aware of this motivation. But it is an essential one: just as an economy can hardly consist of employers only, in the long run, a society cannot consist solely of aristocrats.

"The tastes and habits of a Duke would cost a City clerk his situation."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

(On edit) I really must learn to look and see whether the wife is signed in and not me before composing my comments.

"No fool like an old fool."

The Magistrate

[Dhalgren]

82. Thank you for the response, astute, as usual.

The problem, of course, is not with the various layers of any given society (for they all have them), it is with the "status" of any given layer. Because we are taught to "look down" upon those whose stations are beneath our's, we are quick to take offense at the suggestion that our own station isn't just as high as we can possibly bring ourselves to believe. In traditional, European society, each class has its own rights and privileges and is afforded an unbreachable dignity, inherent in that class. I remember reading of an instance where an American family member visited an English manor house. The American did not understand the "upstairs/downstairs" dynamic and so, somehow or other, intruded upon the downstairs domain. The master of the house then called upon and made a formal appology to the head butler for his nephew's lack of manners and breeding. It isn't a denigration to be of a lower social class, only in this country is it held to be so. I think it is one of the many reasons that true leftist ideology cannot really find a toe-hold here and why "class warfare" is such a bogeyman.

[ludwigb]

86. Sorry to but into you'all's conversation, but

Don't you think the truer utopian potential lies in not even understanding, indeed in hating such an "upstairs-downstairs" dynamic? Can we accept the possibilitiy that a purely class-based politics is doomed to flounder in resentment and not take responsiblity for providing for itself--unable to transcend the servant-master mentality? I find myself having serious problems with the tendency in the Left to revert to the rhetoric of victimization rather than stand up and assert itself.

Also, I think you underestimate the violence and brutality at the core of a traditional class structure. That is nothing to be nostalgic for. Marx himself praised the accomplishments of the bourgeois in lifting the lower classes up and giving them the dignity necessary for self-interested revolutionary activity.

[DuctapeFatwa]

90. Some very good points. Many inhabitants of those stately suburban

homes, tooling around in their stately suburban assault vehicles, are the same check or 2 from the street as the low-wage earning single mom who pushes the coffee cart past their enhanced cubicles.

They do not own the homes, or the vehicles, the bank does, and as so many learned in the "dotcom crash," banks are swift to act when payments stop.

$200K for middle class sounds about right. This reminds me of the thread not too long ago about a Living Wage, I got the idea some people were surprised to realize just what a small fraction of a Living Wage the minimum is.

Even more startling, and even more telling, was the difficulty some people had even grasping the concept that the principle of a day's labor having at least the value of a day's survival involves neither charity nor socialism, but is a bedrock principle of capitalism, an economic philosophy that is rapidly being phased out in favor of feudalism.

As the consolidation of resources into fewer hands continues apace, those winnowed out will react in different ways. Some with quiet acceptance, others will seek to blame their brothers in far-flung lands, shortly we can anticipate that the politicians will begin offering tax credits to homeowners for building security walls and hiring guards, as the shreds of the faux middle realize that these expenses are eating into the kids' college fund.

[Dhalgren]

19. You are incorrect.

And who cares whether you think someone is naive or not? Vote for whom you wish and don't let mouth-breathers deter you.

[LandOLincoln]

81. Jack is absolutely correct, and you can save your insults

for your fellow Fifth Columnists.

[Dhalgren]

83. You may tell me who I must or must not vote for

until you are blue in the face - and, as a voter, I will tell you to stuff it.

[LandOLincoln]

88. Nah, you're not telling me to stuff it, you're telling the whole damn

country, and by extension, the world.

Nice work. Hope you're proud of yourself.

[Thucydides]

57. Why can't he run for the Senat or Congress first, or is that ....

beneath him? Personally I would like to see him in D.C., but not at the expense of Bush for another four years! Is he just being another Egomaniac, if its not the presidency then its nothing at all. Sorry Ralph, I like you, please you are not helping the country and people that you say you care about!

