"Gang Green" -- Tomasky eviscerates Greens, Nader in TAP

[Cocoa]

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/07/tomasky-m-07-23.html

<snip>

Third, and most of all, I kept noticing in 2000 that most of the people who lectured me on how corrupt Gore was and how Nader was the courageous choice were people for whom the outcome of the election, on a personal level, didn't really matter. Some were young people, whose idealism is to be admired but who were by and large demographically insulated from some of the harsher realities of American life. But most were older, white, left bourgeoisie, tenured and cocooned in the carapace of self-righteous satisfaction, whose own lives wouldn't change much one way or the other no matter which party won. In fact, if anything, Bush's elevation was good for them personally, because they wouldn't suffer directly from federal budget cuts and were probably in a bracket that benefited from his tax cuts (as was I, but at least I had the sense to vote against my own interests). Among people who were directly affected by which candidate won, Nader was seen as the ornament of frippery that he was. I promise you, you could not have gone to the corner of Lenox Avenue and 145th Street in October of 2000 and found four Nader voters. And at that intersection and the many others in America like it, by my lights, the moral case for Nader crumbles to dust.

So here's a thought for an enterprising Democratic candidate: Attack Nader right now, and with lupine ferocity. Say he's a madman for thinking of running again. Blast him especially hard on foreign policy, saying that if it were up to the Greens, America would give no aid to Israel and it would cease to exist, and if it were up to the Greens, America would not have even defended itself against a barbarous attack by going into Afghanistan. Have at him, and hard, from the right. Then nail him from the left on certain social issues, on abortion rights and other things that he's often pooh-poohed and dismissed as irrelevant. Cause an uproar. Be dramatic. Don't balance it with praise about what he's done for consumers. To the contrary, talk about how much he's damaging consumers today by not caring who's in charge of the Food and Drug Administration or the Federal Communications Commission.

This would be, for some clever Democrat, the defining Sister Souljah moment of this campaign. Except times 50, because Sister Souljah was a second-tier rapper no one had heard of and Ralph Nader is one of the most famous Americans of the last half-century. Anyone who did this would automatically look tough. The candidates are running around now saying things like, "I'll be as tough as Bush." Well, you can say that 7,000 times and it doesn't matter. You have to do something to show people you're tough. That's the only way a message like that is delivered in a campaign. Then, people will look at what you've done and say, "Hey, that guy's pretty tough."

more...

[el_gato]

1. this is utter bullshit

be tough and go beat up on someone who isn't even in government.

What chickenshit crap!

How bout being tough by calling bush a goddamn liar and exposing the motherfuckers that are destroying our country?!

This article is about as petty as it gets.

[Pompitous_Of_Love]

8. Noooooo...

It's more like kick a annoying, disruptive egomaniac in the balls. Nader's a big boy. He's been chasing the television news cameras unrelentingly for years. It's disingenuous at best to try and paint him as some kind of innocent victim. Fuck Nader. One of the nine dwarves needs to grow a pair and bitch-smack Nader. It'll be good practice for doing the same thing to Bush at every turn during the general campaign.

[bluestateguy]

2. A-MEN

Ralph Nader is the spokesperson for the sissified, bourgeoise, exactly the people who will not suffer a whit in a Bush Administration, though they pat themselves on the back for their "conviction". Puuleeze!! These people have spent just a little too much time in graduate school and not enough time in the real world. These are the same yo-yo's who would have us "negotiate" with Al Qaeda and confiscate guns in door to door searches. Their claims of being a progressive movement are a joke. What progressive movement has no blacks, no Jews, few Hispanics, few union members and relatively few lower income people? The reason such people shunned Nader was that they understood the consequences of the last election if * were to win, for they had the most to lose.

[trumad]

3. Ha Ha Ha Haaaa fucking Ha...

Attack the Greens as an opposition party... SHIT...I've been saying that from day one. Fuck the Greens and fuck Ralph Nader....

[Stoic]

4. Oh, don't forget this.

"...Nader is obviously out to kill the Democrats. The collateral damage, to regular citizens whose lives are directly affected by which party is in power, is not his concern. He has long since quit caring about that. It's time a Democrat killed back."

Yes, yes, yes. I hate Nader and all who sail in him.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[depakid]

6. Brilliant strategy

attack your natural allies. Go negative. Alienate young voters- and all those who attended the shadow conventions.

It's hard for me to believe that someone who advocates a policy this stupid is going to become the executive editor at the American Prospect. Thankfully, Howard Dean is far too smart to take the bait. Hopefully the other candidates will be too.

