Ralph Nader is in Fun with Dick and Jane

[mdmc]

Hello DU! I just received this email and thought that I would pass it along. I quess the Hollywood progucer wanted a progressive politician to make a case against corporate America. It is too bad that the Democratic party is in so deep with CEO's. Too bad that the Dems don't have a national Ralph Nader.




Fun with Dick and Jane -- a movie staring Jim Carrie and Tea Leoni, is
comedy that makes fun of the corporate scandals of the day. Jim and
Tea play an upper-middle class, wealthy couple that both lose their jobs.
Tea quits hers when Jim is promoted to Vice President of Communications
for an international corporation. But, Jim does not know that the
corporation is an Enron. Its CEO has sold his stock before the fraud of
the company is publicly announced.

Jim goes on a Lou Dobbs type show and is caught unaware -- like a deer
in the headlights -- as he stutters in his response to surprise
question after surprise question. Then, a dramatic portrayal of Ralph Nader
comes on -- played by an actor who could do no better, Ralph Nader.
Nader takes two questions from Dobbs and appropriately criticizes the
international corporation.

The show's credits include a long list of real-life scandals --
thanking them for their assistance in making the movie. Tongue in cheek --
but making an important point.

A must see movie for those who want to see corporations brought under
control.


The Nader Team

http://www.votenader.org
http://www.independencegear.org

[moobu2]

1. Nader has no moral authority to speak about corporate whorism

The lying scumbag.

[mdmc]

3. Name one person better?

some DLC stodge? John McCain?

[LoZoccolo]

18. Yeah, any DLC member is better than Bush*...

...and therefore better than Nader, since Nader=Bush*.

[mdmc]

30. DLC'er taking on corporate ownership of the government

thats rich!

[LoZoccolo]

44. *yawn* n/t

[hfojvt]

48. Paul Krugman? Michael Moore?

Anyone who is more interested in helping the working class than they are in self-promotion.

[mdmc]

52. they are awesome!

I wish that they were more heavily involved with Democratic Party positions and platform creation.

[NNadir]

19. Maybe Nader can tell about violating labor laws - he's done it himself.

He fired the editors of the Multinational Monitor rather than let them form a union to fight his illegal working conditions.

Ralph Nader is a fraud and a freak.

[mdmc]

53. Can't really disagree

don't know...

[mattclearing]

20. The only thing Nader lied about was saying there was no difference

between the parties. But from his perspective, there isn't a huge difference. It's the difference between the guys who carry water for corporations and the guys who want to carry water for the corporations.

I don't agree with him, but from his standpoint, and the work he does, I can see how one would grow to resent the Democratic Party. When was the last time Dems reformed anything or devised a program that helped people?

[AverageJoe]

2. Nader worked very hard

to elect *.

Whatever moral authority he once had is long since gone.

[mdmc]

5. Timid Democrats elected Bush, GOP voters elected Bush

the corporate media elected Bush. It is a right wing lie that (all powerful) Nader had more influence than Gore over the election.

The Democrats failed in 2000 to justify progressive solidarity (Gore ran pro gun, pro drug war, and pro death penalty). Gore is a world better than Bush, but America deserves Bush. If the Democrats fail to articulate a progressive vision in 2008, then America deserves Condi Rice.

Give em Hell. Or just tell the truth and they will think it is hell.

[AverageJoe]

8. I don't know you, mdmc

and I suspect that you're a very nice person, probably great fun to chat with over coffee or beer. I'm not kidding. But we're oil and water on this one.

Gore ran a bad campaign, to be sure. But Nader worked hard to beat Gore, knowing that the only possible outcome of his success was a * victory.

Nader did great things for consumers in the 1960s, but he threw away his legacy in 2000.

[mdmc]

10. thanks average joe.

I am a liberal, progressive. I have remained, to this day, as an active democrat. I have been elected to my local county dem committee. Every-time a politician voices a clear liberal position, they are marginalized.

