Nader letter to ABB Democrats

love him or hate him, i thought it was still news

-sent to me through a press list this morning:


Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats:

If you wish to defeat George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in November, restore the House and/or the Senate to the Democrats and continue to build a longer term progressive political movement, enlisting the young, middle-aged and elderly together, beyond November 2004.... and you have some doubts as to whether the Democrats can do this by themselves, this letter is for you.

Let's face the facts. Our country has serious problems. The world is not doing very well. We need every source of energy inside the electoral arena to turn harmful, costly and cruel trends against billions of innocent people into just and healthy directions.

The electoral system in our country is rigged in many ways against third parties and independent candidates having a level playing field chance to compete. This leaves the two major Parties to regenerate themselves internally without external pushes and jolts. The Republicans generate themselves with corporate batteries while the Democrats try to play catch up in the corporate money-raising sweepstakes. So it is not surprising that many people are left with the least of the worst choice and TAKE it, assuming you are not in a single party district. After all, they know they are all hostages to this winner-take-all electoral college strait jacket. They realize that the political terrain is rigged to leave them as of now with just that choice if they want to be with a possible winner, which most voters want to be. A modern full representation system to make more votes count should become part of our national political debate. One version – multi-seat districts – elected the first woman, Jeanette Rankin, to Congress from Montana in 1916.

Apart from their ways, the Democrats need to be shown additional ways -- strong, rational, emotive ways to defeat Bush and the Republicans. Why? Because their leaders and consultants are either too cautious, too unimaginative or too indentured to vested interests to even conceive, not to mention field test, these vulnerabilities of the Bush regime.

Enter an independent candidacy in a duopolized system that does not believe the election has to be totally enclosed by zero-sum gaming among the major candidates. Instead there should be various strategies and probes and anticipations inside the electoral arena that in important ways escape the zero-sum mind so as to more likely achieve the common goal of ouster.

Here is what I mean. Campaigns must have distinct approaches -- not only to get more votes on one's side but also to depress the votes on the other side. The latter voters either stay home or switch to another candidate, other than the major opponent, as a protest vote. In 2000, exit polls showed that 21% or 25% of my vote would have gone to Bush, 38% or 41% to Gore, and the rest would not have voted. Counter-intuitive, isn't it? Not if you know that conservative and libertarian Republicans have not been happy with the corporate Republicans who dominate the party and concede to their right wing the verbal platforms to keep them in line. Now, many conservative or libertarian Republicans are furious with Bush over the massive deficits, taxpayer-funded, corporate subsidies, the Patriot Act's invasion of privacy and undermining of civil liberties, the impaired sovereignty issues in NAFTA and GATT, uncontrolled corporate pornography beamed to their children in violent commercial entertainment -- to name some points of serious disappointments. Not a few of them are outraged over the corporate looting by executive greed and crimes, exemplified by the Enrons, World Coms and Tycos (they lost jobs, 401K’s and investments too) and believe that Bush/Cheney are too close to these companies to launch a crackdown that will convict and jail these executive crooks. This is why they like CNN’s Lou Dobbs' regular reminders about these crooks *not* being sent to jail.

The Democrats need to be shown in the field how to appeal to the millions of voters whom they have turned their back on because many of them are against abortion and gun control. It is one thing when litmus paper tests are applied to candidates by groups or voters, but candidates are foolish to do this in reverse -- after all even your friends don't agree with you on everything.

Moreover, an independent candidacy that generates more political and civic energies by the American people helps to generate more understandings and support for major new directions for our country -- realistic long overdue directions. You want to be reminded of them? Here's a short list -- full public financing of public elections -- merits not money should rule here; universal health insurance -- 55 years after President Truman proposed this to Congress (overdue?); a serious drive to abolish poverty (Nixon proposed one preliminary way to Congress); a living wage for tens of millions of workers making under $10 an hour (adjust to inflation and even the 1968 federal minimum wage could be $8 an hour today, not $5.15); strong enforcement against corporate crime, fraud, and abuse that has looted or drained trillions of dollars from innocent workers, their pensions and investors; a non-lip service, comprehensive nurturing of the physical and educational needs of children who require more time with their parents; reforming the criminal injustice system and strengthening our civil liberties, civil rights and civil justice remedies now being restricted; a redirected federal budget for the crucial priorities of our country, away from the massive waste, fraud and redundancy of what President Eisenhower called the "military industrial complex" and away from vast corporate subsidies; shifting the incidence of taxation to the polluting, stock speculation and addictive industries; sustainable economies with environmentally benign technologies that respect the Earth's biosphere; a multi-faceted foreign policy to wage multilateral peace, promote arms control; and using our enabling assets with the creative genius in the Third World to lift prospects for impoverished billions abroad; addressing the crisis from big agri-business domination of food production and processing that spells extinction of the small family farm economy with far-reaching consequences: for nutrition, land, water and bio-manipulation here and around the world.

Do you want to see another mandateless, dreary Presidential campaign that ignores these critical subjects, that doesn't take seriously the necessity for solar energy, affordable housing, modern public transit, repeal of laws that obstruct trade union organization by millions of workers mired in poverty by wages that cannot meet their minimum family livelihoods? Advocacy groups that have long supported these sensible policies should make demands on the Democratic Party and its candidates to ensure these necessities reflect vigorous mandates. They should not give him their support without making such demands.

What all this boils down to is the resurgence of powerful civic values which subordinate the dominance of commercial values that are taking down both our country and the standards of democratic, honest governance that Americans crave and deserve.

You can agree with all this and still say that this candidacy will take away votes from the Democratic candidate. If so, you also have to assess how many more votes the Democratic nominee will receive by (a) being pressed to appeal more forcefully for the interests of the people and (b) how many effective modes and critiques he can pick up from the independent candidate to improve the prospects of defeating Bush and (c) a more exciting campaign that brings more progressive voters out which, in a rigged, winner-take all system unfortunately would go to the Democrats in large percentages. By the way, there are astute political observers who believe that the Greens pushing Gore to more populist rhetoric allowed Gore to get many more voters.

Now what about the Senate and the House? In 2002, the Republicans won the Senate by 41,000 swing votes and the House by about 100,000 swing votes. This was not supposed to happen in an off election year. That it did happen was due in no small part, leading Progressive Democrats in Congress tell us, to their Party narrowcasting that election toward the few contested districts instead of also nationalizing the election, (as Newt Gingrich did in 1994 to a stunning success), on the daily front page issue of the corporate scandals and the corporate crooks who were very close to top Republicans, including Bush and Cheney, in the present Administration. By turning Bush into a "wartime president," with the open-ended, unconstitutional war resolution of October 2002 against the Iraqi dictator, the Democrats made it easy for the President to campaign against Democrats in state after state without rebuttal.

Do the Democrats need a spillover vote produced by an independent candidate? Some top Democrats have said they would welcome this *part* of the strategy. (Also see The Hill, January 29, 200, for what Congressional Democrats secretly hope for.) If they need their conventional “what if” reinforcement, they can ask Senator Maria Cantwell how the very large Green spillover vote in 2003 helped elect her by a narrow margin of 2,229 votes over her incumbent opponent.

