Malloy and Randi both pounded Nader voters and missed the broader point...

[omega minimo]

(Note: This is not a thread to endorse Nader for president, past or present. If you are looking for flamebait, there is a HUGH!!1 "rape" thread on page 1. If you want to bash Nader, don't bother-- Malloy and Randi did it for you quite effectively. Thank you.)
**************************

Why did Gore “lose”?

People who voted for Bush
People who didn’t vote at all
People who voted for Nader
People who ran Gore’s campaign
People who were prevented from casting their vote by Republican operatives
People on the Supreme Court who appointed George Dubya Bush president.

Last night, Mike Malloy tore into Nader and Nader voters and repeated the notion that those Nader votes were the reason Gore "lost." We all know (as does Mike) that there is more to it than that. It's too easy to blame Nader voters. Yet a lot of people do it and do it REALLY ANGRILY because it assumes that Nader voters are a bunch of ignorant idiots that “gave us George Bush.” Randi Rhodes said as much during her lengthy rant today.

Why did people vote for Nader? What was missing from Gore’s campaign that caused people to vote for someone else-- or not vote at all?

Randi ranted about people who said “there’s no difference between Bush and Gore” (including Nader himself). The only people that I’ve heard say that in person ARE PEOPLE THAT DO. NOT. VOTE.

And they have something in common with people who perceived a difference and DO vote (but left it to Gore to win the campaign against Bush, since he wasn’t speaking to them): a deep, vital concern about the rise and the risks of government run Of the Corporations, By the Corporations, For the Corporations.

Those issues are why a lot of young people don’t vote at all. They have the spoiled brat notion that they can sit back and watch a totally corrupted system go down the tubes. Somehow their politically savvy, magical thinking allows for something better to rise from the wreckage.

In 2000, Democrats and Gore needed to distance themselves from the Big Business friendly legacy of the Clinton years. (Malloy calls B.C. “the best Republican president we’ve ever had.”) They didn't. Thom Hartmann reckons that we are in Year 26 of Reaganism. He's right.

Randi proposed that any corporatist taint or residue clinging to Al Gore from the Clinton years would be “mitigated, ameliorated..... eased......” (She was on a roll). But there was no indication during the 2000 campaign that Gore would not continue the march of Reaganism that Clinton had smoothed the way for.

The people who voted for Bush and the people who didn’t vote at all can be called all sorts of names. But the people who voted Nader warned about the rise of corporatism, warned that continuing to careen down that path, whether bullied by Republicans or cajoled by Democrats, would lead us-- here.

Randi screeched at the Nader voters who supposedly “gave us Bush," “You picked the most CORPORATE GUY!!!!!”

Nader voters chose to send the message. It has yet to be received.

This election will be about the Populist vs. the Corporatist. Democrats have got to realize that the Populist will scoop up the votes of (Thom Hartmann’s) “radical middle,” the common sense centrists, the blue/white collar outsourced workers, the jaded youth non-voters, the Republican Lites who can’t put food on the family, the SUV yuppies noticing gas prices and EXXON’s record profits and the PTSD public shockandawed by Bushco's war.

[Mabus]

1. The real villian was the media

and it still is. That is the point that gets lost.

Take a look at Pirate Smile's post "Daily Howler:IN WHICH IT’S FINALLY REVEALED! Fifteen years of liberal silence is finally explained.." at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3099142&mesg_id=3099142

[omega minimo]

7. good point. thanks for the link

:hi:

[Mabus]

13. And this comes from someone who still refers to Nader as "that man"

I used to be a fan of Nader but I changed my mind about him during the 2000 election cycle. He knew there were differences between Gore and Bush but he allowed himself to be used, at least that's my opinion.

Anyway, I think the real enemy is the media.

[Orsino]

214. There are many villains.

Chief among them, IMO, is our failure to keep Big Money out of our politics. That influence cascaded to corrupt our politicians and our media. America's worship of the rich is at the heart of everything, and nothing really major will change until we wise up and separate corporate money from our elections.

[ulysses]

2. Mike, too?

You're right, he does know better.

Ah well.

[efhmc]

3. The message was received. Nader elected *bush and we are paying

for it.

[omega minimo]

5. "we are paying for" 26 years of Reaganism. This didn't start 6 years ago.

:thumbsdown:

[ulysses]

6. you didn't get the memo?

[pnwmom]

51. We took a very sharp turn down the road to hell 6 years ago.

President Gore would have acted on global warming. President Gore wouldn't have gotten us into the war in Iraq, or be threatening us with a trumped up war in Iran. Anyone who had been listening to Gore over the years, including Nader, should have been able to tell the stark difference between Gore and Shrub.

Yes, Nader wasn't the ONLY factor in the race, but he did more to hand the race to Bush than any other single person, including Katherine Harris. If he had thrown his support to Gore, instead of loudly proclaiming that there was no difference between the two, we would be living in a very different country now. Instead, Nader campaigned his hardest in the swing states -- just as if he wanted Bush to be elected. How strange.

And now he's popped up his ugly head and is threatening to run in 2008. Are some people going to to buy his line that there's no difference between the Democrats and Republicans, and vote for him again? I'm sure there will be. Against all the evidence of the last 6 years, some people will be that dumb.

[omega minimo]

66. We might "be living in a very different country" on the same trajectory

To win more votes, Gore needed to take a "very sharp turn" off it.

[pnwmom]

79. You have absolutely no evidence for that.

The last six years under Bush have been unlike any six years in history. Gore's Presidency would have been entirely different.

[omega minimo]

84. "The last six years under Bush" are a continuation of the previous 20

8 of which had Gore in the WH. Gore needed to make clear that he was not going to continue the Clinton era continuation of Reaganism and the corporate consolidation agenda.

Thom Hartmann does an excellent job educating about this, in his books, web site and on radio.

[pnwmom]

86. Yeah, right. The Clinton years were just like the Bush years.

:sarcasm:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

99. I fell out of the middle class in the Clinton years.

The economy went to hell as far as me, and several of my friends were concerned. I could not find a job of any kind for several years, or else crummy ones where I had a far superior education to my bosses', and thus, I was threatening to them and they would sabotage me. For this kind of unemployment and abuse I spent twelve years in college???

NAFTA and CAFTA did not help any, which Clinton supported. There was no protectionism as far as jobs.

The one thing I can give Bill credit for, besides being brilliant and well-informed, is digging us out of a deficit and into a surplus. That's what Republicans USED to stand for -- fiscal responsibility. But then Barry Goldwater is red-lining the marble tachometer.

[pnwmom]

116. I'm very sorry that happened to you. It's rough. I've known a number of

people that have gone through something similar. Seattle went through its own recession.

Clinton was anything but perfect, but unemployment figures were better during his time; and the erosion of the middle class has worsened considerably during the Bush years. And we haven't even begun to feel the effects of the giant deficits that we've been running -- our kids will be left holding the bag. It's sickening.

I'm a populist at heart myself -- but I couldn't look at Gore and Bush and say there was no difference. Sure, Gore didn't hold all my positions, but he was in the same ballpark. Bush wasn't on the same planet.

[paulk]

187. CAFTA was passed under GW Bush

:shrug:

[omega minimo]

182. Please look at what is actually being said and consider another point of view

a broader point of view of what we're talking about, what the OP is about, the issues that Democrats need to look at honestly and address or continue downt the same trajectory.

Don't believe me, listen or read Hartmann, or anyone else who pulls the focus back from the limiited idea that this 6 years dropped out of the sky because of GWBush (and can all be blamed on Nader). Perhaps you're already aware that his father was president (with Reagan) and already took the country to war in Iraq.

Randi touched on the corporation-friendly presidency of Clinton/Gore. There's plenty of information out there for you to consider.

If you are interested in being informed rather than just always "righ" and :sarcasm:

Your comments on this thread seem like you didn't read:

(Note: This is not a thread to endorse Nader for president, past or present. If you are looking for flamebait, there is a HUGH!!1 "rape" thread on page 1. If you want to bash Nader, don't bother-- Malloy and Randi did it for you quite effectively. Thank you.)

[Greyhound]

145. As long as we're playing would've, should've, could've, have you thought about how

Gore was a vocal supporter of, and in fact cast the deciding vote for, NAFTA? That the same person or persons steadfastly refused to even talk about the issue of amerika becoming a corporate nation?

These are the bread and butter issues for millions, especially those hurt by them, and you expect that they would turn around and vote for the very guy that did it to them? All the other issues aside, Gore (his campaign at any rate) blew the opportunity to make his victory so lop-sided that all the shenanigans from the re:puke:s would have been irrelevant, it is Al Gore's fault that arbusto was allowed to further ruin this country. It was his to lose and he did.

If he runs and gets the nomination, I'll certainly vote for him, but I'll also not forget what really happened in 2000.

[newsdude]

184. NonFuckingSense

Nader elected Gore?

Pathetic.

Don't look at Gore's shortcomings.
Don't look at NAFTA, signed by Clinton, which alienated union workers all over the country.

Blame Nader.

Yeah. That's the ticket.

Boy. Self criticism sure is painful for this party, ain't it?

[mzmolly]

190. Nader is a political opponent of the Democratic Party.

Why shouldn't we treat him like one?

[newsdude]

195. Nader is a better Democrat than 80 percent of the Party

For fuck's sake,
Compare Nader's policy to Hillary Clinton's policy. Or Barrack obama's policy.

Take away the names, and just look at the fucking policies.

Tell me you wouldn't vote for Nader.

[mzmolly]

198. Let's compare Naders record to that of Hillary and Obama shall we?

Unless he's in a position to walk the walk, there is no comparison. However neither Hillary or Obama claimed that Gore and Bush would be "essentially the same on foreign policy."

If you really want to "compare" I suggest you hold Nader accountable for his B.S. claims equating Gore to Bush, Democrats to Republicans.

[we can do it]

197. Nader - The Idiot's Choice Funded by the Repubs

Oh yeah no difference whatsoever between booshitler and Gore - only a total fucking moron would believe that.

[mzmolly]

4. Good for Randi and Malloy!

Sorry I missed it. ;)

[bbgrunt]

188. interesting that you use Molly's avatar but agree about bashing Nader....just sayin..

[mzmolly]

189. Molly said vote your heart in the Primaries and use your head in the GE.

That meant vote for Gore when and where it mattered.

[DaveinMD]

8. Gore ran a populist campaign

Nader's campaign was a lie. The people who voted for him gave us the last 6 years. The message was they didn't care about their country. Ideological purity was more important.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DaveinMD]

11. and people like you

gave us the war in Iraq, huge tax cuts for the rich, cuts in environmental protection, health care and education.

We have a two party system. The place to make these points are in the primary. I support Bill Bradley in that primary. He lost. Gore was the more progressive candidate that had a chance of winning. Nader gave the election to Bush. Its as simple as that. The country can't afford any more messages like the one you sent. George Bush and Dick Cheney thank you.

[Bonobo]

19. That's right. You have it all figured out. Except you don't.

>Nader gave the election to Bush.

The election was stolen by fraud. It was a coup d'etat.

>We have a two party system. The place to make these points are in the primary.

