Nader, least of three evils

[joyautumn]

Bush, Kerry/Edwards and Nader, to me, leave me no choice but to vote Nader.
I've been watching the Dem race to see if I can be convinced to vote Dem. Sharpton and Kucinich are the only ones I could vote for. Kucinich or Sharpton I would consider. I would love to see a series of three-way debates this fall between Kucinich, Nader and Bush, or Sharpton, Nader and Bush.

The others really are no better than Bush. I'll explain that in a minute.

First, all this anti-Nader stuff doesn't convince me to think differently about Nader, because when I campaigned for Nader in 2000 I knew I was settling for less than my ideal candidate, which would be someone like Andrea Dworkin or Meredith Tax (not saints either, but my kind of devils). So don't bother arguing at me that Nader is no saint. Someone posted the one and only page on the web full of pretty weak dirt on Nader, and i believe it's basically all true -- i googled it up myself trying to find dirt on him four years ago. So let me give you a rundown of things I don't like about Nader, and have always disliked about him, so you know where I stand:

1) Nader organizations are union-busting. Well, every non-profit I've ever worked for was union-busting too. One even forbade unions in its by-laws because of a prior failed takeover attempt in the name of unionization by purported infiltrators hostile to the cause. I hate that about little non-profits, but the big ones are owned by the Ford Foundation and their ilk, or are just parasitic contractors for huge government bureaucracies that never solve any social problems. They aren't too keen on unions either. I spent a decade toiling in non-profits and the general attitude is, we're activists, we work above and beyond the call of duty, we're in a war against XYZ social ill or oppression, so unionizing is not applicable here. Nader's organizations are simply typical in this way. Mobil really doesn't ever sleep, unfortunately.

2) Nader takes money from Republicans. Well, his organizations certainly ALWAYS have had supporters across the political spectrum, because his issues have broad appeal. It's a plain lie that the Nader 2000 campaign took any corporate donations or GOP money. Republicans, I am sure, were individual contributors, along with 20-30% of his voters.

3) Nader tipped the election to Bush. So what? I was just as appalled by Clinton's illegal, unconstitutional annexation of Serbia as I was of Dubya's similar annexation of Iraq. Serbia was just as much about OIL as Iraq -- http://www.plp.org/TheCommunist2/kosovowar.html. Gore was gungho imperialist too, his father being the Senator from Occidental. It was about pipeline thruways via Macedonia near Kosovo, Halliburton and BP being key players. Dems toss a few bones to the left and we let them annex Serbia for Halliburton. Repubs toss a few bones to the right (like this nowhere-land marriage amendment that will NEVER get 37 states to pass it) and they let them annex Iraq for Halliburton. The Edwards/Kerry adminstration (yes, that's obviously the plan -- it's always southern pseudo-populist backed by pseudo-leftist blueblood) would toss us some more bones and then annex Saudi Arabia for Halliburton. At that point, we're looking at WWIII with China. No thanks. And welfare reform is STILL DEVASTATING to the weakest, poorest American residents, killing and maiming more Americans than the Iraq war, by far. Gore was gungho for that too.

4) Nader is an egomaniac. Well, my impression is that he's more of a civic moralist -- his coercive sniping is not about him, it's always about us. But sure his ego's as big as anyone else who is trying to become the most powerful human on earth. I've always been more troubled by the cultishness of his following. I hate cultishness, which is why I have zero patience for the cultishness of the Dem party. On DU I see tons of prosletyzing and very little debate. Reminds me of the worst aspects of the fundamentalist Christian group I left as a child.

5) Nader should be shot, strangled, RIP'd whatever. Well, you may get your wish. If Nader runs the campaign I want him to, I think he stands a good chance of being assassinated by October.

6) Nader is no feminist. As Meredith Tax wrote in her endorsement of Nader in 2000, "Well, I am." Roe v. Wade is no longer necessary, because the 7-1 VMI decision completes the case law for women's full equality. So let the pro-lifers have at Roe. Only a constitutional amendment could pry abortion rights out of the Constitution now. And I hope the Marriage Amendment passes, because then we can tie up the activist energy of the patriarchists for seven years of fun watching them chase down 37 states, while we batten down the hatches on our favorite 14 states, and devote all our energy to scoring big wins on every other front, just like they did to us with ERA. I think pro-lifers lost when that doctor was shot and their leaders waffled before condemning it. That was the begining of the end for them.

Okay, why is Nader less evil than Edwards/Kerry? Because Edwards and Kerry are pro-globalization and pro-imperialism -- their records belie their rhetoric. Edwards is a good lawyer but if Clinton had to tell him to brush up on policy, I don't want him negotiating with China for me. I'd rather have Nader, who speaks Chinese and has the kind of ruthlessness of mind that it takes to play hardball in the diplomatic arena, so we don't end up playing kickball with our children's lives on the battlefield. Kerry does what he is told to do by the powerful families that have made him what he is and put him where he is. He is not free to do as he wishes, nor even to let any of us know what it is he really wishes. If he comes out and denounces the Forbes family, the Heinz family and Skull and Bones, the continuity of the Bush/Clinton/Bush oil wars, and names names and gives us whatever dirt he has on the Bushes that are known within the secretive circles he frequents, so we have the evidence we need to throw the entire Bush/Cheney cabal in prison for good, then he could change my mind. I'm waiting.

[Frances]

1. You have every right to support Nader

but you should post on a nader forum, in my opinion.

I prefer to read about democratic candidates on this Dem forum.

[David Dunham]

2. Nader is against the Democratic Party, the party DUers support.

[bookman]

3. "Fool me once... " n/t

[buycitgo]

4. zzzzzzzzzzz

ppppppphhhhhhhhhhtttttt

I voted for Nader in 96 in a safe Illinois

used my brain in 2000; Gore

nice try, though

peddle it where somebody cares

without the backing of the Green Party dupes, Nader will get a TINY percentage of the tiny percentage he got in 2000

not even a little bit worried about his presence

just pug hype

[Moderator]

5. Locking

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum.

1. If you start a thread in the General Discussion forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. Some examples of things which should generally be avoided are: unnecessarily hot rhetoric, nicknames for prominent Democrats or their supporters, broad-brush statements about groups of people, single-sentence "drive-by" thread topics, etc.

2. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

3. The subject line of a discussion thread may not include profanity or swear words, even if words or letters are replaced by asterisks, dashes, or abbreviations.

4. The subject line and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation.

5. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

6. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time.

7. Discussion topics that mention any or all of the Democratic presidential primary candidates are not permitted in the General Discussion forum, and instead must be posted in the General Discussion: 2004 Primary forum.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
DU moderator