Nader's campaign taking off

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59791-2004May1.html

The Power of a Peace Candidate

By Jackson Diehl
Sunday, May 2, 2004; Page B07


When Ralph Nader announced his independent candidacy for president in February, he claimed his chief target would be "the giant corporation in the White House . . . George W. Bush." Two months later, a more plausible agenda is beginning to emerge. The adversary is not Bush but John F. Kerry; the main subject is not corporate greed but Iraq. And, contrary to the conventional wisdom of win- ter, Nader may be poised for a hot summer.



In February it looked as if Iraq might not be a central issue in the fall campaign. U.S casualties hit a postwar low that month, Iraqis signed a transitional constitution, and Bush and Kerry seemed to agree on the goal of establishing a democracy. Nader, according even to old friends, seemed to have no reason for his campaign other than vanity.

By two weeks ago, when Nader met Washington political reporters at a breakfast, all that had changed. Twice as many American soldiers had died during the previous week in Iraq as during the entire month of February. Support for the war was dropping quickly in polls, but Kerry and Bush still mostly agreed on staying the course. And Nader had prepared a new pitch: The United States should pull all of its troops, civilian contractors and companies out of Iraq within six months.

Why should voters choose Nader? Because Kerry, Nader told the reporters, "is stuck in the Iraq quagmire the same way Bush is." That leaves the independent as the sole choice for "the peace movement in this country."

-continued-

Kerry needs to offer a real alternative to Bush instead of turning into Bush-lite.

People need to know there is a difference.

He just needs to define himself -- and I believe he is beginning to do so.

My Life as Ralph Nader's Flunkie

By Charles Pekow
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 27, 2004

Ralph Nader believes an independent candidacy should “generate more understandings and support for major new directions for our country.” His website says these new directions include “repeal of laws that obstruct trade union organization by millions of workers mired in poverty by wages that cannot meet their minimum family livelihoods.” The site prescribes “a living wage for tens of millions of workers making under $10 an hour.” But the perennial leftist candidate, whose name will appear on the presidential ballot for the third consecutive time this November, has not played by the same rules he strives to make binding for corporations and private businesses. In fact, when the minimum wage rose, he once cut back on the hours his technical staff would work. Despite the millions of dollars he commands, he historically paid his professional staff less than minimum wage. Nader, who told Business Week during the last campaign that he offers staff “unlimited sick leave,” ordered staffer George Riley to take a two-week leave of absence to work on a political campaign, refusing him to pay for the time. When I worked for Ralph Nader in 1980-81, he paid us $8,000 a year, hardly enough to get by on even then. We could scarcely afford the time to spend money, though, because Nader expected staff to work around the clock...."

"...Though Nader claims he wants to fight discrimination, he and his staff asked me my age, religion, sleeping habits, family tree, medical history and a lot of other highly personal questions in violation of District of Columbia’s employment law. In a Washington Post commentary, Sidney Wolfe, long time director of Nader’s Health Research Group complained that the government was forcing him to collect medical details on his employees that he did not want to know. This is strange, because he asked me all sorts of medical questions he had no legal right to ask about during our interview...."

"...Perhaps Nader’s greatest hypocrisy, though, is his brutal anti-union actions. Publicly, Nader declares support for organized labor, pronouncing on his campaign website that “the notorious Taft-Hartley Act that makes it extremely difficult for employees to organize unions needs to be repealed.” But he viciously busted attempts of his own employees to unionize.

“The day after we filed for recognition, the locks were changed. I was fired. A few days later, the other people were fired,” recalls Tim Shorrock, who edited the Multinational Monitor, a Nader magazine, in the 1980s. “They went after me in an incredibly vicious way. When they fired me, they asked me for all my boxes back,” including ones Shorrock had brought with him to the job and considered his personal property. Nader tried to have local police arrest Shorrock and sued him, a case later dropped. “It was pure harassment,” Shorrock says – the same type of high-handed pressure Nader condemns in government and business...."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13141

Tis entire article is simply tripe to anyone who has actually worked for a political candidate, mostly volunteers with a few very poorly paid but very comitted folks...the thought of Nader personally overseeing the staff is ridiculous and more from the neocons, how alike you folks are to your counterparts in the GOP.....

..for the label to stick, Kerry must be more like Bush on the issues than not.
So....

this is not about Ralph Nader but about the country.

What a self-righteous hypocrite.

He acts as if there's no blood on his hands.

to use force in iraq he wants to continue operation white mans burden i mean the occupation. Need we forget he also supported Plan Colombia

"Kerry's aides say he's still committed to keeping American troops in Iraq until democratic elections are held. If that's his position in November, Nader will indeed offer antiwar Americans a real choice. They may well vote for him, registering their protest in large enough numbers to reelect the president who led the country into Iraq in the first place."

1> He voted to give authority for military action if required. I was against this vote, however, it is clear that he did not vote for the course Bush took.

2> Now that Bush did betray congress, and the entire US for that matter, the relaities have changed. Kerry offers a reasonable solution to the current Bush made mess. You don't have to agree with it completely or even at all. To say it is the same plan as Bush's is extremely off-the-mark.

I don't give a rats ass if you criticise Kerry on his 2002 vote, or his stated goals in addressing the current Iraq issues. If you do choose to do so, at least be fair and accurate in your assessments.

"(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Kerry gave Bush carte blanche ("as he determines to be necessary and appropriate") to "use the Armed Forces of the United States...(2) to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

How many times do we need to go over this? The democrats who voted for this authorization gave Bush carte blanche to enforce security council resolutions regarding Iraq. No ambiguity. No vagueness. A big mistake.

a1 There was no iraqi threat
a2 there was no un resolution that autorized force.