So, in summary, our approach can help defeat Bush, strengthen the progressive forces inside the Democratic Party by successfully amplifying ways to end this regime, while simultaneously furthering the *longer range expansion* of the forces of peace, justice and democracy in future elections and nourishing a more vigorous civic movement as well.

After thinking about this, you may still judge that the infinitesimal risk that is worrying you is too important to take compared to the higher risks that the Democrats on their present path will not only lose the election to Bush, but maybe lose near the scale of a Dukakis or Mondale defeat and destroy their chances of recovering even one house of Congress, with accompanying losses on the state and local ballot lines.

We believe that two fronts are better than one if conducted collaboratively on those objectives held in common, without compromising either candidacy. To wallow in the squabble of "spoiler" is to plunge into second-class citizenship scapegoating which will get the Democrats nowhere. Think strategically out of the box and you will have three arenas to block Bush -- evict him from the White House or, helped by a spillover, recover one or both of the Houses of Congress not to mention affecting state and local races. Generally speaking, with a few luminous exceptions, the Democrats have been on a losing team for ten years -- the House, the Senate, the state legislatures and the state Governorships. Their language is stale when it is candid, and servile when it is bought and paid for. The alternative in a rigged political system to defeat Bush is to respect small candidacies that can demonstrate high standards and big ways to defeat Bush as well as produce a spillover vote to recover at least one House of the Congress.

From our viewpoint, a renewed respect will be accorded the civil liberties of third parties and Independent candidates to exercise their right to reform the political system and not be told to remain silent and not speak by not running. It is a sad day when the electoral Republican thieves cause the Democratic blunderers in the Florida 2000 election to lead some prominent or active liberals to take it out on future candidates who might help jolt their beloved but stagnant Party into the minds of more voters.

At the very least, kindly consider withholding judgment and wait and see.

Sincerely,
Ralph Nader

We didn't already see what happened in 2000?

You have not looked at the statistics and all the complexities of 2000. Gore didn't "lose" votes that were not Gore's. Gore doesn't own anyone, and you can't just assume that Nader voters were potential Gore voters, anyways. Many were not. Many

Please read the argument that Nader offers, instead of reiterating that tired, old, so often brandied about, cliched propagandistic meme that is really just a convenient excuse that democrats use for democrat failures. The democratic party needs to be held to task for failures, instead of deflecting. If the party does not (because of a scapegoat) hold the strategists/leadership to task on failures, the rank and file have no way to root out repeated failures (which might even be caused by moles or operatives within the party who have ulterior motives, for all we know).

Why not hold the democratic strategists and advisors, who were much more culpable in what occured, responsible for 2000? And what about 2002? No one talks about 2002 because no one has Nader as the convenient scapegoat to blame. If dems didnt' buy into all these propagandistic scapegoating, they would hold party leadership responsible for these irresponsible "loses" and demand better strategists and strategy.

Remember, the democratic party did nothing about the Florida Voters who were scrubbed from the polls, which was a total violation of voting and civil rights. That is very telling, and very sad. The democratic party shows itself for not dealing with this issue, which could have helped Gore "win" his "won" election.

...like thinking "strategically out of the box"?

Maybe some brandy would help. I have had a lot of respect for Nader in the past, but he's broken his word once too often for my tastes (and before you ask, I mean the promise not to campaign late in the game in swing states in 2000).

He's trying to hold up the party with an empty gun. I can agree with his views on other things (including that he wasn't the single cause for *'s selection in 2000) all day long, and this will still not change the fact that he is running against the Democratic candidate. And frankly he has neither the clout nor nearly enough history with the party to begin trying to show us the light.

If democrats want to think that 5% of the people who are angry at both the other partis are some meaningless "empty" gun...so be it.

I think it's stupid as hell strategically to leave people feeling unrepresented, alienated and marginalized -- but, hey, what do I know?

But Kerry can do what he wants. Only, this time there will be no excuse if he loses this election. He should know better and he'll have had ample time to consider the strategic choices he makes (with Nader in the race).

If Kerry does win and we do not pull out of Iraq, become further entrenched in bad free-trade agreements, further involved in American imperialistic foreign policy agenads -- the blood will still be there, bu on the hands of democrats who were ABB.

...and sure, the fringe on both sides will always help define the debate. But you've said yourself, there's no way we can intuit the motivations of this 5% who want to vote for Nader. So why assume it's because of his policy?

Further, I'm a little tired of the people who have co-opted "ABB" and given it their own definition. ABB was a peace sign, an olive branch between candidate camps during the primaries. It has nothing to do with "settling" for someone; it has everything to do with the shared values of the people who make up the Democratic Party.

"I think it's stupid as hell strategically to leave people feeling unrepresented, alienated and marginalized -- but, hey, what do I know?"

Think of how the Republicans will feel when Kerry wins.

5% marginal -- okay, if you say so.

ABB may have initially meant something else - but its the EFFECT of ABB that matters.

88,000 Florida votes went to Nader. Bush's supposed margin of victory was less than a thousand. If Gore had received two or three thousand more than he did, there would have been no need for a recount and no possible way for Bush to steal Florida. So it doesn't matter whether "many many" of the Nader votes wouldn't have gone to Gore, he only needed a tiny percentage of them.

Go ahead and compete with Nader for the most times you can use the words "Democrats" and "failure" together in a sentence. It really shows whose side you're not on.

There is no basis for this noise about Democratic strategists and advisors being "culpable" for anything in the 2000 election. You say you didn't like things about Gore's campaign? You should have told us that you personally were going to decide the election, so we could have fixed those things for you.

There was nothing for the Democratic Party to do about the scrubbing of the voters in Florida, certainly nothing that would have changed the outcome of the election.

Yes, "nobody owns votes" and yes, Gore should have worked harder to win those Nader voters over, but come on! If Nader hadn't run (which yes, he has every right to, but COME ON!) Gore would have won. Case closed. There's no arguing that point. This time he should make his points some other way. Support Kucinich, how about?

I do not think that is true.

I would be happier - but we need the middle - and for those who are quite left - Kerry could not get left enough to replace Nader or staying home.

Indeed, Bush also went for the "middle"...(that always tends to veer more and more to the right).

Middle is so often the word both parties use as an excuse for their corporate interests and paymasters. Its a word used as an excuse to avoid taking any stances on real issues (such as the war), and to support the corporate interests.

The "we need the middle" argument is a fallacy that is being promoted in order to make the democratic party lose sight of democratic principles.

People's politics are not so cut and dry as a linear diagram would suggest. Again, I would ask you to read Nader's arguments in which he explains the demographics of his constituency, who are very much all over the political spectrum.

Last I looked it was 6 to 1 against Kerry - just about guarantees a Bush win in some states.

The last thing I want is Kerry to move to the center and even the right.

:-)

Dear Ralph:

Who cares what you think?

