Ralph Nader Hosted Today's CNN Crossfire Show: The Old Fart Did Good!

[Itsthetruth]

Ralph Nader was the guest host on todays edition of Crossfire. He took on regular right-wing host Robert Novack. They debated several issues with guests Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, Democrat, District of Columbia, and National Right to Life legislative counsel Dorothy Timbs.

Here's some excerpts from the Nader/Novack exchanges on the show. Nader won.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

RALPH NADER: Vice President Dick Cheney praises Bush's appointment of Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank and John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations as advancing our public diplomacy. Hello.

Wolfowitz, the unilateral destroyer, a primary architect of the disastrous Iraq war, is become Wolfowitz the multilateral builder? While hawk John Bolton, who openly hates the U.N. and has said no U.S. dues should be paid to the U.N., is to represent the U.S. at the U.N.? What is up here? Spreading more messianic, militarist, big-business domination and go-it-alone diplomacy around the world? No wonder people around the world who we have to work with are voicing opposition.

NOVAK: You know, Ralph, I haven't felt so happy in years. John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz are terrific appointments. They're brilliant men. If you knew them, you would know how smart they are. And, as a reformer, you should be happy that they are going to clean up inefficient organizations and, in the case of the U.N., a highly corrupt organization.

NADER: I'll let you rebut yourself on that.

NOVAK: John Edwards, the Democrats' candidate for vice president last year, just found work, $40,000 a year at the university of North Carolina Law School. Why does a multimillionaire trial lawyer need another 40 grand?

NADER: Vintage Novak. You should be praising Edwards for not going for the big-money job. He seems to be damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Every university should study how to reduce poverty, especially since tens of millions of Americans are in poverty, whether they are working or not.

NOVAK: You know, I speak on the college campus sometimes, Ralph, and the students tell me they are sickened by the left-wing professors they have to deal with.

NADER: That's because the only students who come to hear you are sickened.

NADER: You know the Patriot Act goes too far when former Republican Congressman, ex-CIA official and ex-suspect DA Bob Barr says enough is enough. In an open letter today to President Bush, Mr. Barr and his very conservative associates said it is time for Congress to amend several provisions of the so-called Patriot Act to protect Americans' most fundamental freedoms.

Many conservatives and liberals are joining together to restore our civil liberties by repealing sections of the Patriot Act. There's no place in our republic for secret searches of homes and businesses without notice, arrests without charges, indefinite imprisonment without attorneys, relying on secret evidence, collecting personal information on law-abiding Americans, misuse of military tribunals, too vague a definition of terrorism and weakening the judiciary while abandoning probable cause standards.

For more information on conservative Barr's letter, visit ACLU.org, to whom he is a consultant.

NOVAK: The battle cry of European workers has been demands for long vacations and short work weeks, especially in France. The Europeans have looked down on their American brethren working so hard.

The French enjoy their month-long vacations and 35-hour work weeks. So, the conservative-dominated French National Assembly voted yesterday to end the 35-hour work week. The new law also for the first time permits optional overtime in return for extra pay. The French labor leaders seem terribly afraid that the French workers might be required to do a little bit of work. Wouldn't that just be horrible?

NADER: They don't call you the prince of darkness for nothing, Bob.

(LAUGHTER)

NADER: For heaven's sake, unemployment, when have you a 30-hour week, you spread out more jobs for more people. And France's problem is corporate globalization.

By the way, in your exalted position, you are quite able to live in order to work all the time. But most millions of people want to work in order to live.

NADER: The Democrats usually are very compassionate about preventing occupational diseases and air pollution and medical malpractice deaths and so on. And, on this, they seem to be in the harsh arena. Apart from all the quibbles about jurisdiction, we're getting right down to who should be the guardian here.

And, on the other hand, the Republicans were so vocal with their compassionate statements on Sunday about this one person. And they are about as cruel as I have seen a political party on hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths on the job, in the environment, and in hospital malpractice.

NOVAK: "American Idol" has gone the way of Florida and Ohio, no hanging chads, but many voters no doubt did think they were voting for one candidate when they actually were voting for somebody else.

Last night, viewers called in to cast ballots for their favorite singers. The lowest vote-getter is supposed to be bounced from the show. But this time, Fox mixed up contestants' phone numbers. So, rather than name a loser tonight, as planned, Fox will air encore performances and let viewers vote again. We'll get the results on a special show tomorrow night. An embarrassment reversed or was it just giving the network an extra play of a highly rated program?

NADER: Bob, I'm glad you recognize that the Republican-governed states of Ohio and Florida messed up with the voters.

(LAUGHTER)

NADER: Maybe this "American Idol" controversy will generate reform, so that...

(APPLAUSE)

NADER: So that there will be federal standards for federal elections, as we discussed last year on our voting -- on
VoteNader.org.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

You can read the full transcript of the show at:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/23/cf.01.html

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

1. i still say gore would have benefited from ralph beeing in the 2000 debate

ralph would have picked apart bush for defending the indefensible. he would have been able to take the gloves off and go after him in ways that al couldn't have.

gore could have played it safe (as he did) and let ralph do the work for him

[Itsthetruth]

3. They Should Stand Up And Fight The Right

Why do other people always have to do the work for others be it Al Gore or John Kerry? They should be able to stand on their own two feet and deliver knockout blows to the right .... unless they don't have the backbone and really adhere to progressive ideas and principles.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

4. right-but we know it aint gonna happen

if gore was tooo scared to go after bush where it counted, he should have let ralph do it

instead, we got a series of jokes passing as debates where bush was able to con enough people to vote for him to make the election stealable

if he'd been debated on substance, then bush would never have been able to use al's debate performance against him

[Logansquare]

12. No, you're absolutely right. Gore made some knuckle-headed decisions

or let knuckle-heads make them for him. Nader would have defined the true far left, and Gore would have been framed as a slightly left moderate. As it was, Gore allowed the Republicans to frame him as a lefty loony. Nader, after a three-way debate, would have still siphoned far-left votes off of the Democrats, but Gore would have picked up more moderate voters from Bush.