You make my argument.

I agree that no dem should have voted for the resoultion, but define it for what it says, not how the White House twisted it to fit their illegal goals.

(and stop witht he insults)

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

Fucking Greenies are dumber than dogshit. I hope they like hearing "Chief Justice Scalia" and "Roe overturned," because if they're successful that's what they're going to get!

He is not associated with them in the election.

Misplaced venom.

and that light green hue that eminates from Yucca Mountain. Oh yeah, the trees? We've had to cut them down to keep them from burning, and we're now allowing higher concentrations of arsenic in your drinking water. I don't hear Ralph Inc. complaining about any of these issues, and the voters who created them.

as he had last time.

What's at issue is how many will actually vote for him this November. I know quite a few fellow Nader-2000 voters, and saw several at yesterday's May Day Rally in Seattle. Few if any will be voting for him this year (I know I won't). And Washington is a "safe" state for such protest votes.

QUIT this counter-productive agonizing over anti-mainstream candidates, and concentrate on showing them that the Democratic tent is big enough for them. Nader (as with Kucinich, Sharpton, and Mosely-Braun) have a far clearer idea of what's wrong with our political system than does Kerry (or Dean, Clarke, Edwards, or even Gephart). In our hearts, most here know that. If you know of verifiable instances of GOP financing Nader groups, point it out to them. But don't do as is done in Freeperland ... make things up.

pnorman

if I say what I want to say right now I could get reprimanded or banned.

This is DEMOCRATIC Underground. We are working to elect the DEMOCRATIC candidate, to achieve DEMOCRATIC goals. Ralph Nader is antithetical to our purposes, hope and dreams - and the betterment of our country and our world.

but the things I really want to say about Nader and his supporters are pretty bad, so I will bite my tongue...for now.

are proving that they are just as intolerant of another point of view as the republicans.

Also there seems to be a total state of denial of the fact that the primary was handled in such a way that gave an advantage to certain candidates and disadvantaged others. This is spite of McAuliffe's statements.

I really do think the democratic party has a problem. So far, the only response I see is to accusations of being freepers. That's non-productive.

Kerry may win, but if people have to "hold their noses as they cast their vote" as has been stated here on the DU, what does this mean for the next election when Bush isn't there anymore?

I think there is a possibility he might come from Bush from the right - witness his proposal to ADD troops to Iraq. Ugh.

Gotta keep Kerry honest by threatening him with a Nader vote.

troops. We need a bunch of blue helmet guys right away

And it's just so surprising that he would be targeting disgruntled Dean voters.

Nader: the test of whether your Inner Reactionary Teenager controls your political judgment.

He's been moving so far to the right though lately it's getting harder and harder for me to pull that lever.

My concerns are not with his domestic policy, and indeed he has an excellent domestic agenda.

I do however worry about his foreign policy after watching his speech on Iraq the other day.

I fully understand that only one of two men, Bush and Kerry, will be in the WH in 2005.


I can only hope he doesn't pick some PNACer like Evan Bayh as his running mate.

Great header, dude! Agree 100%

He is responsible for the Iraq war by getting Bush elected. Give me one reason why I should like that piece of shit.

:toast:

Nader is a perfect Bush stooge. He offers no solutions other than pot party parlor talk. His ego is shameful and I only wish the worst in his campaign.

Nader has poisoned his otherwise decent legacy up until 2000.

Nader's followers are nothing but idiots. Period. They are too burnt-out or lazy to see the importance of this election.

I've talked with a few Nader fans recently and came to the conclusion that most of them frankly did too much bad acid in their younger years and now we see what the damage has done.

One I talked to yesterday at a Kerry tabling event said all kinds of idiotic things about how Kerry and Bush are the same on every issue and that he gave $250 to the Nader campaign. Oh yeah, he says. He's broke and unemployed and his kid was whining about wanting to get something to drink. The guy seemed to be a perfect example of a St. Ralph Burnout.

Can people please, please stop blaming acid for these unspeakable horrors :cry: :cry: :cry: ? Anyway, when people engage in cannibalism, vote for Nader, etc. I think the drug usually blamed is PCP ;) .

The irony.

That's on your head. You made Bush president. You made that happen.

Don't like it? Too bad.

Has any Democrat called for a complete investigation of the torture, including the role played by CIA, Military Intelligence, and contractors that participated in, and encouraged, the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners?

Here is the answer:

Kucinich Condemns U.S. Abuse of Iraqi Detainees as Acts of Betrayal
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 1, 2004

Amid growing revelations of additional cases of torture and abuse against Iraqi detainees by U.S. and British troops, Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich today condemned the actions as a "betrayal of the principles of freedom, human rights, and justice that the Bush Administration has attempted to use to justify this unjust war."

"Each day brings new stories and photographs of the outrages being perpetrated against a people whose lives, liberties, and pursuit of a more hopeful future have been the Bush Administration's 'battle cry' since the beginning," Kucinich said. "When the true costs of this war are tallied, the price will have to include the savagery and inhumanity that have been inflicted - not just on the people of an occupied nation, but on the hearts and minds and souls of the people who occupied them."

Photographs published in Britain's Daily Mirror today show an Iraqi being battered with rifle butts, threatened with execution, and urinated on by British troops. During his eight-hour ordeal, the suspected thief had his jaw broken and teeth smashed, the Mirror reported.

The news follows the publication of photographs and videos showing US troops humiliating and torturing Iraqi prisoners. "These are atrocities committed against a people who lived through years of atrocities by a brutal dictator. Now, some are suffering the same fate under the flags of collation forces who are there, ostensibly, to spread freedom and restore stability. What kind of choice are we giving the Iraqi people - the brutality of Saddam Hussein or that of the U.S. occupying army?"

