How does Nader's platform differ from Dennis Kucinich's?

[mzmolly]

Nader claims that if Kerry would ONLY adopt his platform we'd win the election. :eyes:

But his platform lacks substance and solutions from what I can tell. Also, Dennis Kucinich had a similar platform, which was far more thoroughly thought out, and HE did NOT win the election.

Unless I'm missing something here?

[freetobegay]

1. Kucinich, is not a nut case!

Thats how they differ.

[mzmolly]

2. True.

;)

He's also not a liar. But, hey I thought I'd give this a try.

[qazplm]

3. you are missing the part

where Nader's ego is writing checks that his logic can't cash. ;)

[mzmolly]

4. Hey, that's a good one.

I'm still pondering it. :crazy:

:hi:

[HawkerHurricane]

5. Dennis Kucinich's platform...

is/was NOT being supported by the Republican Party. Nader's is.

[mzmolly]

6. Very true.

:hi:

[rhite5]

37. Nader's Platform is certainly NOT being supported by Repubs!

His platform is totally anti-corporate, exactly the same as Kucinich on NAFTA, WTO. He also wants to completely repeal the Patriot Act And he wants to bring the war quickly to an end and cancel all the no-bid contracts to Halliburton, et al.
and cut the Pentagon budget more severely than Kucinich suggested.

His platform is almost the same as Kucinich's platform, including National Healthcare, Alternative Energy, no genetically modified foods, higher minimum wage, enforcement of Environmental regs, etc.

Republicans who are collecting signatures for him to get him on the states' ballots couldn't care less about the platform, they only do this because they think if he is on the ballot that will help Bush. And they could be right. Although it is possible that many Republican voters disgusted with Bush might go to Nader as a compromise rather than vote for a Dem. In that case it would backfire for those GOP signature gatherers. Who knows?

You can definitely put to rest any idea that Nader himself is a stealth Republican. He has been their worst enemy throughout his career, causing years of grief for giant corporations forced to meet consumer safety standards.

Boy, do we ever need IRV

..

[HawkerHurricane]

39. Define 'support'.

Republicans are providing money and manpower to Nader. They are supporting Nader, including his platform. They may not agree with his platform, but they are supporting it... in a effort to divide the Left, of course.

[tinanator]

40. that division neednt take place in the polling booth

when people scoff at Kucinich's campaign, and berate Nader to an insane degree, that is when the dividends return. More effective, quicker destruction of progressive policies/politicians than division of votes that may well not even be counted anyway. Nader voters are coming from Bush's base this time, if he gets any at all. I dont see Democratic Party attempts at getting out the vote or shifting Congressional control. Too busy mandating the behavior of delegates I spose.

[BeatleBoot]

7. Kucinich Wouldn't Use The Republicans

to get on the ballot in my state.

Kucinich is a Democrat and I have lots of admiration for him.

Nader is using Republican resources to get on the ballot.

To me, that's like crossing a picket line.

Nader is a scab.

[mzmolly]

8. "Nader is a scab"

:toast:

He's a UNION BUSTING scab at that!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

9. Most important difference

Kucinich, a loyal Democrat, didn't get HALF the publicity or media attention that Nader has gotten.

[no name no slogan]

10. Because Kucinich, as a Dem, would actually have a chance of winning

While Nader, running without ANY party backing, is just flapping his gums to the wind.

I still admire and respect the work Nader has done, but he has become nothing more than a pathetic characature of his former self. I voted for him in 1996 and 2000 because of his message and platform. And I don't regret it for a minute.

This year, Nader is only representing himself. There's no grassroots Nader movement at all. All he has is his sycophants who worship his every move and a few big-name Repubs to provide the money.

If Dems truly feel the need to attack him now (when it's doubtful he'll even be on the ballot in most states), they should do it on the merits of his campaign: top-down, Republican-funded, etc.-- NOT on his views (which are shared not only by many Greens, but a large number of progressive Democrats as well).

At this stage, Nader is a non-issue. We'd be much better off focusing our energies on ShrubCo than this statistical asterisk.

[mzmolly]

11. I honestly feel we need to address Nader and Bush.

A statistical asterisk decided the last election, and polls show it could decide this one as well.

;)

www.dontvoteralph.org

[no name no slogan]

12. No, a corrupt court and state gov't decided the election

Gore ran such a shitty campaign that a drunken AWOL fratboy like Dubya was able to mount a serious challenge to an incumbent vice-president of one of the most popular presidents of the century.

You can blame Nader all you want, but it really comes down to the 300,000 FL Dems who voted for Bush (NOT the 4,000 FLans who voted for Nader), the never-counted ballots in Florida, the actions of one "connected" state election official, and a governor who happened to be the brother of one of the candidates.