I didn't support Kucinich, although he was the closest to my positions. I supported Dean, because he was an anti war DLC'er. Kerry was the most "progressive" candidate that we could have hoped for, and yet he couldn't even discuss national health care while debating Bush on domestic issues.

There is one corporate sponsored political party in America. It is split between the 'bad cop GOP' and the 'good cop Democrats'.

While Nader helped elect Bush, it was America that wanted Bush. The Dems only argument was "we are not as bad".

Shameful.

ps- peace.

[meganmonkey]

4. What's up mdmc?

Your morning looked too boring, you needed to inject a little flame war into it? :rofl:

You should know better than to mention the 'N' word around here, lest you unleash the wrath of folks who would rather blame him instead of addressing the very real problems in our electoral system!

:hi:

[AverageJoe]

6. The electoral system is broken.

The DLC is a cancer.
The Democratic Party is full of cowards and punks and money grubbers.
No dispute.

There's also no dispute that Nader charged full steam ahead in heavily contested states during both elections.

We won both elections, but Nader made things close enough that the theft was possible.

He knew what he was doing.

[mdmc]

9. He knew what he was doing. What he did was legal

What he did was just and proper. He stood up for the left. If this means that it made it harder for the less right wing candidate to win, then so be it.

The Dems, led by American public opinion, towed the Bush line on HAVA, PATRIOT, Leave no child behind, and preemptive war.

We have one, two faced, corporate sponsored political party. The DLC would rather elect Bush that Kucinich. Nader is the solution, and that is very scary. In 2008, who will stand for progressive values when the call is to sacrifice freedom for elect-ability? Only Nader, me fears.

[meganmonkey]

17. The argument that Nader "made things close enough...

...that the theft was possible" holds no water with me.

It was stolen either way. Do you think Roveco was only going to steal "part" of the election and hope it was enough? No. It was a done deal. By hook or by crook (or by one Supreme Court vote) the 2000 election was going to Bush**.

In a democracy, we should have choices that represent the will of the people. We shouldn't have to play one against the other. And people shouldn't assume that Nader voters would have otherwise voted for Gore/Lieberman in a parallel universe. I would have written in my mother's name before casting a vote for Lieberman (sorry Al, I love ya, but you got the worst running mate ever). And I will NEVER apologize for behaving like we actually live in a democracy. Maybe if we all acted like it, it would happen :shrug:

[mdmc]

21. Meg, we will be crying that 2008 was 'stolen' soon enough

either progressive will have to stand with my lady Hillary (perhaps with Joementum as veep) in 2008, or stay pure with Nader.

I love that DU hates Nader, and hates the DLC! Each group (greens and dlc) have a strategy for beating the GOP. Which strategy does DU feel represents us the best?

[mdmc]

7. Hey Meg!

Just got an email that I thought I would share. I strongly feel that the Dems need to get out of the "but... but... we are so much less evil the the republicans!" frame of mind.

The Dems are corporate whores, just not as slutty as the GOP.

Election reform!
Corporate reform!
Legalize!

[TahitiNut]

28. Well, here comes the "if you're not with us you're agin us" crowd.

Folks that're so rabidly partisan that they'll demonize someone who's even more ideologically opposed to BushFascism will NEVER see their own culpability.

[mdmc]

29. How can these people hate the greens and the dlc?

I mean, pick one or the other.

[TahitiNut]

38. I'm not sure it's the same people.

As an 'outsider' (I'm a non-partisan, liberal social democrat, not a Democrat), I see Democrats demonizing Nader for having the perspective that establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans are both enabling the establishment corporatists/fascists - claiming there are 'major' differences between Democrats and Republicans. I also see Democrats demonizing the DLC for being 'Republican-lite' - essentially confirming the Nader perspective. While these groups may overlap, I don't see them as the same groups. Bizarrely enough, I also see (self-styled) Democrats demonizing citizens for voting according to their ideological political preferences - based on a purely teleological claim of consequentialism. (I fail to see how such 'Democrats' can regard themselves as democratic.) I don't know how this group maps to the prior (overlapping) two - probably more DLC-ish than otherwise.