Kucinich said he hopes the recent reports reflect only rare and isolated examples. "I have the highest regard for our men and women and uniform, and I am confident that the overwhelming majority of them are performing admirably under unimaginably difficult circumstances."

Kucinich, who opposed the original war authorization resolution in the U.S. Congress in 2002 and who has made the withdrawal of U.S forces a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, said he is concerned that these recent revelations will increase the risks facing U.S. forces. Growing opposition and hostility among political and religious factions in Iraq toward the U.S. resulted in making April the bloodiest and deadliest month of the occupation, Kucinich noted. "Our troops have been targets all along," he said, "but now, they may face the wrath not just of insurgents and militias, but of the population in general.

"We have to get out of Iraq. That is the mission we have to accomplish," he said, ironically echoing President Bush's assertion of victory a year ago today. He again called on the leadership of the Democratic Party to join him in demanding the withdrawal of U.S. troops and a transfer of peacekeeping operations, administration, and management of Iraqi assets and reconstruction contracts to the United Nations.

"We have to stop calling for more troops, more money, and an as-long-as-takes mentality. How can we commit to an occupation without end? How can we allow our men and women in uniform to continue facing even greater risks? How can we tell the world community that we stand for peace and liberty and human rights when our mere presence in Iraq challenges those very same principles?"

Kucinich also said he was alarmed at plans quietly advancing in the Congress to set up "an emergency pool of funds" outside the normal appropriations process to support ongoing military operations in Iraq. Some Republican lawmakers are pushing the plan, which would make it unnecessary for the Bush Administration to return to Congress and publicly ask for supplemental appropriations. They are considering setting up a special reserve fund to pay for U.S. military operations in Iraq, which would avert the need for President Bush to formally request additional funds before his November re-election fight.

Under the reserve fund plan, congressional leaders could release money to the Pentagon while Congress is on recess later this year. The Pentagon has already said it will need at least an additional $4 billion beginning in September.

Such a plan, Kucinich argued, "would permit the Congress to give the Bush Administration a book of blank checks that will cause the war to be prolonged, the casualties to increase, the costs to continue to soar. My campaign," Kucinich concluded, "will allow voters to send a loud and clear message to the Congress, to the Bush Administration and to the leadership of the Democratic Party the price we've paid is already too high, the objectives are undefinable, and it's time for a totally new direction: not sending more troops there; bringing our troops back home."

For information about the National campaign: http://www.kucinich.us

http://www.kucinich.us/pressreleases/pr_050104.php

Say what you REALLY mean.

Where is Kerry's statement about torture?

Is it as powerful and clear cut as the one that Dennis Kucinich has issued? I seriously doubt it!

I am voting for Dennis this coming Tuesday, and I hope that enough Democrats come to their senses and realize that Dennis will get us out of Iraq while Mr. Electable will not.

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

I guess you don't have a statement from Kerry that condemns the torture like the one I posted from Dennis.

Stop trying the strawman argument. Come down to the I/P forum if you really want to see some experts on that technique.

Strawman arguments? That would be you, hon. You're the one who is pointing fingers at Kerry and creating bullshit charges. Just like the neo-cons do.

So what do the neo-cons pay their enablers these days?

Did Kerry call for a full withdrawal from Iraq as Dennis has?

The only news report I saw was one in which Kerry said he was "troubled" by the news of the torture.

Here's the Kerry quote... "I am disturbed and troubled by the evidence of shameful mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners. We must learn the facts and take the appropriate action."

Nice try at creative editing on what Kerry said. Too bad you don't show such creativity and committment to attacking neo-cons.

That's a common trait among Nader supporters, though. Attack progressives, and "forget to mention" the neo-cons.

That's a common trait among Nader supporters, though. Attack progressives, and "forget to mention" the neo-cons.

The real progressives are the ones that opposed the war in Iraq, and the ongoing occupation regardless of who is President!

Calling for staying the course in Iraq is the PPI flip side to PNAC neocon imperialism. There is nothing progressive about it.

There is nothing progressive either about supporting 100% the Sharon plan as Bush and Kerry have done.

Kerry has captures the delegates necessary to win the nomination. There is no Kucinich campaign. It's absolutely impossible for Kucinch to win the nomination.

Not improbable. Impossible.

And here is the website of our antiwar candidate:

http://www.kucinich.us/

The party rules do not allow someone to take advantage of the death of a candidate. So. even if Kerry "keels over," it's still a pointless campaign.

All of the antiwar delegates that Bobby had won in the primaries were replaced by prowar delegates chosen by the party machinery. The Democratic establishment was as prowar then as it is now, and they were hell-bent in preventing an antiwar candidate from winning the nomination.

I still have the bitter taste of that betrayal in my mouth.

Like I said, you don't know the party rules very well if you don't know that.

The party bosses did not want a convention they could not control.

The same delegates that vote to nominate a candidate will be on the floor to vote for another party nominee if something were to happen to a candidate after they clinch a nomination.

So if Dean were to have won the nomination and something happened, it would have still been Dean delegates that would have the majority and would vote on another nominee.

he only voted for the war, but thats ok by us, because he needs to be "electable".

he voted for the Patriot Act, but thats ok, because we can't let the racist inbreds dislike us.

he wants to keep that tax cuts, despite the pain for the budget, becuase he can't look like a tax raiser, but thats ok.

finally, he supports corporate tax cuts, becuase we can't win without corporate donations.


Yes, everything bad in this country is naders fault. :eyes:

GIVE ME A BREAK!

You want to blame someone for this shit, blame George Bush and his enabler, John Kerry.