[Cocoa]

7. so Nader's an ally now?

When people ask Nader why he doesn't care if he hurts Dems, he answers, the dems are my opposition, so I'm going to keep on hurting them.

Now, when someone suggests the dems play by those rules, Nader becomes an "ally?"

What is Nader, some fragile flower that can't handle any heat?

If Dean doesn't take Tomasky's advice, he's going to do something equivalent, especially if he wins the nomination. He's already made up with the DLC. I'm very curious how certain Dean supporters will handle it when he moves toward the center, like Clinton did.

[LiberalLibra]

12. Nader play by the rules everyone else plays by?? First, he might run ....

....against repubs (which not many people expected), then he might not run at all (like we really believed that), then of course he is running against Dems (which we knew he would do all along). No, Nader will NEVER play by the same rules everyone else has to follow, he couldn't take the heat.

[depakid]

15. The people who supported him are

as are a LOT of people who are independents or who end up not voting at all. Nader generates a lot of enthusiam on the left. He packs stadiums with paying crowds. And whether you like the man or not, most of his postions on the issues are dead on and accurate.

Going negative and alienating this segment of the electorate is so profoundly STUPID that it make me question Tomasky's motives. The only way the Democrats can hope to win is to enlist the sort of grassroot enthusiam that gets people motivated to go to the polls- which is precisely what Howard Dean is doing- and why he's been so successful.

As to Dean moving to some sort of cliche "center," I have news- take look at his record- he's already there.

[Cocoa]

17. I agree about Dean's record

but I'm talking about his rhetoric, which I think most people would agree is toward the left among the candidates.

That rhetoric is what I predict will move to the center, and actually this is already happening.

An example is the war. His stance against the invasion makes him the leading "peace candidate" but he was the first, maybe the only, one to call for intervention in Liberia.

[depakid]

20. Maybe he will emphasize more of his centrist views

which is fine by me, even though I don't agree with some of those positions- not by a long shot. I think the main reason Dean is so attractive to Greens and independents is that he as genuine and honest as politicians come and he listens to people and actually considers their input when formulating policy. A lot of us didn't feel that way about the consultant driven Gore.

My biggest fear is that Dean will win the majority of the primary delegates, but the party establishment will use their so called "superdelegates" to throw the nomination to another candidate. If that happens, our hopes for a strong Green/Dem alliance will fade and a lot of people will vote for a third party or just get cynical and not vote at all.

[Stoic]

10. Our natural allies?!

Excuse me, I'm still trying to get the knife out of my back.

[noiretextatique]

9. sistah solujah moment?

:puke: i still can't believe that ridiculous stunt...just proves how stupid the sheeple truly are.
other than that...all's fair in love and politics.

[Rich Hunt]

16. yes, pukeworthy

Oh yes, the "Sistah Souljah" moment was a very proud one in Democratic Party history. :puke:

Personally, I don't think Nader should run - I'm supporting Kucinich, but I hate, hate, hate the argument that Nader supporters are "shielded" from the harsh realities of life.

I know many people, like myself, who come from low-income backgrounds and who felt betrayed by Clinton's economic policies. This hypocritical projection on the part of ivory tower-educated media (dude works at Harvard!) types has GOT to stop.

[Leftist78]

24. Exactly!

First of all, hello everyone. This is my first post. Yea for me.

I'm another one of those low-income people that Nader supposedly didn't have voting for him. I find it so disappointing that we actually blame Nader for what happened in 2000. First of all, Gore ran a terrible campaign. He totally ignored the progressive base of the party, which created a void that Nader filled.

Some of us progressives voted for Nader because we were, and still are, tired of the Democratic Party being controlled by Clinton-style moderates. Blaming Nader for the 2000 election is a simplistic answer given by Gore supporters who are unwilling to admit the truth about his political leanings and the terrible campaign he ran. I live in South Carolina, so it really doesn't matter that I voted for Nader. All the Nader voters in the state could have voted for Gore 10 times and Bush still would have won here. It's just the nature of the state.

I believe that most of the 9 current candidates are from that same Terry McAuliffe-style moderate wing. Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, Graham, and Lieberman are all in that camp. I would vote for any of them except Lieberman, but I would do it while holding my nose the same way I did with Clinton.

Dean isn't nearly as progressive as his rhetoric would have you believe, but he at least understands the anger in the base of the party, and he has used it so far to great advantage. I personally support Kucinich. He is unashamedly progressive, and is the only candidate that has the record to back up the rhetoric, but I'm under no illusions about his chances. He's not going to be the nominee. My hope, and the reason I support him, is that he will gain enough support so that whoever the nominee is, they will not ignore the progressive agenda the way that Gore did in 2000, and the way that Clinton did throughout his presidency.

