Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ralph Nader to the Times: 'There Is Too a Left!'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 02:59 PM
Original message
Ralph Nader to the Times: 'There Is Too a Left!'


Nader to the Times: 'There Is Too a Left!'
By Ruth Conniff
Political editor of The Progressive
January 4, 2011

In a letter To The New York Times, Ralph Nader takes issue with the paper's editorial asserting that Tea Party victories show there is "no progressive champion" for the poor and powerless.

"There are plenty of progressive champions lobbying, rallying, exposing, suing and organizing at the national, state and local level," he says. The problem, he says, is that the mainstream media, including The New York Times, fails to cover their efforts.

You can understand Nader's frustration, particularly as one whose efforts to champion the poor against the powerful were systematically belittled by the Times and other mainstream outlets when he ran for President from outside the corporate-dominated two-party apparatus.

In the editorial that stirred Nader's ire, the Times notes: "In past economic crises, populist fervor has been for expanding the power of the national government to address America’s pressing needs. Pleas for making good the nation’s commitment to equality and welfare have been as loud as those for liberty. Now the many who are struggling have no progressive champion. The left have ceded the field to the Tea Party and, in doing so, allowed it to make history. It is building political power by selling the promise of a return to a mythic past."

Please read the full article at:

http://www.progressive.org/rc010411.html


-------------------------------------------






How the Left Is Left Out: Ralph Nader’s View
January 3, 2011

To the Editor:

“The Repeal Amendment” (editorial, Dec. 27) asserts that many Americans who are economically struggling “have no progressive champion,” and that the left has “ceded the field to the Tea Party and, in doing so, allowed it to make history.”

Hello! There are plenty of distinguished progressive champions lobbying, rallying, exposing, suing and organizing at the national, state and local level. Yet they have been mostly left out of the mass media, on television and radio and in the news, feature, style, opinion and book review pages of major newspapers, including The Times.

Meanwhile, the Tea Partiers have seen their modest initiatives hugely magnified and therefore expanded by major media. This has mainstreamed the radical right, including Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter and Pamela Geller, as well as the most extreme neoconservatives who still receive media attention despite their deceptive, disastrous Iraq war-mongering.

Check your own pages and you will see the evidence. Or better yet, have your public editor look into why flagrant, often bigoted right-wingers are given so much time and space compared with fact-based progressive leaders committed to the “equality and welfare” that your editorial espouses.

Ralph Nader
Washington, Dec. 28, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/opinion/l04nader.html?_r=1&ref=letters



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. Fuck Ralph Nader...nt
Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I love Ralph Nader
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. I don't care about your crazy opinions...
Edited on Wed Jan-05-11 03:09 PM by SidDithers
you're still one of my favourite DUers. :evilgrin:

Sid :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #7
23. I'll second that motion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
24. LOL
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
25. I love Nader too. We need more of him speaking up for the
people. At least he gets some coverage but as he says, the media covers the right for some reason. Maybe because the right owns the media ~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. Fuck Nader - the only people he speaks for are the Dead Presidents in his bank account
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. And that would make him different from
other politicians, how? Wait, he probably has a lot fewer 'dead presidents' in his bank account than the average politician. But since when is making money from politics a problem in this country? Do you see any campaign finance reform going on? Any laws preventing lobbiests from becoming legislators or vice versa eg, from either party?

Not a particularly good point to discredit Nader with, considering the money flowing into everyone else in DC's bank accounts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. Thats Right - no matter how many RATpubliCONs donated to his campaign
Edited on Wed Jan-05-11 05:36 PM by FreakinDJ
Even when the RATpubliCONs were financing his campaign he kept right on campaigning

That makes him a RATpubliCON OPERATIVE

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #37
51. You mean like the 'ratpublicons' who donated to the Democratic
Edited on Wed Jan-05-11 11:11 PM by sabrina 1
Preidential campaigns? I don't think they were donating to Nader, they knew better, he never would have extended their Bush tax breaks, or continued their wars. They placed their bets elsewhere. Nor would he have appointed the likes of Republican Alan Simpson to any commission where he could he get his hands on SS.