Wow. You really have a problem with personal responsibility, don't you? Nader opposed the war; kerry supported the war, but the torture occuring now is Nader's fault.... yeah... and war is peace, slavery is freedom, love is hate...etc., etc.

I'm sorry the truth is a bitter pill for you, but you better learn to swallow it.

the other parts are the Dems that voted Bush,the SCOTUS screw job,Katherine Harris,the purged voters,the intimidation of voters,etc.

Your simple minded scapegoating of Nader dismisses and excuses the other,more important reasons why Gore isn't sitting in the White House right now.

I'm sorry that that is a bitter pill for YOU to swallow,but for the sake of democracy you'd better learn to swallow it.

If Nader supporters voted for Gore, Gore is President and these disasters don't happen.

Other factors could have also put Gore in the White House as well, but plain and simple, the Nader supporters vote for Gore, we don't have these torture pictures all over the net.

Stop living in denial.

If you want to open the Pandora's box of the 2000 election, there are plenty of threads elsewhere on that topic.

There is a couple of active threads in this forum about Ohio not having a Kerry campaign organization headquarters. Is Kerry following the same Donna Brazille strategy that lost Ohio to Bush in 2000?

Whose fault was that?

Back on point! Nader is not a factor because he is not on any ballot. Nader won't be on the Indiana ballot.

The point of the story is this: many antiwar activists will not vote for Kerry, or stay home altogether, because they oppose the war. Remember Humphrey?

I wish they all realized that we do have a bona fide antiwar candidate already: Dennis Kucinich.

(I'm sure Kerry will have an excellent Ohio organization)

If progressives stay home and the Bush SS continues torturing Iraqis, it will be because so-called progressives like you wouldn't stop whining and drove them away from the polls.

Again... Kucinich made his campaign a national joke with the "Win a date with Dennis" bullshit. Kucinich slit his own throat, and you need to move on.

After all of the revelations about Bush and Cheney, and all the bad press the evil duo got from the Clarke book and the Wilson affair, is the best that "Mr. Electable" can do is to be within the margin of error of the polls?

If Kerry were to embrace an antiwar platform, he would be stomping Bush to the ground and we would be talking today about a Kerry landslide, not a repeat of 2000!

Naderites make it clear they think the Dems are the probalem, not the neo-cons. 90% of Naderite rhetoric is aimed at Dems.

Dennis is the real liberal and the only antiwar candidate still running for President.

You cannot claim you are campaigning for a position which it is impossible to claim. Kerry has the delegates necessary to claim the nomination. It's not improbable for Kucinich. It's impossible.

This is all just a cover for you to attack Democrats and do the work of the neo-cons.

Let's see what kind of PPI crap is rammed down our throats on the platform: prowar, pro-Sharon, pro-PATRIOT.

This is why we need to elect Kucinich delegates so that the voices of progressives are heard when the DLC does their evil deeds during the convention.

The delegates are pledged to Kerry for the first vote. It is absolutely impossible for Kerry not to be nominated.

and that is preceded by votes on the individual planks in the platform.

Don't you understand that at all?

Other than the strong Indiana Democratic ticket that we are blessed with, and that we are going to elect with Joe Kernan and Kathy Davis leading the ticket, the only other election activists are antiwar groups. Do you want to alienate them by passing a prowar, Joe Biden type, plank?

Here is an e-mail that was forwarded to me by one of the activist groups I belong to:

No matter who wins
By Thomas P. Healy

WEST LAFAYETTE - Two dozen peacemakers from the Indiana
Peace and Justice Network met here May 1 to share details
about activities around the state, strengthen lines of
communication between affiliates and solidify plans to give
the Bush administration the bum's rush in November.

Special guest Carl Davidson, from Chicago's Peace & Justice
Voters 2004, succinctly stated the dilemma facing
progressive voters this fall. "No matter who wins in
November, it will be a representative of U.S. imperialism.
The question is, which faction?" It does make a difference
who wins, he said, adding, "No matter who wins, we have to
continue the struggle."

For now, the struggle at the heart of discussion in the
nation's progressive movement for equal rights, social
justice and civil liberties centers on the need to create
widespread participation in the democratic process and the
importance of channeling discontent into building a
long-term movement for social change.

"We need a social movement in this country," Davidson said.
"It's important to make it values-based." He stressed that
his group is nonpartisan and does not endorse any candidate.
"We want to work with all campaigns." This includes Greens,
Libertarians, Anarchists, Dean supporters and even some
disaffected Republicans.

His group is one component of a broad coalition of groups
that make up the Chicago-area peace movement. All are agreed
on the importance of removing Bush from office. Peace &
Justice Voters 2004 spearheads actions under the slogan,
"Regime Change Begins at Home - Vote 2004."

According to Davidson, a basic principle of the group is the
importance of expanding the electorate to generate a massive
turnout at the polls. To this end, his group has trained a
thousand people as registrars - including homeless and
unemployed people. A recent initiative with the Chicago
public school system has resulted in the registration of
several thousand 18-year-olds. Peace & Justice Voters 2004
aims to register every 18-year-old in the city (details at
http://www.noiraqwar-chicago.org/cawi_001.htm).

Similar voter registration in Indiana is being tackled by
Common Bonds - an "umbrella group" of social justice, labor
and peace groups based in Indianapolis. Jim Wolfe described
the group's ambitious plan to get a thousand volunteers on
the streets to register voters in constituencies "left out"
of the democratic process. This includes reaching out to the
poor and people of color but Common Bonds is also interested
in registering college students and getting high schoolers
involved.