Nader is a convenient scapegoat because he doesn't have the $$$ or popular support that the Bush clan does.

The more we Democrats attack Nader, the more attention he gets from the media and the public. The more attention he gets, the more $$$ he gets from well-healed Republicans and prospective 3rd-party voters. The more $$$ he gets, the easier it is for him to get on ballots.

[mzmolly]

13. No, a corrupt court a LYING NARCISSIST and state gov't decided the election

As for Gore's campaign. It was fine by me. He won the election didn't he? Albeit Nader made it easy for Bush and his band of criminals to steel the election.

The media will give Nader attention wether we lay down and let him assist Bush or not. The media want's Bush to win. How else do we explain the fact that other third party candidates are NOT getting media attention?

If Nader wasn't getting the attention he desires, I would'nt be talking about him.

By the way, Nader SET OUT TO PUNISH DEMOCRATS.

And after his psuedo spanking of the Democratic Party he had this to say:

"The democrats are going to have to lose more elections, they didn't get the message the last time."

Bush deserves to be dealth with, and so does Mr. Nader, I intend to deal with both. ;)

[tinanator]

15. I fully sympathize with Nader's desire to retaliate

those cocksuckers led him out of his seat in the audience of the 2000
debates. And you would blame him for campaigning in swing states?
If I was him I would be even more unreasonable and truly dangerous.
Consider yourself lucky as well as spiteful.

[mzmolly]

18. Retaliate? He started this fight. And, you would be correct to add me

to the LIST of spite mongers.

[George_Bonanza]

22. Gore DID win, and DID receive more votes than any Dem candidate ever

Still, I agree, he should have been able to destroy Bush. I think the main problem was the complacency of the citizens after 8 great years of Clinton.

[tinanator]

25. not complacency in terms of Naders vote

outrage and disappointment.
Complacency is something different altogether.
Bush lost. hard.

[tinanator]

14. so address it honestly

if you dont mind

[mzmolly]

20. I did address it *honestly* now show me the polls that assert the

(Nader is not taking votes from Kerry) BS - because I've shown you that he is.

[tinanator]

21. maybe you can show me where I asserted any such thing?

other than the fact that Nader has been used as a scapegoat for Democratic cowardice and complicity in the face of a coup.

[mzmolly]

26. Actually, I dont consider Nader a scapegoat, just a LIAR.

Democrats make up about half the Government, and we don't think in lock step. Sorry if that displeases you.

[tinanator]

28. you talking bipartisanship here?

like the IWR, PATRIOT Act, Clarence Thomas, the 2000 election?
A liar? Sounds like every freepers opinion of Clinton...

[mzmolly]

31. The Clinton strawman won't work, he's not the subject of this thread.

Nader THE LIAR is.

[tinanator]

16. so if Kucinich dropped dead

would you still be talking smack about him?

[mzmolly]

19. WTF do you mean by *smack* I admire Dennis Kucinich. Nader

is a liar when he professes the Dems haven't adopted his platform, because one of them had an identical one, and he got about 5% of the Democratic vote.

[tinanator]

23. Kucinich is not the Central Committee

and they certainly havent espoused anything Kucinich stands for. As far as vote tallies go, his showing in California is practically proof of fraud. His support here was far greater than the numbers given, there are no logical excuses, recent elections have been tampered with and bizarre in the extreme when results are released. Yet people still accuse Californians of being stupid enough to elect Ahnold. I guess we should wait for CNN to report voter fraud before even suspecting it. You are tarring Kucinich by association with Nader, and refuse to admit what your subtext is?

[mzmolly]

29. Bullshit! I am calling Nader on lying about the fact that *all Kerry has

to do is adopt his platform* and Heaven will descend upon the earth.

Especially given Nader stole Dennis's platform and now accuses Dennis of not being "pure" because he is backing Kerry/Edwards.

Believe me, I would not hide the intent of ANY of my posts. It's not my style. I haven't a problem expressing myself honestly, even if people don't care for what I have to say.

This thread in no way slams Dennis Kucinich, sorry if you took it that way.

[mzmolly]

24. Perhaps you should really pose your question to Mr. Nader?

http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=108

Dennis, We Thought We Knew You!