Oh, I see. The place to address the issue of the problems with a 2-party system is in the primaries? Does that make sense? Err, no.

>George Bush and Dick Cheney thank you.

I live in Massachusetts, where thanks to the ridiculously non-Democratic system of the electoral college, my vote doesn't count whether I vote Repub, Dem or Independant.

[DaveinMD]

24. You are plain wrong

If Nader wasn't a factor, Gore wins New Hampshire and election is over, fraud or not.

Third parties in our system don't win elections, certainly not at the presidential level. Real change can only occur by working through one of the parties. Hence, you vote for a liberal in the primaries.

Your vote counts in the state your reside.

[Bonobo]

31. Again, your blame is misplaced.

My vote counts in the state I reside? What does that mean?

You vote for a liberal in the primaries? Then you throw away your principals and vote for the one with the biggest war-chest?

>Real change can only occur by working through one of the parties.

Umm, the Greens are a party.

[DaveinMD]

35. the Greens

are not a major political party. They are a fringe party. 5 percent has been their high water mark.

[Bonobo]

43. How do they become bigger if we are not allowed to vote for them?

[DaveinMD]

44. our electoral system

is set up for two parties. Vote for greens at the local level. That's how you build a party and then advocate for multipreference ballots.

[Bonobo]

48. You contradict yourself to the point of ridiculousness.

You say the system is set up for two parties, okay?

Then you say that you build the party at the local level, right?

But do you mean to suggest that either the Repubs or the Dems need to be supplanted first, before a third party can grow? Huh?

I am just not seeing your vision of how people can challenge the iron fist of the corporacracy by voting "within the system".

It's a democracy. You vote for the people that represent your viewpoint. Is that a tough concept to get?

Oh, and by the way, how do you explain away Lieberman in all your talk about the greatness of the Gore 2000 campaign?

[pnwmom]

91. This is a Democratic website. Is that a tough concept to get? n/t

[Bonobo]

93. Yeah, you're right. I should leave cause you disagree with me.

Bullying is an EASY concept.

[pnwmom]

102. I didn't say you should leave. I said you should follow the rules. n/t

[DancingBear]

183. Funniest line of the year

Go find a dictionary and read the definition of "democracy."

Wrapping up "you're either with us or against us" in a donkey suit ain't foolin' nobody.

[pnwmom]

89. You can vote for them, but you're not supposed to promote them on DU.

Not when they're running against Democrats.

From the DU rules:

Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.

[Bonobo]

94. Thanks for quoting the rules. But I think you should leave it to the Mods.

[Bonobo]

21. And one more thing...!

Can you face my challenge to name ONE GODDAMN ISSUE on Nader's platform that you diagreed with, or is the best that you can do to screech "narcississtic madman who handed the country to Bush"?

Well...Can you?

[DaveinMD]

26. it doesn't matter what his platform was

his line that there was no difference between the parties was utter bs and his candidacy handed the white house to the far right.

[Bonobo]

36. Nice avoiding of the question.

That's what I thought.

And when he said there was no difference, he was essentially correct.

And Bush is not far right. He is far loony.

[DaveinMD]

41. He was not correct

Republicans support more tax cuts for the rich. Democrats do not.

Democrats support raising the minimum wage. Republicans do not.

Democrats are prochoice. Republicans are not.

Democrats support public education. Republicans do not.

Democrats support environmental protection. Republicans do not.

Democrats support social security and medicare. Republicans want to privatize.

The list goes on and on and on.

[pnwmom]

137. Here you went to the trouble of writing that post -- in response to

all that prodding -- and he didn't reply.



Good job, anyway!

[DaveinMD]

174. thanks n/t

[omega minimo]

14. The Dems have GOT to pick it up

[pnwmom]

61. What good was voting for Nader based on his stands, when voting for him

meant that Bush -- whose positions were light years away from Nader's -- would win the election? When voting for your "stands" only put you that much farther away from ever achieving your goals?

Politics is the art of compromise. As long as people can't accept that, then we'll keep tossing elections to people like Shrub.

[Bonobo]

75. Politics is the art of compromise...if you are a politician.

We, the voters, are not politicians. For the system to work, for us to get the governernment we want, we deserve, we have to do follow our hearts and vote for what we think is right. Then the politicians FOLLOW US, not the reverse.

We have all been sold up the river, and those who compromise are helping paddle. Sometimes you need to pace yourself for the long race instead of sprinting to the finish line right in front of you if you want to really get somewhere good.

[pnwmom]

80. No, it's true even for citizens. We need to learn to compromise,

to work together, to see more than one point of view, and -- I agree -- to take the long view. Better to go a mile in the right direction today then insist that you must go 5 miles, immediately, or you won't move a single foot. That's what the Naderites did. Actually, they helped us all take a giant leap backwards.

[hfojvt]

119. I would put 'working together' first

as John Ruskin said 'you cannot argue when you are side-by-side pushing together'. But he may have been under-estimating the left in that regard. I do appreciate your POV in this thread. :hi:

[pnwmom]

135. Yes. I should have said "working together" first.

That post was sort of stream-of-consciousness. You would have been a good editor.

[hfojvt]

112. they are not gonna follow the 6% who voted for Nader

when they don't need us to win elections.

I used to drown in irony when I got letters from "Public Citizen: founded by Ralph Nader" asking me to donate money to help stop the horrible things that the Bush administration was doing. I would think 'gee, couldn't we have stopped alot of this just by electing Gore and other Democrats?'

The politicians are gonna follow the money and the activism more than they do the votes. We've gotta do more than vote for them to follow us. Hence my membership on the Central Committee, my operation of a website, my letters to the editor, and activism on DU. Not much of an impact, I am sure, but doing what I can.

[pnwmom]

134. Does Nader's organization benefit by having a bigger boogeyman

in the White House?

I don't think Nader at heart is a bad person. Could he have convinced himself that it was worth it to help Bush because of all the good his organization can then do?

As for your personal work -- I think every little bit helps, and you're doing more than a little bit. Thanks!

:hi:

[JDPriestly]

114. Nader's supporters have not sold the American people on Nader's

point of view. Nader isn't pushing the right buttons in the voters.

I don't think Nader understands how Joe and Jill six-pack struggle to take care of their family. He doesn't speak to ordinary Americans. He is a spoiler because he only appeals to a small segment of Americans. That segment happens to be more likely to vote Democratic than Republican. Nader supporters don't speak to the preoccupations of the average American. (I'm not arguing that they are wrong about what the average American should be preoccupied with.) As a result only a small percentage of Nader's supporters bother to vote at all. Nader drew enough voters away from Gore, for example, in Florida, that Gore's margin of victory couldn't overcome Republican fraud.

Nader should not run until polls say he has a strong chance of winning. Nader needs to present his view in a way and through a medium that reaches the hearts of average voters.

[pnwmom]

136. He's seventy-two by the way. If he runs in 2008,

he'll be 5 years older than Reagan when he was elected.

I think it's doubtful that the majority of Americans would vote for a President who could be 82 at the end of his second term.

[omega minimo]

10. Thank you for keeping the cliches concise

I was interested in what you would say following "Gore ran a populist campaign" as in how you think he did that....

but all ya got is the same old swipes. Not what this OP is about. Thanks.


Although if the only way you can look at it is "idealogical purity" may open yer mind a crack to what that "idealism" was aiming for (i.e. the issues raised here).

[DaveinMD]

16. Gore campagn theme

was the people versus the powerful. He talked about taking on the hmo's to pass real health care changes. Taking on the prx drug companies to pass a real prescription drug legislation. Fighting for the middle class against the powerful people who were harming them.

And regardless of all this, the people that voted for him handed the government to this crew that started the war in iraq, cut taxes for the super rich and harmed our economy. Good work.

[theboss]

211. Gore's populist campaign, to me, is why he lost

It was the most bizarre, confusing, and disingenuous political strategy I have ever seen.

Populists run against those in power. Gore was part of what was a successful, still reasonably popular administration. Basically, he ran against himself.

Nader was probably 3rd or 4th on the list of Gore's problems in 2000.

[JackBeck]

12. It's now 8 years later.

Who has Nader helped to elect to Congress, let alone City Hall?

We do need more than two parties, I wish there were five or six or more, but where has there been groundwork laid over the last eight years? The only place that I see any viable candidate coming from is the (bile in my throat) the Independent Party. They've got two members in Congress already.

Nader did great when he was focusing on consumer rights, but went koo-koo-bananas as a Presidential candidate in 2004. Remember the finger puppets?

[Bonobo]

23. More ad hominem. Yawn.

[JackBeck]

30. Which part, in particular?

What has Nader done to build his base?

[Bonobo]

40. You said Nader was "koo koo bananas". Sounds Ad Hominem to me.

As for what has he done to build his base, I don't see the relevancy unless you are trying to build a case for him being a "narcissist" again -another ad hominem.

[JackBeck]

46. Yes. Let's not build a base when it comes to a political movement.

That never works :crazy:

And as Naders puppet's, yes, as I said...koo-koo-bananas

[Bonobo]

50. And as I said...non-substantive ad hominem argument.

[JackBeck]

57. So what do you have to offer to this conversation? Why is Nader important to you?

Especially in 2008?

[Bonobo]

60. Why bring ME into it? So you can attack me personally now?

I already said. His platform represented my political views. Isn't that what you're suspposed to vote for in order to make a democracy work correctly?

[JackBeck]

65. And I would like to hear what you agree with in his platform for 2008.

Has he announced it yet?

[Bonobo]

72. I have been referring to the 2000 campaign only.

[pnwmom]

138. It's curious that you bring this up, just after he's said he might run again.

But this has nothing to do with 2008?

[Bonobo]

152. Honestly, no. Nothing to do with it.

[pnwmom]

109. To make a democracy work correctly,

everyone should vote intelligently and for the common good. The thousands of Florida voters for Nader gave Bush -- whose policies were diametrically opposed to Nader's -- a chance to slither his way into the White House. The voters for Nader were idealistic types who meant well, but their choice worked against the common good.

[pnwmom]

64. Nader only pops up every four years, just in time to toss an election

to a Republican.

[JackBeck]

83. I thought I was laying out some valid points.

But got accused of "ad hominem".

I guess you are more immune to these accusations than me.

[pnwmom]

87. No, definitely not!

Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't. Hang in there.

:hi:

[rawtribe]

15. Clinton and the DLC lost 2000.

If Gore had distanced himself from the pro corporate agenda Nader wouldn't be an issue. Instead he chose Lieberman as his running mate, making it clear that the war on the working class would go unabated. So now corporate America is shoving Hillary down our throats and when she loses by a narrow margin the blame will go to the Greens.

Wake up Dems the blame rest square on your shoulders.

[DaveinMD]

17. congrats

on handing the White House to Bush. Gore ran a very anti-corporate campaign. Lieberman was picked because he spoke out against Clinton's infidelity.

[rawtribe]

Clinton's infidelity

was a non issue for most voter. Look at Holy Joe today a bad choice on Gore's part. That cost him the election, not Nader. That and the fact that Gore won the fucking election, but didn't fight for it!