A major voter registration push is planned for the second
Saturday in September (9/11) and will continue through the
first week of October. In the meantime, volunteers are
needed to help with the project (details at
http://www.commonbonds.us).

Apropos on May 1 - a day recognized as a celebration of
organized labor - was a discussion of the need to include
organized labor in the state's peace and justice movement.
"In some small towns in northern Indiana, organized labor is
the Democratic party," Lee Gloster said. He's active in a
group called Jobs With Justice in the South Bend area. A
recent rally brought out a hundred Communications Workers of
America union members who were protesting changes that
affected their ability to collectively bargain for
healthcare benefits for retirees.

Gloster passed out stickers from the Northwest Central Labor
Council that read, "Your Weapon of Mass Change - VOTE!"
Gloster said progressives cannot necessarily rely on
Democrats to take the initiative. "We need to build an
independent mobilization to get Labor involved."

Other topics covered included educational activities in
Richmond, Terre Haute, Lafayette and Indianapolis. Efforts
by Bloomington residents to lead another Indiana delegation
to Israel and Palestine in August were also noted (details
from delegationisraelpalestine@yahoo.com). People were also
urged to attend the Fifth National Grassroots Organizing
Conference on Iraq, slated for May 28-31 in Bloomington
(details at http://endthewar.org).

Those attending passed a resolution affirming support and
encouragement of widespread participation in the democratic
process including but not limited to voting, and agreed to
send a letter to Sen. Evan Bayh urging him to deny the Bush
administration's request to expand the nation's nuclear
arsenal.

Since forming in October 2002, the IPJN has fostered
communication among the varied peace and social justice
groups in the state that have opposed U.S. military actions
around the globe. The next six months will test not only
their commitment but also their effectiveness.

--------------

Thomas P. Healy is a freelance journalist in Indianapolis
and a volunteer coordinator for the Indiana Peace & Justice
Network.

http://www.bloomingtonalternative.com
-------------------
Peace and Justice Coalition of Michiana website:
http://community.michiana.org/justice/

We all see how that prediction worked out. I don't think anyone will be hiring you to do any psychic work for them.

I'm not ducking nothing.

Any of those factors could have put Gore in the WH,so do you focus solely on the one actual Democratic factor? Why are you not outraged at the other factors,which may damn well be repeated because people are far to busy being a Hillary...er Nader-Hater to see that these problems which hurt Gore STILL EXIST?

I'm not in any denial at all mouse.These other issues are undemocratic.They undermine the very foundation this country stands upon,yet you attack the one factor that this country espouses as a great thing,that anyone has the right to run for office.

Other factors could have also put Gore in the White House as well, but plain and simple, the Nader supporters vote for Gore, we don't have these torture pictures all over the net.

Let's rephrase this a bit;

Nader voters could have put Gore in the White House,but plain and simple,the Dems who voted for Bush vote for Gore,we dont have those torture pictures all over the net.

That statement is also correct isn't it? So why aren't you blaming those Dems for the torture? Why aren't you blaming SCOTUS,who really should be the ones worthy of your hatred? You seem much too smart to fall for this simple minded blame game when other,far more dangerous and undemocratic factors are at play.


You are being naive to the max if you think Nader is responsible for this torture.It's simple-minded scapegoating that just makes us Dems look like the sore losers we're accussed of being.We need to address the real reasons why things went went FUBAR in 2000,and this constant head in the sand Nader blaming is NOT helping us Democrats in any way at all.If people took half the house pet energy they expand on hating Nader and applied it to addressing the other points and factors raised we'd all be a hell of a lot better off.

Nader didn't shit on the Constitution,the SCOTUS did.Direct your anger at them,or at least direct it EQUALLY at ALL the factors involved,not just the easy one to wrap our heads around.

Peace

Yes, Dems that voted for Bush are to blame for Bush. That goes without saying. If you vote for someone, you are responsible.

The Nader voter claim they aren't responsible. They are.

After the Nader voters screwed the country, then the SCOTUS dealt the finishing blow.

other factors also could have kept SCOTUS out of it.We need to focus on the undemocratic ones.

The few Nader voters I know from 2000 DO accept part of the blame,but not all of it.Nor should they,for reasons I've already described.Yes,there are Nader voters that claim total innocence.They are wrong.But we are wrong to focus all our hatred and blame on them as well.It's totally counterproductive to both sides,and we need to try to reach a coomon ground that we do share (and there's more than both sides care to admit).

Please think about directing your anger towards issues that can be fixed,issues that are against the Democratic principles we all believe in so strongly.

Look at Indiana Green's posts. She trying to infer Kerry is pro-torture. Nader supporters DO NOT accept responsibility, and they are pulling the same "there's no difference between Dems and GOP" bullshit they pulled 4 years ago. You wonder why Dems are pissed? Look at what the Naderites say.

Distorting what good progressives say and pretty much leaving neo-cons out of their attacks is the Naderite bread and butter tactic.

Apparently political deafness is an inherent trait of some Kerry supporters. Can't you hear the people's demands for the troops to come home?

HAHAHAHAHAHA...

Someone who claims there is still an ongoing campaign for a nomination that Kerry has captured the delgates necessary to win the nomination is claiming Kerry supporters have a problem with political deafness?

That's very funny.

and you are not going to get them to the polls with a lame "stay the course" in Iraq.

I am voting for JK and the rest of his team in November, and I fear that our strong state ticket is going to get no help from your candidate.

BWAHAHAHAHA!

on an election that should have been a Democratic landslide even with a ham sandwich as the nominee, ask yourself how many votes you could have gotten had you supported a total and immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

If the anti-war candidates got utterly annihialated when it was only progressives voting, how in the hell will anti-war candidates do better when freepers can vote? Are democratic candidates in danger of losing the "anti-war freeper" vote? Gimme me a fuckin' break.