Oh yeah, from that unelected fraud who thinks he's President.

Please tell me ONE thing not true in Nader's letter.

You don't have to vote for the guy to admit he's right. But you do have to admit that the Democratic party "leadership" has sold out.

Thanks.

That you don't care what 5% of Americans think -- hey! Great! You shouldn't care if Kerry loses, then, either.

I remember a quote like that... does anyone know?

I wish Nader would just give it up. I heard him on NPR today and he wants to meet with Kerry and discuss the future, issues... asked whether he would consider dropping out if they could come to some agreement, he directly said "no".

The guy is an egotistical nutjob. People would actually listen to him more IF he dropped out. He has to know that his candidacy harms Kerry's chances of winning. Looking at polls taken recently show exactly what could happen.

He really deep down must not really give a shit about whether Bush gets in or not. Otherwise, he would get a goddamn clue.

Funny...still calling Nader an egotistical nutjob. I guess you think the 5% who support him are also egostistical nutjobs. If being sick and tired of being shut out of the political arena, letting the government be destroyed by corporate interests, having the democratic party betray democratic principles, and having no political representation is egotistical -- I guess there's alot of egotistical nutjobs out there. Kerry better work hard to get the votes of these egotistical nutjobs, or he might lose.

The fact that arguments against Nader are often just telling him to get out, to die, to get a pie thrown in his face, or that he's an egotistical, or a kook -- show a sort of flailing temper tantrum due to political inefficacy. Nader is right when he says these sorts of far-reaching accusations mean that the democrats have run out of arguments.

"people would actually listen to him more IF he dropped out?"
You've got to be kidding! What an absurd argument...so, if people become less engaged in the political arena, they are listened to more? By your reasoning, maybe Kerry should get out so that Bush would listen to him.

The fact that arguments against Nader are often just telling him to get out, to die, to get a pie thrown in his face, or that he's an egotistical, or a kook -- show a sort of flailing temper tantrum due to political inefficacy. Nader is right when he says these sorts of far-reaching accusations mean that the democrats have run out of arguments.

The reason the arguments are like this is because we already know that he knows better and that his followers know better too. It's not an issue that we need to convince people that it's better to get 50% of what you want rather than 5%; they already know it. It's an issue about getting people to stop acting against their own interests and stop being a danger to themselves.

get "people to stop acting against their own interests and stop being a danger to themselves" then outlaw democracy. Of course the Christian Coalition also want to play nanny, so the issue of who decides who is being a danger to themselves might get a little testy.
:shrug:

I tried to be a little bit nicer than that and imply that the Nader voters were somewhat rational and could maybe be convinced with, say, the kind of tactics that you use to deal with self-destructive adolescents - you're saying I'm saying that I'm advocating using more of the kind of tactics you use with criminals or committed mental patients. There's a big difference.

terms like "self-destructive adolescents" or "a danger to themselves" Sounds a bit condescending to me.

We've tried being rational.

Part of the problem with courting these Nader voters is you don't know that if you give them some things, they'll find some other excuse not to vote for some of their own interests rather than lose most of them. You could put a really right-wing in office, who could put right-wing Supreme Court justices that won't leave for at least ten years plus you can't vote them out and they still won't vote against him! They want people to respect their opinions when they demonstrate that they think like that?

I get concerned when I see the same argument again and again. Yet again the argument is all about how dems need to vote out of fear of Bush. The only arguments that Democrats use are "Fear of Bush" arguments. Vote dem or else terrible things will happen!

What the hell? Shouldn't the party do something more than "protect" us (badly, I might add) from the big, bad Republicans? Shouldn't the party stand for something? Wouldn't standing for something and having ideas for change get more voters out?

I fear that the party isn't interested in really representing people, and that is why they are dependent on Bush fear-mongering as a diversion tactic while the party supports all sorts of corporate and republican interests. By the way -- the dem candidate who voted Bush IWR, the Patriot Act and Fast Track...so, its not like the dems are helping the repubs at all...are they?

You think this election is not contentious? You think there's not actually things being decided by who wins? Come on! Yes, standing against Bush* is standing for something else, and people are afraid of Bush*. Real, genuine people - not just through donations to Kerry, but MoveOn, all that. And a lot of rich people who get rich off of big corporations are donating a lot more to Bush*...and some of them are donating to Nader too! Can't you see - Nader is serving their interests. Your argument is living in the past.

Nader is bringing up alot of issues that Kerry cannot and will not bring up - because he challenges the corporate control of our government. Nader is anti-NAFTA, anti-WTO, he wants us out of Iraq as soon as possible, he wants a $10.00 an hour minimum wage, health insurance for all, an end to corporate crime, etc.

Again, the fact that democrats browbeat the rank and file into submission using threats of Bush shows they care less about representing people than controlling people. It's basically a way of terrorizing people into supporting the party without giving people anything -- no real representation, no real issues. And, yes, they do a poor job of stopping republicans. If you blame Nader for 2000, you can still look at 2002 for an example of this sort of failure. Look at the votes for Patriot Act, IWR, Fast track for other examples.
I'm sure that there are tons of sincere people who donate to Kerry and Move-ON, but there are also tons of sincere, genuine people who are donating to Nader.

Bush-hatred and fear is extreme and over the top when it gets in the way of common sense and evaluating both parties and the corporate corruption over Washington. Yeah, Bush is bad, but the democrats have created a sort of extreme fear of Bush that has made people irrationally afraid and scared. I basically think its just like the way bush uses the "terror alert level" to whack and scare his rank and file into submission -- the dems use Bush to do the same thing.

You know a funny aside is that -- a lot of rich people who get rich of big corporations IS JOHN KERRY AND HIS WIFE. Besides, again - there are plenty of people who are donating to both BUSH AND KERRY, and plenty of people who are rich who want to get rich of big corporations donating to just KERRY. Nader only accepts individual contributions of less than $2,000. That's all I have to say about that.

It seems to me the rank and file of the Democratic Party are animated this year by a cold resolve to evict the criminals of the '00 Coup from office, and mean to see that done come Hell or high water.

The things which seem to animate you are not the things that seem most urgent to the rank and file of the Party, which is why the positions you adopt garnered so few votes during the primary campaign, and so little footing in the electoral process.

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

And that's the whole question here - who can actually execute. You can say you're gonna do all sorts of things if you have zero chance of actually getting them done. The easiest way of not breaking your campaign promises is not getting elected.

It's basically a way of terrorizing people into supporting the party without giving people anything -- no real representation, no real issues.

Bunk. This is just a lie. I've listed a lot of issues.

Listen - why would I and so many other people here be so adamant about ABB if there was no reason to be? That just makes no sense. I'm sick of hearing this lie that there's no difference between the two parties! There's tons of information on this board to refute that, some of it was posted by me in this thread.

You know a funny aside is that -- a lot of rich people who get rich of big corporations IS JOHN KERRY AND HIS WIFE. Besides, again - there are plenty of people who are donating to both BUSH AND KERRY, and plenty of people who are rich who want to get rich of big corporations donating to just KERRY. Nader only accepts individual contributions of less than $2,000. That's all I have to say about that.

