What if Nader doesn't run, slams Bush, on MTP?

[ShaneGR]

I've been somewhat bewildered by Ralph even considering being a possible spoiler AGAIN. I don't really see what he stands to gain, other than an enormous amount of ridicule and the possible historical tag of GWB enabler for eight years. So I don't get it.

What could finally change Nader's reputation? If he went on MTP and the other shows and bashed the hell out of Bush, deciding not to run because the world cannot take another four years of Bush.

[onebigbadwulf]

1. The price of betrayal is Bush. It's a tough lesson to learn

but maybe the dems will eventually catch on.

[ShaneGR]

3. So you're saying that Nader's reason for running is to help Bush?

Is that what you're saying?

[leftchick]

7. seems to me that is what

the poster is saying... :eyes:

[ThomWV]

8. Yes

[Skidmore]

15. I seem to vaguely recall Nader himself saying

something in 2000 to the effect that perhaps people would have to suffer pain to make change. Yes, that's what he's saying. Ralph's punishing the entire nation. Doesn't matter how young or old, well or infirm, uneducated or educated, or whether you have or have not. Ralph has taken it upon himself to whip us all in line. He's assumed the role of the nation's parent and, by the diety, we are going to clean our room or go to bed hungry. 2000 aside, this is why I detest Nader. He doesn't give a tinker's damn about any of the little people he for whom he says he advocates. His tough love has indiscriminately brought death, destruction, and suffering to millions. And he still loves us, just like * does. We're being loved to death.

[kiahzero]

13. Oh, that's right

I'd forgotten... Democratic party members exercising their right to vote in the primary, without voting for the approved candidates, is "betrayal."

Is it that hard to remember that Kerry and Edwards are in the lead because people VOTED THEM THERE?

[LandOLincoln]

2. I that case I might have to rethink my 35+ years of Nader loathing.

But I ain't holdin my breath...

[Trinity]

4. He should announce his support of...

Kucinich, otherwise he's a &**((()))&^%$#@@#$%^^&&&**




Peace? :hippie: :smoke: :freak:

[virtualobserver]

5. Personally, I think that Nader has been proven right.

Democrats have offerred no resistance to Bush, even though Bush had no mandate whatsoever after losing the popular vote.

[Iverson]

6. lower turnout for the Denunciation Potluck

You know the one I'm talking about. We all bring a dish and see who can expend the most energy in hating Nader.

We'll toss horseshoes and play croquet and generally agree that preventive war isn't a problem in itself, it's just the way that Bush has done it that's troubling. Then we'll talk about the best way to join hand with Republicans to exclude him from the debates and the debate grounds ... again.

Gee, I sure hope we can go ahead.

[Ardee]

9. what if folks believed your manipulation of the truth?

well, a few apparently do but then there are always those who prefer to let others do their thinking for them.

Nader, if he chooses to enter the race, will be the only candidate espousing democratic values and principles....

Refute this platform all you destroyers of a fine old political party:

http://www.naderexplore04.org/issues.html



Ralph wants to know:

In the 2004 election, should these issues be part of the debate?

Full public financing of public elections with the necessary, broad changes for a more fair and representative election process, replacing present charades;

A responsive political system to expand the civic energies of the American people by, among other ways, facilitating the banding together of workers, consumers, taxpayers, small investors, and communities.

A serious drive to abolish poverty using long-known policies;
Universal health insurance -- single payer embracing prevention, quality and cost controls;

A living wage for the tens of millions of workers making less than $10 an hour -- many full time workers at $5.15, $6, $7, $8, and long overdue labor rights reform;

An adequately funded crackdown on corporate crimes, fraud and abuse that have cheated trillions of dollars from taxpayers, investors, pension holders and consumers, plus specific corporate reforms;

A comprehensive and determined nurturing of the physical and educational needs of children;

Reform of the criminal injustice system and defense of the precious pillars of our democracy -- civil liberties, civil rights and civil remedies for wrongful injuries -- which are under relentless assault by corporate interests and the present government;

A multi-faceted foreign policy to wage multilateral peace and promote arms control, plus utilizing the many assets of our country's knowledge base to lift prospects for the impoverished people abroad;

A redirected federal budget for the crucial priorities of our country and away from the massive waste, fraud and redundancy of what President Eisenhower called the "military-industrial complex," as well as the massive costs of corporate welfare;

The crisis of commercial food, water, and diet policies, in addition to agribusiness domination over dwindling, rural, small farm economies;

The need for renewable energy and energy efficiency, instead of costly oil, gas and nuclear boondoggles;

The housing problem for the millions of households who can't afford
the rents or can't escape gentrification and sprawl;

The relief of highway congestion and the promotion of modern public transit;

The pull-down effect of corporate globalization on labor, the environment, consumers and our democratic processes.

The consequences of media concentration over our public airwaves.

Let us know what you think!




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paid for by Nader 2004 Presidential Exploratory Committee, Inc.
PO Box 18002, Washington, DC 20036
[e-mail]

[BillZBubb]

10. God save us from the purists!

Nader has no chance of winning. NONE. The Democratic nominee will be closer to Nader's position on the issues than Bush*--BY A MILE.

So, the question is, do you stay pure and vote for Nader, meaning one less vote for someone who might actually beat Bush*? Or do you vote for the Democrat and have a decent chance to get at least some of what you want policy wise?

If you select the first option, you are a fool.

[Poiuyt]

12. Amen

There's too much at stake this time. We can't be idealists. We must be practical.

[Ardee]

14. yeah good luck with that

and when you wind up deeper in the Iraqi mess, with a much larger defense budget, more dead american kids, less jobs than before remember ,as you wait on your bread line that you voted to compromise and not to elect someone actually decent.

[maggrwaggr]

16. so he should have run as a Democrat and tried to get those issues

in the platform.

What kind of egomaniac does this kind of shit?

"Oooh, I'm Ralph Nader, I'm above politics, I'm gonna make everybody look at ME ME ME rather than play by the rules and try to compete as a Democrat"

[UTUSN]

11. He, the Original "No Difference between Shrub & X"? Neh. n.t