[jrthin]

12. Can't help you.

I need help myself, since each time I see him on teevee I want to pummel him with eggs.

[Warpy]

14. Nader has done a lot of good

...however, he's got a blind spot large enough to conceal most of it. He is a tireless fighter, but a rigid idealist who is unable to pick his fights appropriately. He honestly thinks that by campaigning against Kerry instead of Bush, he can cause Kerry to coopt at least some of his ideals. He's only going to get those ideals discredited as he tries to damage our best chance of ousting Bush.

Bottom line? He is an idealist who is being used by an outrageously evil machine. Without having his money followed, we don't have hard evidence of that, so I hope all of you out there with access to funding disclosures and a way to trace dummy PACs to their originators are hard at work.

[w4rma]

15. No. I won't.

Okay, maybe a little. Hate is not a good emotion. Just strongly dislike him, imho.

[Killarney]

16. Fuck Nader.

And anyone that votes for him in a swing state in 2004.
:mad: :argh: :grr:

[mikehiggins]

17. Nope. Go ahead and hate him. I do. eom

[gottaB]

20. Lee Harvey Oswald said he was just a patsy

If you believe Ralph Nader could honestly make the same sort of admission, then you wouldn't need to forgive him or regard him with kindness, but you would want to be sure to save some of your hatred for your more powerful enemies.

Or, you could learn to deal with your anger like an adult. Get yourself a Ralph Nader Voodoo Doll

-- I hope that helps ;-)

[adadem]

50. I really need one of those n/t

[gottaB]

51. I hope it helps

:evilgrin:

[zulchzulu]

22. The skinny on Nader/state ballot requirements, signatures

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=444133

[PatGund]

25. In this case....

Anger is justified. Nader is out for his own ego boost, America be dammed. Screw him and the horse he rode in on.

[Iverson]

27. Consider this.

If you do not want to legitimize the Bush view of the world, then you probably don't want to have hatred as your organizing political principle.

It sets a bad example. Its principal effect is more hatred. It clouds the mind. I can only recommend freeing yourself from the cult of Hillary -excuse me, that's Nader- hating. Simply no good will come out of it.

[redqueen]

33. I was going to say something along those lines

That which angers you controls you.

How about that?

[11 Bravo]

28. I would if I could

but that egomaniacal fuck deserves to be hated.

[Festivito]

30. Nader can make Kerry look centrist to centrist voters.

Democrats made a huge mistake if they did not let Nader on the debate stage with Al Gore. Nader would have made Gore look centrist and Bush look extreme.

Instead Bush pulls his little self-dialogue of some say its too much, some say its too little, I say its just right. It makes Bush appear moderate.

Imagine if Nader had won one maybe two Nebraska votes for the electoral college and went in saying that he had one vote for sale, here's my agenda. If I were him, I'd demand more of the Republicans than I would of more trustworthy Democrats. At least to agree to change vote gathering to allow for third parties. But, that couldn't be forseen.

Imagine if he'd run in a sure-Bush state and won. He'd make history.

Unfortunately he's a crusader. Unimaginative. Foolhearty. And has a bad track record for shooting himself in the foot in praise of his toes while taking others with him.

Sorry I couldn't help.

[w4rma]

36. Imagine if Nader had pulled his campaign out of Florida. (n/t)

[MadHound]

35. You hate Nader? You want to neutrilize him for the November election?

I have a plan for you! Go out and co-opt a couple of planks out of the Green party platform, something like universal health care, or a living wage. Give people something to vote FOR, rather than simply relying on fearmongering and bully boy tactics. Most Greens and Naderites are disgruntled Dems, and are pragmatic enough to vote Dem when they see something in it FOR them. You would also pull in a large percentage of those fifty million non-voters. Especially if you make one of the Democratic platform planks real universal health care(not the smoke and mirrors shit that Clinton offered up like a sacrificial lamb). A large number of non-voters are people who are so poor, so beaten down by the system that they feel, rightly or wrongly, that neither party gives a damn about them. If the Dems offer something that would alter their life in such a large and powerful way as UHC, these folks would vote in droves. I would imagine that the Dems would garner at least twenty-twenty five percent of these non-voters. That's 12 million Dem votes people. More than enough to not only put Kerry resoundingly into office, but to offer long coattails to the rest of the Dems running for office.