Check the sums of the two candidates' funds and you'll see an overwhelming pattern.

The "Nader only accepts individual contributions of less than $2,000" part makes me think this whole thing is a joke - Bush and Kerry also only accept contributions of $2000 or less because it's the law.

"Bad things" will indeed happen if the criminals of the '00 Coup are returned to office. For your part, you do not even attempt to deny that; you merely urge people to ignore it, as if preventing damage to the people and the country and the world is somehow not worth considering in assessing a proper course of action. Why you consider fear an improper motivator for action is beyond me; it is one of the most basic animal drives to proper action for survival and aggrandizement, and accordingly is a most proper tool for political action, that anyone interested in a mass effect would be extremely foolish to abjure.

The remainder of your suggestions are rooted in the idea that there are large numbers of people out there who agree with you, but somehow have for decades neglected to act on that agreement, though you are sure they could all be rallied out today in their myriads. But the fact is that these like-minded legions are phantoms of your own making: they do not actually exist. Decades of left activism on the lines you urge would have raised them up as an electoral force, if they were actually there. It is certainly understandable that persons who find there are few who will agree with them conjure up great wells of secret support, for comfort against the realization of their marginal status, but such illusions are a poor guide for action.

"If a man will continue to insist that two and two do not make four, I know of nothing in the power of argument that can stop up his mouth."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

He was there back when they wrote the constitution.

I may have very good and valid reasons for NOT listening or responding to someone (that you may be unawares of). Please do not refer to me SPECIFICALLY when you scold me into listening to someone. You don't know whether or not I WANT to listen to that person or engage in postings with someone. I might have some very valid reasons.

I just dig how The Magistrate writes like an Enlightenment-era intellectual.

My apologies.

"Agree with me about everything." Nobody gets everything they want in politics. You have to pick off the menu. The real menu, that is - the list of candidates who actually have a chance of being elected.

I am a Nader 'supporter' though I won't be voting for him. I just saw him speak last week and saw many friends who are also 'supporters' most who will probably not be voting for him. The fact is, we support his 'message' and feel that it is important that is gets heard. I support his right to run for president. We are not a danger to ourselves or anybody else...
I don' think you will find enough actual Nader 'voters' to warrant your concern, better to be getting 'non-voters' to the polls. Did you know that single women if motivated could easily decide the election for example?

First - you're math (50% of what you want rahter than 5%) just makes absolutely no sense in a mathematically or logical way...so there's no arguign with it. Besides, this is politics, not a mathematical word problem. It's much more complex than that.

The rest of what you claim is likewise completely over the top. Nice attempt at propaganda, too bad that strategically its not so clever, as its completely insulting and alienating to a whole lot of people. In addition, it just supports my argument.

Call Nader supporters "followers"...cute, isn't it? No, its not like Nader has any REAL political support -- they must all be a bunch of cultist loonies, or something. It's the same old "I can't really argue, so I'll resort to inane and abusrd propagandistic tactic" that I've seen so often. And, yet again this is proof pf Nader's point that the democrats have run out of arguments.

Oh? This is also a nice little "jab" - you are accusing people who support Nader of being a "danger to themselves".

You say its' "about getting people to stop acting against their own interests and stop being a danger to themselves."

That's also very propandistic of you and shows the sort of "lack of real discussion" and common sense that I feel is occuring. So, instead of real discussion -- let's just accuse the 5% who support Nader of being a "danger to themselves". Let's make them out seem like they are like the mentally ill or something, or children who don't know what is best for themselves, or hysterical women (something of this nature). Hey -- why don't we institutionalize these people who are such a danger to themselves?

This patronizing comment shows not only this ineffective "flailing" that I describe, but it also shows a patronizing attitude and arrogance that shows a spiteful hatred towards democracy.

You just again substantiate my claim that the democrats use heavy-handed fear tactics, and ad absurdum arguments and bullying behavior to gain support -- instead of real debate and respectful discussion over the issues that involves substantial and meaningful action.

That's also very propandistic of you and shows the sort of "lack of real discussion" and common sense that I feel is occuring.

There's been plenty of real discussion, that's my whole point! Someone counted like a hundred or two hundred-some threads that weekend that Nader announced! It gets tiring seeing the same anti-Nader threads over and over! So what do you do once you've had all that discussion and someone is still acting irrational? My whole point is that all the pie-throwing talk is just plan B for some people - plan A was rational discussion.

It is difficult to put a number on things, like how many bills would get passed one way or another, because some are more important than others. So I'll list a number of issues, and you can tell me which ones are worth surrendering to George W. Bush, so we know the nature of this action. Here goes:

- global warming - estimated 160,000 people dying per year (that's 640,000 in four years, there goes my math again)
- unemployment
- gay civil unions
- weakening of military due to unneccesary wars
- increasing isolation from other nations
- weakening of war on terror due to lack of diplomacy
- right-wing Supreme Court justices

This way, people here on DU who are affected by these issues can know that they should sit tight for four or ten or twenty years while Ralph remakes the Democratic Party - it'll be worth it!

Well, it looks like alot of it HAS been surrendered to George W. Bush byt he democrats, hasn't it?

No, I dont' buy that Kerry is anti-war -- he's got an imperialist plan and it doeesn't look like he wants us out of Iraq any time soon.
Kerry's not into 'isolation' because he wants to have a nice "multilateral" war in Iraq (the "right" way for the war as he would say). Also, Kerry isn't into "isolation" when it comes to free trade, either -- he'd be happy selling off American sovreignty for the interests of corporatism. Besides, Kerry voted for the war?

By the way, I believe in COMPLETE EQUAL RIGHTS for gays (or anyone else for that matter) which would include Marriage if that's also a right for anyone else.

The only thing that is left is right-wing Supreme Court Justices...but hey, if the dems were really concerned about that they could do things like WIN ELECTIONS (unlike in 2002) so they had power to prevent them.

But, keeping the arguments down to the difference between Bush and kerry sure prohibits alot of other political issues from being discussed, doesn't it? It's a hell of a way to keep the debate narrow and uncontroversial (and corporate).

What do you think about abolishing WTO and NAFTA and having FAIR TRADE and not just free trade? A $10.00 an hour minimum wage? Shareholders' rights? Fighting corporate Crime and corruption? The asthma epidemic in inner city children? Environmental racism (pollution effecting certain people disproportionately)? Reparations? The public airwaves being sold off into monopolies? The problems of mass media and media bias? Universal Health insurance? Electoral reform? A government that supports Family Farms? Putting an end to poverty? Reforming the criminal "injustice" system? The repeal of Taft Hartley and an Employee's Bill of Rights? An end to the war on drugs? Consumer justice? Better motor vehicle safety?

Cuz Nader's got a WHOLE HELL LOT OF THINGS to say that aren't even going to be brought up by the two party duopoly. They've got tacit agreements to avoid so many issues.