Look at how so many,yourself included,ignore all the other factors involved and heap scorn and blame on them alone. :shrug:

In your attacks on Nader you're also leaving neo-cons out of your attacks.You're behaving in much the same way as IG,just from the other side of the coin.

If you want to hold all Greens accountable to IG's words you can.But I suspect you'd be dismayed if I held all Dems to a standard based on what some other DU Dems have said.Look at the attacks on McKinney from some.I know you dont feel the same way,so you'd be rightly pissed if I inferred from those negative comments that ALL Dems act and think the same way.

Dems tried to be nice, but after attack after attack after attack after attack, Dems got pissed. Then the Naderites started the "pity the poor innocent victim" bullshit.

Well, the Naderites are being called on their bullshit. They were never an "innocent victim." They attacked for months endlessly, and the earned their scorn.

And Kerry only attacks Nader, and never atttacks Bush, huh? That's so ridiculous it doesn't merit a response.

I've been a Dem all along and I haven't seen it.

It's clear nothing I say will penetrate your hatred,so I'll call this converation quits.

Dems absorbed Naderite attacks for moths trying to be inclusive and bring the Greens back. It was pointless. The Greens were more interested in attacking other progressives than they were in attacking the GOP.

You know it's true, that's why you picked this moment to take off.

Micheal Moore had the decency to apologize to Al Gore for 2000. The rest of the Naderites need to do the same.

the only truth I'm seeing from you is unabashed hate.

I have tried to be peaceful and respectful to you.You have been hateful and nasty in return,and now ascribe motives to me that are simply untrue.THAT'S why I'm "running away".I'm simply not going to keep conversing with a brick wall :shrug:

Sounds like neo-con tactics. Well, Naderites and neo-cons are so similar, it's not suprising they borrow each other's tactics.

Dont you consider accusing me of running away to be an insult? You have offered nothing but hate to this conversation.Every post of yours in this thread drips with hate and condescension.You are not looking for an answer,just a feel good "I hate Nader so I'm a great Dem" self-pat on the back.

Tell me mouse,what evidence have YOU provided? Other than your opinions I see nothing.So tell me mouse,which one of us is using "neo-con tactics"?

You are not bringing anything to the table other than hate.It's ugly,counter-productive,and makes you seem like that which you so decry.You are making yourself,and your postion,look foolish.You're better than that.I've seen many threads where you do much,much better.I wish you would look past your hate for just one minute and look in your mirror.If you have the ability to be honest with yourself I dont think you'll like what you see today.

Compared to you saying Kerry does nothing but attack Nader and never mentions Bush?

No... I'm sorry. That's not correct, but thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you...

Compared to you saying Kerry does nothing but attack Nader and never mentions Bush?

Where did I say this mouse?

What evidence have YOU provided in this thread mouse?

Who is really using neo-con tactics mouse?

Thanks for the gifts,but I'd settle for some honest to God thinking from you instead of your false accusations and hate.

You rant without thinking, and then scream bloody murder when some of your rant is quoted back to you.

I'm sorry. That's incorrect. Thanks for playing.

those aren't my words.The only one ranting without thinking today would be you mouse.You're so desperate to score some points that you're not even using reason anymore.

Have a nice day.

There on the thread for everyone to see.

if they are right there for all to see.

You are really not helping yourself mouse :shrug:

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

Let's see if the quotes match.

And Kerry only attacks Nader, and never atttacks Bush, huh? That's so ridiculous it doesn't merit a response.

Which is good because I never said it :eyes:

"Look at how so many,yourself included,ignore all the other factors involved and heap scorn and blame on them alone.

In your attacks on Nader you're also leaving neo-cons out of your attacks.You're behaving in much the same way as IG,just from the other side of the coin."

You said look how many, myself included, ignore...heap scorn and blame on them alone. You atacked the whole Democratic Party, forkboy. In case you didn't know, Kerry is a Dem.

but no cigar.

You're really grasping for things to argue about mouse.

you made that rubbish up yourself :shrug:

There for anyone to see.

I'll wait.

What next? Are you going to yell, "He's touching me!"

put my words next to yours.Let's see if they match.

I not sure I understand why you bring up cooties and such stuff :shrug:

Look at how so many,yourself included,ignore all the other factors involved and heap scorn and blame on them alone

If that doesn't say that Dems only attack Naderites, then "on them alone" has taken on a new meaning of "on them and others"

you and your tag team partner need help.

Nader is opposing the Democratic candidate. He is effectively undermining the very causes he claims to champion. In my view, he is a destructive, hypocritical opponent who by his actions supports the worst president in history.

I don't know why Naderites so often act as if they expected a nice warm welcome from Democrats, or why they're so often surprised that they're "attacked."

But I also don't see why us Dems are so suprised when we're attacked either.We've been a piss poor opposition party (hint,we're suppossed to "oppose") for the most part,and many are fed up with it.I think that's a understandable feeling.I'm pissed at my party :shrug:

Do you go to you local monthly party meetings? Do you try to change things for better in a constructive fashion?

No, huh?

I dont have the urge to toot my own horn.

I see plenty of pissing and moaning I agree.Sadly,it's all been from you.

Part of participating in democracy is getting other people to support your issue. I would guess most people don't know much about these issues where Nader claims to be distinct from the Democratic party. Threatening to deep-six the Democrats again because they don't support Nader's positions while at the same time they haven't done any work in getting support is slacker activism. If someone wants their issues to have priority, they should get people to support those positions.

successfully elect candidates who are repub-lite, they have effectively moved the party right, or confirmed the right-ward position. If they refuse to vote for a given dem candidate and that candidate loses, they will have effectively moved the party one way or the other, since the party will presumably change its strategy in the next election, rather than repeating the same losing strategy.