[FredScuttle]

30. Or Nader would have gone after Gore with both barrels

Why would St. Ralph have gone after Bush? Who the fuck was he?

Nader ran because he felt betrayed by the Democrats and was going to do everything in his power to screw them. If he had been in the debates, it would have been a two-front attack on Gore...it was the right strategic move not to allow St. Ralph onstage.

[LoZoccolo]

2. Nader, pimp of far-left votes for the Republicans.

"Gotta be third party if you wanna fuck with me, bitch!"

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

5. far left?

can you please explain for me which of nader's views is so out on the leftist fringe?

the dlc has allowed populism tobe labeled "far left"

that's why they keep losing elections

[Itsthetruth]

8. The Election Is Over

Oh come on. The election is over. No need to post the old tired propaganda and groundless rhetoric about Republican support to Nader along with 101 other lies, distortions and misrepresentations. I've seen them all. Perhaps if some Democrats had campaigned as hard against George Bush as they campaigned against Nader, Bush might have lost the election!

Reading a lot of those old anti-Nader posts here (I let them slide and didn't respond) I almost thought the election was between Kerry and Nader! Just a slight exageration.

Everyone here knows that John Kerry received a ton of money from anti-Bush Republicans and that Nader only got a fraction of that from anti-Bush Republicans. Every single false charge made against Ralph Nader and his supporters has been refuted. So let's not repeat over and over and over again the old charge and counter-charge stuff.

It's time to stop that devisive nonsense directed against progressives who supported Ralph Nader and time to work together against our common enemy. We did that on March 19th!

[LoZoccolo]

15. When you threaten us with George W. Bush, you get forgotten.

There has to be a punishment for Nader's terrorist tactics, or else he or someone else will try them again. You can get someone else to bring up his issues, but there is no negotiating with terrorists.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

23. He offered to withdraw if certain demands are met.

Implication being, I won't get George W. Bush* elected like I did last time if you do what I say.

He's aware of what Bush* has done and is doing - you can see that from what he says. Now to knowingly threaten to risk doing more than that? What do you call it when someone threatens harm to people for political goals?

[MadHound]

35. Well first off, you need to read your Palast and Hightower

If you did so, you would realize that Nader didn't cost the election in '00. In fact, you would realize that despite running a campaign that completely sucked, Gore actually won in Florida. However due to his penchant for "playing nice", Gore lost the recount effort. This is not Nader's fault, and in fact, who were the first two groups going into Ohio in '04 screaming fraud? Oh yeah, that's right, the Greens and the Nader campaign. Kerry was in there too little too late.

As far as "What do you call it when someone threatens harm to people for political goals?", I call it realpolitik friend, welcome to the American system of elections. Since the deck is so severly stacked against third party candidates, it is necessary for them to do things that are a bit out of the ordinary in order to get their point, or at least a couple of their platform planks across. The Socialists did this with FDR, and gee, it forced FDR to move to the left a bit, and thus, we got Social Security and unemployment insurance.

Sorry friend, these aren't "terrorist tactics", this is the election process in the US. Don't like it, too bad, change it if you can.

[Robeson]

39. I agree that the simplistic arguement that....

...Nader and Nader alone cost Gore that election, is quite frankly, laughable.

[LoZoccolo]

43. So you admit that Nader threatened the harm of George W. Bush*?

Nice.

George W. Bush*: mercenary killer thug for Ralph Nader.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

49. Is it good or is it not good that Ralph Nader threatened us with W?

Answer the question clearly this time.

[MadHound]

50. It is neither friend, good nor bad. It is politics in this modern world

Hell, the Kerry campaign was using Bush as a prod to goad people into voting for him over Nader or any other third party candidate. Remember ABB and its inherent message? So gee, I guess poor widdle Bushie was being used by all sides in this debate. It isn't good, it isn't bad, it's realpolitik in America. Get used to it or get out of the game.

[LoZoccolo]

51. The difference between Kerry and Nader...

...was that Kerry was hoping Kerry would win, and Nader was hoping that Bush*, a flagrantly violent baby-killer, would win. If someone has a growling rotweiller in a cage, and threatens to let it out if you don't give them what they want, they are no better than the rotweiller.

My posts are also realpolitik, way more than Nader and his fake run for President. Get used to it or get out of the game.

[MadHound]

52. Oh here we go again, over the top into hyperbole!

Show me one quote where Nader stated that he wanted Bush to win over Kerry.

You are not participating in realpolitik friend, you are participating in mental delusion to keep your fantasy alive that it wasn't the Democrats fault that they lost in '00 and '04. Time to face reality friend, the Dems have and did blow it, and THEY are the ones that put Bush into office.

[LoZoccolo]

56. Well no, he's not going to /admit/ it blatently.

But:

- He never returned the Republican money he got for his campaign.
- He appeared on right-wing talk shows where they encouraged conservative listeners to support his efforts.
- Republican petitioneers got him on ballots.
- He campaigned on the lie that there was no important difference anyways.

He is either out of touch with reality, or actively using the political violence of the Republicans to his favor. The fact that he would complain about Democratic funding, making him familiar with issues regarding funding and support, while taking Republican funding, tilts the explanation to the latter. Neither deserves the honor of ears to listen, the latter deserves shame. You do not negotiate with terrorists.

[MadHound]

59. Well, let's see here

You admit that Nader didn't say anything about preferring Bush over Nader.

But you do state that Nader didn't return the Republican money he got. Gee, Kerry got money from Republicans unhappy with Bush, but did Kerry return that money?