Completely pulling out of Iraq when they've already threatened to have a civil war anyways is not a responsible position, and it does not respect the Iraqi human lives that would be lost if we were to leave them without the government and infrastructure that we've already taken away.

By the way, I believe in COMPLETE EQUAL RIGHTS for gays (or anyone else for that matter) which would include Marriage if that's also a right for anyone else.

My whole point is believing in any of these issues doesn't get any of them done.

The only thing that is left is right-wing Supreme Court Justices...but hey, if the dems were really concerned about that they could do things like WIN ELECTIONS (unlike in 2002) so they had power to prevent them.

And this thread is all about what?

But, keeping the arguments down to the difference between Bush and kerry sure prohibits alot of other political issues from being discussed, doesn't it? It's a hell of a way to keep the debate narrow and uncontroversial (and corporate).

Tell you what, work on not making things worse and a little better, and you'll be closer to getting what you want next time instead of farther away. How about working to make sure that the rest of the Democratic party constituents know about these things, so they're not just fringe issues, and they'll float to the top (after, of course, these big difference between Bush* and Kerry are dealt with). The first step is convincing people you're reasonable. In deciding who to spend my time listening to, people who are willing to throw away a ton of important stuff waiting for some other things do not rank high.

he certainly makes a sincere effort to communicate his viewpoint.
I hope people at least read it before commenting.

Not happily, but I am doing it.

that says the way to protest is to remove your voice from the process...

Some of what I am about to say falls into the chicken and egg argument....

Haven't we learned that the removal of rank and file Dem's support at a time when less people identify as Dems forced the politician's to seek money to win elections from special interest?

Part of the decline of the Party falls squarely on our shoulders as rank and file Dems....

If you want to change the Party, we need to become as important to them as the monied interests who have taken over the Party....

A student of mine talked about running for a state legislative office. He got an invitation from the Christian Coalition (CC) for their endorsement. He threw it out, his campaign manager asked him if he was crazy and told him to go....and 8 Repubs running for office went to the CC's office and sat and were interviewed by the CC board members. The person picked by the CC won in a landslide...

Did they get this powerful by pulling out of the repub party? Did they just form their organization one day and boom...they got all this power?

FUCK NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They got this power by providing something that politicians need....money and votes!!! And to do this, they had to build this up over time...

SO I say to Nader.....screw you moran!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am going to help build up a progressive organization that will not only rival the DLC, but will make its further existence a joke....

Consider this: If 600,000 people donate $20 a month for 6 months, we can raise $1 million for the 40 most competitive House races and $6 million for the 6 most competitive Senate races...

Do you think the party would take notice of that?

Once hooked....you make demands...."so you liked that help Speaker Pelosi? You want to stay Speaker? Well maybe you should pass that health care package we talked about...oh yeah, and get rid of the Patriot Act....what's that...who's giving you trouble? Don't worry, we have just the guy to kick his ass in the next primary...and you might want to let him know that....straighten his ass out...."

That's how you change the Democratic Party.....nice try Ralph, maybe in make believe American election land that's how things work, but it is time to start playing hard ball with the party!!!!

"I never understood that mindset that says the way to protest is to remove your voice from the process"
Funny, because I would argue that being ABB is what is really removing your vote from the process. Becaue being ABB is, in effect, being happy with anything (as long as its not Bush).

The party has used, long enough, the fact that there IS NO OUTSIDE COMPETITION as a way to avoid real change. They do it with women, minorities, GLBT, the elderly, etc. They'll say, yeah we're offering you nothing, but you have to live with it -- we're going to the center and we don't care about you (because, haha, you don't have any other choice, anyways).

The party basically has a whole bunch of people corndered out of fear (always of a republican) instead of from offering agendas and substantial policies that people are truly happy about -- and its not right. So, to deny competition is to deny representation to people who are often marginalized by the party's inefficacy.

Part of the reason that the DLC is in question is because of Naders and his supporters leaving the party -- that is a "voice" that causes change. You are discussing building an alternative to the DLC, but part of the reason that there has been debate about this is due to Nader. Yet, you claim he and his supporters are somehow voiceless.


"That's how you change the Democratic Party.....nice try Ralph, maybe in make believe American election land that's how things work, but it is time to start playing hard ball with the party!!!!"

Is Nader in make believe American election land? If so, no one should worry about Nader, yet everyone does. I mean, if its' just make beleive, Nader should have no impact, right?

You claim that you can play hard ball with the party from INSIDE. So, is being ABB playing hardball? Is taking unity pledges playing hardball? Is cowering to a party who is using Bush as their raison d'etre (so as to offer no substantial policies or changes) playing hardball? Hell, what happened to Kucinich when he worked from inside the party? Remember, part of Kucinich's argument is that the party must change (so Nader won't get votes)...but that means that Kucinich is arguing that outside powers may cause internal changes.

It's fine to work from within the party, but it's not logical to think that outside force and pressure isn't absolutley crucial to that inside-work. Hell, it's called competition. There is a history of third parties who have received little votes but have put enormous pressures on the major parties to effect change from within.

Nader calls his campaign a "trimtab" campaign. Look into it, because it explains what is going and something about independent/third party politics.

or even attempted to defend it...

Thanks for "reading" my post...you ignored all my points about changing the behavior of politicians and focused on a point I never made...

I was responding to the tactics that Nader thinks will work. I would point out that you live in a country that uses SMD voting and that voting for Nader in a state where the race is close is sending a signal alright...it's saying your voting for Bush...

The only way to say that you are not is to say that there is no difference between kerry and Bush, an argument that was weak when it was Gore and Bush running...

All the groups that you mentioned have been pushed to the side because they provide nothing of substance to the politicans....sorry, but it is true....unless you give money or votes, you don't matter...the higher the electoral stakes, the less votes matter and the more money does....

We can talk all day about the way the system should be....but that is never going to do anything to change the system. The two parties control the system....any change will come from them....

As for pushing for change....how far down the shithole do you need this country to slide before you'll be satisfied you "message" has been received?

Many people who support this argument also ignore that the Dems are responding....now what caused them to get a backbone? Hmmmmmmmmmm? You don't think it was all that mad cash Dean raised do you?!

And what have we done in return....the Party has opened up blog sites, Daschle has had several major speeches, Pelosi has pushed back hard in the House on investigations and in the House elections....Did anyone here contact them and say atta boy! Way to Go! Did anyone donate to the DCCC or the DSCC?

So when we have instances of good behavior...do we reward it? Or do we just sit back and piss and moan?

I also believe that many who claim to be working to make the Demacratic Party better have no intention to ever vote Dem...even if they come all the way over to their position?

Our country was formed on compromise...you can never get the perfect candidate (unless you yourself run...) so a little political maturity, especially considering the satkes would be appreciated!!!

Do you really think we will be able to survive the deficits that four more years of Bush will produce? You'll be lucky if you can even breath, let alone have clean air regulations!!!!!!