If dem voters elect a repub-lite candidate, there is no reason to believe that "working within the party" will cause this person to move left in the next election; they will run in the same position they ran in before, because it worked!!!! You don't change a winning strategy, you only change a losing strategy.

ONE Nader voter to vote for Kerry. I'm sorry you are so worried about your "electable" candidate losing. We got him after promises that he could win. Are you now doubting Kerry's ability to win?

You should be. He is unknown to most people, he is not going out there and getting his message out. And when he does try to put his message out, it's often not much different than Bush's. Bush is also turning Kerry's Vietnam service into a liability, becuase Kerry could not be honest about what he threw over the white house fence.


Your blame-gaming will only harden the resolve of Nader voters.

My advice to you is either:

believe in the electability of your candidate, and don't waste breath on Nader.

or, realize that Kerry was wrong about his own electability and try to reach out to the significant part of the party base who is not supporting him enthusiastically. It is these people who will do the legwork necessary to win a campaign. These people will pass the word onto their friends and neighbors. these people will give up the money.

The centrist voter from Missouri who is only interested in politics from October to November will not do squat for Kerry, he won't make one phone call, hold one sign, tell one other person about what Kerry stands for ( if he's fortunate enough to know).

The Repubs win because they treat their conservative base with respect, and the conservative base marches them to victory. Newt Gingrich didnt win because he was more "centrist" than Clinton, he won becuase he articulated clear positions that the base could get behind and that the swing voters could be persuaded to like.

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

becuase our candidate

voted to give a maniac the power to go to war in Iraq,
supports Bush's tax cuts for most people, at the expense of the Budget.
voted for the Enabling... I mean Patriot Act without reading it.
thinks corporate tax cuts are a good idea
said he threw his medals over the fence when he in fact still has his medals (he threw his ribbons)
implied that bush would win the war on terror
wants to increase troops in Iraq
criticized Spain for pulling out troops from Iraq
refused to rule out supporting a MA constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

If this democratic party leadership were around in 1948 and 1965, would black people have civil rights?

If this democratic party leadership were around in 1932, would we have social security?

If this democratic leadership ran the state of Vermont in 2000, would gays have civil unions?

all the Democrats repeating GOP distortions and bashing the Democratic candidate would have ensured that the Republicans would have won every time, and thus we'd have no civil rights, social security, or civil unions anywhere.

That's how I see it.

if the dem candidate stood up for civil rights etc. instead of NOT doing so?

or has perfectly straddled the line between making progress and remaining electable (and effective in office). It's just not that neat. Every politician walks that line, and thus none have been without controversy.

But in this climate, when so much is at stake, I don't see how we can afford to undermine our cause this way. We have more to lose than ever, yet it seems the level of fire against our own candidate is unaffordably high. No candidate is perfect, but some progress is always better than none; and our current candidate is fending off attacks for being an extremist liberal! Any more liberal and he'd be unelectable.

I think we should be expending energy defending him instead of joining in on attacking him. Just my opinion.

Bush is a conservative, and he was essentially elected
Reagan was a conservative and he was twice elected
FDR was a liberal and he was elected 4 times.
Kennedy was a liberal and he was elected.

How is it that the swing voters can tolerate blatant conservatism, but not blatant liberalism?

Is it because the conservatives have convinced people that their ideas are good?

Why can't we do the same thing?

Our democracy should be a contest of two distinct philosophies, that each base would be proud to bear, and where each side competes for the approval of those in the middle. they compete to show the middle why their particular ideas benefit those in the middle.

We are moving dangerously toward a one-party and one-philosophy state, of imperialism and rampant nationalism, budget irresponsibility, neglect of social responsibilities.

You can say, then why not just vote for Kerry?

becuase kerry has been complicit in promoting that one party state. Instead of trying to stop bush from invading Iraq, the democrats allowed him to. Instead of fighting for fiscal prudence, the democrats allowed republicans to pass irresponsible tax cuts, at the expense of homeland security and saving social security and medicare. Now, Kerry approves of those tax cuts (for most people) and wants to keep them.

Will Kerry suddenly change his tune when he gets into office? Not likely. Likely he will have reelection on his brain. He will be a tool of Tom Delay and Bill Frist. He will worry about the swing voters who for some reason seem to be really conservative. He will sign any bill they deem to be "popular" and "what the swing voters want."

I will vote for Kerry, but if he is an ineffective president, I will support a primary challenger in 08.

But in the current climate, it's a liability. Something about the "pendulum swinging." I can't say I understand it.

(The very word "Liberal" has been villified by the rightwing, though.)

"conservative" then? Why succumb to the rules the Repubs set for us?

could explain why dems keep losing. Jeez, take some responsibilty for once, why don't you. The democratic party is pathetic right now, and whining and blaming doesn't really help its image any.

not running. You can bitch and whine about this candidate or that candidate; politics is a tough business, and counting on your competition to drop out will probably not lead to many victories.

I hope so.

Kucinich was the one who turned his own campaign into a national joke with all the "Win a date with Dennis" crap.

I hope the Kerry campaign does not follow your advice on this!

Kucinich destroyed all his credibilty with the "Win a dat with Dennis" crap. Kucinich did all the "disrespecting" all by himself with his own actions.

not a part of campaign strategy.

I'm having trouble seeing how this makes Nader more culpable than Kerry or Bush :shrug:

Nader teamed up against Gore, taking away 90K votes in Florida for no reason. If Gore was in office, there is no war in Iraq. Verstehen Sie?