[DaveinMD]

27. if Nader isn't in it

Gore wins NH and the fraud doesn't matter.

[rawtribe]

52. Gore didn't even win his own state.

It's not about losing voters to Nader. It's about attracting voters to Gore. Nader is a convenient excuse. Look inward Dems and stop pointing fingers.

[pnwmom]

73. Because Gore was seen as too liberal by many Tennesseans.

[soswolf]

157. He didn't campaign for the Southern vote

same thing I told my aunt about Edwards not 'delivering' NC in '04...it wasn't part of the strategy.

[DaveinMD]

176. that's irrelevant

he wins the election if he wins NH. He wins NH without Nader in the race.

[samfishX]

110. Didn't fight for it?!

What the HELL else was he supposed to do?

He went about as far as he reasonably could and did a heck of a lot more than that backstabbing shill Kerry did in 2004.

[Uncle Joe]

191. I disagree, Clinton's infidelity left a truck sized opening for Bush to drive

through on the premise of "restoring integrity and honor" to the White House. In some parts of the nation, this may not have mattered, but in large swaths of traditional more conservative middle America, this was not a Nobel Peace Prize. I believe had the election been about the issues or qualifications for the job, Al Gore would have won in a land slide.

The mass corporate media knew this and proceeded to trash and slander Al Gore beginning in March of 99 doing their best to obfuscate the differences between Bush's brand of honor and integrity where he would go on to cut cake and pick guitar while the gulf coast would be devastated from Katrina and New Orleans drowned and real honor and integrity such as Al Gore's who would pay to fly 270 doctors, patients and victims to safety on his own dime.

I blame the mass corporate media more than anyone because they knew the difference between the truth and the lies and proceeded to brain wash a sizable segment of the American people with slander after slander. I also believe a large part of their motivation for holding Al in such contempt was precisely because he empowered us when he championed the internet, they wanted to remain the sole gatekeepers to the truth and Al had endangered their monopoly on information, I call this the Prometheus effect.

[omega minimo]

32. I was gonna say "see #15" but you already did....

If you think Gore ran a very "populist" and "anti-corporate" campaign-- maybe Dems could look at why that didn't resonate with the people who cared about that..... maybe it wasn't convincing?

Maybe Lieberman should have spoken out about Clinton's corporatism rather than his "infidelity." That's not gonna move people who know the Clinton impeachment was a charade.

And actually, the Supreme Court "handed the government to this crew that started the war in iraq, cut taxes for the super rich and harmed our economy. Good work."


See #15

[DaveinMD]

33. without Nader

it never gets to the supremes.

[XOKCowboy]

18. Randi did make one good point RE: Green Partry

Nader just likes to stir the pot and it always hurts the Dems. He's done NOTHING to forward his own party. There are no Green Party representatives in Congress and he hasn't done anything about that. He just trots it out when he feels he's not getting enough attention.

IMHO this is all just an ego trip for Nader

[LSK]

20. she has been saying that for years

And for years Nader does nothing except run for President and leech Dem votes away.

[Bonobo]

22. Again, the "ego/narcissistic" thing...

I issue a challenge for anyone to say something substantive and not resort to ad hominem bullshit.

Otherwise... well... you're just sad.

[DaveinMD]

28. refute the point

that he hasn't done a thing to support other third party candidates.

[Bonobo]

34. It's a dumb point. Answer MY question. It's more important:

What do you disagree with that Nader said in that campaign?

[DaveinMD]

37. I've answered it several times

He said that the two parties were the same and that is utter bullshit.

[Bonobo]

42. Not a platform issue. An aside at best.

[DaveinMD]

45. not an aside at all

it was the basis for his entire campaign. And it was a flat out lie.

[JackBeck]

49. This is who our friend is arguing for.

[Bonobo]

56. More personal attacks. No substance.

[JackBeck]

59. What groundwork has Nader laid out over the last eight years?

That's not an attack. What has he done?

[Bonobo]

63. Why is that relevant? He ran a campaign with a platform.

What other qualifications does one need to appeal for votes other than to say where you stand on issues?

Must you prove loyalty to a cause? I think Nader has done that his whole life.

[JackBeck]

76. I can only go back to my original question to you.

Where is the base? How has Nader laid out any groundwork for any sort of campaign? Where has he been in between elections? Has he been building any sort of coalition at all? What Green ( oh wait, is he still Green Party....didn't they nominate someone else in 2004...)...what Party is his affiliation?

[Bonobo]

55. Not a lie. A larger truth that you seem to close your eyes to.

In the sense of a larger historical movement, Dems and Repub at this point in our history are the same.

Bush is an extreme abberation. But even after 8 years, Clinton/Gore wouldn't or couldn't give us National Health Care. He put more people in prison for smoking pot than any previous president, he dismantled Welfare, etc, etc.

THOSE are the larger issues that puts the LIE to what you say.

[JackBeck]

62. I'd really like to see you statistics on how Clinton/Gore put more people in prison

for smoking pot than any other previous president.

If you could supply a link that would be great.

[Bonobo]

70. Here you go.

President Bill Clinton: The Incarceration President
http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/clinton/clinton.html

Has the War on Drugs reduced crime?
http://www.thirteen.org/closetohome/viewpoints/html/crime.html

Despite criticism that President Clinton is "soft" on drugs, annual data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Uniform Crime Report demonstrate that Clinton administration officials are waging a more intensive war on marijuana smokers than any other presidency in history. Law enforcement arrested approximately 1.5 million Americans on marijuana charges during the first three years of Clinton's administration -- 84 percent of them for simple possession. The average number of yearly marijuana arrests under Clinton (483,548) is 30 percent higher than under the Bush administration (338,998), and last year's total alone is more than double the 1991 total (287,850). 22

http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/norml/crazy/crazy_03.html

[JackBeck]

78. Thanks for that information. I'll definitely do more research on that.

[JackBeck]

39. You can agree with everything that a DU poster has to say, as well as Nader.

Doesn't mean anything on the campaign trail, especially when you've had 8 years to build a movement. And in Nader's case, a lot more than that.

[pnwmom]

74. He said there was no difference between Dems and Repubs. I disagree

with that.

Please don't argue that he never said that. He's said that many many times over the years.

[omega minimo]

82. He didn't "argue that he never said that." He replied to the claim that was the

"whole basis of Nader's campaign." That's silly. The "no difference" meme is convenient shorthand to Nader-bash, just like the "ideological purity" meme.

Bonobo has also correctly pointed out (as have others here) that examining what the parties have in common is not "utter bullshit." That is what this OP was about. Those who feel the need to keep hating Nader and avoiding the issues were told at the top of the OP this is not the right thread.

[JackBeck]

38. Nice try. Apparently we're supposed to bow down befoe the "ad hominem"

comment without any substance from the poster.

[pnwmom]

71. If Nader actually cared more about this country

than about proving himself right, then he would have done what many of his supporters urged him to do in 2000. Remember? They asked him not to campaign hard in the swing states. They were trying to arrange vote swaps between voters in safe states vs. swing states.

But he didn't care. In fact, he campaigned his hardest in the states where the vote was closest.

That led me to conclude that all he really cared about was proving his own power. If he was really trying to make a showing for the Green party, he would have supported the vote swapping plan.

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. My only question for people who blame Nader for what happened in 2000...

is "why do you hate democracy"? Seriously, it's just a little ridiculous to bitch about the fact that Nader dared to run as a third-party candidate; ought Americans be able to choose only from a Republican and a Democrat? And last time I checked, Nader wasn't responsible for the Supreme Court handing the election to Bush. In point of fact, one can question whether the people who DID vote for Nader would have voted for Gore had Nader not been in the race; it seems rather facile to make that assumption.

[omega minimo]

53. I wonder who all the non-voters would have voted for?

"In point of fact, one can question whether the people who DID vote for Nader would have voted for Gore had Nader not been in the race; it seems rather facile to make that assumption."

:think:

[tuvor]

96. I have never understood how...

I have never understood how over 100,000,000 eligible American voters chose not to vote in 2000, but in the minds of many, they all get a pass and bush's selection by the Supreme Court ends up being the fault of someone who earned the trust of fewer than a measly three million voters--with no guarantee that they would have voted at all, let alone for Gore, if Nader weren't in the race in the first place.

I think apathy is the culprit.

[still_one]

29. most of your points are correct, except you missed a big one, Nader could have endorsed Gore

but didn't

In fact Nader said that he saw no difference between both parties, and though there may be "SOME" truth in that, it is far from accurate, and disingenous to boot

One thing is for certain, we deserve exactly what we got. As you pointed out, people didn't even bother to vote.

There was no abiguity about where bush stood on abortion, social security, etc. He didn't lie, in fact when he said he would appoint judges in the same spirit of scalia and thomas, what more do you want

Not only did people vote him in once, but twice, and this crap about the election was fixed, if people turned out in volume it would not have been an issue

No one should kid themselves, this country also had bigotry and racism flow freely. Just think about it, it wasn't until Johnson signed the civil rights act in the 60s that racist walls started to be broken down. Funny, it was that act of Johnson signing the civil rights act that saw the South change from Democratic to republican. What do you think that implies?

In modern times, except for WWII, the wars we have been involved in were questionable at best. Viet Nam was based on a lie, and so was the first gulf war, and the second gulf war. Funny, but I would bet most people believe we were justified in the first gulf war, and do not even realize that our ambassador at the time, April Glaspie, directly encouraged saddam to invade Kuwait

We deserve the government we elect, especially if we do not participate in the election system

[omega minimo]

47. Plus "people didn't even bother to vote" brought us the "Reagan Landslide"

Great points. Thank you.


"Funny, but I would bet most people believe we were justified in the first gulf war, and do not even realize that our ambassador at the time, April Glaspie, directly encouraged saddam to invade Kuwait."

Esp. as that history has been rewritten.

[pnwmom]

139. And especially if we knowingly throw our votes away.

[JackBeck]

54. You're rooting for this guy?

Randi and Malloy are on the mark, as far as I'm concerned.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackBeck]

68. I wasn't the one who gave up thinking.

It's not me engaging in a Presidential debate with puppets.

[countmyvote4real]

67. The Nage of 2000 was received not so loud, but clear.

It was about a viable third party. I recall that there were “Nader Traders” that were willing to vote for a third party candidate in states where it would not damage the Democratic candidate in exchange for a Democratic vote where it was marginal.

Enter the Florida fiasco and the GOP/BFEE and their deus ex machina intervention of the SCOTUS. So, while Gore clearly won the popular vote of the nation, he was marginalized by the third-party Nader vote in Florida.

But we should back it up a bit to Ross Perot. He was the Nader of his time and the Nader who will never come again, unless you believe in a Messiah. (If you do, stop now. Close this window.) Perot’s independent candidacy was so popular after twelve years of Reagan/Bush Sr. that it effectively elected Bill Clinton. (Plus the country was ready for change. Sadly he was not as progressive or chaste as he campaigned to be. Sound familiar?)

Progressives don’t have that luxury in 2008 within the Democratic Party at large. They must learn to build up their base locally. Until that happens, we should play as nice as we like.

My summary phrase is:
Who funds? Who benefits? What about me?

[Gloria]

69. Randi also correctly argued that Nader has done ZIP to actually

change the voting system regarding the Electoral College, so that third party votes would be able to build up a party. He shows up and siphons off votes then disappears. Where is he helping efforts to get rid of the Electoral College and instant run-off efforts?

He's not working for anything other then his own ego--I agree totally with Randi.

[JackBeck]

77. You're about to get someone's attention around here.

Good luck. Stay focused.

[Bonobo]

81. Okay, here goes nothing...

>Randi also correctly argued that Nader has done ZIP to actually change the voting system regarding the Electoral College, so that third party votes would be able to build up a party.

Getting rid of the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment requiring not only 2/3 majorities of both houses of Congress, but also by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. I fail to see how Nader could do much about this since he has no elected office. Even so, his campaign itself has done more to show the unfairness of the Electoral College system than anyone else in recent US history.

>He shows up and siphons off votes then disappears.

Disappears? Did he really disappear or is that just empty rhetoric? Answer for yourself.

>He's not working for anything other then his own ego--I agree totally with Randi.

Again, empty rhetoric. Just a personal attack with nothing to do with issues.

[Hidden Stillness]

85. I Understand the Anger, but Don't Want to Lose the Greatness of Nader Before

Well, as we know, (and this is why I never really attack Ralph Nader for the 2000 "election), Gore won. Nader did not cost Gore the election; Gore won and the very-well-organized Republican conspiracy stopped the vote count, filed a flurry of court motions both Federal and State, "rioted" at one of the Florida counts, and had the head of the Bush-Cheney Committee in Florida as their Secretary of State, and de facto "election commisioner."

I can never really criticize Ralph Nader because of a lifelong respect that Nader has earned after decades, even generations, of public service. From "Unsafe at Any Speed" and the first warnings about unsafe cars, to the first recalls and improvments to the way they are built--if not for Nader, there would not be headrests, seatbelts, airbags, and even electronic fuel injection replacing carbuerators. All these were Nader lawsuits. Many of the best consumer advocate groups, from the Center for Auto Safety, Public Citizen, the Center for Responsive Politics, and all the way back to the great old "Nader's Raiders" legal groups in Washington, during the '70s, were started and led by Ralph Nader. From food labelling to better drug testing, to the birth of the modern consumer rights movement, to all kind of educational advances for consumers, Ralph Nader has benefitted us all a thousand ways. One of the first things Nader achieved was stockholder reform at General Motors, introducing the modern idea of the socially responsible corporation, and investor. Joan Claybrook and Dr. Sidney Wolfe were both Nader protegees, and both have also devoted their own lives to public service. Nader is one of the great public servants, and corporate-crime-fighters.

Nader didn't cost anything, because Gore won. I hope this will not permanently tarnish the great legacy of one of the greatest ever.

[pnwmom]

92. Bush wouldn't have been able to steal the election if the vote wasn't

so close. The Nader votes would have given Gore the margin he needed.

[Bonobo]

97. Maybe Gore should have debated him and addressed the Nader voters?

Maybe he shouldn't have picked Lieberman?

Maybe he shouldn't have shunned Clinton during the campaign?

Maybe the non-voters should have voted?

Maybe we shouldn't have allowed them to steal the election?

Maybe the SCOTUS shouldn't have betrayed the nation?

But to lay it on Nader's doorstep... Well, it's just kind of petty and silly when his politics are the politics of most people on DU. Doncha think?

[pnwmom]

100. Yes, there were other factors. But Nader more than any other SINGLE person

had the power in his hands to determine the outcome of the election. And he chose to toss it to Bush.

And there's no evidence at all that Nader's politics are the same as "most people" on DU. This is the Democratic Underground, not the Nader underground, or the Green underground.

[Bonobo]

104. I disagree.

> And he chose to toss it to Bush.

Ridiculous and you know it. Why would he choose to give it to Bush.

>And there's no evidence at all that Nader's politics are the same as "most people" on DU. This is the Democratic Underground, not the Nader underground, or the Green underground.

No evidence to the contrary either. Just my gut feeling after being here for 4 years.

[pnwmom]

120. Of course he chose to toss it to Bush. He's no dummy.

He was well aware that his candidacy could swing the election, and he taunted the Democrats about that at the time. He enjoyed his little power trip, and he made little effort to hide it.

[Bonobo]

129. Do you have the power to "peer into souls" like Bush?

[tuvor]

101. It's strange to read the title of your post.

Like it was all right for bush to steal the election, but not all right for people to participate in the democratic process by voting for Nader.

My God, we're so used to the fact that bush stole the 2000 election that it's no longer a big deal and there must be someone else to blame!

(As for assuming Nader voters would necessarily have had to vote for Gore had Nader not run, well...)

[Bonobo]

113. Excellent point, really! Makes you think, huh.

It is so accepted that he stole the election that it is almost water under the bridge.

But voting your conscience... wow, that really pisses people off.

I am especially amused by people that scream that those who voted for Nader are "holier than thou" and should get off their high horse.

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: If I had lived in Florida in 2000, I would have voted for Gore.

[omega minimo]

192. Gore won!! So did Kerry!!

Thank you for another spot on-- as ever-- post, HS. And a reminder that one's legacy is longer than the gnat's brain level of modern political smearing.


"Nader didn't cost anything, because Gore won."

This thread hoped to look at the issues that still need to be faced. Somehow it's more important to some folks to keep beating that dead horse. Have some people accepted the "inevitability" of corporate/government (fascism) and can't be bothered to care? :hide:

If I was going to blame certain people for Bush's "win," I'd start with that list in the OP and focus any venom on "Reagan Democrats," "Republican Lites," Bush voters and the gazillion under 40 non-voters who think that doing NOTHING is making a "statement," selling out their own futures and ours, with the American (and youthful?) hubris that makes them think they'll be okay and things will be better after they let (what they know is) an impending corporatized government take hold and take American life down the toilet. :crazy:

The people who do vote and blame Nader don't want to look at this; the non-voters who are well aware of it sit by the sidelines.

We all lose.

[Gold Metal Flake]

88. To the Greatest.

It's not about Nader, it's about more Clintonism. The soft fascism of Corporate-Lite. We can't afford it, any more than we can afford Hagelism or McCainism or Gulianniism. Nader is not running in the democratic primary, is he? Then Nader can say and do what he likes, it has no real bearing on the decision that must be made by the members of this forum or the political party they are associated with. There is a choice to be made, will we make the bold choice or do we buy the name brand again?

It used to be in the country that a corporation could only exist for 40 years.

I recall reading about a time when the giant corporations, the "trusts", were torn down.

I hear tell of a Senator that vigorously investigated fraud by military contractors in a time of global war. Who, as President, vetoed the Taft-Hartley act to try to protect the power of the working man against the big-monied intrests of the Republicans.

There are stories of a President, a Vice-President and a Democratic Congress and Senate that tackled the "Economic Royalists" and the power of "yellow journalism" head on and won.

Perhaps the American citizens that make up the Democratic Party will have the courage to search for, find and nominate a candidate that will have the courage to move forth to do those things again.

Or, we could just elect another Clinton. NAFTA! GATT! WTO! ONE GIANT MEDIA CORPORATION RUN BY THE CARLYLE GROUP! That'll show Nader!

[Bonobo]

90. Wish I could nominate THAT post. Thanks, Opppsite Reaction...

The wheels were starting to come off my train...

[pnwmom]

95. Oh yes, there's something so bold about voting for Nader.

Bold and stupid, like jumping off a cliff.

[Bonobo]

98. Here it comes...personal attacks. Last refuge of the.. oh forget it.

[Gold Metal Flake]

173. I never suggested any such thing.

:shrug:

[omega minimo]

196. "The soft fascism of Corporate-Lite. We can't afford it....."

Well done. Thank you OR.

"Perhaps the American citizens that make up the Democratic Party will have the courage to search for, find and nominate a candidate that will have the courage to move forth to do those things again..."

That notion (!) and your allusions to history show why it is so valuable to TPTB to erase history and context, to groom people to think this is about the past 6 years rather than the past century..... look at the resistance upthread to facing what is recent history, the rise of Reaganism or "the soft fascism of Corporate-Lite."

The pain in the ass is that docile and zombified people let these acts be perpetrated and then require new effort to REDO the progress of the past, "the courage to move forth to do those things again..." I'm gonna yell now: WHY DO WE HAVE TO GO BACKWARDS AND REPEAT THESE CYCLES? WHY DON'T PEOPLE LEARN FROM THE PAST?!!


"Or, we could just elect another Clinton. NAFTA! GATT! WTO! ONE GIANT MEDIA CORPORATION RUN BY THE CARLYLE GROUP! That'll show Nader!"

[flyarm]

103. PLEASE DO NOT INSULT US HERE BY SAYING NADER DIDN'T THROW THE ELECTIONS TO *

NADER KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS DOING..HE WAS TAKING MONEY FROM CORPORATES TIED WITH *.. AND THE INDUSTRIAL MILITARY COMPLEX....HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING AND I SAID THROUGHOUT BOTH ELECTIONS..THEY HAVE SOMETHING ON NADER..AND SOMETHING BIG!

FROM MY FILES..SORRY SOME LINKS NO LONGER WORK..BUT YOU CAN GET THE DRIFT!!

ALOT OF LINKS DON'T WORK ANY LONGER..BUT HERE ARE SOME THAT I HAD STORED IN FILES..AND SOME NAMES OF ARTICLES THAT YOU COULD ARCHIVE..


NADER WAS A WHORE FOR * AND CHENEY!! ..AND A WHORE FOR THE CORPORATE DESTRUCTION OF THIS ONCE PROUD NATION!!

AND I FOR ONE HOLD HIM RESPONSIBLE!

FLY



XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Nader's Dubious Raiders: Ralph's Arizona ballot tactics are worse than this week's Democratic lawsuit alleges. 6/26

Nader getting support from unlikely voters; Conservative groups hope to draw votes from Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry 6/26



XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/3/27/153246/995

GOP donors funding Nader
by kos
Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 12:32:46 PM PST
We all knew this was happening...
Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader is getting a little help from his friends - and from George W. Bush's friends.
Nearly 10 percent of the Nader contributors who have given him at least $250 each have a history of supporting the Republican president, national GOP candidates or the party, according to computer-assisted review of financial records by The Dallas Morning News.

Among the new crop of Nader donors: actor and former Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein, Florida frozen-food magnate Jeno Paulucci and Pennsylvania oil company executive Terrence Jacobs. All have strong ties to the GOP.

Ten percent is actually not that high. Expect that number to rise in the coming months as Nader taps out his own network and the GOP fills the void.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
October 6, 2004
See All The BuzzFlash Premiums

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/10/ale04057.html


Ralph Nader Accepts Campaign Contributions from Funders of "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Funders of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a right wing PAC, have made thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to Ralph Nader, United Progressives for Victory (UP for Victory) announced today. In addition to accepting contributions from donors of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Nader has also taken money from conservative PAC donors who have given to the Club for Growth, along with legal representation and ballot help from Republican consultants, lawyers, major donors, and state parties.
According to Federal Election Committee records, five major donors who have given $13,500 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to air its attack ads on John Kerry’s military service have also given Nader $7,500.

Specifically, Travis Anderson (NJ), Brian Pilcher (CA) and Donald Burns (FL), are three of Nader’s largest donors and each has given him $2,000 (the maximum allowable contribution), while also contributing to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Charles Eckert (CA) and Oliver Grace (NY) have also given to both Nader’s PAC and the swift boat PAC.

snip:

Robert Brandon, a former Nader associate, public interest attorney and co-founder of UP for Victory said, “Now we learn that Bush, through his proxies, is funding Nader’s campaign. If Nader wishes to have any credibility left with progressives, he must give back all right wing money and finally acknowledge that his campaign is being used by the Bush/Cheney re-election team.”

Altogether, UP for Victory research has documented over $100,000 in cash and known in-kind contributions to Nader by GOP donors and consultants. This does not count the unreported in-kind contributions made by the GOP in circulating his ballot petitions in many states.



A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

SORRY NO WORKING LINK FOR THIS ONE BUT I KEPT ARTICLE!!


Names sought for Nader

By TERRY DATEDemocrat Staff Writer
STRATHAM — Visitors walking to President Bush’s campaign picnic Friday were asked to help his re-election chances by signing nomination forms to place Ralph Nader on the ballot in New Hampshire as a presidential candidate.
A spokeswoman for the Bush campaign said later on Friday it had no knowledge of the signature drive.
Democratic Party spokeswoman Kathleen Strand said news of the activity was very disappointing.
Among the young signature gatherers in the lower field at Scamman farm was Randi Fellows, 22, of North Strafford. She said she supports the president.
"Some people say if Nader hadn’t run in 2000, Al Gore would be president," she said, adding that she had gathered many signatures.
About 3,000 people were expected to attend the picnic with the president.
Emily Sawka of Kittery, Maine, who brought the matter to the attention of Foster’s Daily Democrat, said she had been recruited by Adecco Employment Agency to gather signatures for Nader, but she eventually turned down the $12 an hour temporary position when she learned that it was intended to benefit the Bush campaign.
Sawka, 25, said in a phone interview she had joined a dozen others in the Shaw’s supermarket parking lot Friday morning before 9 a.m.
They were given a sheet with a script that read:
1) Approach: "Excuse me sir/miss etc. I was wondering if you could take a second to help President Bush?"
2) Follow through: "I am collecting signatures to get Ralph Nader on the ballot."
3) Persuasion: "In 2000 Nader got almost 30,000 votes — without his presence Al Gore would be president today."
The temporary workers were hired to work Friday, Saturday and Sunday, said Sawka, who will attend graduate school at the University of New Hampshire this fall.
Sawka said she turned down the positions because she felt it was unscrupulous.
"It really disturbed me because it seemed (to be) really unethical campaigning," she said.
Maria Comella, New Hampshire communications director for Bush/Cheney ’04, said, "We had nothing to do with it." She later added, "This campaign is focused on the president, and we believe he is going to be successful with or without Ralph Nader on the ballot."
The Democrats’ spokeswoman, Strand, said a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, and that she is outraged by the signature gathering.
"We’re obviously going to have to monitor these activities closely," Strand said.

© 2004 Geo. J. Foster Company


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Click here: Michigan GOP Gives Nader 40,000 Signatures
Republicans Helping Nader to Help Themselves
By Brian Faler
Washington Post

Monday 19 July 2004

The Michigan Republican Party submitted more than 40,000 signatures last week in a bid to get independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader on the state's November ballot.

Of course, this is not really about helping Nader It is all about helping President Bush and hurting Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry's campaign in a closely contested state.
The Michigan GOP denies that, of course. Matt Davis, a spokesman for the group, said it was merely concerned about third-party candidates being left off the ballot. He could not name, however, another third-party or independent candidate his party has helped.

Nader may need the Republican signatures. He has been endorsed by the Reform Party and had planned to use its line on the Michigan ballot. But a dispute over who runs the party's state chapter - and which candidate it supports - has thrown that into question.

Nader's campaign, assuming that he would run with the Reform Party there, stopped collecting signatures more than a month ago - and turned in fewer than 6,000 of them by Thursday's deadline. He needed about 30,000 valid signatures to qualify as an independent.
Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese said the campaign still hopes to run with the state's Reform Party. But he said it may have to use the Republican-sponsored signatures: "We have to get on the ballot somehow"
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/4/...


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
SORRY LINK WON'T WORK ..BUT HERE IS ARTICLE...


Watchdog Group Complains About Nader Aid
Updated 10:08 PM ET June 29, 2004


By SAM HANANEL

WASHINGTON (AP) - A watchdog group says it will file a complaint with federal election officials, accusing two conservative organizations of illegally helping Ralph Nader's presidential campaign, possibly with support from President Bush's re-election campaign. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington planned to file its complaint Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission. It says the Oregon Family Council and Citizens for a Sound Economy violated election laws last week by telephoning people and urging them to help Nader get on Oregon's ballot in November.
Spokesmen for both groups denied wrongdoing.
Both groups acknowledge trying to influence Nader's petition drive Saturday in Oregon, in hopes that getting him on the ballot would take votes away from Democrat John Kerry and help Bush win the battleground state.

But Melanie Sloan, the watchdog group's executive director, said Tuesday that the conservative organizations are also corporations that are prohibited by election law from making campaign donations.
Sloan said she also would name the Nader and Bush campaigns in her complaint because of reports that some Bush-Cheney volunteers may have made similar calls from Bush campaign offices.

"If Bush-Cheney was soliciting those corporations to assist the Nader campaign, then that's a violation," she said.
Mike White, executive director of the Oregon Family Council, said there was no coordination with Bush's campaign."I had my volunteers call and encourage them to go to the (Nader) convention, but I don't think that's federal election activity," he said.
Chris Kinnan, spokesman for Citizens for a Sound Economy, said an outside lawyer assured him the phone calls were proper. "We're confident that we can answer any charge," he said.

snip:.

Sloan's group also filed an FEC complaint against Nader last week saying the consumer advocate violated federal campaign laws by accepting office space and telephone service from a public charity he created. Nader has called all the complaints frivolous.
Associated Press Writer Will Lester contributed to this report.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX



http://www.alternet.org/election04/19602 /

Nader Looms Large

By John Pearce, AlterNet. Posted August 18, 2004.



Ralph Nader's polling numbers show that he could tip a number of closely contested states – and possibly the election – to George Bush.


snip:
Fans and foes of Ralph Nader's '04 presidential candidacy are in pitched debate about whether he should be in the race. But another question looms even larger: What impact is Nader having on the probable outcome of the election?

This question comes down to Nader's state-by-state impact in the Electoral College. As the 2000 election made painfully clear, a small number of votes in a tightly contested swing state can elect a president, regardless of who gets more votes in the country as a whole.

We have tracked all national and swing-state polling data since Nader announced his candidacy, and have just released an interactive tracking tool that shows, at a single keystroke, the best current estimate of the Electoral College outlook – with and without Nader's effect. Based on data from the non-partisan PollingReport.com, and using the most recent, most reliable "likely voter" poll available for each state, the findings are remarkable.

Nader's presence in the race is currently taking Kerry from Electoral College victory to a dead heat with Bush. As shown by the "Nader 04 Impact Map," at http://www.theunitycampaign.org/battleground/, Nader costs Kerry slight leads in Minnesota and Missouri, and gives Bush slight leads in Ohio and Nevada. No less crucial, Nader may also tip the balance in several states that are essentially tied (Iowa, West Virginia, New Hampshire, and Maine), where his support equals or exceeds the margin between Bush and Kerry.

John Pearce is Director of the Progressive Unity Voter Fund, creators of TheUnityCampaign.org He can be reached at [e-mail].


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040216/editors2

THE NATION
An Open Letter to Ralph Nader
The editors explain why, for the good of the country, running would be a mistake this year.

editorial | posted January 29, 2004 (February 16, 2004 issue)

SNIP:

But when devotion to principle collides with electoral politics, hard truths must be faced. Ralph, this is the wrong year for you to run: 2004 is not 2000. George W. Bush has led us into an illegal pre-emptive war, and his defeat is critical. Moreover, the odds of this becoming a race between Bush and Bush Lite are almost nil. For a variety of reasons--opposition to the war, Bush's assault on the Constitution, his crony capitalism, frustration with the overcautious and indentured approach of inside-the-Beltway Democrats--there is a level of passionate volunteerism at the grassroots of the Democratic Party not seen since 1968.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

NO WORKING LINK..BUT YOU CAN PROBABLY ARCHIVE IT


GOP loyalists funding Nader
Nearly 10 percent of the Nader contributors who have given him at least $250 each have a history of supporting the Republican president, national GOP candidates or the party, according to computer-assisted review of financial records by The Dallas Morning News. 3-28-04

[Bonobo]

105. WHAT DID YOU SAY, SONNY? I'M A LITTLE DEEF!!!

[flyarm]

106. i thought you might be..and i am not a sonny!!...n/t

[Bonobo]

107. Glad you got that caps lock fixed anyway...

[JackBeck]

108. Would you agree you just engaged in "Ad hominem"?

Since you didn't address the substance of the argument, rather, you attacked the person making the argument?

[Bonobo]

111. Yes, perhaps. But writing all in caps is kinda asking for it. Also...

But the poster, last time I checked, wasn't running for political office. So while it may have tweaked his or her nose a bit, it doesn't rise to the level of intellectual dishonesty in my opinion that it does when you rip at Nader for nothing other than his "ego" or "use of puppets".

[JackBeck]

115. Guilty as charged.

And you are leaving out much of what my original post stated. And I never invoked "ego", as you state.

I have more of a problem with Nader because he hasn't laid any ground work for a base for (what party is he affiliated with??) running as a candidate.

He's done some excellent work in the past but where is his base?

[Bonobo]

121. As for you...

You make a reasonable point on that level, I think. But I still don't really see WHY a person running for POTUS has to have a "base" as you put it.

His platform, as I have been trying to say, represented the opinions of many, many of us liberals from the days before Clinton recalibrated the left so far to the middle that now my political opinions are almost off the scale to the left.

Why does he have to have a personal base like a haircutter with a client list? He had a PLATFORM. I AGREED with it. I even suspect YOU would agree with it. I think MOST OF DU would agree with it. His run for POTUS was an attempt to bring liberalism back to the country. That's why I voted for him. Because I want to be supported and represented!

[pnwmom]

125. How could you think that your views would be supported and represented

when you knew that your candidate couldn't possibly carry the election? You could have written "Santa Claus" on the ballot and it would have been as effective.

[Bonobo]

132. Essentially the argument is like this:

If I vote Democratic in Massachusetts, my vote is taken for granted. Everyone knows MA votes for DEMS and Gore was going to win there under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

By voting for Nader, I let the Democtratic Party (My party incidentally) know that they were being put on notice.

If they do not want the same thing to happen again, they MUST know who their bread is buttered by. I feel like democrats have abandoned their principals by reflexively voting for any Dem candidate. If you don't believe me, listen to Hillary and her war-mongering speeches. She KNOWS she will have you r vote and now she is trying to get voted from the OTHER SIDE by being Hawkish. So WHO is betraying WHOM?

[pnwmom]

143. I didn't mind liberals voting for Nader in safe states like Massachusetts.

And if I had been living in a safe state, I'd have been willing to participate in a vote swap.

It's the people that voted for him in the critical states that affected the election.

By the way, I'm still shopping around for the primaries. Who do you favor now?

[Bonobo]

144. Clark if he's in, Kucinich if he's not.

Either one of them would get us right the fuck out of this madness I think.

However, Clark is more electable, I think.

[pnwmom]

147. Clark's one of my favorites too. And so is -- you may not like this --

Obama.

Edwards is making me nervous lately, with regard to Iran.

[Bonobo]

150. I don't know enough about Obama yet...

I need to do some homework on him...

BTW, are you a vampire? You seem to keep really intense hours? Do you work the late shift or something?

[flyarm]

117. you couldn't tweek me.,.i am a democrat!!..on a democratic board!

i don't sell my values out to anyone who takes money from the swift boat liars!!
and melanie sloan!!

and pssssssssssssss..i didn't realize my caps were on...sorry you couldn't address what i posted...

but had no problem addressing my typing skills!!

this is a democratic message board..i am a democrat..in fact i was a democratic delegate in 2004 for Kerry and i know damn well what Nader did!

he sold this country out as he did in 2000...

he even sold out the greens!

your arguments are fall on deaf ears with me!! i know better!!

from fla..where nader took the election from Gore in 2000!!

there would have been no steal if it hadn't been for nader..and the rethugs used him for just the purpose he fullfilled!!

ohhhh and i am done with this thread..as i will not waste another moment on a discussion about a republican whore!! nader is a republican whore!

fly

[Bonobo]

118. Your "arguments" were not composed enough to encourage a reasonable reply.

[pnwmom]

126. You should try reading the articles he posted.

They might help remind you of history you've apparently forgotten.

[Bonobo]

128. Okay, I'm reading... Here is my analysis of the articles:

1. First article is the the fact that he received money from Right Wingers. My comment on that is that it doesn't mean much. To play with the big boys, you need money. Should he have turned down the money simply because of the source? Are you saying that his opinions/stances were bought by the right wing? You can't really believe that, can you? His career, if nothing else, demonstrateds allegiance to fighting corporations, don't you agree?

2. The second article was more of the same. That he took money from Swift Boaters. To that, I have the same reply. It doesn't mean that Nader is dirty or that he was bought.

3. The third article, nt linked, but pasted was filled with anecdotes about how some Nader supporters solicited signatures to get him on the ballot by appealing to Bush Voters saying that it would help Bush get elected. My reply to this is that 1) It is a bit dubious given the anecdotal nature of it and 2) Even if a few people did that, so what? All you are doing with this is attacking his MOTIVES for running for POTUS. And I for one don't believe that is either important or reasonable to suggest that he was doing it for the nefarious purpose of getting Bush elected. It is plainly ridiculous. Agreed?

4. The fouth article was the same issue as #3, namely the signatures used to get him on the ballot. I just don't think it is significant -unless you are trying to impugn his motivation. And I don't think that dog will hunt. Do we disagree? Do YOU think his motives were to get Bush elected? Do YOU think he is a republican operative? If so, we really have no room for discussion becaue I think that would be asinine given his history.

5. The fifth article was the same as 3 and 4. It really is saying that the Bush-Cheney campaign was doing some dirty work by trying to help Nader get on the ballot. I again fail to see how that condemns Nader.

6. The 5th and 6th article are opinion pieces that basically argue that Nader was at fault for helping sway the election to Bush. This is the very subject we are discussing and I don't see how it adds any more weight to your OPINION.

None of these demonstrate in ANY WAY THAT I CAN SEE that Nader had impure motives. But even if they did, I disagree that that is the main issue that deserves discussion. LOST IN ALL OF THIS are the POSITIONS that he takes on issues that affect our lives, our country's direction. It's like you are all judging his soul and have found it wanting. Well, I am not into that kind of thing. I'll save that for the religion forum or pehaps the 9/11 conspiracy forum. It's not relevant.

[flyarm]

168. I gave no argument..just the facts...about that whore nader!

if you had read the articles..you would have known..there is no argument..they are all articles that i have had in my files since prior to the 2004 election..that nader sold this nation out!!..and filled his pockets with GOP whore money..and had the audacity to say the rethugs were no different than dems..i beg one huge difference on that ..sonny........

Nader was bought by the rethugs..every ounce of him was owned by them..not only in 2004 but in 2000 as well!

all your deflecting will not change the fact that nader was bought and owned by and the gop...

too bad i had an article that went further to detail where the corporate money of naders came from on the gop side..but the article is no longer available..

and i know this why?? as i said ..i was an elected fla dem delegate..i housed the Kerry field rep for 3 of the biggest counties on the west coast of fla..and i worked on a rapid response team here...as well as helped run the Kerry campaign offices here in South west fla.

I was on all the Kerry conference calls...to fla..i know what Nader did and who he was taking all his money contrib. from!

and it wasn't dems and it wasn't greens!

I kept saying at the time..the gop must have something very big on Nader..now knowing about the NSA spying..i can only imagine that what i believed at the time..must most definitely be correct!!

There is nothing to argue...Nader sold this nation out..and he whored himself..for the bush/cheney campaign..and their corporate rulers!!

May i suggest you read "The Octopus"....

I have no doubt Nader has skeletons in his closet that are pretty damning..and the Octopus owns him!!

Oh and do look into where Naders money is invested..seriously....you might have second thoughts about ole Ralphy!!


fly

[flyarm]

171. Balck Caucus and nader june 2004

LINK won't work..but i had this in my files..

NPR News
Nader Rejects Black Caucus' Call to Drop Out of Race
The Tavis Smiley Show, June 23, 2004 · Ralph Nader had a testy meeting with members of the Congressional Black Caucus Tuesday. Nader rejected their request that he quit the presidential race -- many Democrats fear that progressive votes for Nader could tip the balance in favor of a Bush victory over Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry. NPR's Tavis Smiley talks with the independent candidate in the 2004 elections.

[pnwmom]

123. Why is it intellectually dishonest to accuse Nader of acting out of ego?

He's not stupid. And he knew that he didn't have a chance of winning, and that his candidacy would help Bush to be elected.

So he was either acting out of ego, or out of malice, or to save his own skin (if the Bushies actually did have something on him). Given the choices, I think it was his ego.

[Bonobo]

127. You missed one of the reasons for running and that is probably

where our opinions start to differ so much and could explain the rancor.

The reason, I believe, that he ran is to expand the range of political discourse in this country, to challenge the stranglehold that corporations have over our country and to raise our own eyes to the great potential that this country had and has squandered since socialism was essentially outlawed.

Did you ever wonder why in this country we can't even have a discussion about socialism as a concept? There used to be lots of communists and socialists.

Here, read a little about Eugene Debs and think about whether or not we have lost a large spark of idealism and goodness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs

As John Lennon said... "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one..."

Oh and before I go, ask yourself why the Dems haven't done anything to really stop this war. And ask yourself if you really think they'll stop it when they are elected in 2008? I would humbly suggest that they will ALWAYS only do the miost politically expedient thing -EXCEPT FOR A FEW that I can name on one hand.

[pnwmom]

131. Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I know those are the reasons he gave for running. But I think he was gravely wrong if he thought that it was more important to have a symbolic win than to actually win. Maybe it's because I'm less of a gambler than some people. If someone said, here, you can have those two quarters, OR you can have whatever's in my hand -- a silver dollar or a penny: I'd take the two quarters.

Nader could have run -- and we could have had the political discussion -- just as well if he hadn't insisted on running hard in the swing states. Many of his supporters were begging him to endorse a vote swap, allowing people in safe states to vote for him, in exchange for Nader supporters in swing states voting for Gore. But he wouldn't consider that, and he campaigned hardest in the states where the margins were closest. He didn't care about the discussion -- he wanted to get as many votes as possible.

Why haven't the Democrats stopped the war? How about:

They've only been in office a month.

They have only a bare majority in the Senate, and they don't have enough votes in either House to overcome a Bush veto.

The Constitution gives the Democrats only the power of the purse, and Bush can just push money around.

All hell is going to break lose when we do pull out and, unlike Bush, we need to be prepared for the effects of our actions.

[Bonobo]

133. And thank you for maintaining your level tone. I know it's a hot issue.

I apoogize for losing it sometimes myself. I really feel we are on the same side though.

I just think for a democracy to work, we must demand accountability and that means throwing the bums out every once in a while to remind them who runs things.

When Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure." he wasn't just trying to be cute. He MEANT that.

[pnwmom]

140. It's a hot and painful issue because we all have at least ONE thing

in common. We hate what our country has been becoming and we're looking for a better way.

No apologies necessary. I know we're all on the same team.

Peace.

:hi:

[pnwmom]

122. Thanks for all the research, flyarm.

Too bad the people who most need to read it probably won't bother.

[flyarm]

177. :)..some people choose to stay ignorant..but they can not expect the rest of us to be !!

and when someone posts something they are totally ignorant of ..all we can do is point out where they are missing facts..if they choose to ignore those facts..well there is nothing we can do ..but keep pushing forward to educate those who do care and want to save this nation from those who want to destroy her..

and i also find that those who know the least ..boast the loudest about their ignorance!!..and do the least possible to help those who are working to save this country..

I wish i could find it funny..but i am too busy trying to save this country for my children and grandchildren ...in the trenches!!

But i want to recognize and thank those who do put the effort forward to learn and read and educate themselves...it will take all of us.. to take this country back...there is no time left for niceities..and hand holding of those who chose not to learn the truth..and are satisified with half truths..we get enough of that with our msm...

My work has a purpose.. so i am not swayed by half truths.. i have seen enough of that bullshit ...see my co-workers and neigbors sons were killed on 9/11 .. i am now a retired 33 yr flight crew of one of the airlines involved on 9/11 and i was flight attend. of the year for my airline in 2001 for the entire NY base of my airline...
thats JFK, LGA and Newark..i was in the air that morning...out of Newark..and took off in front of UAL #93...

i know it is not a game...its life and death...
and it is certainly not a message board game...time is running out..to save this nation..

and i will be damned if truth will be lost because some choose to be unknowledgeable..and try to pass off horse crap as truth...and play childish games...this is life and death,.i know that first hand..........

sooooo I Thank You..I Thank You for taking the time to read and learn the truth...

WE ARE ALL WE HAVE TO EDUCATE EACH OTHER...as we have no media...

thank you for your efforts!!

fly

[omega minimo]

200. IF I HAD USED ALL CAPS WOULD IT HAVE HELPED YOU UNDERSTAND?????

FIRST LINES OF THE OP (YES THIS OP)

(Note: This is not a thread to endorse Nader for president, past or present. If you are looking for flamebait, there is a HUGH!!1 "rape" thread on page 1. If you want to bash Nader, don't bother-- Malloy and Randi did it for you quite effectively. Thank you.)
**************************



Clearly, the issue is important to you-- but not the issue of this thread, which the Note and OP made clear (or tried to).

If you would be willing to consider some of the ideas here about progressive issues and who it actually serves when progressives are demonized, we might find we're on the same side, after all.

:thumbsup:

[upi402]

124. yeah, done with Nader here

sad

he may be right, but at what cost? When you're out on the street you need a hotel. Yes, a mansion would be great, but survival first.

Then the Dems get filibustered for milktoast measures after they refused to filibuster Alito and Gonzalez.

ugh

[orleans]

130. "do you really think al gore would have SUCKED

as president now that you see what a president who SUCKS can do?"
--randi rhodes 2/6/07

[pnwmom]

141. LOL!

Almost sounds like something Molly might have said . . .

I miss her so much already.

[omega minimo]

201. that's justs brilliant. who didn't know that another bush presidency would suck?

no offense to randi, but that stupid logic is why i posted after hearing both malloy and her go off on-- and feed-- the illogical rants of naderhaters that we're seeing on this thread (despite the disclaimer in the OP)..................

who didn't know that another bush presidency would suck AHEAD OF TIME? :evilfrown: that's revisionist stupidity to pretend we needed the proof of experience to show what was obvious ahead of time.

THAT is why the margin b/w bush v. gore should NEVER have been as close as it was and why blaming nader/voters is convenient, shortsighted scapegoating-- and a way to avoid the real issues.

randi's rant sounded good if you were just dumb, blunt, emotional, raging-- not thinking at all about the real reasons people voted for nader, the real reasons millions didn't vote and the real reasons gore lost/won.

as if people didn't know AHEAD OF TIME "what a president who SUCKS can do."

[Bonobo]

142. Congratulations to all posters for having no "Deleted messages"

That's an accomplishment in a thread like this.

[pnwmom]

146. Let's hope you're not speaking too soon.

Are we sure that the moderator has been awake?

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Greyhound]

148. Well said, and all the ranting and raving and pointless blaming in the world

won't change the fact that people, now pay attention here, people will not vote for the guy that ruined their lives, took food from their families, and failed to fulfill the promise of help for them, no matter how bad the other guy might be. If we want the Nader vote, we have to address their concerns, it's politics. The only way they would have voted for Gore was if there were no other candidates to vote for, want to start outlawing political parties now?

[B Calm]

151. Considering how much money the GOP gives Nader, only fools vote for him,

[Bonobo]

153. Really? Could you expand on that thesis?

[B Calm]

154. no need to, it's well known. Do a little research and you'll find out

without my help!

[Bonobo]

155. I've done the work as you would know if you read the thread.

But your reply was so mindlessly facile, I thought I'd give you some rope.

[B Calm]

156. By voting for Nader you're giving everybody rope! Do a google search

Nader accepts GOP money...

[Bonobo]

158. Please read reply #128 as well as the rest of the thread.

I spent alot of time on this thread reading opinions, articles. Your post sheds no new light.

But to summarize, simply the fact that he "took" GOP money for his campaign means very little to me. All money is the same color and unless you are implying that accepting the GOP money tied him to protecting GOP interests, it means nothing.

Is that what you are saying? I look forward to your reply.

[B Calm]

159. What's obvious is that we have unmasked Nader for the GOP enabler

that he is YEARS AGO!

[Bonobo]

160. Your right. It's clear. That's what he was ALWAYS about.

It's clear that since his career as a consumer advocate began in 1959, he's been nothing but a secret servant to the nefarious GOP.

And I? I am Renfield to his Dracula.

[B Calm]

161. That's right, it is CLEAR. Only a fool would not see it!

or a right wing freeping troll!

[Bonobo]

162. I'd hate to see a post deleted, so please don't call me a freeper troll.

[B Calm]

163. I didn't..

[Bonobo]

164. That was predictable...

Anyway, I think I'll save my responses for people over 15 from here on. Bye-bye.

[B Calm]

199. I gave two choices, you picked your own!

[flyarm]

170. NADER TOOK MONEY FROM THE SWIFT BOAT PIGS AND MELANIE SLOAN

helped nader with petitions with all fundies and gop..Nader's money is all invested in huge GOP investments/corporate type investments ...the gop ran him..you would understand this ..if you had "read" my post #103 instead of worrying about my lousey typing skills!

fly

[Bonobo]

179. I responded to that post in #128. The typing wasn't the biggest problem.

The lack of organization and critical thinking was fatal though.

[flyarm]

180. how much critical thinking is needed when posting articles about ralphy???????

i was posting many articles out of all my massive files..do you need critical thinking for that????????????

seems to me all you needed to do was read a few!!

.......................
Even the best fall down sometimes
Even the wrong words seem to rhyme
Out of the doubt that fills my mind
I somehow find
You and I collide

...........................

i think i will leave it at that...


oh my!! do i have any typos???..after all, i am not a typist ..or the secretary type...i could never get this typing thing down..i chose to see the world rather than type ...

But i made sure my child had those skills...that i so disdained!!

and i guess i did pretty well by my grown child ..as he graduated Phi Beta Kappa from his University...and works successfully on Wall Street...

too bad his mom..never could get into the typing thing...

but if you ever need to be evacuated from an aircraft..no one does it better than I do!!



fly

[Bonobo]

181. I read them ALL. Each one. They were repetitive and meaningless.

You keep going after Nader's motives. Impugning him by connections. None of that has any SUBSTANCE. Do you understand the difference?

He has dedicated his life to helping the common man against corporate power. You say he was bought by corporations, but WHERE, WHERE is your evidence of this other than by implication for taking money or with these silly accusations about Jane Doe getting petitions signed by telling people it would help Bush!?

The word nutty comes to mind. And I take it EVERY BIT AS SERIOUSLY AS YOU (Proving my intentions with CAPS Lock!)

[flyarm]

185. so meaningless the democratic party filed suits with the SEC for Naders&

the gop election tactics!!

meanless..wow you have a low threshold for meaningless!! and election integrity!!


go check for yourself the filings by the democratic party ..i am not your researcher..do some research yourself..

I have only provided articles of which speak of Nader's involvement with the gop in the 2004 election..go look it up yourself..or call the Headquarters of the DNC and find out about it yourself..no one is stopping you but yourself!!

I do not need to prove anything..the proof is easily acquired BY ANYONE "WHO WANTS TO KNOW THE TRUTH!"

I can tell you this..i was on many conference calls with the Kerry Campaign weekly, in the least,many times daily..and it was a major concern..and the facts speak for themselves!

Ralph knew exactly what he was doing..and he sold his soul to the rnc and the gop..

fly

[Zodiak]

165. Blaming the left and Nader for Bush

is the act of a party loyalist who believes that the Democratic party is owed votes by people who haven't been represented by the party in years. IT is ugly, and personally, I think designed to continue to make left has no voice....it is a baseball bat by which centrists and moderates who know nothing but party loyalty use to bash the left and make them feel unwelcome.

Blaming Nader voters for Bush and the condition we find this country in is Democratic McCarthyism. It has no place other than to preclude the soul-searching that the Democratic party desperateley needs.

I support the OP....and no, I do not plan on voting for Nader, but I am not going to waste one moment in denigrating another for it. If someone votes for Nader, I know their reasons and cannot necessarily disagree with them (even though I disagree with the strategy).

[omega minimo]

204. best. post. ever.

"IT is ugly, and personally, I think designed to continue to make left has no voice....it is a baseball bat by which centrists and moderates who know nothing but party loyalty use to bash the left and make them feel unwelcome.

"Blaming Nader voters for Bush and the condition we find this country in is Democratic McCarthyism. It has no place other than to preclude the soul-searching that the Democratic party desperateley needs."




There are some other lucid posts here. Which close the door on irrational naderbashing and raise the question of "who benefits from Democrats demonizing progressives and progressive issues?"

[Zodiak]

205. Thanks, but I need to watch the typos

"make the left has no voice" needs to be "ensure the left...."

"Democratic party deperateley needs" shoud read "desperately needs"

sheesh...it's a wonder you even could understand my post much less compliment it.

[deutsey]

166. I voted for Gore but I'm sick of people blaming Nader/Greens for Bush

If only those people could get that impassioned about the deliberate disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of Afican-American voters in Florida. But I guess smearing Nader and the Greens is a lot easier than righting that injustice.

I agree with everything you say here. :thumbsup:

[flyarm]

169. please read post #103...please

and please excuse the caps..it was late when i posted it and did not realize my caps were on..and i was too tired to re-post it!

i believe ..the articles speak for themselves...my typing lousey should have no reflection on the articles@!!

fly

[deutsey]

175. I had read it prior to posting what I did, thanks

I stand by my point.

[omega minimo]

203. thank you

''If only those people could get that impassioned about the deliberate disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of Afican-American voters in Florida."

[porphyrian]

167. Ooo, I'll kick that. - n/t

[flyarm]

172. Nathan Sproul and Ralphy were in bed together..in 2004 election

from my files from 2004 .............please do not tell me Ole Ralphy gave a rats ass about the greens...he had one job and one job only..to keep the current occupant in the white house!!

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=7954

Exclusive: Ralph's Arizona ballot tactics are worse than this week's Democratic lawsuit alleges. Some petitions piggybacked on a reactionary anti-immigrant initiative --
and others were paid for by a former executive director of the state GOP.


snip:

In its effort to get on the ballot in the key battleground state of Arizona, the Prospect has learned, the Nader campaign hired a petition company that is also gathering signatures for a draconian anti-immigrant initiative pushed by right-wing elements in the state. The initiative, called Protect Arizona Now (PAN), would restrict access to public services by undocumented immigrants.


snip:

In addition, according to several sources, the Nader campaign was assisted in its petition drive by an unlikely figure: the ultra-conservative former executive director of the Arizona Republican Party, Nathan Sproul. Sources say Sproul -- who is also spearheading an initiative to block public funding from political campaigns in the state -- made payments to the petition contractors working on his public-funding initiative to gather signatures for Nader as well.


snip:

Moreover, according to several sources, the signature-gathering drive for PAN is mostly funded by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a Washington-based anti-immigrant group that has spent tens of millions in the last two decades to roll back the rights of both legal and illegal immigrants living in the United States.

snip:

The Arizona ballot drive was never the grassroots effort that Nader characterizes his campaign as. In trying to garner the 14,694 signatures necessary to get on the Arizona ballot, the Nader campaign first unsuccessfully solicited a Republican consulting firm to handle its ballot-qualification bid. This spring, as droves of professional petitioners descended on Arizona like traveling carnival folk to gather signatures for PAN -- and to collect the $2–4 that a petitioner is awarded for each signature delivered -- they also presented signatories with the Nader petition, according to several sources. This petition piggybacking helped Nader get more than the amount of signatures he needed to qualify for the ballot -- most of them from Republicans. In fact, according to a volunteer for the Arizona Democratic Party who has reviewed Nader's signatures, of the more than 21,000 signatures Nader garnered, a whopping 65 percent percent came from Republicans, compared to 18 percent from Democrats.
"As people make their decision on who they're going to vote for based on candidates' ideals and how they present themselves, the methods by which Ralph Nader tried to get on the ballot in Arizona should make voters question what his real motives are in running for president," said Sarah Rosen, press secretary for the Arizona Democratic Party, which is challenging Nader's petitions in the state and trying to knock him off the ballot.