The Republicans generate themselves with corporate batteries while the Democrats try to play catch up in the corporate money-raising sweepstakes.

There is an unprecedented amount of grassroots money in Democratic campaign finance right now. He's acting like it's still 2000 or something.

with republican donors. nobody is above taking dirty money, not even nader.

funny. Nader only takes individual contributions below $2,000. He is very much against accepting any corporate contributions. Nader thinks elections should be publically (not corporately) financed, and he holds himself to that. Nader can't control the how/why that individuals contribute to him, nor can you determine their motivations.

If you read the post, you would actually see that some of Nader's support is from Republicans and Independents (and I'm talking votes, here). I have some people in my own family who are conservatives who support/vote Nader. They are not doing so because they want the Democrat to lose. They want Nader to win.

Besides, the, the democratic party and its members also take donations from those who donate to republicans. Are the democrats being given moneyk for instance, by the republican donors in order to throw elections? No. So, the implication that you purport is disengenous.

Care to comment on any of the other dozens of points?

They're almost all based on the idea that the Democrats serve corporate interests and people aren't involved in the political process, and just when we're starting to change that he wants to come in and risk us losing. I'd never participated in a campaign before now; does he want me to think it's futile or something? I and many more people are participating now; his goal is being achieved more than it was in 2000. What does he expect his candidacy to do to that? All these people that have been drawn into the process and worked hard will be angry at him.

If he wants to make us lose to teach us a lesson, tell him to do it after we've replaced a few Supreme Court justices. If we lose and some right-wing justices end up on the bench, we'll be feeling the effects for probably long after any change to the Democratic Party he proposes happens (if that change happens at all).

But I know that your claim that his ideas are all based on corporate money is totally wrong. How exactly is electoral reform (to allow a more diverse group of ideas to filter into government) tied to corporate money?

I think the fact that he gets so many Democrats totally worked up is a *good* thing. Maybe it will motivate more of us to help with GOTV efforts, instead of just expecting someone else to do it.

The DLC chosen one who voted for Bush's bullshit agenda. That proves that it's the system itself that is corrupt. Not just the Republicans. Hell, they're pro big business by nature, though it didn't used to be at the expense of all else. And the Democratic party wasn't about that at all, but it has turned into that. One reason they were scared shitless of Dean is because he proved he didn't need their corporate horseshit to fund a great campaign. We proved that we didn't need the corporate ass kissing Repukes in the DLC to get a national organization up and running. And that's why the Doc was targeted for assassination.

Now the DLC demands our loyalty, and sure enough, most are falling in line. How the fuck will anything ever change if the root of the problem is ignored? Nader might not be offering the best solution to the problem, but at least he's accurate in stating what the problem is.

John Kerry totally supports the Bush agenda. That's why Bush's supporters are spending some hundred-million-plus dollars on nasty ads to get rid of him. That's it. Totally pro-business. That's why all those same businessmen that donated don't really care who wins. Right.

...that must also be why rich Republicans are donating to Nader too!

Corporations love the duopoly, because it supports their agenda pretty well, either way. Yeah, I think that they tend to be a bit happier with the repubs in (but its not like corporations aren't smart enought to have loads of operative in the dem party, anyways).

Well. One thing is that those same businessmen are pretty concerned with keeping a two party system (a stranglehold on power) running things and serving their corporate agenda.
They really are more concerned with having a stranglehold on Washington that prohibits people from getting their voice heard, and they've got it in both the Republican and Democratic parties, no doubt.
They are most concerned with free trade issues. Thats why Kerry's pro-free trade votes and stances are so telling and of a concern to me.
If the power/money wasn't so entrenched and stagnant, causing corruption (which is the corporate way to gain influence in Washington), the people might TAKE CONTROL and start running their government, again. That's what corporations DON'T want.

Follow the money! They're supporting a third-party candidate because they prefer a certain other one! How can that be supporting the duopoly?

Wasn't Lieberman the DLC chosen one? And when he dropped out, wasn't Clark the DLC chosen one? And when he dropped out, wasn't Edwards the DLC chosen one?

It seems to me that the DLC needs to get its chooser fixed, if it can't choose any better than that. Or maybe, just maybe, this "DLC chosen one" noise is just a cheap smear against a candidate who wasn't your favorite.

:loveya:

Thanks for posting it. :thumbsup:

Wrecker Nader speaks of an independent candidacy that "does not believe the election has to be totally enclosed by zero-sum gaming among the major candidates." It is matter of fact that that is what the election is; belief has nothing to do with it. Persons who imagine belief is the operative factor here are engaged in magical thinking, hoping that if they believe something hard enough, that will make it true. This may be the teaching of various self-actualization swindlers, but it is not a good way to approach the world.

Wrecker Nader offers figures that indicate roughly twice as many of those who voted for him would have voted for Vice-President Gore as would have voted for the Republican, and indicate that about a fifth of his vote thus was drawn from Republicans. He then expends an extraordinary quantity of verbiage attempting to demonstrate that this shows he does not harm Democratic Party electoral prospects by his vanity candidacy. It is an entertaining display, as all attempts to evade plain facts and numbers generally are, on some level, but at bottom they amount to nothing more than comedic stylings: Wrecker Nader is a splinterist who will benefit only the worst elements of reaction by his actions.

Wrecker Nader's "two fronts are better than one" attempt is pure mendacity, and he must know it. He is not opening a second front against the current administration: in order to do that, he would have to direct his criticism at the current administration, and at no other target. This, Wrecker Nader does not do. Even in this screed above, he denounces the Democratic Party for raising the necessary funds to compete in the electoral arena, and urges the with-holding of support from the Democratic Party candidate for President if he does not knuckle under to specific demands of his. In the actual campaign, he will direct criticism not at the current administration, but at the Democratic Party and its candidate. He will do so for the same reasons most of the political consultants he denounces generally urge an appeal to the center of the polity: just as a professional interested in securing national victory realizes that is where the necessary votes are to be won, Wrecker Nader will realize that it is only on the disaffected extremities of the left that there are any appreciable number of votes he can win, and therefore his rhetoric will be aimed at rallying these to his standard. As a politician seeking his own aggrandizement, he can do no other, and so regardless of what cheerful burblings he engages in now, that is what he will do as his campaign developes. It can only work to the benefit of the criminals of the '00 Coup, by reducing the weight of votes behind the Democratic Party's candidate, who is the only personage that can actually encompass their defeat.

When a person does a thing with readily forseeable consequences, it must be inferred the person intends to bring about those consequences. Statements to the contrary are properly disregarded. Wrecker Nader's actions will harm the prospects of the Democratic Party's candidate for President, and Wrecker Nader's intent is to harm the prospects for success of the Democratic Party's candidate for President. As an open enemy of the Party's prospects, and a de facto ally of the worst elements of reaction in our polity, he deserves nothing but denunciation for what he is embarked upon today: a campaign to secure the continuation in office of the criminals of the '00 Coup.

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

The duopoly system is whacked and corrupted with money's influence. What else can you expect but two corporate drones like Bush and Bush Lite?