And I'm sure that the 90000 FL voters had their reasons.

Now the Greens are using the same vitriol they spewed at President Gore at Mr. Kerry. We would not be in Iraq today if Gore or Kerry were president. This isn't that difficult to understand.

You are clearly into some Orwellian/Bush double-think if you blame a war-opponent for the war, but not a war-supporter.

and then all this "he voted for the IWR" stuff -- or rather, "He voted for Chimp to do exactly what Chimp did" stuff -- will actually have some effect.

Until then, why don't we deal with reality?

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

that Gore would have one. Knowing that the votes were not actually counted, I have a hard time believing that the fix was not on in Florida with or without Nader. It follows that the war is Nader's fault. Of course if a DUer wishes to indulge him/herself in that hypothetical speculation it is accepted.

Yet if one dares complain that they wish that Kerry had not voted for the IWR resolution because he and other Democrats failed to provide adequate opposition then there is griping here about dealing in hypotheticals.

First though, I'm going to request that you stop lying about the IWR. Kerry's vote gave Bush leverage with Saddam Hussein; Hussein was not letting inspectors into his country in October 2002. Kerry advocates going to war only as a last resort and he has been consistent about this for a long time.

Nader took votes that would have went to Mr. Gore in Florida. Nader's run was sufficient for a Gore loss. This assertion is counterfactual, yes, but it is also true. Statistically, even if one fucking percent of those who voted for Nader voted for Gore, Gore still would have won. Sure, some Nader voters may have stayed home with Ralph in the race. But even if a mere fraction of the Nader voters choose Gore, Bush loses -- no plundering the treasury for the rich, no environmental rollbacks, no Iraq, no wacko judges, etc. Do the math.

More importantly, Nader forced Gore to spend money on our own turf while we could have been spending money in Tennessee or Arkansas.

If the Democrats need to ask legitimate participants in the democratic process to step aside because the Republicans cheat then they have already let our democracy decay beyond repair. It is important to realize that the people who steal elections are the real enemy and not those who participate in them.

Here is another counterfactual but true statement (sounds like doublespeak, but I get your drift): if every Democratic senator had voted against the IWR it would not have passed (thanks to Chaffee voting no as well). So here we have people claiming that the Greens are responsible for the war by participating in Democracy, and ignoring the fact that large segments of the Democratic leadership were working for Bush.

Clinton, Cleland, Cantwell, etc. "work for Bush" because they gave him leverage (which Bush abused) to get the inspectors in Iraq?

Suppose I grant this. If this loose criterion for working for Bush is valid, then one must admit that attacking a Democratic candidate for president alongside Bush is also working for the GOP. Of course, the fact remains that we wouldn't even be having this discussion if Nader was not in the race in 2000.

We better not be having this discussion in 2005 over Syria or God knows where.

The "votes" Nader is getting in the polls is a rejection of the prowar and "stay the course" policies that the two major parties are advocating for Iraq. It is not an endorsement of Nader per se!

Nader's name is not on a single state ballot for the November elections.

Nader is running without the backing of even a third party.

Nader is NOT a factor!

Having said that, the issue of the war IS a factor, regardless of Nader and in spite of him!

Stay in Iraq or get out! Take your pick!

I forgot about the hate part!

It is almost like the irrational Clinton hatred one hears from the other side.

:spank:

"Why should voters choose Nader? Because Kerry, Nader told the reporters, "is stuck in the Iraq quagmire the same way Bush is." That leaves the independent as the sole choice for "the peace movement in this country."

Exactly what does Nader intend to do about Iraq that Kerry doesnt?

But he doesn't have to have a plan, because he's never going to take office. So his plan could be to have everybody just come home, and the factions in Iraq will work it all out with no repercussions to the US or to the most vulnerable Iraqi citizens, and then pigs will fly across Baghdad spreading peace and joy.... Doesn't matter what he passes off as "plans," because he'll never have to try to implement it. He exists to bash Democrats, it seems to me.

:eyes:

I totally agree with you. It's just so pathetic - isn't it? I can understand the appeal in 2000, but now it's a total mystery to me.

I am convinced my dog could run for office and garner 5% of the vote.

He will attempt to destroy this country with a self-satisfied rethug smirk on his face. Fuck him.

n/t

you can support him if you want.

If you think it helps the Country, you have a right to those
beliefs.

However, there is no practical scenario where he will do anything
other than help GWB get re-elected. Therefore, I think it
is folly and downright stupid to support Nader.

Furthermore, Nader is nothing more than a Consumer advocate.
Big Fuckin' Deal !!! Even if he could win, I still wouldn't
want him as my President.

Anyone can preach "Liberal Theory" to make the die-hard purists
happy but I believe you gotta walk the walk not just talk the
talk.

Helping Bush get elected the first time and then being nowhere
to be found on the political radar screen x3 yrs is not "walking the
walk".

By the way, except for my Gore Vote, I pulled the Green Party lever
in 2000 and the 2002 midterms.

People shouldn't be so damn stupid when it comes to this Bush
thing, this guy and and his fascist band are poison. We need
to do everything we can to get him outta there, even if it means
swallowing our "Liberal Pride".

At least Kucinich had the class to try to make a go of it within
the party and helped shape the debate along the way.

Nader is "burning the village in order to save it".

Think, man, think.

Nader's strategy makes no sense at this point.


Perhaps in his little world, after decades of fascist Bush rule, he thinks he will be the one to lead the revolution (from his wheelchair of course).

Hey, it worked for FDR.

:P

He should be campaigning for Kerry.

Where Kerry does not oppose Bush's war and calls for more soldiers sent to the dieing fields, Nader calls for Bush's Impeachment.