Do you have specific shows that you're referring to? If you are simply referring to conservatively biased shows such as Crossfire, Larry King, etc. etc., well, realize that Kerry also appeared on such like shows.

Not only did Republican petitioneers get Nader on ballots, so did Democratic and Independents. Gee, I guess all of these people were looking for a real option, something else than the two party/same corporate master choices we have been given. What a novel concept:eyes:

And quite frankly, if you look at the big issues of the day, there really isn't much difference between the two parties. Both are corporate controlled, both put the interests of their big money donors before the interests of the American people. This similarity is being borne out before our very eyes as we watch Democrats vote for the IWR, for the Patriot Act, for NAFTA, for the prescription drug bill, for NCLB, and on and on ad nauseum.

I would suggest a couple of reading selections for you, both highlight how we're living in a corporate controlled world, where the money of corporations have more influence than party loyalties. The first book is Kevin Phillip's "Wealth and Democracy", the second is Howard Zinn's "Peoples' History of the United States" Both are rather eye opening.

And the fact that you continually refer to a man who is simply exercising his Constitutionally guaranteed right to run for office as a "terrorist", and call for retribution on him for doing so tells me more about you and your mindset than about Nader. And none of what I see is pretty friend. It is this kind of absolute, mindless, unaccountable loyalty that helped get us into the mess we're in now. Heaping more on will not help us get out of this mess.

[LoZoccolo]

60. He took money from REPUBLICANS THAT WANTED BUSH* ELECTED.

Like that family association in Idaho or Oregon or whatever. Did you know this, or am I to assume that obliviousness toward events surrounding Nader's run is key to coming to the conclusion that Nader is good for anything? Don't waste my time with strawmen arguments typical of the manipulation inherent in the destructive politics of Nader, who uses George W. Bush* as his attack dog and is thus a terrorist.

Yes, he had a constitutional right to run. Doesn't make him any less of a terrorist.

[MadHound]

64. Got a link, proof, anything?

Or is this like your "knowledge" that Nader wanted Bush to win, unbacked by quotes or proof, merely your opinion.

And so, by your definition then, any person who runs third party is a terrorist. Or does that only apply to people who run from the liberal side of the spectrum? Is Perot, who arguably did more to help Clinton win in '92(pulling down 18% of the vote) than Nader did with his 2%, a terrorist? Or do you give him a pass because he pulled mostly Republican votes? Sounds to me that you base your definition of terrorist on whoever is not working for the Democratic party, Constitutional rights be damned, eh.

Sorry friend, but you sound needlessly bitter, and looking for a scapegoat, and Ralphie happens to be convenient. I would suggest you look into how Gore ran his camnpaign, pissed off 600,000 registered Dems and self described liberals in Florida to the point of voting for Bush, also look at how Kerry's voting record, lackluster and rudderless campaign all effected the outcome without Nader having to do a damn thing. I would suggest you look to cleaning out the Democratic house before you start worrying about the negligble effects of Nader in either '00 or '04. This preoccupation with such a non-issue only prevents the housecleaning that is really needed in the Democratic party. Perhaps you should concentrate your energy elsewhere.

[LoZoccolo]

72. I posted #62 before you posted this.

Proof that you're trying to waste my time. It was already there when you posted this.

[MadHound]

76. And yet I notice you're not touching my points

That concern Republicans donating to Kerry, or the Perot candidacy, or much of anything else. Why's that? Don't bother, I think we both know the answer to that question.

[LoZoccolo]

78. Cuz they're pure ass.

That's why. You're wasting my time with ass arguments. I'm not concerned with getting you to stop pretending that you don't see that.

[MadHound]

81. Again, your pattern emerges.

When I provide sources and proof, and ask the same from you, you start up with the ad hominems. Not a good show friend, and makes you look foolish.

[LoZoccolo]

83. I gave plenty of proof.

Everyone else can read it if you don't want to.

[LoZoccolo]

62. Here: Nader AND Bush* donors.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/07/09/MNGQQ7J31K1.DTL

Now you know. Don't make me link back to this thread if you ever bring up this disingenuous argument again.

[LoZoccolo]

63. From the Oregon Family Council

"We'd like to take a few votes away from John Kerry if it would be possible."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0625-09.htm

It's like how George W. Bush* expects us to forget what he and his supporters said about WMD's before the war or something - you act like you don't remember all this.

The article also makes mention of the conservative radio show.

[MadHound]

66. Uh, you forgot to mention that this wasn't a quote from Nader

You're not quoting Nader, like I asked you to, you're quoting from a script used by the people of Citizens for a Sound Economy. Also, the "conservative radio show" you refer to is unnamed, thus, no confirmation of equal access is possible. Nice try, but please stick to quotes from Nader and verifiable facts, not random scripts and sourceless articles.

[LoZoccolo]

68. I did.

I said it was from the Oregon Family Council.

Don't send me on wild goose chases to find things that you know were out there. It's a Republican trick.

[MadHound]

70. So Nader is a terrorist, and now I'm playing Republican tricks eh?

All I'm asking you for is a quote, from Nader, stating that he wanted Bush to win over Kerry. Can you find one? It is time for you to put up or shut up and stop engaging in over the top responses, and ad hominem attacks. Next thing you know you're going to be calling me a Republican.

So c'mon, let's see your proof, you links, your sources. For if you don't have them, then all of this is simply baseless attacks grounded only in your own personal opinion.

[LoZoccolo]

71. I told you several posts ago that there is no such quote.

I also said a lot of other things in that post, so go back and read it.

[MadHound]

74. Yet rather admit that your point is invalid,

You state that I'm sending you on a wild goose chase:eyes: and that I'm engagain in Republican tricks. Yeah, those nasty tricks, like wanting actual facts.