Whenever we behave as though a person's vote can be rightfully coerced (through fear-mongering or blame-mongering), we have abdicated any moral legitimacy to a claim of being either liberal or democratic. Indeed, this is a corruption of the fascism being fought - an evil fire that must be fought with holy water not more hellfire.

[mdmc]

43. thank you for posting

I feel the same way, agree with your interpretation of the Democratic Party. I had never realized that there were different groups within the party. I am an "insider" (active in the Democratic party, want the Democratic party to be successful), and feel that Nader's vision of America is what my party should be fighting for.

[Kahuna]

11. Too bad. I was planning to watch it. Now?

Not!

[mdmc]

13. the premise is corporate crime needs to be controlled

should be a good move for most lefties! Too bad the producer didn't have Joe Lieberman or Hillary rile against the corporattions...

[oasis]

12. Nader in "Fun with Grover Norquist" is a movie I remember.

:nopity:

[TheCowsCameHome]

14. Must be an election year. Nader has crawled out of his cave.

[mdmc]

15. He isn't really progressive

he just likes to see moderate dems cry!

[TheCowsCameHome]

16. America cries now that he got Bush elected in '00

[mdmc]

23. we will cry in 2008 as well

either fix the system, or get ready to cry. Little ol' Nader ain't much of a problem, really.

[TheCowsCameHome]

31. Hopefully we won't, but if Nader types siphon off votes from the (D)'s

we'll be left on the outside again.

[meganmonkey]

32. What makes you think

that people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore Lieberman in some parallel Nader-free universe?

I hear it over and over, that he "took votes away" from the Dems. But it makes no sense to me :shrug:

[mdmc]

35. meg, do you know any pure greens?

I do. These DU folks just don't seem to get it. Pure greens are looking to be inspired, they are not looking to 'make sure the lesser of two evils' get in to power.

There are no easy answers (except to blame Nader, lol). 2004 didn't seem to be a Nader strong election, why did we lose? There are reasons that we lost (mostly, because Kerry, all dems, supported the war and were seen as flip floppers in the media), but they don't involve little Ralphie.

[mdmc]

34. which will happen if we run a gop / dlc triangulator

cry, baby, CRY!

[mdmc]

46. Pure lefties will probably do their own thing again in 2008

If the GOP run moderates, and the Dems run moderates, I bet that an anti war / drug war / death penalty movement pick up some points.

If the GOP run neo cons, perhaps the pure left will OBEY and triangulate. Risky...

[Beelzebud]

22. Nader bashers: If Gore had won his home state, things would be different.

Enough with the fucking Nader bashing. The man makes great sense on many issues.

I'd rather support a Nader than someone like Biden any day of the week.

Nader didn't even factor into Gore's homestate. I know it's easy to just overlook that FACT, but it's true. Had Al Gore carried his home state, we'd be living in a different world right now.

[mdmc]

24. get ready beelzebud, I'm posting an interview

with a green turned dem, that is running against Hillary this year. DU seems to hate Hillary, the DLC, and Nader equally.

We either need to be the electable, lesser of two evils party, or a true, anti-war, progressive party. I wonder which way most of DU will lean.

[meganmonkey]

26. Hmmm, that's a tough one

How 'bout a
TRUE ANTI-WAR PROGRESSIVE PARTY!!

[mdmc]

36. but, but, what if we don't win? Evil Condi Rice or John McCain

will win! We will have the GOP for another 8 years. The horror!

[GreenPartyVoter]

25. Agreed

[SaveElmer]

33. Flawed logic...

Every Presidential election is decided as the result of many factors. By your logic, no one can be criticized for an election outcome based on their vote because there was some other reason for the defeat.