I don't want Nader to run again unless Lieberman is the democratic candidate. I just couldn't see myself voting for someone so far to the right. I don't even know why he's in the party. It's like Jon Stewart said "Lieberman is the candidate for people who want to vote for Bush but just don't think he's Jewish enough". I couldn't have put it better myself.

[Terwilliger]

28. Welcome to DU!!!

:hi:

[Leftist78]

31. Thanks for the welcome!!!

B-)

[Bamboo]

11. Integrity feels good,lying feels bad.

You could vote for Nader in the days before election stealing,terrorism and stock bubble to make an image statement.Elections determined by voting has contributors worried,their system of buying office was threatned by Nader who threw an election,they wonder if it will happen again.Upper class voting for longshot because it feels good degrades politics but voting based on feelings is what that election was about,Bush was a feel good canidate as well.Writers want a easy job and that election was overtime,so they want Nader gone cause Americans like red vs.blue gladitorial combat in between trips to Wal-mart or Starbucks so these rouge voters must play along.If reality waked up America and voting matters then wonks and money will have to fight themselves,voters know they can mess with your head.

[mikeysnot]

13. Yawwwnnnnnn

so, so tired.....

[pmbryant]

14. Here's the best part of that excellent article

Emphasis added:

Who should do it? That's up to them. It wouldn't have much impact coming from Joe Lieberman, because he's not hunting for any votes over there in anything close to Nader territory. It has to be someone with at least one leg in the liberal soil -- John Kerry, Dick Gephardt or Howard Dean. Yes, Dean. If Dean does this, he doesn't lose his base -- his base is pissed-off Democrats who hate Nader for 2000, so if anything, he augments his standing among them. And, of course, he sends a reassuring signal to the centrist wing of the party that fears his success; it would give them something about him to admire. He can't lose.

He makes a compelling case that this would be an excellent strategy for Dean.

Other thoughts?

--Peter

[ilpostino]

19. First off...

I think it's a brilliant albeit bloodthirsty strategy. The truth about the Sister Solujah moment, like so much else in American politics, was that it was all illusory. The pundits picked up on it and made a bigger deal of it than it was with real voters--but the deal they made was to Clinton's benefit. Same would happen here...only moreso. Only question is: which of the 9 would do it? Well we can eliminate the bottom 3. We can eliminate Leiberman, too, since he's already where this move would put him. That leaves Dean, Kerry, Graham, Edwards, and Gephart. Kerry's the most calculating (not that that's a bad thing), so I can see him doing it easily. Graham continues to surprise me the most in this campaign, so maybe. Gephart and Edwards just might get desperate enough to do it. The big question of course is: how would it reallly fly voter-wise. Would you get enough of the middle and undecideds to make up for the Greenies that you'd fry. I think yes.

[depakid]

21. So what ISSUES would you have the Democrats attack Nader on?

Having read more of these threads than I care to count, it seems to me that it's all the rage in some circles to malign the man and ignore the message. About the only thing I can think to attack him on is the "not a dime's worth of difference between the parties" statement- and the best way to go about that is by proving affirmatively that, yes, there is more than a dime's worth of difference.

Maybe some of you have other suggestions....

[RetroLounge]

18. Tomasky eviscerates Greens, Nader in TAP

Right on...

Like I've always said, Fuck Ralph and the Corvair he rode in on...

[KG]

22. here's a KG thought

>>>So here's a thought for an enterprising Democratic candidate: Attack Nader right now, and with lupine ferocity<<<

So here's a KG thought for an enterprising Democratic candidate: Attack the 'republicans' right now, and with lupine ferocity.

i know it's a novel concept, and never been tried, but it just might work! could solve their 'nader problem' at the same time.

[Martin Eden]

23. Risky strategy

By attacking Nader and the Green candidacy for president, will the Dem candidate actually win the votes of those who otherwise would have voted Green? Or will Nader backers get truly pissed off and be even more reluctant to vote for the Dem that bashed their man and their party?

Tomasky makes a lot of valid points, but I wonder whether his suggested strategy stems from bitterness or a truly practical approach to unseat Bush in 2004. There is no doubt this is Tomasky's primary goal, but I question his strategy.

Does he expect Greens to "see the light" in the wake of this assault? Will the left become stronger as a result?