[LoZoccolo]

77. It makes no difference.

The facts I've brought up get ignored by you anyways, that's why it's a wild goose chase. I never said I'd provide a quote from Nader, for instance. It's also ridiculous to say that the Republicans for Kerry want Bush* elected. I'm not gonna waste time on someone who says ridiculous things. But I am going to make an example out of them.

[MadHound]

80. But it does matter

You bring up these assertions that Nader wanted Bush to when, and the onus is on you to proof it, yet when I ask you for proof, quotes, anything from Nader to back your ass up with, you can't provide it. Thus your point that Nader wanted Bush to win is invalid. Now do you get it? Don't spew shit if you can't back it up OK. We try to deal with facts around here, not fantasy.

[LoZoccolo]

82. I gave plenty from Nader via his actions.

I don't expect him to show his hand.

But I forgot another one: he ran again after spoiling the 2000 election. That says more than all the others.

Like I said, I'm not concerned with getting you to stop pretending what I say isn't true. Everyone else can see.

[MadHound]

84. If we were going back actions friend, I would judge that half the Dems

Including Kerry were really Pugs. Voting for war, NAFTA, NCLB, Patriot Act, etc. etc. What I am looking for is direct evidence, not innuendo, not your "gut feeling", but direct proof of your assertion that "Nader was hoping that Bush*, a flagrantly violent baby-killer, would win" Can you do this, or will you simply lash out with insults in your rage and impotence? Proof friend, facts is what we deal in. If you can't provide them, then your point is invalid.

[LoZoccolo]

85. Notice you never respond to #62.

Where I provide instances of dual Bush*/Nader voters.

[MadHound]

86. Sorry friend, that is what post 67 was about

I hit reply on the wrong post. Anything else you would like to pick nits about?

[LoZoccolo]

87. Yes, a disingenuous argument I've addressed several times.

Like I said, everyone else can see how transparently silly it is to bring up Republicans for Kerry in this context, so I don't care if you admit that.

[MadHound]

88. No, in the context of matters, it isn't silly

There were Republicans working for Kerry, there were Republicans working for Nader, there were *gasp* Democrats working for Bush. This is the real world friend, and such things happen. Candidates take money and support from where ever they can get it. Yet you're sitting here telling me that Nader, who was fighting a game that was rigged against him from the start, should be pure and light, not taking Republican money and help, yet it was OK for Kerry to do so? It is called double standard and hypocrisy friend, and it doesn't play well, no matter what political persuasion you are. Now do you get it?

[LoZoccolo]

89. Yeah see I've adressed that too.

It's in the one where I was speaking to everyone else. I didn't really expect you to completely skip that one. Go back and read it.

[MadHound]

90. You weren't addressing much

You skipped the part about Bush supporting Dems, and were quite frankly using that post to insult me in the third person. That's OK, I've a thick skin, unlike others I know around here. And I notice that once again in that post, you've failed to provide sources, links etc.

In fact you've only provided two sources, and neither of them addresses Nader directly, and none of them shows that Nader wanted Bush to win as you keep claiming. You're simply going with your opinion and ad hominem attacks. Is this all you've got, for you have yet to provide any direct proof of your assertions whatsoever. Like I said earlier, it is time to put up or shut up, and your response to that has been to hurl insults. That really tells me all I need to know about you and your assertions.

[LoZoccolo]

91. What about Bush*-supporting Democrats?

OK, I disagree with them too. But they're voting based on their own opinions, not running a Presidential campaign designed to scare people.

More light on Nader's intentions: not only did he run again after spoiling 2000, he wrote a book bragging about it!

[MadHound]

92. Speaking of running a presidential campaign

Designed to scare people, isn't that what the whole premise of the ABB campaign of Kerry's was about? Vote for anybody but bush, otherwise we're all screwed. Sounds like scare tactics to me, and it is something that occurrs in all campaigns.

As far as Nader's book goes, have you read it? I have, and it didn't sound like bragging to me, more of a thoughtful treatise about the sad state of electoral politics in this country.

[LoZoccolo]

93. Different in very important ways.

One is proactive, the other is spiteful.

The title Crashing the Party doesn't sound so much like a somber reflection as it does a vandalous brag.

[MadHound]

94. Sorry friend, but you're wrong there

ABB wasn't a proactive campaign theme, it was a scare tactic designed to get third party voters into the Dem camp. It was effective, but it was not proactive. It was a scare tactic. If you can't admit that publicly, then at least admit it to yourself.

And you're basing your opinion of a book on its title? Why not try reading the thing, and then make and informed judgement, rather than just knee jerking from reading the title.

[LoZoccolo]

95. It doesn't matter what's in the book.

By titling it that, he assured that more people thought he was thumbing his nose at us for whatever reason than anything else.

You can call ABB a scare tactic, but it's one thing to say "here's a solution to what's bad" and another to do nothing but work to get Bush* elected. One aims to remove Bush* from power, the other aims to put him in power.

[MadHound]

96. Back to the basics, again

Anybody But Bush was a scare tactic, plain, pure and simple. The only solution it offered was to run X Democrat, doesn't matter if it's Zell Miller, but just vote Dem, otherwise Bush is going to ruin this country. That is the very definition of a scare tactic, whether or not you believe it. That is the reality of the matter, OK.

And again, Nader was running FOR President. Not to put Bush in power, not to throw the election, but to get elected to office. Yes, he was using his campaign as a bully pulpit in order to make his quite valid criticisms of the two party/same corporate master known, but all in all, he was running to put his own self into office, not anybody else.

And again, you are basing your criticisms on your own opinion, not fact. You haven't read Nader's book, but you "think" that it thumbs its nose at us, yet you haven't read it, other than the title. Which means that you have absolutely no basis with which to judge the book:eyes: Read it friend, and then get back to me. Start basing your opinions on fact, not vaguely formed theories while you're at it. You could become a lot better in these sorts of debates if you had facts at hand, not fantasy.

