Why do some Greens on this board defend Nader when he betrayed the party?

[mot78]

I still see some people on DU who say they are Greens, yet SOME of them still defend Nader, even though he stabbed their party in the back!! I'm not trying to start a Green-Dem flame war, I just want to know why some Greens still defend Nader in various flame wars, when Nader dumped their party to go Indy?

[FDRrocks]

1. He didn't dump the Greens.

The Greens just aren't going to run him. Nader never was a Green.

[Walt Starr]

2. Nader didn't betray the Party

To the best of my knowledge, he's not a Democrat.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. S/he means the Green party. n/t

[Walt Starr]

10. Well, he's not a Green either!

One must actually belong to a Party in order to betray it.

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. I don't consider it a betrayal

1) He wasn't a Green

2) He had every right to opt to run on his own. He felt we were caucusing far too late in the year to make a real go for the oval office.

3) Since he does have a lot of baggage attached to him from 2000, it might be best for my party not to run him anyway.

[drthais]

19. exactly right

The scoop I heard was that he wants IN on the 'discussion'
and June (he thinks) is too late to participate
(which is when the Greens could back him)

hey, he wants to be in the mix
the man has some good talking points
and will liven up the debate
and I am not a bit worried
that the effect of his candidacy would be the same as 2000

but I AM out there registering folks to vote
I suggest anyone who has the time do the same

[GreenPartyVoter]

21. WElcome to DU, DrThais

[corporatewhore]

4. I like David Cobbbetter nader didnt betray the party i will defendhisright

as an american citizen to run for president just as i would for pat buchanan ross perot walt brown or mike badarnik

[patricia92243]

5. Nadar loves Bush being in the WH-he'll do everything he can to do it again

[cyclezealot]

11. This I just can't imagine.

If so Nader is not in touch with his old organization. Public Citizen. Unless some miracle occurs and Kerry is better than I think; I will hold my nose and vote Kerry. Just don't expect hard work.
Some of us care about issues and the horse race is secondary.

[Forkboy]

6. I'm not a Green

but I defend him because the hate and bile spewed his way is totally disproportionate to the effect he had.The SCOTUS is the real bad guy here.There's also the purged voters,the right-wing intimidation tactics,the DEMS WHO VOTED FORT BUSH,etc.Why aren't these things vilified even a fraction of the amount Nader is? Nader is a simple scapegoat for bigger problems many Dems are afraid to address.


If the votes were never counted how could Nader votes have hurt,or helped anyone? They simply weren't counted so the whole point is moot.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. Everything you list is in the past

Nader running for President as a spoiler is in the present.

[Forkboy]

15. And people are still wailing about the past

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. Well, you're not gonna get me to urge people to 'Move On'

I'd be crucified!

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. Well-said, Forkboy :^)

[mzmolly]

12. I tend to agree on the one hand, but when Nader himself pretty much takes

credit for and/or announces his goal to be *taking down the Dems* or *teaching Dems a lesson* I'd say he's got it coming.

I dont fault anyone for running for President personally. I'd just prefer their agenda were to help US citizens not "teach them a lesson."

[buddhamama]

13. Nader is not now, nor has he ever been, a Green

n/t

[kher-heb]

14. Why do Dems defend Kerry when he betrayed the party?

I guess some people are partisans and other people actually care about ideology.

[Iverson]

16. a matter of legitimate vs. illegitimate criticism

I do not consider injured pride from "betraying" the Greens all that important, for example.

In a weird way, I love my country, and I am injured and outraged by the magnitude of the Constitutional crime that was committed in 2000. To blame Nader for that is both frivolous and irresponsible. It is also symptomatic of some of the problems that the Democratic Party currently has. In that situation, a rebuttal is sensible.

I think that his independent run is a mistake, and if I get the chance I will argue so. You may have noticed, though, that discussions of Nader don't lend themselves to reasoned discourse. They are Hillary-bashing of the crudest sort.

[ulysses]

18. see, this,

I think that his independent run is a mistake, and if I get the chance I will argue so.

is exactly the kind of thing that will quickly fall into the memory hole (as I know you know) because these discussions never allow for any kind of genuine understanding, only venting.

[Iverson]

20. You're right. It will go down the memory hole.

Sometimes it's like trying to talk to a teenaged brick.

[TheWhitneyBrown]

22. Actually he didn't betray anything

Nader ran in 2000 because he hates the Democratic Party. That's not a betrayal, it's simple opposition, same as Republicans. I am sure nothing gives him greater joy than being credited with defeating the Dems in 2000.
On the other hand, he also hates the Republicans. If he were in a position to be able to defeat them, he would take great joy in that also. But he's not. He can only defeat the Democrats. So he takes what he can get.
He's just a hateful, negative person who is quite unhappy with not having the power he feels he deserves. Perhaps, like Newt Gingrich, he was slighted by Clinton at some point, who knows.
I don't see him as much of a problem, and certainly no help. He's irrelevant. That's why he's running. Anyone who would vote for him was not going to vote Democratic anyway. Just my opinion.