Wait!! I got it. It's okay if a party approved Democrat does it, takes donations from Big Republican Contributers and appoints them to powerful positions in his cabinet! Or invites them to speak to his Commissions, like Grover Norquist eg.

The hypocrisy is simply stunning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #33
41. he has a fuck of a lot more than either of my Senators.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #41
52. And he has a fuck of a lot less than at least one of my war-
supporting democrats here in CA, and my last Democratic Senator in NY. War pays. That's why they all those Dems voted for it. But Nader would never have voted for it and that's the difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-11 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #33
66. Yeah! He's a regular old Goldstein, isn't he???!!!
:eyes:

Seems your hate has exceeded the required two minutes. Increased --25 grams, up from 30!-- choco rations for you! :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kctim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #25
31. IF the people wanted him to speak for them
they would have elected him President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. If they wanted Bush to speak for them they would have elected him
too ~ :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kctim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #32
36. Well, lucky for us NOBODY said Bush
should stand up and speak for the people.

And if we are lucky, people will stop pretending Nader could ever be accepted by the people, let alone speak for the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #36
50. He speaks for me and an awful lot of other people. A person
doesn't need to be president to speak for ordinary people.

In fact, there is no chance of any honest, champion of the people getting to the WH in this country today, so I would take that as a compliment to Nader.

You have to be willing to play along with the real rulers of this country to even get close to the WH today.

Thomas Jefferson couldn't get elected today either. So what's your point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kctim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-11 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #50
58. My point is that he does NOT speak for 'ordinary' people
He speaks ONLY for the small group of people who agree with his views and who would vote for him.

What you say is not a compliment to Nader, it is an excuse to help people justify to themselves why the people rejected him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #32
40. Don't worry - when they voted for Nader - they Voted for Bush

so they got the "High Functioning Moron" they Voted For

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #40
49. Wrong again.
They got the 'high functioning moron' the felonious five on the SC chose for all of us.

Why do you want to let those traitors off the hook?

I always think 'cover-up' when I see the 'Nader lost Gore the election' talking point.

Someone doesn't want the real criminals to be identified so they say 'no,it wasn't the SC, look over there'.

And no matter how many times I have asked those who try to protect the SC why are they are doing it, they never, ever explain it.

Of course they could just be dupes and not realize how they have helped the traitors get away with a stolen election.

But, as I said, they never explain it so I can only guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-11 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #49
54. It would have been "Too Much to Steal" without "Nader the Traitor"
Edited on Thu Jan-06-11 10:14 AM by FreakinDJ
Did you watch the Attorney's representing Gore arguing in front of the SCOTUS ?

They Sucked
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-11 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #54
79. Yes, I did. Another reason why Bush was able to steal the election.
He should have hired Nader ~ unless you think it was Nader's fault that Gore hired bad lawyers?

Traitor? It's treasonous now to legally run for office, but NOT treasonous for SC justices to help a crime syndicate steal an election?

Do you now those guys on the SC personally or something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
46. I love Ralph Nader, too, Malaise
He's been fighting on behalf of consumers longer than some of these people here at DU have been alive. I'll never say anything bad about the man.

In fact, I voted for him in 2000, and I don't feel one little bit sorry. Alaska was going to go Republican anyway, so I voted my conscience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
18. derp derp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueJac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
26. Who cares what you think of Ralph..........
He is a smart and honest man. We could use leaders of his quality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Nader is a RATpubliCON TRAITOR out for MONEY - thats all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
53. Pavlov's Dog
I swear! It was mildly entertaining the first 500 times but after that it gets kind of old.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
superduperfarleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. What does he trade? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
4. There is indeed an American Left, Ralph, but you don't speak for it.
Edited on Wed Jan-05-11 03:07 PM by leveymg
Leave it to the Grey Lady to prop up his illusions. . . and feed the divisions within the Democratic Party (as if they need feeding).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. He doesn't claim to. Do you have an opinion on the article?

Please stay on topic.