[LoZoccolo]

98. "He was running to put his own self into office." EVERYONE READ THIS!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Why would you want to vote for someone that delusional, and give him the power to launch nuclear weapons and all that?

[MadHound]

67. You really should do some more research,

And also read what I've said. I never denied that Republicans raised money for Nader. They also raised money for Kerry to, do you think that Kerry should have returned that?<http://www.ariannaonline.com/blog/?postid=168><http://www.republicansforkerry04.org/>

This simply means that there were numerous Republicans out there who were disgusted with Bush and wanted a change. There were also some Republicans out there who were sick of the Democrats shady games to keep Nader off the ballot and take away his Constitutional right to run for office. Things aren't black and white friend, and I would suggest you pick up those reading suggestions I gave earlier. Many, many people, from all parts of the political spectrum, are disgusted with our current two party/same corporate master system of government. As the saying goes, if you aren't outraged, you haven't been paying attention.

[LoZoccolo]

69. This message is for everyone else, not you.

To everyone else witnessing this: see what happens? See what happens when you try to reason with these people? And we're going to give any credence to their leader?

You and I both know that there were efforts by BUSH*-SUPPORTING Republicans hoping to use Nader to help Bush* get elected. I've stated that clearly. These are of a completely different nature than the Kerry-supporting Republicans, as they are trying to help BUSH* and not KERRY. You and I both know that the issue is not whether or not some registered Republicans find Bush* so reckless and extreme that they'd rather have Kerry in office; it's about who's on Bush*'s side and who's not. These Republicans for Kerry are not dual Bush*/Kerry supporters like there are dual Nader/Bush* supporters.

If you see these Naderites, don't get sucked in. They will waste your time thinking they're able to confuse you. You may think that everyone deserves a fair shake at your attention, but please note that there are other people out there that can bring Nader-like issues up (if they're important enough, you'll hear them from other people), who won't waste your time with attempts to manipulate you and assuage guilt they may feel for helping Bush*.

Any positive thing that Nader does has to be weighed against the cost of all this rhetorical confusion and static that his supporters are running around causing, wasting precious activism resources at a critical time in American history.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

75. Your links don't prove a thing.

So Bush* is so extreme that some Republicans cross over, so? They are not dual Bush*/Kerry supporters. There were dual Bush*/Nader supporters. I've said this before and provided proof. That you're ignoring that I even said that proves that you're wasting my time.

This is ridiculous - I'm not longer interested in convincing you of anything. Any sane, objective person can look at this exchange and tell that you're playing games, that's why I was adressing them.

[MadHound]

79. Yes, yes, back out gracefully, save some face

But please friend, if nothing else, go read those books I mentioned, OK. Gee, talk about real proof, there it would be. Have a nice day.

[LoZoccolo]

57. I'm not the one getting your posts deleted, by the way.

I'd actually like people to see them.

[LittleClarkie]

31. We're only allowed to post truth during an election year?

Perhaps, rather than election rhetoric, some folks just disagree with you about ol' Ralph.

[slutticus]

6. LOL!

NOVAK: You know, I speak on the college campus sometimes, Ralph, and the students tell me they are sickened by the left-wing professors they have to deal with.

NADER: That's because the only students who come to hear you are sickened.

good stuff :thumbsup:

[maveric]

7. BA-DA-BOOM! ! Go get em Ralph!

[onehandle]

9. Did he apologize for 2000?

No? Well, then who cares.

[Itsthetruth]

13. Did Gore Apologize?

Did Al Gore apologize for run a weak and ineffectual campaign?

Did Michael Moore and a host of other progressives apologize for supporting Ralph Nader? No. Should they? No.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

10. good defense of edwards, too

ralph's always kind of liked john:

"NOVAK: John Edwards, the Democrats' candidate for vice president last year, just found work, $40,000 a year at the university of North Carolina Law School. Why does a multimillionaire trial lawyer need another 40 grand?
NADER: Vintage Novak. You should be praising Edwards for not going for the big-money job. He seems to be damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Every university should study how to reduce poverty, especially since tens of millions of Americans are in poverty, whether they are working or not. "

now why the hell aren't there democrats raising this point on the cable networks, who keep attacking edwards for his new job?

[Logansquare]

11. You see, this is what Nader is very good at

I have been the harshest critic of Nader and his political tone-deafness. He treats his friends and his enemies alike. But he's a dynamo pundit. Why can't Nader be happy with being a "thought leader?" America is so far right it's going to fall off the edge of the Christian Right's flat Earth--Ralph can do a lot more good with punditry then he can by undermining the Democratic party and nearly destroying the Green party.

[Itsthetruth]

14. A Thought Leader?

Nader should be a "thought leader"? That would be harmless enough. That way Nader doesn't get the widest audience for his progressive ideas by presenting his thoughts in public!

He could become an academic that nobody has heard of. Some would like that. Especially the right-wing.

[Logansquare]

18. Nah, please don't misrepresent what I said with your straw men

That's what Novak does on a regular basis.

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. Notice the triviality of Novak's issue choices

as opposed to Nader.

Nader: Major appointments for foreign policy (Bolton) and global capital (Wolfowitz)

Novak: Wedge issue on a former candidates personal employment, jibe at trial lawyers. (Personal attack)

Nader: Policy problems with the Patriot Act.

Novak: France bashing. (Cultural attack)

Nader: Policy problem with occupational safety for workers.

Novak: American Idol. (Bizarre cultural aside)

--------------------------------------
With these issue choices, how can anyone take Novak seriously as a political commentator?

[Itsthetruth]

19. No He Can't

But, they pay him the big bucks to be a right-wing hack.

