Nader's just as much of a corrupt liar as your average politician

[ButterflyBlood]

.

[Terry_M]

1. All politicians

are bad & corrupt until proven otherwise.

[gmoney]

2. Ralph's a good man, just misguided

<eom>

[RichM]

3. Ralph Nader is like an angel come down from heaven to live among us.

O8):bounce:O8):bounce:O8):bounce:

[MoonRiver]

4. I sincerely hope that is a facetious statement.

Otherwise, I might just :puke:

[RichM]

9. Only very slightly facetious.

Although Nader has plenty of shortcomings, I respect him far more than most Democrats. Of the candidates, Kucinich is the only one I like better than Nader. I'd vote for Nader way before I'd support Kerry (though when November rolls around, there will probably be a socialist running whom I'll prefer to Nader.)

[IndianaGreen]

5. Why are the Democrats so incensed at Ralph Nader?

It's the war, stupid!

Why are the Democrats so incensed at Ralph Nader?
By Barry Grey
26 February 2004

In the eyes of the US ruling elite, Nader’s intervention threatens to raise disturbing questions that it had hoped to suppress with the quashing of Howard Dean’s bid for the Democratic nomination—first and foremost, the war in Iraq. Nader is calling for the rapid withdrawal of US troops and their replacement by UN forces, and has accused Bush of impeachable offenses in connection with his lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and Iraq-Al Qaeda connections.

With the Democratic race narrowed down to two candidates, John Kerry and John Edwards, both of whom voted to give Bush authorization to invade Iraq, the political and corporate establishment, Democratic as well as Republican, are looking to engineer an election in which the massive popular opposition to the war will be all but ignored, and potentially explosive issues such as corporate corruption and the widening gap between the financial elite and the working masses will be pushed to the side. Thus the Wall Street Journal, in an editorial gloating over the Democrats’ dismay at Nader’s intervention, declared: “We agree with the Democrats on at least one point”—namely, that Nader should be excluded from the presidential debates.

For the Democratic Party establishment, the prospect of a Nader campaign, even if limited in terms of ballot status, cuts across a campaign strategy aimed at preempting any serious mobilization of popular outrage against Bush’s foreign and domestic policies. The party leadership wants, once the nomination has been locked up, to shift the campaign further to the right. It would like to gain the presidency by winning the imprimatur of the ruling elite, and avoid needlessly raising expectations as to what a Democratic administration would do once in power.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/nade-f26.shtml

[Armand]

6. He's more corrupt than the average politician.

If he wasn't, he wouldn't be running for office right now.

[LandOLincoln]

7. Word. n/t

[blondeatlast]

13. Word word. Money isn't the corruptor--his outrageous ego is. nt

[pnorman]

8. I just got the below from TruthOut.org:

>
>
All four candidates performed well in Los Angeles and presented their message, despite attempts by King and Brownstein to marginalize Kucinich and Sharpton. One example of this came after an exchange between Kerry and Edwards on healthcare. Kucinich asked them to commit to a universal single payer system, and Larry King answered for them, calling it 'socialism.' Larry King is not running for President. Why did we need his opinion? They then moved to another issue without letting Sharpton comment on health care.

Throughout the debate, the questions were asked to Kerry and Edwards first, and if there was time, Kucinich and Sharpton could give their opinion. While I was very impressed with the positions taken by Janet Clayton, and agreed with her most of the time, her questions were like the editorials she oversees at the Los Angeles Times.

"I'll get off the soap box now and admit that this was the best debate so far. Health care was debated, and we heard the differences between the candidates. We heard plans for education. There was a debate on the death penalty, with Kerry expressing his opposition and Edwards defending it, despite a strong argument from Sharpton on how it is unevenly applied to minorities. There was a discussion on Haiti, and a debate on NAFTA and the WTO. The role of special interests and money in politics was debated, as was Iraq.

Hmmmm...all of Nader's issues came up, and he did not need to be there. Why are you running, Ralph?"
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/022804A.shtml

The short answer is this: "Would all, some, or ANY of those issues have come up, had Ralph NOT have been around to keep them all honest? As it was, "they" pretty well marginalized Kucinich and Sharpton.

I supported Nader in 2000, as did many dedicated activists in the Seattle Labor and the Jobs with Justice community. Few if any of them will vote for Nader this year, but they'll LISTEN to him and probably applaud (As I will probably do also). I suspect the same will be so for most of the rest in the country. So quit this absurd bellyaching about Nader, and concentrate on GETTING OUT THE VOTE. If it can be brought from less than 50% of eligible voters to 60% or better, Bush will be TOAST.

pnorman
STAND UP, KEEP FIGHTING http://shows.implex.tv/wellstone

[tameszu]

10. Uh

"The short answer is this: "Would all, some, or ANY of those issues have come up, had Ralph NOT have been around to keep them all honest?"

The Short Answer to your Short-Answer-That-Ended-With-A-Question-Mark:
Yes.

Nader has frankly done nothing useful or helpful for the Democratic Party (or for the Green Party for that matter) since his misguided, mendacious, institutionally naive run in 2000. If anything, he has made the people expounding the ideas he supposedly supports look like they're further in the political wilderness. He has, however, taken the time to hang out with his buddy Grover Norquist.

You can make an argument that Dean helped keep the Dems honest, that he and Clark helped them show why taking a harder line on Bush and inviting local participation nets you resources, and that Kucinich is helping to do so as well. Nader could have lived in a cave for the past 4 years, and the presidential race would have been the exact same.

[pnorman]

12. If any one here thinks

that just tossing Bush & Cheney out and replacing them with DLC-friendly choices, we'd have Killed The Beast, they might be in for a NASTY surprise. If we don't start building NOW, before the election, we'll have sold the next few generations down the river. The roots of what are needed are already in place, and first became visible during WTO Week in Seattle in 1999. The're still growing and spreading out. Nader, regardless of personal defects (real or imagined) is a part of that, and still needs to be heard. Some of this gratuitous Nader-bashing sounds downright Freeperish.

pnorman
STAND UP, KEEP FIGHTING http://shows.implex.tv/wellstone

[saracat]

11. Nader Suspicions

For whatever reason, I read that Trump supports Nader and even provides him with living accomadations in the Tower.I would think he could get him a better wardrobe and a comb though!