I'm listening.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. NYT indulges itself in the illusion that the poor have no champions because the Party is divided by
Edited on Wed Jan-05-11 03:27 PM by leveymg
the Left. That's an illusion that the Times has helped create by elevating false figureheads and spoilers, like Nader, while it virtually ignores or demonizes real, solid liberals and Congressional progressives (like Reps. Jim Moran, Jim McGovern, Barbara Lee) who have consistently sustained the progressive agenda.

This is a case of blaming the victim. I have no respect left for The New York Times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #11
45. As partial proof of what you are saying, I quit reading the
front pages of the Times when it became obvious that even the "Letters to the editors" were generally from a carefully pre-selected group.

Wanna comment on the Health Care Bill? Then it is best you own a health insurance company before you submit your letter. Wanna comment on the housing bubble? Better be as well known as Robert Reich or else be someone who owns a Senator or two.

It's one thing to reserve your "OP Ed" column for your experts in a chosen field. But to not allow for regular citizens to comment on the issues at hand inside the "letters" section informs the readers a great deal about where The NYT's mindset is these days.

And that mindset is 180 degrees from where it was when thepaper risked Federal injunctions and perhaps prison terms in order to publish the first section of the Pentagon papers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
5. I voted for Nader in 2000 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Webster Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Me too.
It just made sense. I agree with 99% of what he has to say.

He gets a lot of shit here because people lay the blame for coup 2000 on Nader, rather than the corrupt US Supreme W. Court, which stopped the vote count and then appointed the chimp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superduperfarleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Me three. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-11 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #13
55. Then thanks to all of you for helping Bush steal the presidency nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superduperfarleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-11 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #55
61. Herp derp derp.
Last I checked, I wasn't in Florida, and I wasn't a Supreme Court justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-11 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Good for you!!!!
So you admit that those who voted for Nader in Florida, helped Bush steal the election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superduperfarleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-11 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. Um, I admit nothing of the sort.
Why do you assume those Nader voters would've voted for Gore? Seems to me the entire reason they were voting for Nader in the first place is because they'd become disillusioned with the Democratic Party.

And what about the thousands of Democrats who voted for Bush? (Or the ones who inadvertently voted for Buchanan?) And why did it matter anyway since the Democrats in congress couldn't roll over for Bush fast enough when he wanted tax cuts and wars, and couldn't "look forward" fast enough when it became time to hold him accountable?

My vote is my right, and no one else gets to demand that I vote for a certain person. Nader voters did nothing wrong by exercising their constitutional rights, it was the State of Florida and the Supreme Court (and Gore, to some extent) that fucked up. It just makes you look petty and clueless to not only hurl vitriol at individual voters, but also to hold such an obsessive grudge with Nader himself after all these years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-11 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #63
69. So you're changing your story?
Then why did you point out that saying that you weren't in Florida?

And how do you know that the Dems who voted for Bush, weren't influnced by the GOP financed ads that Nader ran lying about Gore.

Finaly, why don't Nader voters just man up and admit that in the end their votes helped Bush steal the election and stop making pathetic excuses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superduperfarleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-11 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #69
71. There's really no point in responding if, no matter what I post,
you're going to ignore it and invent your own narrative.

But have fun with the rest of our conversation. Since I'm not needed here, I'll just leave you to converse with Bizarro World Strawman Superduperfarleft.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-11 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #71
73. Not inventing a narrative. Just telling the truth. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superduperfarleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-11 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #73
75. As I've said so many times before on DU...
just because you say it's true doesn't make it so, no matter how many times you stamp your feet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-11 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. Thought you were not responding any more
And it is the truth that Nader helped Bush steal the election. No matter how much you deny it doesn't change that fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superduperfarleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-11 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. I'm not. Starting.....now!
Stamp stamp stamp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-11 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. Don't let the door....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-11 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #55
67. It was a coup and stop with your "Koolaid, Koolaid-tastes great! Koolaid, Koolaid-can't wait!" n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-11 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. You're right it was a coup
and Nader was an accomplice. The only ones drinking Kool Aid are Naderites who refuse to admit that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. I spoke to Gore about a year after the election
and even he blamed himself and his handlers for the loss. The only people who still blame Nader are the ones who think Democrats can do no wrong.