Dennis Kucinich has decided to endorse the Kerry-Edwards Campaign. Of course, since Dennis is a committed, life-long Democrat this is not a big surprise. But, in doing so he also urged Nader supporters to join Kerry-Edwards saying: "There is a place within the Democratic Party for everyone, including those who may be thinking of supporting Ralph Nader." Sorry Dennis, but most Nader supporters would find it very difficult to support the Kerry-Edwards ticket. "

No, SORRY RALPH. Most people would find it difficult to take money and help from Republicans (not pay their homeless workers, bust unions) and call themselves a progressive!

[tinanator]

27. perhaps you should ask Kucinich why he had to surrender his delegates?

for 7 minutes of not exactly prime time to deliver the best speech by a mile at that lockdown called a convention?

[mzmolly]

30. Had to surrender delegates? Sorry he chose to, and I imagine it's because

he want's to see Bush go, just like me.

I notice you didn't address Naders *smack* on Dennis Kucinich.

[tinanator]

32. that'd be because I dont give a fuck about Nader

He is not a threat, has little or no ballot access to speak of, and just the mention of him prevents people from thinking for themselves or being able to solve math/logic problems. Its called brain washing.
In this, of all election years, you ascribe power to a protest candidate? Pretty poor decision making skills. You are glossing over the real story of Kucinich's treatment this year and this week, and I dont wonder why.

[mzmolly]

33. I demonstrated here and Nader did in 2000, that A CLOSE ELECTION

can't afford a Nader run if we want to defeat Bush.

If you want to start a thread about the treatment of Kucinich by X, do so. This one is about how Dennis is being treated by Nader.

:hi:

[tinanator]

34. and be perceived as a crybaby?

not much point. But this thread is different somehow...

[mzmolly]

35. I'm simply asked a question. I thought perhaps I overlooked something

in Nader's platform?

Guess not.

[no name no slogan]

36. But 2004 ain't 2000

mzmolly, I know you don't like Nader, and neither do I, and I certainly don't mean to be disrespectful. But for the purpose of comparison, there are several MAJOR differences between this year and 2000.

For one, Nader doesn't have nearly the ballot access he did in 2000. As the Green Party's candidate, he had ballot access in ±40 states-- wherever the Greens had access.

This year, as an independent, Nader is having to scrape to get on every state's ballot. Without ballot access, it's nearly impossible to vote for Nader. Write-ins generally aren't even counted in the vote totals-- not until after the regular votes are tallied.

Also, Nader's popular support (even among his 1996 and 2000 supporters) is a fraction of what it was in 2000. There's almost NO grassroots movement behind him this year. Case in point: at Minneapolis's annual MayDay parade this year, there were a total of SIX marchers in the "Nader for President" contingent who were desperately passing out lit to any/all who would take it (not many, btw).

Additionally, at the March 20th protest at the state capitol on the anniversary of the Iraq invasion, I saw only TWO people, out of several thousand, who where supporting Nader. They had one small table set up with literature, which NOBODY was taking. In fact, I saw more Kerry support their than Nader, which is saying a lot, considering the protestors ranged from the Anarchists to Veterans for Peace to the Greens to Socialist Workers Party.

The only people who are even paying attention to Nader this year are a small band of rich Repubs who give him $$, and a small group of Democrats who don't realize how marginal he and his campaign really are this year. This is one year where the Democratic presidential candidate will actually BENEFIT from third-party activity, as even the national Greens are advocating a "safe-state" strategy.

Nader is a factor, true. But not a very big one. The more disrespect the Democrats show him, the more sympathy he gets, and the more anti-Democratic sentiment there is among the electorate.

[mzmolly]

41. I agree to a large extent, but he is trying like hell to become a spoiler.

As for his campaign being "marginal" he doesn't need much NNNS. 537 votes in Florida is all it took in 2000.

See what it will take this time by checking out the analysis here:

http://dontvoteralph.org/pollwatch.htm

In addition to national polls, we found state and special-interest polls that similarly compared Bush and Kerry head-to-head and with Nader added to the mix. Here the results were even more striking. Among other things, these polls (the first six in the above table) show Nader flipping New Jersey and Pennsylvania from Kerry to Bush, ... These results alone would almost certainly swing the election to Bush.

So you see, New Jersey and Pennsylvania could swing from the Kerry column to the Bush column, all thanks to Ralph Nader.

GETTING ON THE BALLOT IN ONE WELL PLACED STATE, IS ALL IT WOULD TAKE for another 4 years of George Bush and company.

By the way, it's not a matter of my "not liking" Nader. I don't like alot of people in politics. It's a matter of real concern for me, perhaps because I know how engaging his rhetoric can be. I almost voted for him in 2000. :hi:

[Zynx]

17. If we adopted Nader's platform, we would get 39% of the vote.

[zulchzulu]

38. Who's Nader? Never heard of him...

I thought he died.