All for a bit of compromise on the behalf of the Big Tent Party. Are you up for it?

[lams712]

58. That was awesome...

...and something I've been saying for a long time. If the Dems just reached out a little and stopped with the fear-mongering, they'd tap into so many non-voters that we wouldn't have to worry about Nader or anyone else.



A BIG :kick: for telling it like it is!!!

[MadHound]

68. Thanks, but the big question

Is whether or not the Democratic party will pay attention and act on this? Or will their hubris of ABB simply mean that they will ignore this issue, and hence lose. They have the examples of '00 and '02 plain before them. Will they pay attention and learn from their mistakes, or will '04 be another remedial year of learning the lesson of compromise over again?

[Forkboy]

38. Butterflies

[sandnsea]

39. It's a waste of energy, we've got no time for it

On to winning!!! Y'all are gonna' get sick of hearing this, but it's an old-fashioned round up. We've already got the votes, we just have to head ' em up and move 'em to the polls. That's all we've got time to worry about.

[John_H]

40. Repeat after me

Union Busting is good!

Investing in Wal-Mart is good!

So is investing in Merk, Viacom, and Pfizer!!

There's no way tyhat 500 of the 98,000 Nader voters in FL would have voted for Gore if Ralph had pulled out!

Republicans and Democrats are indistinguishable!

[Hippo_Tron]

41. You mean Nalph Rader...

I don't dislike him, I just get very pissed off at the people who vote for him then complain about Bush.

[Jack_Dawson]

42. Amen

[MoonRiver]

44. What's not to hate?

Beats me. :shrug:

[LandOLincoln]

80. Beats me too. I've hated that SOB for over 30 years, so I'm not about

to stop now.

[Piperay]

47. I hate him and

I am not ever going to stop hating him, so no advice here. :mad:

[BootinUp]

52. I like your firing line heh, reminds me

of another Clarkie.

If Kerry has a brain and I know that he has a very formidable one, he will not let Nader run scot-free with no attention. It really shouldn't be hard to defuse Nader if we try.

[Andromeda]

55. Getting upset about Nader running,

won't do any good. He's an egomaniacal asshole so you have my blessings to hate him all you want.

Don't feel guilty about despising Nader, be happy about it. I am.

[SW FL Dem]

56. Sorry can't help

I blame Nader for Gore's loss and I wish he would actually do what he claims he wants to do. If Nader cares about consumers, he will withdraw. If Nader cares about the environment, he has to withdraw. If Nader cares about anything other than his ego, he has no choice but to withdraw. He won't. He should have learned from 2000, he didn't. The man lost all of my respect in 2000.

[rdfi-defi]

60. you can dislike nader all you want,

but he did not cost gore the election in florida. there was foul play by the bush team. if gore had just insisted on a complete state recount instead of the counties he thought he might use to over take bush, (you know, show some leadership and stand up for voter enfranchisement), he would have won fl and the presidency. afterward he could have blown the cover off the bush team's dirty tricks and been an american hero. instead he took the selfish route, and leaves us with the coup. but you know all this, living in f,l right?

[The Magistrate]

64. The Data On That Is Clear, Sir

Without the efforts of Wrecker Nader, Vice-President Gore would have carried Florida by a minimum of fifteen thousand votes, a margin well beyond the reach of skullduggery by the criminals of the '00 Coup, or any need of recount. There is no blinking the fact that the criminals of the '00 Coup owed their opportunity for success to Wrecker Nader, and those sufficiently naive in their political understanding to fall for his splinterist line.