It's funny to watch so called "liberals" say shit like "Fuck Nader" when Nader has been a champion of the working people more than any politician ever has. He's not flawless either but this hatred of him is freeperish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #21
39. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-11 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #21
56. Gore is a very gracious and honorable man. Too bad Nader isn't
and took GOP to run ads that lied about Gore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superduperfarleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-11 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #56
64. Yeah, and gracious men don't hold petty, misguided grudges.
Edited on Thu Jan-06-11 01:22 PM by superduperfarleft
Especially ten years after the fact.

Seems you could learn a thing or two from Gore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-11 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #64
70. Not holding a grudge but not denying the truth either, nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superduperfarleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-11 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #70
72. Oh, yes, you seem totally rational and calm about it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-11 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #72
74. Just telling the truth! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
38. I didn't. I voted for Gore. But I stand in complete solidarity with those who voted Green.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capitalocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #5
42. So it was YOUR fault!!!11!1!
Oh wait, are you a Republican Supreme Court Justice? No? Then I take that back, sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DerekG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #5
44. I voted for Nader in 2008
Proud of it, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #5
47. Me, too, Bob. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CanSocDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
6. He's right as usual...


...sadly too correct for the uninformed. They don't read newspapers.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #6
19. Yep
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
12. If you define left as disapproving of Obama from the left, then the left is negligable. If, however,
as most do, do not have such a definition of left, the left is certainly not negligible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
15. Ralph is wrong, that ain't the left...
this is the Left:



We don't have a Left in this country, not yet, but it is coming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. We have a left, just not organized (as you say... yet)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #20
27. Until it is organized and able to exert influence....

it might as well be said to not exist. But let's not quibble, the bosses are doing their damndest to make it so. One thing for sure, it ain't gonna be the Democratic Party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
16. Ralph Nader...
:rofl:

What a tool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #16
34. And there are no tools in the U.S. political system, as we all know
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abelenkpe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
17. Nader is right
The man has a point. And I remember the 2000 election well. It wasn't Nader that put Bush in office. It was the Supreme Court. And this country has never been the same since.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
22. No Left would ever adopt an "ends justifies the means" strategy, further victimizing
Edited on Wed Jan-05-11 04:09 PM by patrice
those who have already been used by what "we" have become.

Anyone who sees increased deprivation, suffering, and deaths of OTHERS as a necessary harm is not the Left.

They're just another political faction without the courage and humility to actually be the Left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
29. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
35. Why Ralph was saying the same thing just the other day.
Now he has an issue if someone else says it?

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_left_has_nowhere_to_go_20110102

But because they (the left) do not make any demands, they are complicit with corporate power.


So, they're not making any demands, but they are lobbying, rallying, exposing, suing and organizing at the national, state, and local level.

He's getting senile. It's kind of sad.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
43. Yes, there are. It's just the press and the two political parties
do their best to marginalize them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Still a Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-05-11 08:32 PM
Response to Original message
48. No one would elect Ralph dog catcher
Who is he speaking for exactly?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
postalanthrax Donating Member (33 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-11 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
57. Ralph Nader speaks the truth. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meow mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-11 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
59. since obama has proven to be such an anti-liberal...im ready to forgive nader
Edited on Thu Jan-06-11 11:08 AM by meow mix
hes back to good relations with me. and faking traitors can go to hell imo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gold Metal Flake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-11 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
60. Ralph is right. The Corporate Media hides the left and amplifies the right.
And the forum's anti-left contingent hides the message by attacking the messenger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-11 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
65. They're right in that the Political Left
to wit: Democratic Politicians
have done an about face. There are precious few, if any, which one can call Progressive or Liberal if one uses criteria of 20-30 years ago.

But Nader is absolutely correct in his frustration. They mocked him in his presidential bid, which many here do also; and now they lament that there is nobody for the poor and dispossessed?! That takes cahones.

It's just more talk-talk and political games from the NYT,
like nobody's going to notice. :puke:

Bernie Sanders, an Independant, is about as progressive as one can find in D.C.
and if you look closely at how he votes, he's really not *that* progressive.
(Don't get me wrong, I still greatly appreciate his filibustering!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC