"Ralph Nader just won't learn: Funt"

[LoZoccolo]

http://www.nj.com/hudson/voices/index.ssf/2011/09/ralph_nader_just_wont_learn_fu.html

[trueblue2007]

1. NADER'S a moron. If that jerk had not have run, Gore would have won

[AnOhioan]

2. uh huh...whatever

[the other one]

3. Gore DID win. Bush and the scotus stole it.

Nader doesn't care because he is not a democrat. He sees no difference between two corporate-controlled parties.

Nader haters are worse than RonPaul groupies. But only a little.

[jobycom]

12. Um, how is Nader not corporate controlled?

He's a multi-millionaire off his corporate investments, and has lobbied Congress on behalf of his own corporations to block disclosure laws. He's a hard-nose union buster amongst his own employees. Dude even lied about owning a house to make himself look like a commoner.

Like him if you want, hate the Democrats if you want, but Nader is anti-corporation in exactly the same way David Caruso is a cop. He plays one on TV because it helps him get rich.

And Nader got enough votes in New Hampshire to cost Gore that state, which would have made the fraud in Florida irrelevant, so I don't exonerate him. Bottom line, he actively tried to cost Gore the election and get Bush into office. Whether he actually succeeded or not does not enter into my opinion of Nader. He's worse than any Republican. Any Republican.

Not to mention, the first public statement he made after Bush took office was to praise Bush's pro-business budget in the Wall Street Journal. Look it up. Dude is a fraud.

[ZombieHorde]

4. If Gore did not run, Nader would have won.

I blame Al Gore and Joe Lieberman for Bush.

[Luminous Animal]

5. I love it when you say that!

[johnaries]

7. Cute, but a complete denial of Reality.

But Naderites consistently deny reality, so I'm not really surprised.

[whistler162]

18. In bizarro world maybe! But, even there I doubt iut.

[xchrom]

6. Somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about. Nt

[ellisonz]

16. Al Gore won Florida - the Republican Supreme Court stole it.

Having Nader in the race didn't help by most accounts. :shrug:

And on Edit: Republicans in the state did everything in their power to suppress the Democratic vote.

[MADem]

8. Some very succinct commentary in that piece--the cartoon is rich, too!

Strategically, Nader has much in common with Michele Bachmann. As the darling of the Tea Party, she is ostensibly running for president while beating the drum for the group's ultra-right brand of conservatism. For the party seeking to regain the White House that makes some sense — as long as GOP activists rally around the eventual candidate.

But among Democrats, an exercise like Nader envisions would be a circus, and a destructive one at that. The goal, after all, is retaining the White House while hoping that Republicans lose at least some of their muscle in the House. It serves no purpose to confront the president with a progressive agenda — much of which he personally subscribes to — that has no chance of succeeding on Capitol Hill.

The only certain result of such a process is that Republicans would have an arsenal of new video clips to use against Obama in the 2012 campaign.

As Nader's own foolhardy efforts in the past have proved, there is no room for third-party candidates in the modern presidential system. They can't be elected; they only siphon votes from their own side and push undecided voters in the wrong direction.

[Kurmudgeon]

9. Nice post, MADem, glad at least some folks get it... n/t

[Luminous Animal]

10. Push undecided voters in the wrong direction?

So that "wrong direction" would be anything but the two party system with candidate approved by the oligarchs.

Heaven forbid that we hear, as a nation, any dissenting voice unless it's backed by a billion dollars.

[MADem]

11. Look at the words before that phrase in the above-cited snip

Like it or not, a third party candidate, given the current influences of corporate, large donor and soft money, will NOT prevail. It's HOPELESS under the present structure. It just will not happen.

So, the only end result from a third party candidate, chipping away at Obama, is a benefit to the GOP Asshole opposing him--that's the "wrong direction," right there. The 3rd Party candidate is not going to win. All he does is siphon off votes for the "lesser of two oligarchical evil choices" to frame things from your POV. That's essentially what the article is saying.

You can begin to work to change the present two-party system, but that's just not going to happen before the next election, and we all know that. Real campaign finance reform will take time. So, in the near term, it's either join the 3rd Party spoilsports and in so doing, help the Republicans, or suck it up and don't make the imperfect the enemy of the good, while pressing forward on getting money out of the political process.

No shooting the messenger, now. It's not about "hearing any dissenting voice" it's about tossing votes to the right wing, and forcing the nation into another eight years of horrible, flung-to-the-right, Bush-ish leadership, just to make a petulant point. And the irony is, if we get another right wingnut in the WH, you're NEVER going to see meaningful campaign finance reform, and the goal of hearing all voices in a multi-party system will be pushed further and further away.

[calimary]

14. Not to mention - the permanent loss of the Supreme Court for at least a generation

because Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn't getting any younger. A republi-CON president will make sure her replacement is a fellow knuckle-dragger.

Not to mention the right to choose being done away with. You think ANY republi-CON would stand up to the anti-choicers and doctor murderers and all their other little domestic terrorist friend? Not on your life!!!!!

Not to mention all the bastards and school-voucher and no-health-care advocates and Social Security executioners and budding would-be PNAC revivalists that ANY republi-CON president would bring into office with him as appointees, nominees, and advisors of all shapes and size.

I look at the people complaining about Obama enough to want to mount a primary challenge or rough him up or whatever - even those who would be expected to take his side (the African-American and Latino communities) and just marvel. You guys think ANY republi-CON would be your friend? And believe in what you believe? And do anything realistic to help you out? You think your rights will be protected and your hourly wage will be increased and you'll find good jobs and your social safety net will remain intact - if one of THEM gets in? Seriously?

THERE IS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE, folks. MADem is absolutely and utterly correct. No matter how much one might wish it so, it doesn't work that way here in America. It just doesn't. And any CRAP you hear (and that's what it is - CRAP) about "well, we MUST vote for a third-party candidate!!!!!!! We HAVE to SEND a MESSAGE!!!!!" - is just naive crap. You'll send a "message" alright. Yessirreee. You'll send a message that you're gonna let the bad guys take this one and your guy will lose. And the bad guys will take your "message" and laugh in your face and say "Hey, thanks for the free victory, CHUMP!" The Green party out here was passing out buttons for their candidate, Peter Camacho, for governor in 2002. They kept saying "we need to SEND a MESSAGE!" In the harshest, most realistic terms, they were kidding themselves. It sounds nice in a utopian world. Just like I'm sure the preachings of ayn rand sound great in a utopian world. Same thing for Karl Marx. This is NOT a utopian world! It's the REAL world and we have to cope with what IS, and make that work. And we can't waste time wishing for another alternative that's just not realistic and actually weakens our chance to win.

[MADem]

15. I'm marveling right along with you!

The best way to "send a message" is to do it locally. Bernie Sanders didn't start out as a Senator. He worked his way up the ladder like anyone in public life does. That's why he's a successful progressive, and that's why he's not dismissed as a kook or a flake when he has something to say. He also knows how to work in an adult fashion with the Democratic caucus.

It's this "I want it NOW" culture that believes that people can cut the line and not do the dull, nasty, boring, municipal jobs, followed by a turn in the a state legislature, then, if one doesn't do a mayoral or gubernatorial stint, the Congress...and then, maybe, when you've sort of showed us you can tie your own shoes, a shot at the Big Show.

If people really want a VIABLE third party, they need to start electing (name your team--Greens, Blues, Pinks, Whatevers) to LOCAL offices, from sea to shining sea. Then, once they prove themselves locally, they can step up to the national stage and represent people who have faith in them because they've ALREADY shown that they can deliver.

It's not going to happen next week or next year, but if they get off their asses now, it might happen in ten years. Rome, and viable political parties, were not built in a day. Words (and particularly words that are negative, whiny and complaining--problems without solutions) are not enough. People want to see DEEDS, proof that a candidate can actually solve problems, and we haven't seen any of those, because these minority parties don't focus their efforts on getting their people elected and actually doing a j-o-b. They just prefer to tilt at the status quo. This ain't La Mancha, and they are not Don Quixote.

They need to get serious, get patient, get organized, get good candidates who are willing to actually work, and understand that this kind of thing takes time....and they need to stop burning bridges with the one party, that Democratic one, that is closer to their ideological bent than the other option.

Now let me grab my cane and hobble off the old soapbox!

[calimary]

17. Yeah, you and me both, MADem!

:yourock: :fistbump: :pals:

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.