If there is more competition, there would be less corruption. Only wiht alternative choicec can the people demand change. The two party system isn't how our democracy was envisioned, nor how it should be. People blame republicans or democrats for all the ills, but at the core it's the two party system that is the enemy. It keeps a lock-hold on the government. It keeps corporations in, and people out. That is the tacit agreement that BOTH PARTIES share.

Without choice and competition, either party can foist all sorts of nonsense on their members and scare their rank and file into empty support of the party (while offerint nothing of real value). In each party there is Party Unity without Representation.

The two parties have basically worked together to enact legislation and form organizations (like the corrupt, corporate backed Commission on Presidential Debates) which basically lock out and squelch third party and independent candidates and therfore, CHOICE. The parties have worked, hand in hand, to make it so that the powerful and elite in BOTH parties REMAIN powerful. Both parties use party loyalism to support this two-headed monster that has become our government. This is all in spite of the public's interest, and all because of corporate corruption.

This leaves the two major Parties to regenerate themselves internally without external pushes and jolts.

External pressures have come to bear on BOTH parties, that's why the neocons have taken over the Repugs and the DeLitiCs have wrested so much control in ours.

We need to take the partIES back from within (yep--we were better off with, God help me, Reagan, than with Uncle Chimp). But it won't happen from without.

They aren't gonna pay any real attention to those giving time and funds to other parties, that's pretty basic.

No sympathy for Nadir, Not one remote ounce--he's a vanity candidate, and he seems more in bed with his corporate liasions than Kerry does with any of his.

could you offer any sort of evidence of the "corporate liasions" that Nader is in bed with? "Vanity" candidate -- just another over the top, democracy-hating trite cliche that is used by those who want to avoid real political issues that Nader brings to the table.

This is the same old PROPAGANDISTIC tactics used again and again, without any substantial debate or any hard evidence.

Oh, change happens from within? Yeah, right. Look at Kucinich. The dems sure gave him an ounce of respect, didn't they? Kucinich, by the way, always refers to Nader when he speaks of the necessity of his candidacy and why the democratic party must change. Is Kucinich stupid to believe that external pressure exerts forces?

Sorry, but the "change happening from within" is just the way the party tries to keep the rank and file in toe so that they don't exert REAL pressure from outside. Its basically a way to keep people passive and to marginalize people. Change can happen from within, but not without some form of outside pressure.

Nader's "fruit" is Bush.

That's it.

No Bush; no warmongering for political reasons to take the 2002 election. Nader made Bush.

...reminds me of Clinton's penis. :eyes: :think: :eyes:

LOL! Spot on!

:D

1994 - Loss of Congress

2000 - Not a damn finger lifted to help Gore

2002 - Losses in both houses of Congress in a midterm election which should have been a SLAM DUNK with such a shitty excuse for a pResident - except too many of the Democrats were enabling him.

2004 (so far) - Political assassination of the best candidate since RFK, and replacement with the weakest candidate out of the 10 initially running. (OK, maybe Sharpton was worse)

But I can't stand the thought of another four years of Bush. The DLC is a headache; Bush is a brain tumor.

third parties.

they preferred the term factions, and I don't think they were limited to a specific number, but
I think I'll do some research on that..

The White Men's Property Owners Party, though no one thought it necessary to speak the name. There were two tendencies within that, loosely analogous to Whigs and Tories, from the English parlance. The first identifiable factions were the Federalists, coalescing around Adams and Hamilton, and the Democratic Republicans, coalescing around Jefferson. Although the Federalists were more analogous to the Tories, they dissolved into the Whigs early in the 19th century. Mr. Lincoln began his career as a Whig.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

Stuff I learned in school that had become a little hazy in my memory. I couldn't remember if the terms Whigs and Tories were used much after the revolution, but the Federalists are more familiar to me. Did Lincoln actually call himself a Whigg?

but he pursued former Whig votes and at times argued that he was the rightful heir to the Whig political legacy.

Was elected to the Illinois legislature as a Whig, and to the House of Representatives, as a Congressman from Illinois, as a Whig. He did involve himself in the early formation of the Republican Party, an amalgam of Free-Soil, Whig, and northern Democrat elements, and ran as a Republican for Senator from Illinois in 1858 against Judge Douglas, who won the contest in the legislature: it was during that campaign that the famous debates occured, and these made Mr. Lincoln a national figure, for the quality of his argumentation there, in terms of both forensics and "speechifying." Transcripts of these are available, and cannot be recommended too highly as an introduction to practical politics in this country: the people have not really changed all that much, nor has the art of moving them.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

were the Federalists (Hamilton's party) and the Democratic Republicans (Jefferson's party). They weren't limited to two - they still aren't - but throughout American electoral history no more than two parties have ever been viable at the same time. The rest have just been splinter parties. One major party has to die utterly (Federalists, Whigs) before a new party can take its place. Our winner-take-all system virtually assures this.

There WERE NO parties when the country was born.

There IS NOTHING In our constituion which says we have a two-party system.

In fact, the republican party came out of a loose coalition of third parties and various interests banding together. One of the bigger of those was called the "free soil Party" and their members were called "free spoilers" (sound familiar?)

Third parties have been involved in effecting a wide variet of changes in the two major parties, as well. Women's voting rights has something to do with a third party movement.

The duopoly stranglehold is something new. Both parties have been basically making agreements between eachother to squelch out third parties and independent candidates. They do this through legislation which makes it difficult for third parties to get on ballots, and through corporate controlled, bi-partisan controlled debates (which are now in dispute). Read the above that Nader read for more info on this matter.

The two-party Stranglehold (the duopoly) only leads to the extreme consolidation of power (often in the corporate interest) which was never intended or envisioned by our forefathers.

and became viable only because the Whig party had utterly died and the Democratic Party had split itself into four sub-factions. Still, there were only two major parties at that time - Republican and Democrat. There have never been more than two major parties in the U.S. at the same time. It's not "something new." It has always been that way.

A two-party system was a feature solidly settled in English politics at the time of the Revolution here, and settled itself into place by the end of Gen. Washington's Presidency. It is true that the leading figures of the time spoke a good deal against faction, but they did not practice what they preached, because it served them better to organize their adherents than to do otherwise, and to combine among themselves for mutual assistance. The origional Federalist and Democratic Republican parties were in place before the end of the 18th century.

By the election of Gen. Jackson as a Democrat in 1828, over the second Adams, the Federalists had been routed entirely. Gen. Jackson is not much liked here, but his election was the seal of an expanded franchise, with all adult white men allowed the vote regardless of property, and represented a triumph of small-holder and frontier and workingmen's votes over bamking and mercantile and large landowner interests. During Gen. Jackson's second term, the Whig Party was established, incorporating an uneasy amalgam of banking, mercantile and frontier interests in revolt over economic mis-management and tariffs, from varying directions.

The first "third party" of this period were the "Know-Nothings", a nativist group rooted in anti-immigrant sentiment. They seem to have drawn more from the Whigs than otherwise, and enjoyed only a brief flouresence featuring a few minor electoral successes. In the decade before the Civil War, the strain of debate over "the Peculiar Institution" of slavery fractured both Whigs and Democrats, with the newer Whigs dissolving in the process. The Free-Soil Party, with a platform of free homesteads in the Territories, and the exclusion of slavery from same, arose as a brief insitution that became one of the major pillars of the Republican Party. The Democratic Party fractured into several factions, the most noteable of which was a southern, pro-slavery one which was the only one to survive intact through the Civil War.

In the period after the Civil War, the Republicans very much held the upper hand, and in one of ther odd reversals of political life, from their very success took on the lineaments of the surest guard of property and manufacturing and central authority, becoming something very close to the old Federalists, while enjoying a great deal of the small-holder support of the Whigs. The Democratic Party became an odd amalgam of Southern interests and immigrants and workingmen, almost by default. The leading "third party" of the latter 19th century was the Populist movement of the prairie states, formerly Republican voters mostly, rebelling against the eastern banks who maintained a stranglehold on their farms. These were led into the Democratic Party in the candidacy of Mr. Bryan. It is odd to look at an electoral map of the 1896 election, because it is almost exactly the reverse of one from the last Presidential election.

The unforseen Presidency of Mr. "Teddy" Roosevelt led to the leading "third party" of the early twentieth century. Doctrines of "noblesse oblige", and forward looking desire for modernization, had led to great support for "Progressivism" among many eastern and middle-western Republicans, and when the regulars of the Party moved to exalt Taft, Mr. Roosevelt led out the Progressives into his "Bull Moose" Party, and made the most respectable run for the Presidency any third party candidate has ever managed, resulting in the election of Prof. Wilson, the Democratic candidate, to the Presidency. In the following election of 1916, the great bulk of the Progressive vote went to President Wilson, and has largely remained there down the decades since.

The fracturing of the Democratic party into the Dixiecrats of Thurmond and the Progressives of Sec. Wallace, as well as the Regulars of President Truman, had no serious effect on the election of 1948, but it did help to hamstring the Democratic Party in the succeeding decade, and showed the difficulty of continued coexistence with the old Southern elements. This was brought to a head by the various Civil rights acts, and the Republican candidacy of Sen. Goldwater, who opposed them, in 1964. Since then the South has been reliably Republican, and threatens to remain so indefinitely.

Ross Perot's "third party" in 1992 drew votes from many who would normally have voted Republican, and was essential to the victory of President Clinton in that year. A great many of these repented their action in the next two years, and were greatly inflamed by some of controversies of the early days of President Clinton's administration, most noteably "gays in the military", and also by the long-standing corruprions of the House, most noteably the "post office" scandals, with the result that the off-year elections of '94 were unusually decisive.

The efforts of Wrecker Nader in 200 have been covered adequately elsewhere i this discussion, and so need not be touched on. It is clear that "third party" efforts have served mainly in our country's political history to convey blocks of voters from one party to another, and that none has ever been able to gain prominence in its own right except by incorporating large portions of an existing and disintigrating party.



A final note on the question of "corporate interest."

"Corporate interest" may be somewhat more a dominating principle today, but that is only because of changes in the form of economic activity, which at the start of the country consisted more of landed property and mercantile ventures, mostly either family or limited partnerships: widespread use of joint stock ventures in corporate form awaited improvements in communication and over-all security in economic affairs. The idea that the government of this, or of any other country, was ever un-concerned with advancing the economic interests of large property and mercantile and banking and manufacturing interests, is merest moonshine: government has always, and everywhere, been concerned with advancing these interests, with most of the by-play coming from attempts of one or another of these factions to use government to advance itself at the expense of the others.

"I was not born with knowledge, but being fond of antiquity, am quick to seek it."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

I dont believe he is the lesser of two evils, or "evil" at all.

as long as you drop out of the race a month before the election and ask that your supporters vote for John Kerry.

We completely understand what you are saying but Bu$h has already successfully convinced us that he is extremely hazardous to our health. Bu$h has got to go or you and all the rest of us may play a starring role in the hit action film "Final Solution". (A "must see" for all "Good Americans")

A Bu$h/Cheney Production.

Directed by John Ashcroft.

Distributed by GOP, Brownshirt and Associates.

I don't feel like retyping it all. Check out today's show in AA archives.

...I just wish he didn't do so while taking Republican money.

And I think I just hit on another possible reason for Republicans funding him, besides their hoped-for effect of drawing off liberal voters: so many people wrongly blame Nader for b*sh being in power, when the truth - that it was a planned and executed coup on multiple levels - is much harder to deal with (and the name Greg Palast may be unknown to many of them), that they automatically dismiss out of anger what Nader has to say, even if it's true (the degree to which such statements are true is somewhat debatable).

Nader may have been set up by the Republicans as a way to deflect people away from real change (much in the way that the DLC deflects real change), while talking about real change. He may even believe he can bring real change. I think he's being used, and unfortunately he's effective.

How many times have you heard a DUer, for instance, say that Nader is "full of shit", "totally wrong", "a liar" when he mentions (like Chomsky) that the two major parties are basically bought and sold?

Yeah, I think it's working verrrrrry well.

have zero interest in this particular Repuke's propaganda.

Sorry, Ralph. The only thing we ABB liberals are waiting to see is whther you're really as much of a megalomaniac as you seem.

Plus we don't believe anything you say since, as Micheal Moore reminded us today on O'Franken, you're a lying sack of shit.

His hope of suddenly envigorated voters will happen as soon as the witless are wise, the illiterate read, and the functionally illiterate wade through ostentatous wordiness.

He would well move the debate, the country leftward, allowing Democrats to move leftward, and allowing voters to vote leftward if he were allowed in the debate; a pipe dream of blind Democrats being visionary, the hopefull weak being smarter and stronger than Republican manipulator attack forces, and the DINOs remaining uncorrupted by hidden funds.

If Nader having envigorated voters with spotlight had with vision pulled out from tight Florida-like races the dream of leftward seeing and voting Americans may have happened. But no, he is as intransigent as the people he intends to move.

I love Ralph, just not presidential candidate Nader.

Is this what he tells himself?

"It is a sad day when the electoral Republican thieves cause the Democratic blunderers in the Florida 2000 election to lead some prominent or active liberals to take it out on future candidates who might help jolt their beloved but stagnant Party into the minds of more voters."

*snif* *snif*

:nopity:

Someone tell Mr. Nader that while most fully agree with his RIGHT to run for higher office, he is a political oponent of the Democratic party.

Then, I read some of the replies on here and began to lose hope again. Ego often keeps many good things from happening, IMO. I know that many feel that it is a love for power or money or whatever, but I feel that it stems mostly from EGO.

As for Nader, I haven't really listened to him at all or studied about him. But, I have been feeling that there are signs that he is trying to help instead of hinder. This letter seemed that way to me as well.

It's too bad that ego may keep this "working together" of sorts from happening.