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[VOX]

69. Forget Florida. It was Nader who cost Gore New Hampshire, and the election

http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/nader.htm
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

Nader's 22,188 votes in New Hampshire far outstripped the 7,211 votes separating state winner Bush from Gore.

Bush 273,559
Gore 266,348
Nader 22,198

New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes went to Bush, who with Florida, got 271 electoral votes.

If Bush didn't take New Hampshire with the help of Nader, and if its 4 electoral votes then went to Gore, Gore would have won the election with 270 electoral votes.

[HuskerDem]

59. Hate him Jack, the phuckhead deserves it.

[Crunchy Frog]

62. Nah, go ahead and hate him.

I hate him and I voted for him last time. (You can hate me too if it makes you feel any better.)

I really don't think he's going to have the kind of impact this time that he did in 2000. I think that most people are on to him, and people who didn't know then how bad Bush would be, certainly know now.

Hate him, but don't worry so much about him.:-)

[MessiahRp]

63. Nader is an egotistical Jagoff

So I can't help you.

Once he learns that listening to himself on TV is helping the destroyers of his issues, maybe he will clear his conscience again and pull out. But seeing as he has no conscience and he doesn't really care about his country or changing it, he can fuck off.

Rp

[dkf]

65. I need help not hating Kerry.

Too many dirty tricks on Kerry's behalf that are way too reminiscent of Bush.

Kerry makes me just as mad as Nader does for you. Maybe even madder. Do you realize I dislike Kerry so much that I can't watch him on TV or hear his voice? I have to turn it off because I find his tactics reprehensible and repulsive.

Have you ever had such a profound disgust of someone that you didn't turn on a TV for 2-3 months just to avoid a chance glance at them? I wasn't even this mad at Bush.

I'm sure you wish I could get over it. Well, looks like you didn't get over Florida, so how am I supposed to get over it.

[Vladimir]

66. Nader won't lose you the election

he is a self-obsessed fool, but he shouldn't worry you too much. I genuinely believe a lot of the pro-Nader stuff now is meant to send a message to Kerry, and will evaporate come polling time.

V

[CWebster]

67. Help Me Not Hate Bush?

Help Me Not Hate Kerry.

[northernsoul]

75. no help here - hate away!

:nuke:

[IrateCitizen]

77. I'm not really one for "hate", period.

All I can say is to realize that when you hate, quite often the other person could care less about your hatred. The only person you end up causing any discomfort for in the end is yourself.

OTOH, righteous indignation is quite fine, and can be quite productive. So, if you want to view Nader with indignation at his entrance into the 2004 election, go right ahead.

But "hatred" is a bit harsh, don't you think? Personally, I wouldn't say that I "hate" Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft or Rumsfeld. I'm angered at what they're doing to the country, but I don't "hate" them.

[flaminbats]

79. Why bother?

it's his supporters from 2000 we need to reach out to..not Nader himself! :shrug:

[Dhalgren]

84. Hate him all you want - who cares!

One candidate does not "cost" another candidate any election. If 100 voters do not vote for Mr. A but vote for Mr. B it isn't Mr. B's fault that the voters preferred him over Mr. A. You can hate Mr. B, but Mr. A lost the votes.

[flaminbats]

87. how true....

this just proves that a hatred for mr. C shouldn't be our means of driving mr. W out of power, hence my growing support for the real deal...mister T :headbang:

[mikehiggins]

85. Hey, its over 24 hours later and I think I hate him more. What

an asshole. His entire involvement is little more than a creation of the media.

Imagine that. Ralph Nader a tool of Boss Murdoch and the others. What a great fall for a guy who once did some great things.

[flaminbats]

89. Who created the political parties?

People?

When was the last time the DNC or RNC chairmans asked you for your opinion on an issue, or invited you to speak at a healthcare forum?

At some point we must remind these creeps that they are in office to represent us, not to rule or enslave us. But if a party label means more to you than does our democracy or freedom of speech, then nothing but chains and poverty will change your mind. But by then, it will be too late...

[mdmc]

92. political parties are people

we are slaves of the party.