Nader's bid for the Arizona ballot began this spring when members of his campaign sought a contract with Arno Political Consultants, a California-based Republican consulting firm that has handled past ballot-qualification efforts for GOP icons like Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, as well as anti-immigrant groups like U.S. English.




remember Sproul?????????? do you?? the guy who had so many Nevada ballots and absentee ballots destroyed..and disenfranchised soooo many voters...ralphy worked with him in arizona!!

that is who ole Ralphy was working with in the south west!!



this link i have in my files..but it no longer works...but you can see by the title what it was about..if you want to search for it..good..i don't have the time...sorry...

Nader getting support from unlikely voters; Conservative groups hope to draw votes from Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry 6/26/044 Oregonlive.com

fly

[flyarm]

178. i wish i could laugh..but this is too serious...so greens support a guy

who sold them out to the very people who are destroying our environment!!

yes that is it folks...nader supporters have also sold out our environment..because by supporting Nader ..that is what you support..

and i would not brag about being green when nader took his biggest support from the rethuglicans..who have crapped $$$$ on our environment and into Ralph's pocketbook!!

so keep supporting him...but do not tell me you care about the air we breathe and our waterways..and our mountains..and global warming!

When Ralphy was taking all the rethug corporate money in 2004 ..and the rethugs did everything they could to help him hurt Kerry and help Mr killer of the environment in our white house.....Nader did his best to destroy one of the best senators we have on the environment in our congress..and could have made a world of difference as president..for our environment..

you can not have it both ways...nader was and is a whore for the republican party...

and we all should know by now what their record on the environment is...

nader and green????...please.... save it for those who like fairy tales!!!!

fly

[Zodiak]

213. Just so you know

Nader and the Green Party were divorced in 2004. Nader did those things on his own.

Now, if we want to get into how many Democrats have allied themselves with rightwing corporations and right-wingers due to political necessity (usually for funds), then we can open up that argument, but it going to look very ugly for the Democratic party and expose deep hypocrisy.

What Nader did taking funds from pukes was bad...there is no question about it. I cannot stand it when ANY person who says he stands for the little guy reaches his hand out to right-wingers (and therefore becomes beholden to them). I do not forgive Nader of it any more than I forgive the DLC for doing it.

But the Democratic party had better understand that Nader has appeal for only one reason: his message. He has no political talent...no charisma to speak of...not a good speaker...not very personable.....not good-looking. But he has a message that resonates with the left, who has been essentially ignored by the Democratic party for years and years in favor of corporate money. Is Nader a hypocrite? Perhaps, but it seems to many that he is no more so than William Jefferson, Joe Leiberman, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and Bill and Hillary Clinton. Fix the corporate problem and embrace a populist message and Nader goes away.

If Nader went golfing with Poppy Bush, I'm sure it would end up in a thread like this (and rightfully so). When Bill clinton does it, do we forgive him for it because he is a Democrat? It is that sort of one-sided hypocrisy that burns the britches of the left whenever this Nader issue comes up. Many didn't see it in 2000 but did in 2004...and voted for Kerry in overwhelming numbers. Go after Nader if you like, but to incude his 2000 supporters is counterproductive.

[flyarm]

215. oh i know they were divorced..seems many in the green party don't know it though!!

as they keep supporting a man who not only took money from the rethugs who could care less about the enviornment..but who spit in their faces!!

fly

[bbgrunt]

186. thanks for that. I have turned randi off. it is really beneath her

to carry on with this. I figured she blew him off on the first day just to create ratings, but this campaign is overly defensive by those who insist on calling progressives traitors --and counterproductive to the max.

[omega minimo]

194. Well put! Perfect point. Let's be "productive" about the issues and if some folks want to

think :tinfoilhat: or "who is enabling the GOP?" may ask, who does it REALLY SERVE to "insist on calling progressives traitors"? :think:



".....this campaign is overly defensive by those who insist on calling progressives traitors --and counterproductive to the max."


Thanks :hi:

[Zodiak]

210. That is what bothers me the most

Here is the paradigm presently in place in American politics:

1. When Republicans have control of things, the country (and by extension the government) is "conservative" and the most most right-wing policies are pursued successfully.

2. When Democrats are in control, the country is "bipartisan" and "moderate", and moderately right-leaning to centrist policies are pursued successfully.

Does anyone see what the problem with this paradigm is? Where are the liberals? Where is the influence of liberal thought and policy? I certainly do not see how this country can go anywhere but continually rightward over time under this paradigm. It has been going on for over 20 years, now....and look where it has landed us.

There is supposed to be this thing called the "marketplace of ideas" where all ideas are debated and resolved within a population. Our political paradigm is not a free market of ideas because both parties actively try to marginalize the left (one out of opposition, the other out of fear/collusion). It is choking this country to death and demands to be resolved.

On television, the talk now is that both parties are "too partisan", but that is far from the case, isn't it? The narrative is created not to reduce Republican partisanship, but to ratchet up fear in the Democratic party of ever giving the left a voice. The left is what corporatists on both sides of the aisle fear the most because liberals and populists are the only Americans who wish to restore power back in the hands of the people and out of the oligarch's hands.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

193. Nope. Randi Did Hit The Nail Square On The Head With This One.

Nader is nothing more than a selfish and self absorbed piece of absolute shit that deceived many into voting for his dumbass, which in turn had a direct effect on the mass suffering and misery our country has had to endure for the past 6 years.

Randi was spot on with her rant. It was righteous, it was factual, it was scathing, it was appropriate.

[Zodiak]

208. As opposed to a Democratic party

that tells the voters that they are for the little guy and against the war but then turn around and pass free trade agreements, PATRIOT Acts, corporate bankruptcy bills and back down on the war?

Who is being duped here? Who is self-absorbed? Perhaps it is both Nader supporters AND rank-and-file Democrats.

The only thing that matters are results, as many say on this board, and neither the Naderites nor the Democrtic party have been very forthcoming in the results department. Not only that, both have actually colluded with the enemy (Bush and the GOP). The losers are the American people who are forced to sit through this gutter sniping between people who should be allies. It only contributes to fecklessness in the face of BushCo.

Something gives me the feeling that Cheney smiles when he sees Democrats angrily denigrate their most fervent ideological supporters over a 6 year old schism that was bound to happen and has already played itself out. The fact that very little soul-searching has been done on the Democratic side is what continues to drive this debate and gives Nader his vacuum to fill. Democrats are in control of that vacuum...that rift between the leadership and the left (which is growing once again thanks to this last couple of weeks). You want Nader out of the picture? Fill the vacuum, and quickly...there are no more "moderates" in the voting pool to pick up, anyways...sides are taken.

Even if Nader was out of the picture, that vacuum will be begging to be filled...and next time it might not be by some lazy-eyed guy with a grating voice and a weird demeanor like Nader. It might be someone who can REALLY damage the party. Think about that.

[JCMach1]

202. When the demographics of 2000 are broken down-- Nader

pealed significant amounts of traditionally left voters who usually went democratic. That is a big problem.

This comes from the Michigan study http://pan.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/13/1/109


Like, or hate Nader it is burying your head in the sand not to realize his impact. And, it WASN't just new voters.

[ShortnFiery]

206. Yes, but instead of making a few more concessions and meeting with

Nader and other greens ... drawing them in on the issues we all wish to agree on, Gore's campaign called them NUTS and dismissed them.

Any way you cut it, the fact that Nader ran does not detract from the MIS-STAKES and MIS-STEPS of the Gore Campaign.

I was initially angry with Nader after 2000, but I now have come to terms with the fact that it's GORE and GORE's campaign people that LOST. Don't blame it on "the little guy" especially since you shut him out.

Nader is OK by me. :shrug:

[JCMach1]

209. Ummm they didn't lose, but it would have been a CLEAR victory

without Nader.

[Zodiak]

212. or without unopposed voter intimidation....

...or without weird butterfly ballots

...or with all of the counties recounted instead of a select few

...or without the media playing its games with promulgating lies about Gore

...or with the media covering up truths about Bush

...or without 250,000 Florida Democrats voting for Bush

...or with a message that would include the Nader supporters

...and yes, if Nader wasn't in the race AND Nader voters voted for Gore as opposed to not voting at all

Like I and the OP said...it was a multivariate problem. Focusing only on one issue is missing the boat completely. If you want a big tent, it is best to not close it to those on the left...this reaffirmation that Nader supporters is the MAIN reason Gore lost Florida is not helping at all in this respect, and it gains no new voters in the middle. In short, it is counterproductive and reeks of an uneccessary witch-hunt.

[Zodiak]

207. I agree that it is a problem

but the problem has not been adequately defined and agreed upon.

1. Those that despise Nader and his supporters, past and present, contend that if Nader had not been in the picture that Bush would not have won. True, but at the same time, if 250,000 Democratic voters hadn't voted for Bush (as opposed to 98,000 Nader supporters), Bush would not have won. If Gore had counted all counties, Bush would not have won. If Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, and Theresa LaPore (sp?) hadn't done what they did, Bush would not have won. If the Republicans didn't stage an assault on the counting, Bush would not have won. If Democrats had stood up for the voting rights of minorities in Florida, Bush would not have won. Which of these was the BIGGEST contributor? Hard to say because this is a multivariate problem. Picking out one issue to focus on (the one that happens to denigrate leftists and ignore the Republican/Democratic roles) seems to be the modus operandi for the Democratic loyalist, but it is hardly an honest position.

2. Now....is the problem Nader himself (whom very few really disagree with in principle) or is it with a Democratic party that feels that it is "owed" votes from the left when they have ignored and marginalized the left for decades? For 20 years, the party had been in love with Reaganomics with its accompanying negative effects on the poor and disenfranchised. The party went into the 2000 campaign completely oblivious to these ills and predictably ran to the center....displaying once again that the left was to be ignored. Nader filled that vacuum opened by the Democratic party (nature sure hates a vacuum). So....is it Nader's fault for filling the vacuum or is it the Democrat's fault for letting that vacuum form in the first place? Is it a Nader voters' fault because finally someone seemed to be speaking to them and they voted that way?

I believe that when the Democratic party once again stands for something that the left can vote for, then they have the right to denigrate Nader supporters for not getting on the bandwagon. But until the party does some serious soul-searching concerning the spinlessness issue, the "centrism" free-trade issue, and the "ignore the poor" issue, then it is simply the blatherings of a moribund party that feels it is "owed" votes from people whom it does not represent.

A party cannot point to a Dennis Kucinich that it ignores completely and say "see? You lefties are welcome!". Lefties aren't welcome in the party, and haven't been for 20 years. I think that much is clear when one examines the rhetoric and the voting records of the Democratic party leadership (which I have done).