[UTUSN]

20. 2 Farts and NEITHER Did Good

Why would ANYBODY put NADIR "on the Left" for US???

He said that Michael SHIAVO should abandon the Guardianship and let the parents have it.

I know ----------I------was not represented on this Right-Left spectrum.

[MadHound]

21. Did you vote for Kerry? n/t

[UTUSN]

25. Don't Know Why You're Asking. I've Voted for 75% of the Following

and the rest, I wasn't born yet. Is NADIR a Democrat?

[MadHound]

36. Nader isn't a Democrat, but he is liberal

And as we've been told during the past election campaign, you can't get everything you want, so deal with it. During the campaign, we were bullied into voting for a pro-war candidate named Kerry. Now, it is your turn to deal, you, poor thing, have to listen to Nader, a leftist who doesn't believe in letting Schiavo pass on, represent the liberal movement. Though he probably represents ninety percent of your views, you're upset by his stance on Schiavo. Well, as was told multiple times to me concerning Kerry, "tough shit, deal with it"

[UTUSN]

46. Well, As *I* Was Told by NADIRites in 2000, "We Don't Need No Steenking Um

umbrella." This was when I tried endlessly to "reach out" with "common ground." I am LONG over any NADIR (and related) mania. The only 90% he represents is his own ego.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[UTUSN]

54. The NADIR Wars Were Over for Me in 2000. S'long! n/t

[MadHound]

55. Gee, if they were over for you in'00

Why are you still taking the cheap shots and low road in '05? Methinks thou protest too much, and that your actions are speaking waaay louder than your words. But hey, thanks for playing.

[applegrove]

22. Yes he does well when he gets to discuss things deeply. Just so long

as he doesn't tank another Democratic win. That is all I ask.

Ralph is such a good communicator I wish he would study the whole thing - throw away his assumptions that anyone can survive without open borders - and come up with some new ideas. I really wish he would.

[Itsthetruth]

26. Kerry's New Ideas?

I'd like to know what "new ideas" John Kerry pushed in the 2004 election.

Please list just one "new idea" that demonstrated mass appeal. That's not too much to expect from the great leader of American progressives, is it?

Surely he had more great "new ideas" than Ralph Nader. Perhaps all of us just failed to notice them. I'm sure we paid attention.

[applegrove]

37. You are on the old planet if you think your leaders have to come up

with new ideas that have 'mass appeal'. Sometimes you need a leader who will get you not want you want..but what you need. America is in decline as are all the Western nations. Our wealth was based in part on no markets in communist countries so the world was our oyster for a long time. Now we face competition and we will not be as rich.

So we have to have the open borders or we will live like cavemen. But that does not mean that we have to loose everything we hold dear. Or morph into a nation that has no empathy and is tribal and self-hating. Only the elites who hate the USA democracy are into making it tribal.

So a leader who would stand up and say 1) War on terror - I would have look harder on Iraq but we are there so we cannot leave until it is safe
2) terrorism is bad - so is tricking and using your people when they are wounded and not leading them out of the trauma because you were too busy being somebody's ass-puppet
3) international norms like empathy good - norms like winning at all cost & making sure someone got hurt by it and enjoying it is sociopathic (use the word). MRI for all sociopaths. For all world leaders and we will cut the number of human rights abuses by half.
4) tribalism within the US so elites can rule and middle class will be erased - FUCK YOU we will grind you into the earth you elites.
5) we forgot to add the soul to the corporation. They have been easily used as they have no internal compass. We need to work on that.

[UTUSN]

27. NADIR Is a "GOOD COMMUNICATOR"? Not Today.

and as for YESTERDAY, has he ever explained why he continues to run for anything? Not for us. For himself.

[applegrove]

38. He needs to update the whole his whole thing and not rely on past

glories to lead when he can never have more than 2%. Unless Ralph Nader eats the grass off his front lawn every day for food - he is in markets and he needs to acknowledge them. Not to say they do not need to be regulated.

[BiggJawn]

24. Go Away, Ralf.

Go rest up for your "run" against Jeb Bush and the Democrat To be Determined in '08.

Damn used cock-sock full of Rove-squeeze...

[Itsthetruth]

28. It's Not Just Nader Raising Questions About The Democratic Party

Today many respected political activists are echoing many of the same general criticisms of the Democratic Party that Ralph Nader made in the 2000 and 2004 election. And a lot of DU'ers are raising many of the same kinds of questions. They are not being personally attacked. And they shouldn't be.

Read the articles by Carolyn Winter and Roger Bybee and David Swanson.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/05/03/23_onslaught.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3334823&mesg_id=3334823

[UTUSN]

29. "Some People Say" n/t

[BiggJawn]

41. But are they taking funding from the GOP?

"And a lot of DU'ers are raising many of the same kinds of questions. They are not being personally attacked. And they shouldn't be."

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Nader is/was a RetHUGlican-funded distraction.

I'll attack Nader if I bloody well damn please. Contrary to what the assholes he facilitated into power want to do, it's still a free country, y'know.

[Itsthetruth]

53. Kerry & Nader Both Got Money From Anti-Bush Republicans

"But are they taking funding from the GOP?"

Do you mean John Kerry or Ralph Nader? The answer to that question would be both accepted funding from anti-Bush Republicans. Kerry got about 10 million and Nader about 100,000 thousand. So what's your point?

And I haven't forgotten the "Republicans for Kerry" campaign committee.

Some "liberals" wanted the Democratic Party to run a Republican conservative for Vice-President! John McCain. Remember that?

[BiggJawn]

58. Yeah, I remember...

"Some "liberals" wanted the Democratic Party to run a Republican conservative for Vice-President! John McCain. Remember that?"

Which is why, when McCain pulled his last stunt, I posted "Hey, you "McCain for VEEP" morans, how do you fuckin' like him NOW???"

