Could not convince two Nader supporters of the error of their ways

At a party last night, one guy was from NY, so not a big deal, the other guy from Oregon, which is. Just kept parroting the "there is no difference between the Dems and the Republicans" line...like talking to two ditto-heads.

Ask him if he likes the way Thomas or Scalia judge.

you are right, it is the best issue. Thanks!

This idea that we'll only have to face four more years of Bush* and then we'll elect someone "real" doesn't hold up when these justices could be there for twenty years.

And the primary reason this year, should I decide not to vote 3rd party...

Took me 6 months to convince a former Nader voter. Finally broke through though.

But anyone who really thinks that there is a huge difference between the two major parties is bound to be let down. Thats just my opinion though. There are differences, just not MAJOR ones.

Womens rights, Gay rights, Seperation of church & State, Welfare, Education. :eyes:

The differences you mention are non-existant. But go on accepting those differences for both parties as universal, although you will be wrong. :)

But they certainly are between Kerry and bush, and those are the two names at the top of the ballot in November...

and they include reproductive rights, education mandates and funding, environmental regulations, etc... These are hardly "non-existant" no matter where you live.

Moreover, you might stop and consider how these and other issues affect people who are different from you. Even *if* you believe the Democratic party hasn't done enough for you to make a difference, it's made quite a difference for other people -- enough that I consider voting Democratic a matter of social responsibility.

You don't think Joe Biden and Bob Kerry comments from MTP has anything to do with why liberals like me vote for Nader?

Personally, I cannot consider anybody who votes for Nader "liberal," no matter what their rhetoric. This is a wide and diverse party, and if the mere words of mere two members of that party make somebody take their toys and go home, we can't change that by narrowing the net.

No Flame. I want someone to explain to me what has NADER done in the last 30 years? DK has worked his arse off for the liberal voice to be heard. Nader comes into the races, stirs the pot and leaves for ANOTHER 4 years. Please give me his resume of his accomplishments and I will listen.

their belief that their is no difference between Dems and repubs.

With so much hostility being directed toward Ralph Nader’s candidacy and those who are supporting him, I’m compelled to offer my own defense of his role in this election. Nader is not ignorant to the opinion that he is widely considered to be the spoiler of Al Gore’s candidacy in 2000. While I don’t share that opinion, I respect the qualifying observations of those who do. Nader’s mistake, in this regard, would have been avoided if he had simply dropped out of the race in the days just prior to the election.

I’m convinced that Ralph Nader will not repeat that same mistake in this election. Nader’s campaign will have been even more successfully effective in achieving its goals simply by dropping out this time just prior to the election and giving his endorsement to John Kerry. I firmly believe this to be the intention of Nader’s campaign and if I felt this were not the course of action he would take in this election, I would not be supporting his candidacy.

Nader’s candidacy, I believe, is beginning to play the intended constructive role in putting pressure on John Kerry to strengthen the weaker aspects of his campaign that have been haunting him throughout the entirety of his candidacy. As the election process moves forward it is essential that John Kerry present a very strong, defined positions that clearly set him apart from those of the Bush administration. Kerry needs to present an image of his leadership to the American voters that conveys an undeniable confidence of having a real vision of where he wants to lead us and what solutions he will bring to the table. While it’s possible that Kerry would be able to win the election without emphasizing these qualities, it will have more to do with Bush’s failures than it will in the voter’s confidence of John Kerry’s leadership and vision.

It’s this constructive pressure that I feel Ralph Nader’s candidacy will bring to John Kerry’s ultimate success in not just the election, but also as a strong President. Just as I feel Ralph Nader will not repeat the mistakes of his 2000 campaign, I feel that John Kerry will not repeat the mistakes of Al Gore. John Kerry’s overall success will be determined by his own strength as a leader and his ability to bring the voting public on board with his vision for our country. In 1992 and 1996, Ross Perot’s candidacy did not spoil Bill Clinton’s successful campaigns, but somewhat enhanced it. This, to me, speaks for itself about the significance of a candidates strength of leadership, vision and charisma, which Bill Clinton undeniably possessed. I’ve yet to see these qualities in John Kerry, but I believe with the proper influence and pressure placed upon his campaign from Ralph Nader’s candidacy, we may see John Kerry soon emerge with those characteristics that will help transform him into becoming an outstanding candidate and a very successful President.

So, while I’m currently supporting Ralph Nader’s candidacy, it’s with the best of intentions to helping John Kerry become a stronger, more defined leader who will succeed against George Bush. It’s my hope that we will see John Kerry win this election by the largest landslide victory in our history with an enormous voter turnout. It would be absolutely shameful for this election to mirror the 2000 election and I believe that Ralph Nader’s candidacy will help far more than it hurts. Additionally, I would like to see Ralph Nader be brought into Kerry’s campaign toward the end and to become a member of the Kerry administration following the election.

Bottom line, I think it’s worth considering the perspective I’ve presented here rather than continue to harbor such anger and hostility toward Ralph Nader and his supporters. I believe Ralph Nader will ultimately be a valuable asset to John Kerry’s success. He is opening doors by his own examples of strong, unwavering positions with social and political vision. John Kerry will only benefit by following some of Nader’s leads to solidify his own strengths.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31340-2004May16.html

Asked whether he would drop out if he were to conclude that staying in the race would hurt Kerry and guarantee Bush's re-election, Nader said he would not.

"No. Of course not," he said. "You don't run a presidential campaign nationally and say to your volunteers who have worked their heart out sometime in October, well, sorry."

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

If Kerry want's Nader/Green/non-voter votes, he has to come and get them rather than kow-towing to the right.

Every time I'm just about ready to buy the "he's not as bad" argument and grab my barf-bag, Kerry swerves right again.

and that means taking some stands you may not agree with (if you have any examples, you might post them) in order to preserve women's reproductive freedom, advance civil rights, fund education, raise the minimum wage, restore credibility in the world, balance the tax code, protect the environment, make healthcare and college affordable, etc. etc...

... by lecturing them, you have to attract them, and most, for whatever reason, are put off by Green and Reform party issues.

Bush is too busy convincing middle-of-the-roaders to vote for Kerry. The Nader vote is becoming insignificant.

ANWAR:

http://www.calacademy.org/exhibits/anwr/anwr_about.html

Bush is already drilling on Padre Island National Seashore:

http://www.texas.sierraclub.org/padre.asp


Nader has no chance of getting elected and making a difference in environmental policy, and appointing pro-environment justices.

Look at what a Democrat in office can do:

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/24/clinton.big.sur/



U.S. expands protection of Big Sur
$4.5 million for endangered wildlife habitat
September 24, 2000
Web posted at: 7:15 p.m. EDT (2315 GMT)

From staff and wire reports

LOS ANGELES, California -- The White House said on Sunday that 784 acres of forest, meadow and rugged cliffs on the southern edge of Big Sur in central California have been purchased for $4.5 million as part of President Clinton's drive to conserve areas of natural beauty.

The U.S. Forest Service bought the parcel around San Carpoforo Creek. It will be added to the 1.75-million-acre Los Padres National Forest.


The acquisition of the former ranchland protects a habitat for the endangered steelhead trout and the Smith's blue butterfly. It also ensures protection of a rare public access to the Big Sur coastline.

The acquisition is tiny compared with the acreage already under federal protection around Big Sur, but it carries significant symbolic value.