Karenna Gore Schiff: Get Out, Mr Nader

[tobius]

You're only fueling defeatism--and you defeated my father.

BY KARENNA GORE SCHIFF
Saturday, February 28, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST


n 2000, Mr. Nader's shrill mantra was "Republicrat," that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two nominees. That claim was dead wrong in 2000 and is ludicrous in 2004. Since George W. Bush took office, a budget surplus of $230 billion has become a deficit of $521 billion, 2.7 million jobs have been lost, clean air standards have been weakened, civil liberties have been trampled, long-time allies have come to mistrust us, and we've spent $150 billion and almost 600 lives in a war to protect us from weapons that didn't exist. Given the extremism of Mr. Bush's first term, imagine what a lame duck Bush would do.

In his Monday press conference, Mr. Nader said he expected to draw the majority of his voters from defecting Bush supporters. That's certainly not what happened last time--and it defies reason that it would be the case this year. According to the New York Times, exit polling showed that without Mr. Nader on the ballot, 45% of his voters would have gone for Al Gore, 27% for Mr. Bush, and the rest would have stayed home. In both Florida and New Hampshire, Mr. Nader's vote total significantly exceeded the margin by which Mr. Bush secured the electoral votes. <snip>
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004752

Mr. Nader has claimed that he is "carrying the ancient, but unfulfilled pretensions and aspirations of the Democratic Party." So why didn't he run in the Democratic primaries? Surely a tent that holds both Joseph Lieberman and Dennis Kucinich is big enough. He claims that he wants to build a viable third party. Surely there is a more effective way to recruit people on the left than by throwing elections to the right.

Ralph Nader's main message is a cynical one, more about tearing down than building up. So for those who believe in a progressive agenda, let's not allow the imperfect be the enemy of the good. For those who don't, let's work toward a clear and honest debate about our differences. And in the end, let's recognize the plain truth: A vote for Ralph Nader is not a vote for some Utopian principle. It is a vote for George W. Bush.

"My name is Diego Montoya. You killed my father... Prepare to die."-- The Princess Bride 1987

[WitchWay]

1. Defeatism?

I think that Kareena Gore Schiff has just made my cynicism shoot WAY out of the roof. I've gone over the deep end into a pure abyss of cynicism now.

Let's just tell that ralph nader to shut the f#ck up so that people won't be so damn cynical. After all, they won't notice the high unemployment, lack of health care, corporate malfesance, jobs going overseas, war, WTO's, NAFTAS, FAILURES OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY and other unsavory bits of reality that might make them take their leaders to task.

Oh, yeah -- and in 2000, Gore was dying to debate Nader and have some honest debate...it's not like the corporate-sponsored debate commssion didn't have Ralph Nader handcuffed and dragged off when he attended one of the debates as an audience member in 2000. Oops! The corporate media blacked that news story out too, if you didn't hear it.

[cprise]

2. Election year or not

...it's always the same refrain from party leaders:

"SHUT UP!!!"

[tobius]

4. I had forgotten about shutting him out of debate.

thanks for the reminder.

[WitchWay]

6. Good Luck

If you have Nader in the debate, at least the large voter turnout it would generate (because of interst) has the potential of helping get more voters to vote in local and state elections.
With only Kerry, the annointed "electable" -- you're in big trouble.

[baby_bear]

11. I thought Gore was not supportive of Nader participating in debates

Please correct me if my memory is wrong, but I thought I was sure that Gore did register his opposition to Nader participating, and I remember thinking that it was a mistake because I think Gore would have been forced to be truer to his nature if Nader had been on the stage.

I kept telling my Republican "friends" just to wait until the debates, that Gore would wipe the floor with Bush.

Maybe he would have if Nader had participated. I just know it didn't seem like the real Gore up there, as it turned out.

s_m

[WitchWay]

13. You are correct

Neither Gore nor Bush was supportive of Nader being in the debates. He was basically shut out, for all intensive purposes. Fortunatley, Nader is working with other third parties to sue the FEC because the debate commission, which is corporate sponsored BTW, lets the candidates from the two major hash out an agreed upon debate format that leaves them free to avoid real debate or controversial issues. This is why the debates are so boring, the canidates get such soft answers and basically a free ride. In fact, they are not even REALLY debates since the candidates can't even question eachother.

The organization of the debate changed in 1980, and the debate commission was formed then (I believe). The debates used to be sponsored by the league of women voters, but they were taken over by the two major parties in order to exclude third parties and to avoid controversial issues. They have been two party controlled since then, although Perot was "allowed" (the two major parties agreed) in one election.