Kerry's not exactly on my "A" list for dinner invites, either. Still waiting for those "Lawyers on the ground in Ohio" to DO something with my money...

But, you know, Kerry only fucked us ONCE. Ralph Nader has fucked us again and again and again...

It's all about the R-Dawg with him. He's about as honest as your average Televangelist, IMO...

[Robeson]

32. Frankly, he pissed me off, moreso for running in 2004, than in....

...2000, though he had marginalized himself by then. But he has a Bully Pulpit right now, and I don't. So if he wants to use it on National TV to bash Republicans, then thats fine with me. I don't trust him, but I'm certainly not going to dissuade him from saying the things he did in your post. I wish I could get on National TV and say some of the same things.

Now, if he turns into a Democrat basher as he was in many of the interviews I saw during the election, then he's fighting against the cause. But we're in a war right now with Republicans. And in war, I'll grant, one has to make concessions. In war, the enemy of my enemy, is my friend....for now.

[Radical Activist]

33. Yes, he did do a good job.

Nader isn't the best public speaker but he made some strong points on his two appearances that I wouldn't expect to hear from Begala.

Of course, you can't post anything about Nader without a string of repetitive, hateful insults that have absolutely nothing to do with the original post.

[jpgray]

34. Nader has always been able to talk the talk

What disappoints me is that he doesn't walk the walk. Yeah, Democrats don't do that either, and they rarely talk the talk--I know. Nader is supposed to be better, though.

[pearl]

40. Fuck Nader

Delusional has been who has single handedly
destroyed his own legacy. Gone, gone, gone!

[depakid]

42. Well, Nader has turned out to be pretty much right

on the majority of the issues, there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the parties- and even where this is a difference, enough Dems will side with the Repubs that it turns out not to matter.

Not that his quixotic campaigns helped- they were probably did more harm than good- but the evidence over the past 10 years shows that he was right. There's not much arguing about that anymore.

[NewJeffCT]

44. Regarding France & their 35 hour work week

I was honestly shocked to hear this - but, last year, two countries had more foreign capital invested in them than the United States. One was China, which I am sure comes as no surprise. But, the other was France.

If France was such a bad investment and their workers were so lazy, why did they get so much foreign capital last year?

(Sorry, don't have a link)

[formernaderite]

47. That's because the "old fart" is a good man...

regardless of how some on this site would paint him.

[MsTryska]

61. i'm not going to get into the rehash

of indecision 2000 or 2004 - but i will say this.



Nofacts got his ass handed to him. that was hilarious.

[spooky3]

65. This is amazingly good! Thanks for posting.

My favorite part:


"NOVAK: You know, I speak on the college campus sometimes, Ralph, and the students tell me they are sickened by the left-wing professors they have to deal with.

NADER: That's because the only students who come to hear you are sickened. "

I've been on those campuses more than he has and I can tell you that I have NEVER had one student express that sentiment to me. My guess is that for every one who feels that way there are 10 who completely disagree strongly and 100 who think they may have encountered only one or fewer "left-wing" professor in their whole college experience.

[Itsthetruth]

97. Nader's Comments On Monday's Crossfire Show

Ralph Nader also hosted Monday's edition of CNN's Crossfire! Just found that out.

Here's some excerpts from the transcript. He did good!

March 21, 2005


RALPH NADER: My fellow Princetonian Donald Rumsfeld frequently sugarcoats the situation is Iraq. Yesterday, he did more of the same. He should consult with regular Iraqis, who say they have less street security, less electricity, more food shortages, worse sewage overflows, a broken health care system, wartime destruction, mostly unrepaired, unemployment doubled to 60 percent, and even gasoline prices 10 times higher than they were under the tyrant Saddam Hussein.

Add 14 military bases, the U.S. corporate takeover of their oil industry and much of their economy to Paul Bremer's freedom-destroying decrees, including a ban on trade-union activities, and you the case for the reeducation of Donald Rumsfeld via the Web site, DemocracyRising.us.

(APPLAUSE)

NOVAK: Well, I'll tell you, Ralph, you should have read the front-page story in "The New York Times" today by the eminent foreign correspondent John Burns about the tide may be turning.

He says insurgent are attacking -- this is Baghdad -- smaller and with less intensity. More attacks into the Green Zone have diminished sharply. Major raids have uncovered some weapons caches.

And some rebel leaders have been arrested or -- or killed. So, it's looking better.

NADER: Not when you ask the guys on the ground in Iraq. It's getting worse.

NOVAK: Howard -- Dean was expected to entertain as the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. And he did not disappoint last night.

He declared that Democrats tend to -- quote -- "explain every issue in half-an-hour of detail" -- unquote. That, he said, is why the party lost last year's election to what he called brain-dead Republicans. Brain-dead? Is that appropriate in a time of national debate over the Terri Schiavo case? You can count on Dr. Dean to use the wrong phrase. (APPLAUSE)

NADER: I agree. The Republicans are not brain- dead. Their brains are marinated in corporate cash, brewed -- brewed... (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

Brewed into -- brewed -- brewed -- brewed into a subservient soup by corporate chefs.

NOVAK: They should have named you as national chairman, instead of -- instead of Dean. You do a...

NADER: He won't return my calls. I'm trying to give him some good advice.

NOVAK: You would do a better job than Dr. Dean.

NADER: All right, oil prices are skyrocketing.

Over $2 per gallon and closer to $3 per gallon in California. Every penny per gallon per year amounts to $1.5 billion from your consumer pocketbooks to the oil industry.

Yet, the Bush regime refuses a thorough investigation, especially into the closings and reduction of refinery capacity in this country. Oil men Bush and Cheney also refuse to regulate upward your vehicle's fuel efficiency to levels long achievable by auto engineers and already achieved by Toyota and Honda cars. Wake up, General Motors.