The fact is had Al Gore won his home state he would be President. No one has said Al Gore does not bear culpability in his defeat. It is equally true that had Ralph Nader not run, Al Gore would be President. If Gore gets heat, so does Nader. He claimed there was no difference between the candidates and therefore his candidacy was irrelevent. He was wrong on both counts and deserves the criticism he gets.

[mdmc]

37. true, but it should be legal for Nader to run for office

if the dems can't inspire voters (50% of voters don't get out and vote), why do you think that the pure green Nader voters would have come out to the polls to elect a Dem (Gore, Kerry, Zell Miller, Hillary, whoever)? They won't. Nader didn't steal Gores votes. Nader offered anti-death penalty / anti drug war voters a candidate that they COULD support.

So, if a group of people will only vote for an anti death penalty, anti drug war candidate, then let Nader run. No 'electable' Dem is going to hold these positions. No DLC Dem is ever going to get the green vote.

Democrats need to figure out how to triangulate the middle with the Big Dog's charisma. Democrats think that his wife will be able to do that. Democrats are wrong.

[SaveElmer]

42. Nader offered a Bush Presidency...

No one with an ounce of common sense truly believed Nader was going to win. Nader and his supporters made the argument that there was NO difference between a Bush and Gore Presidency. They were wrong, and deserve the criticism they get for their choice.

Of course it should be legal for Nader to run for office...but because it is legal does not insulate him from criticism.

Hillary is the strongest most talented candidate, and in my opinion will win more easily than most believe.

[mdmc]

47. Nader opposed the drug war and the death penalty,

and in those two issues, the GOP and Dem party are a lot closer than I would like.

I think that Al Gore and Hillary Clinton would make a great pair for our 2008 ticket.

I also think that Hillary would make a strong candidate. Who do you think would be her ideal veep?

[mdmc]

45. edit: should read "without" the Big Dog's charisma

[meganmonkey]

39. But that is NOT true

regarding Gore winning if Nader hadn't been on the ballot.

First of all, Gore did win, as far as votes go. The electoral system is so fucked up he didn't get inaugurated. THAT is the single most important factor in Gore's loss, and I believe this is true in Kerry's loss as well.

Second of all, you are assuming that Nader voters would have voted for Gore if Nader didn't exist. This is NOT TRUE. I know this from experience. I voted for Nader in 2000, and there is NOTHING that would have made me vote for a ticket with Lieberman on it. No way in hell was I going to my grave with a Lieberman vote on my record.

So the main heat, IMO, goes to our Congress for letting the electoral system get so fucked up. That includes members of both parties. Oddly enough, Nader isn't in that group :shrug:

[SaveElmer]

40. Two points...

One...of course many Nader voters would not have voted...but enough would have to make sure the election was not thrown into controversy. It would not have taken many.

Two...as I said in my post, there are many reason Gore did not win...one of them was Ralph Nader, and those normally Democratic voters who switched to him. They deserve criticism for the outcome...just as we now criticize Bush voters experiencing buyers remorse.

[RiffRandell]

27. No wonder the movie got such shitty reviews. n/t

[helderheid]

41. Too bad the Democratic party doesn't have a National Ralph Nader?

Dennis Kucinich? John Conyers? Barbara Boxer? Al Sharpton? Need I go on??

[mdmc]

49. I saw John Conyers today for the first time (you need to go on)

He was good.

People know who Al Sharpton is. All the other people are less famous than Ralph Nader. We need a progressive as famous as Ralph Nader. Lets make Dennis Kucinich famous (I love Dennis Kucinich).

[helderheid]

50. Dennis is close. Okay, I shall go on

Barbara Lee, Jim McGovern, Rocky Anderson...

[mdmc]

51. I am very embarrassed, but I don't know who they are either

I know who Mario Cuomo, Robert Kennedy Jr., Barrack Oboma, and Cynthia McKinley are. I get your point...
peace.