My instinct is that we are better off working together, appealing to reason and common goals. The shrubco neocons are such an obvious disaster, few Greens with any honesty and intelligence can say there's no difference between Dems and Repugs now. Those that do will not come over to the Dem candidate after he attacks Nader.

But what about the undecided center? Will an assault against the Greens convince swing voters that the Dems aren't too left for them? Will Tomasky's strategy garner more votes from the middle than it loses from the Greens? This is the only possible benefit I see from Tomasky's strategy, but I don't much like the smell of it.

Above all else, Bush must be defeated in 2004. Let's not blow it because of recriminations over the 2000 debacle.

[Classical_Liberal]

26. We can win as moderates or liberals it depends on what you

prefer. I happen to think the center has moved to far right, so I am not interested in the moderates. Look at how Tomasky repeats the McKinney is an antisemite lie, and supports aid to Sharon. I personally don't think their can be peace between america and the middle east until the settlements are stopped and I don't think israel will stop them without the threat that the foriegn aid will be cut off. I feel that republican voters who oppose this are pretty firmly republican voters already and I don't care about winning them.

[Martin Eden]

33. I care about winning above all else.

Too much is riding on this election.

If we don't attract a substantial number of moderates, we have no chance. I think we can do this without offending Greens or actually moving to the right.

We need to tear Bush down by exposing the domestic damage his policies are wreaking, and by demonstrating that his foreign policy is making our situation in the world more precarious.

We need to expose the lies about the WMD threat, but without totally trashing the mission in Iraq, because like it or not we now have a responsibility for what happens next in Iraq.

The Dem candidate must have a plan that is reassuring to the voters who cling to Bush under the notion that he's a strong leader. In other words, we can't just tear down Bush -- we need to build our own national security agenda and articulate it forcefully. This agenda should at least involve getting UN help in Iraq, which means relinquishing our hegemony over Iraq and its resources. Americans want to believe we went in there to eliminate a threat and liberate a people -- let's prove this to the world by fixing things and getting out.

I pretty much agree with you about the situation with Israel, but I wouldn't make it one of the bigger issues in the campaign. For two reasons:

Too many votes can be lost on this issue by taking a hard line on Israel (and relatively few won with that stance).

And using a substantial amount of political capital in proposing controversial solutions to the intractable problems between Israelis and Palestinians is a bad investment. The likelihood of failure is too great to stake the next presidency on it.

Let's win the election, then do everything we can to promote justice for Palestine and security for Israel. Finding a formula that satisfies both those demands is the most difficult diplomtic mission that can be undertaken, and is a responsibility we can't avoid. But in order to make any progress, we have to unseat Bush in 2004 first.

[Classical_Liberal]

25. If Tomasky thinks we should give foriegn aid to the Sharon government

and wants to make it a litmus test, I would say he can be attacked as easily as the greens. You can attack Ralph Nader but it is just plain stupid to think green voters are more evil than Bush voters. How come we kiss their butts, and attack greens all the time?

[Terwilliger]

27. I would have hoped that most of the Nader haters would appreciate

the utter irony of using Ralph Nader and his piteous little Green party to be the focus of their ire and disgust, all the while patently ignoring the problems that riddle the Democratic party like a cancer.

Now, you're eating the left that won't agree with you, while losing all respect from the right-of-center types you hope to appeal to.

[KG]

29. nader-haters are irony defficient.

but heck, dems don't need the 'left'. they plan on winning by getting repooks to vote for them.

[cprise]

30. "Some clever Democrat"

...wouldn't waste his time and money attacking someone who attracts such a small slice of voters, when you could do far more convincing swing voters that Republicans have got it wrong.

A clever Democrat would realize that conservatives respect Nader (if dislike him) and will listen to his attacks on Republicans as well.

A clever Democrat would not behave like a bully. Perhaps this article is saying that Dems now need to copy more than just economic policy from Repubs.

A clever Democrat, when hearing Nader's name, would try to gain the confidence of progressives: just smile and nod his head up and down with "no comment".

If none of the above is true, then this article is an admission: by demanding "ferocity" and resources be flung at Nader, that those in the progressive base now voting Green are somehow more valuable to the Democrats then the average voter. Actually, they are more important to Tomasky.

[newsjunkie]

32. Nader is a lying jerk

Forget Nader! He is the reason we have the moron in the WH right now...he was too full of himself to throw his votes to Gore and he LIED about the HUGE difference between the two major parties. He's STILL lying too. He could never win anyway....he is wasting everyone's time and confusing young people and costing the Dems precious votes we need to defeat Bush. I recently said this same thing on Washington Journal on C-span call in.