The two-party system doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the constitution and in fact, the republican party started from a third party movement. (see free soil party - or "free spoilers")...so, it's essential that there are more than one party in order to cut through the stagnation that has allowed both the major parties to be unresponsive to the public, and in bed with corporate interests.

[namvet73]

3. I second that!

Back in the 2000 election, I heard what Nader had to say. It all made sense and he sounded like the ideal candidate. I felt, however, that he had a minimal chance of winning the election. Nader has done lots of good work. Just owning a Corvair, which ended up burning up on me, gave him credibility in my mind.

During the last election, many thought Bush was their champion. I saw through him, however. Just a few things I had heard about him and from his own mouth made me feel that he would be an absolute disaster as a president.

I had given some thought to the idea of voting for Nader "on principle," that is, vote for the person who represents what you believe. However, because I already felt that Bush was not only incompetent, but dangerous, I opted Nader out and voted for Al Gore. I'm glad I did, but unfortunately, too many people were so mad at the Clinton and took it out on Al Gore. I was excited about Al Gore and I did not see the ridiculous stereotypes and false quotes cast upon him by the media and night time comedians, an unfortunate source for "truth." I saw and still do see Gore as a man who is loyal to his family and has a family who supports and loves him. That says a lot to me.

I still believe in Nader and his principles, however, he is losing credibility with me very fast. I am beginning to see him as one who is thinking more about himself than the good of the public. His act of throwing the hat in the ring with so much at stake this time around makes me feel that he is on Bush's side. If the Republican candidate were more moderate, then it might make sense to experiment with a third party vote, but Bush is no moderate.

If you are reading this Mr. Nader, let me say this: If you withdraw from the election and support a candidate who can replace this very dangerous administration, I will maintain and even gain respect for you. However, if you persist to stay in the ring, and especially if Bush gets a second term. My respect for you is HISTORY! I will never trust you again and will never waste my money on any of your books again. I will also discard the ones that I already own, because you will no longer represent what you preach, in my mind.

In any case, I WILL NOT, under any circumstances, waste my vote for you in 2004!

People who feel (and I have heard this) that they would vote for Nader on "principle" might feel that they are voting for the best person. To those people, PLEASE think about this: Maybe the Democratic candidate is not EVERYTHING you want and maybe the Democratic party is not EVERYTHING you want, but you will get NONE of what you want if Bush wins. A vote for Nader IS a vote for Bush, because Nader WILL NOT WIN. There is a distinct difference between, what is now the Republican party and the Democratic party.

If Nader stays in the race, do what works best. Vote Democratic.

Also, I am going to vote Democratic all the way down the line because I want the Democratic president to have as much advantage as possible. Remember, nobody is perfect and may, indeed, have a few skeletons in his/her closet. But we MUST overthrow Bush.

AND----ONE MORE THING! If you have children who are starting college or starting out on their own lives and you think they are safe from THE DRAFT, THINK AGAIN. I can guarantee, that the draft will not be invoked during an election year. But, I feel there is a great danger that with a lame duck administration who has already put a strain on our military (due to poor planning and alienating our allies) can and will invoke the draft if they have to. There are other dangerous situations in the world right now. The draft is not in effect, but it is only DORMANT. It can be re-invoked in a blink! The draft laws NO LONGER INCLUDE COLLEGE DEFERMENTS. A college student of draft age may have a POSTPONEMENT until his CURRENT SEMESTER ENDS. That's it. CHECK IT OUT! Do you want your kids yanked out of college for another war?

http://www.sss.gov/classif.htm

If we remove Bush, I am hoping that our allies will be more willing to help us and take some of the military burden off of us as we work TOGETHER with the rest of the world.

'nuff said!

[WitchWay]

5. About your concerns...

But, what is it about Kerry wanting to build up the troops by 40,000 in his first 100 days in office? What is up with that and WHY doesn't he have a pull out plan in Iraq.

Nothing is ever going to happen if everyone just cowers beneath the increasingly corporate and dictatorial banner of the Democratic party. They even seem to want to ban cynicism, now. But, look at what happened to Kucinich during the primaries? Now we have a Democratic frontrunner is an elite bonesman, who enjoys hunting for sport and is married to a wealthy heiress of a corporate fortune. And they are telling me this is a President for the people? Give me a break.

We are trapped in a two party system. A two-party system causes stagnation to politics in both parties, because it mandates that change comes always from the inside, and never the outside. But, if change is always coming from the inside - you've got only insider politics and everyone else is inevitably marginalized. Kucinich? Dean? They are just outsiders playing at inside politics. I hope that Kucinich wins. It's possible. Personally, I want to break that two party system because I think it sucks and the choices just keep getting worse year after year.