NOVAK: Well, Ralph, you know very well, of course, that the problem is that we haven't been building refinery capacities because of environmentalists like you. And we haven't been drilling in the ANWR, where the -- you're so worried about the fuzzy animals that we don't get oil out of there.

So, once we start doing that again, I would hope that we would have a decline in oil prices.

(APPLAUSE)

NADER: Let's add, closing 24 refineries in the last 25 years; 24 refineries in this country, they have closed down. They could build new ones on the same site, no environmental problems.

NOVAK: Well, they should. They should. But you people have made it very hard. You want everybody to walk around with a cane, instead of ride in a car. You know, we..

NADER: Do have you the citation for that claim, Bob?

NOVAK: I don't.

Yet another possible entrant in the 2000 Republican presidential derby, Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi. Am I kidding? A Republican nominee from the Deep South, a former million-dollar-a-year lobbyist, a good old boy who prefers drinking hard whiskey to white wine and is always carrying a few too many pounds?

Yes, "Washington Whispers" in "U.S. News" mentioned Governor Barbour. And that is what has been the buzz behind the scenes for weeks. Haley is a terrific politician. He was an excellent Republican national chairman, and he's making a wonderful governor of Mississippi. If an old movie actor could be a great president, why not an overweight, hard-drinking son of the Deep South?

NADER: What a stretch, Bob.

(APPLAUSE)

(LAUGHTER)

NADER: I mean, you're really stretching it. I always thought conservatives preferred teetotalers to whiskey-holics, No. 1.

No. 2, Haley Barbour is mostly known around the country for pushing for laws to block seriously injured Americans from having their full day in court against wrongdoers, like corporations selling them dangerous products.


NOVAK: Who should decide whether Terri Schiavo will have a feeding tube or be sentenced to death by starvation?

Joining us today to debate that issue, Congressman Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, and Congressman David Dreier, Republican of California, the powerful chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee.

DREIER: Chris, I totally concur with your initial assertion, that we should not be the ones to decide.

We are not trying to be the ones to decide. What we did in the middle of the night was not decide. All we did was say that there should in fact be, in federal court, an opportunity for these parent, who seem to get a smile on her face and an enthusiastic look in her eye when they go into that room, we just want to create an opportunity for a federal court to make that determination as to whether...

NADER: Let me interject. Let me interject here. Taking off from what you said, Congressman Dreier, are you prepared to do one of two things? Are you prepared to press for legislation every time a similar case to Terri Schiavo comes up? Or are you prepared to press for omnibus legislation that will give all future Terri Schiavos and their family's situation the right to go from state to federal court? In other words, are you going to go ad hoc from now on or omnibus?

DREIER: OK, I'll answer both of your questions.

And let me say, I happen to believe that what we should do is, we should be allowing a federal court in this instance to make a decision. One of the things that we've learned from this, Ralph, is very clear. Every single person should have a living will, so that no one is...

NADER: Wait a minute. You're dodging the question.

DREIER: No, no, I'm not dodging the question. What I'm telling you is that I want to create a scenario where it's not going to be necessary, Ralph.

NADER: Let me finish here. What are you going to -- answer. What are you going to do in future...

DREIER: Could we tell the audience that they should have a living will?

NADER: Fine. Fine. All, have living wills.

DREIER: Good. OK. Thank you. Thank you.

NADER: What are you going to do -- what are you going to do -- let's -- time is running short, really. Don't filibuster, please. One, if 20 more Terri Schiavos comes, same situation, are you willing to pass 20 more bills to give them...

DREIER: I hope that we don't have to. The answer is, I hope we don't have to.

NADER: That's not -- I'm asking, yes or no?

DREIER: The answer is, no, I don't want to do that. I don't want to do that, OK? NADER: All right. So, this is a single case, right?

NADER: All right. Now, would you pass omnibus legislation to let people go from state to federal court?

DREIER: We have a very unique situation here. We have a very unique situation, the likes of which we've never seen before.

VAN HOLLEN: This is not a -- this is not a unique situation. Families across America struggle with these kind of decisions every day. Why should...

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

DREIER: Of course they do.

VAN HOLLEN: And who -- no. And who are -- who are 535 people, who know nothing about the facts of the case, who..

DREIER: To simply say it should be heard in court. We're not making the decision, Chris.

VAN HOLLEN: No, to over -- to overrule the decision properly made.

DREIER: We're not overruling anything. We're not overruling anything. We're simply saying -- we're simply saying the parents should have an opportunity...

VAN HOLLEN: This is jumping in, in one case, when -- when we should not be jumping in like this in a private matter.


NADER: Congressman Dreier, Republican speeches yesterday on the House floor were full of compassion for human life.

Americans almost never hear such Republican words on behalf of hundreds of thousands wrongfully injured patients in hospitals, workers killed or disabled through on-the-job hazards.

(APPLAUSE)

NADER: Or other people -- or other people or other...
Wait. No -- or other people other suffering -- suffering from the violence of toxic pollutants or raw poverty every year.

Here's the question. Are we witnessing the beginning, perhaps, of a Terri Schiavo-induced epiphany by the corporate-controlled Republican Party in Congress to recognize some key priorities for regulatory law and order to stop these preventable losses of life and health in America?

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

DREIER: That's a great question, Ralph.

Let me say that I totally disagree with your characterization. I will tell that you Republicans are very concerned about people who face challenges in every single walk of life. And we have evidence that we can point to. I mean, we disagree with your conclusion that, somehow, we want to plunder the environment, we want to jeopardize the lives of people.

NADER: So you're going to push for a stronger OSHA and EPA?

DREIER: We're -- we are -- we're strongly supporting of doing everything that we can to improve our environmental quality and the standard of living for people in this country.


Read the entire transcript at:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/21/cf.01.html