My problem with Nader

[Guaranteed]

is that he attacks the Democratic Party as a whole. He doesn't recognize the spectrum of leadership and policy that exists within the party. A great example of this is his assertion that Al Gore would have invaded Iraq- I highly doubt this. Gore doesn't deserve to be attacked like that. He's been one of the very few solid leaders that the Democrats have had through this Bush term-long debacle.

The Demoratic Party really DOES have some great people within it taking the important stands that need to be taken. The key for a third party candidate such as Nader is to positively reinforce the party with praise when they do the right thing (and on an individual basis support those doing the right thing when the party as a whole does not), and, of course, withdraw support when they do the wrong thing. He's just not doing this.

I, personally, have a VERY big problem with voting for Kerry or Edwards in the GE, and I may or may not do it, but I would only vote for Nader in order to use the slot his name holds as a ticker to remind the Democratic Party of the votes that they would have had if they would have done their jobs and represented their constituency.

Nader needs to be more effective in who and why he attacks.

[Goldberg]

1. My problem with Nader...

is that he'll take votes away from the independents and swaying voters in the election, once again screwing over the Democrats.

[Guaranteed]

2. That's the only part that he's right about.

But he needs to be more specific.

[CrazyAtheist]

3. Nader, NO!

Nader running is bad for his agenda as well as the Democrats. Nader himself has said he can't stand Bush, and wants him impeached. Siphoning votes isn't going to help that.

[Raven]

4. Welcome to DU!

I agree.

[djeseru]

5. Second that...

...and I'm more than positive he knows it too. Ego on this guy?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

6. "Nader running is bad for his agenda "

True. Ironic but true. I hate his guts.

[TheWhitneyBrown]

7. Protest Vote? more like Vanity Vote

I would only vote for Nader in order to use the slot his name holds as a ticker to remind the Democratic Party of the votes that they would have had if they would have done their jobs and represented their constituency"

So you want to teach the Democrats a lesson; if only they had embraced whatever your particular opinion is about some piddly thing we could have had your vote. Like in Florida in 2k? What exactly would have enticed you to vote Dem in that case?

And what exactly do we have to do to entice your majesty's vote this time?

Nader voters are not going to affect the Dems this time. Anyone who votes Nader wouldn't have voted for us anyway, so screw 'em.

Your little ticker reminds no one of anything but that some people vote for weird personal reasons that have nothing to do with actual politics, the same reason some people run. What a ridiculous notion.

When young people say they don't vote because 'it doesn't make any difference anyway' what they really mean, 'Why should I vote unless I'm the one who decides the outcome.' It's typical infantile reasoning, and is generally cured by maturity, but not always.

[Guaranteed]

8. I DID vote Dem in that case.

I've never been a Nader supporter, and I'm still not.

HOWEVER, I will NOT tolerate the lack of leadership and principle that we've seen in our party for the last three years. Whether you admit to yourself or not, most of the Democrats rolled over and back Bush's agenda even though they knew it was wrong for the country. I refuse to support that kind of behavior. You shouldn't either.

As far as I'm concerned, those that cracked under the pressure from Bush's extremist policies and propaganda oughta pack up their offices and get out of D.C. I want REAL leadership.

[Nashyra]

9. Great

some will not tolerate what the Dem party has done? Well let's get the Dems elected so that they know they will not be tolerated for a
SECOND term if they don't make change, that will set the stage for a more progressive Dem nominee, there is nothing that says that a Dem can not challenge a Dem incumbent in 2008 if change is not hapening, and then oce again the majority of voters could decide how progressive they want their candidate to be. Tolerance is a virtue.

[Guaranteed]

11. They WERE elected. They had offices, paychecks, and the

opportunity to LEAD and give real opposition to Bush. They were there to represent us, and they FAILED. And, YES, they really could have stopped what happened.

Why should we support that?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. That problem runs rampant on DU every day

People repeatedly deny a person's entire record based on a handful of issues. Kerry is a prime example. He is the one who brought most of what we know about the Bush family dealings to light and he is summarily dismissed here at DU every day as though he never championed and single liberal value.

[Guaranteed]

12. He abandoned us for three years.

And not that much in the country has changed now. Why would he stand up for us as president?

Even HE has hardly changed at all! He STILL says his IWR vote was the right thing to do!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

13. Not that much in the country has changed now?

How did he abandon us?

If he had voted differently on IWR would there have been no war?

If he had voted against the Patriot Act would it not have passed 98-2 insted of 99-1?

There have been numerous threads that have used his actual statements prior to the IWR vote and following explaining that he wished to force the Bush admin back to the UN. Have you bothered to read any of them?

I'm fine with you saying those votes were wrong. I challenge you to state how anything would be different minus those votes.

You can't.

[Guaranteed]

14. He could have spoken out *strongly* against the war.

That's what leadership is all about. Conceding that the war was necessary but should be fought with a "broader coalition" does not constitute opposition, and it certainly wasn't treated as such. Through strong opposition he, and the other Democrats, could have eroded public support for the war and even unified against it within the Senate- don't forget that the Democrats had the Senate majority at the time.

They could have saved a bunch of senator's jobs.

They could have prevented anti-war Americans from being called "unpatriotic" and "unAmerican" and other such abuses, by showing that there was a REAL reason to be against the war.

They even could have *increased their electability* by maintaining their integrity and having faith in themselves and everyone else who was doing the right thing (as you can see now). That would have been a helluvan "I told you so" to Bush, wouldn't it have?

They could have given their constituents a positive reason to vote for them, simply by opposing Bush as a general principle.

Most of all, they could have saved the lives of hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis.

Yes, all of this was possible. But, they chose not to because doing the right thing was too "risky" (LOL).



P.S. I don't hold the Patriot Act against anyone. The nation was in shock, and I understand that. However, it DOES need to be repealed, except for a few parts of it that allow increased communication between law enforcement.

[Guaranteed]

15. Kick for Gore nt