So, for me this year either change has come from the inside of the party, or I have to commit to change from outside. I'm not going to keep waiting another 4 years for the rest of my life for "things to gradually change". I don't think change can happen gradually.

[namvet73]

10. Paradox

I would agree that a true three party system would be better and I also agree that we are trapped. But, this time, voting for the third party could result in something more dangerous: A ONE PARTY SYSTEM!

In my mind, we are not trying to defeat a party as much as we are trying to defeat a particular man and his associated people who are worse than the party that they are in.

Sometimes, life deals a hobson's choice.

Nader probably has less support than he did last time, but he may be enough to tip the scales, hence, if Nader = Bush, you still only have 2 choices, Bush or <the democratic opponent>

As far as gradual vs. rapid change goes, even one person has inertia to change, let alone a whole country or political system.

But, who am I to tell anyone who to vote for. By all means, follow your conscience. It's your right. What I am afraid of is that we will lose that right.... at least this time.

[WitchWay]

12. Paradox is...

a the one party system that we already have. It's a one party system with two faces. One seems a little nicer than the other, but in the end we will all be serving the same masters.

I am desperate, thus I am not INERT. I think that there are a lot of desperate people, so I don't think there is so much inertia. And if Bush wins? Who cares - it's the same old shit either way. Neoconservatism or Neoliberalism -- have your pick. I'd almost rather have a broken bush in the whitehouse than a dove hunter who waffles. At least with Bush, everyone knows he's evasive. They're both bonesman, either way...Funny, the Skull and Bones has such a good shot at getting the presidency this year.

Hopefully, other dems will have some common sense and get a democrat like Kucinich to run for their Democratic Presidency. But, from what I can tell, the DLC and DNC will most definitely not have any folks like Kucinich and Dean in their ranks. You see - the two party, ABB argument is what they have argued to keep anyone progressive, insurgent or anti-corporate out of the race. As long as its "ABB", there is NEVER a chance for change. That's the paradox.

[JustAmused]

14. Amazing

Do you honestly believe that "there is no difference" between the parties ? Do you honestly believe that Kerry would be the same as Bush ? Do you honestly believe that all we have dealt with the last three years would have occured if Gore were in the WH ? If you honestly believe these things, then I suggest you are posting in the wrong spot. You might want to look for another site...perhaps refusaltofacefacts.com. Do you not read any of the posts here that outline so many things that this administration has done ? And yet, if you pay attention at all, you ignore them and claim that Gore, and Kerry would be no differnt. As I said...amazing.

Here's a cup of coffee....smell it before you post again.

[MasonJar]

7. Welcome Namvet.

I want to encourage the rest of you to take time to listen to what you are saying. This administration is stripping away environmental protections on a weekly basis; it is deliberately demolishing our rights while systematically taking away our jobs. It is leading the country from a big surplus to a big deficit as it decimates international treaties and insults our friends. If Bush wins judges will be appointed. There will go women's rights, any hope of corporate stricture, gays will suffer, etc. Al Gore won and deserved to be President. That was the first travesty, but as we know it was merely the beginning. John Kerry has a fine record, in fighting for our country and then trying to end a war he discovered was based on lies; he has a 97% rating for his liberal votes; he is a very strong proponent of environmental protection. He worked on the Kyoto Protocol which Bush has refused to sign. Bush, on the other hand, has no interest in anything but money and corporate greed. He is totally ignorant on most subjects. lies about everything, especially the need for stem cell research, the immediacy of global warming threat, the use of uranium-tipped bombs, the dangerous pollution in NYC after 9/11, etc. How could anyone who cares for this earth and its people prefer to vote in a way that enables Bush to win again? That will be total disaster for this country for decades and possibly the world forever. This is too important an election to be self-centered...in the manner of a Ralph Nader.

[KG]

8. quiting eating those sour grapes, karenna, and get a clue about

about whats going on in the country and the world and the dems complicity in it. :eyes:

what i don't understand is why the dems don't look upon nader as a challenge and work to get the vote of those that might be leaning 3rd party instead of whining and crying.

but, i guess that attitude is what one should expect from a party that's been running and hiding from the repooks for twenty years.

there is not much fight left in the dem. party leadership. good god, just watch tom daschle at work! they no longer seem ready or willing to roll up their sleeves and man the barricades to fight the good fight. pandering to repook voters and corporations it seems is much easier and gets one home in time for a drink and without any wrinkles in their designer suits.

oops-sp.

[Charlls]

9. well said!

you took words out of my mouth :hi: