So "Gloves Off" trumad was right about Nader all along?

[trumad]

I just read Joe Conasons piece about Nader over at Salon and I gotta tell you, I had no idea how right I was about Basketball Ralph. Oh I battled the Naderites left and right here at DU and made many enemies along the way. Most of the Nader supporters have either vanished or have changed their minds about the once great Ralph Nader. The Greens, Mike Moore and many other Progressive Liberals have finally seen the light and have shunned this egotistical mad man.

One more thing.... As big a pain in the ass good old Jacinto (Carlos) was here at DU, ya gotta admit, he too was right about Ego Ralph.

Here's Smokin Joes piece at Salon.. Ya might need to get a day pass...
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/06/29/nader/index.html

[IrateCitizen]

1. Was that your overriding goal all along -- to simply be "right"?

Or were you truly interested in persuading others?

If it was solely the first case, then your efforts have indeed proven successful. However, if it were the second, then you (and Carlos, for that matter) both failed miserably.

Consistently rubbing people's noses in something as opposed to treating them respectfully while disagreeing with them is never a good strategy for persuasion -- no matter how much the facts are on your side.

[trumad]

5. Nice straw man

Has Nader turned out to be the douche bag that I said he was all along? Indeed he has.... I simply voiced my opinion for the last two years that he was an egotistical idiot and got blasted for it... Any arguments now regarding that?

[IrateCitizen]

8. Like I said in the above post...

If your goal was to be proven right, then you are successful. I already said it once, but here it is a second time since you obviously didn't get it the first.

And, I still stand by my statement regarding your simply horrendous skills at persuasion as well. It's not a strawman -- it's an opinion. And I'm certain that it's one that I'm not alone in on these boards.

[trumad]

10. You're right..there may be 3 more of you

What makes you think I was trying to persuade anybody? I was simply blasting Ralph Nader and his tactics way before anyone else was and I am simply pointing out that folks have finally seen the light about old Ralph. BTW: As far as the persuading that Nader's a douche, why lift a finger when Ralph proves it everyday?

[IrateCitizen]

15. Then it's settled...

What makes you think I was trying to persuade anybody?

Since you weren't trying to persuade anybody, then you have been proven right regarding your opinions of Ralph Nader. IOW, you have accomplished your goal. Some of us simply took a little longer to come around to see this reality, possibly due in no small part to the likes of you, Carlos, et. al. berating us and rubbing our noses in it at every turn.

Congratulations. Your achievements will hereby be recorded in the annals of the DU Hall of Fame. :eyes:

Now, can we get back to discussing the merits of Bob Somerby's Daily Howler, the one thing that we seem to be able to agree upon? ;-)

[trumad]

20. LOL

Look...I know that I have the tact of an Rhinoceros in a china shop... My bad for sure... But I went through a war with Naderites for the last 2 1/2 years and yes, I am saying I told you so....

But you're right...Back to Somerby...

[sangh0]

85. Rhinos are right!!

Let's hear it for Rhino Power

[G_j]

11. I only have a problem

with those who insist that those who voted for Nader in 2000 should hang their heads in shame and wear some sort of scarlet letter as it was THEIR fault that Bush was ruining the country.
People can say what they want about Nader, just don't attack me for trying make this country a better place by attempting to empower a third party in 2000.
Even for those who still plan on voting Nader, personal attacks are out of line.

on edit: I did not say that YOU have done this, but a certain other poster you mentioned did it constantly.

[trumad]

17. Fuck 2000

this is about 2004.... and I am pleased as punch that Naders flaming out big time....

[Dhalgren]

31. Ok, so Ralph is a tool. This doesn't

negate the need in this country for a REAL progressive party. We will have a strong progressive party after November. Granted that we have to rid ourselves of the pustule in the WH, but after that, the Dmeocratic party will lose most of the left (since it doesn't want the left in the party, anyway).

[Cheswick2.0]

40. I doubt it

I doubt the democratic party will lose most of the left. Most of us have no problem staying right where we are an improving the Democratic party. If you want to have a real effect on the future of this country you could do the same.

[Dhalgren]

It has past the point where you can say with a straight face

that "I am a Democrat and a leftist". If you are a "leftist", then you have no place in the Democratic party accept as a vote. And unless you have a few billion dollars to buy it with, you ain't gonna change the Democratic Party - too many corporations have liens on it.

[Cheswick2.0]

64. blah blah blah

I am exactly what I say I am. Get over your bitterness.

[Dhalgren]

72. I'm not bitter. I was never "for" Nader.

I defended him, sometimes, because of the harshness of some of the attacks, but I was never a Ralph supporter. Try to focus. :hi:

[sangh0]

86. If you defend Nadir, then you are, by definition, supporting him

.

[Dhalgren]

89. Not true, exalted one.

Taking the position of "devil's avocate" does not translate into support.

[sangh0]

95. Yes, it is true

and you're not playing devil's advocate, so try again.

[G_j]

48. I'm not so sure about that

it depends on Kerry (I am assuming that he will win) and other Dems in Congress.
If Kucinich-like policies continue to be marginalized, expect perhaps another major effort for a third party in 2008.

[Cheswick2.0]

67. Kucinich like policies?

You mean like the one where he voted to make it illegal to burn the flag. Or the other legislation he voted for such as allowing children as young as 13 to be tried as adults?
DK is not the ultimate liberal in my book.

PS...why is it you think everything is up to Kerry and other elected politicians?
Really I am so tired of the third party bullshit. There is one viable party left of center. It will be whatever left minded people decide it is if they have the will to act. No third party is going to accomplish a damn thing.

[G_j]

79. you should understand what I'm saying

his stances on militarism, trade etc. are what I am talking about.

You can try to ignore them but the people who think these issues are central are very much alive and well.
You can dis the idea of a third party all you like, but there will no doubt be even stronger efforts for a progressive party unless these issues are adequately addressed.
People are not just going to go away and give up.
I am just speaking from what I have observed from speaking with many 'progressives'. If you don't want this to happen then work to get these voices some traction in the party.

[sangh0]

90. So should the rest of the country

but unfortunately (for your argument that is) there is no huge outcry over those ideas (ie militarism, trade). At best, there is opposition to some of the implementation of those ideas (ex Iraq, NAFTA, etc). While some oppose the Iraq invasion and the occupation, a large majority are not asking to reduce military spending, or withdraw from world commerce.

You can dis the idea of a third party all you like, but there will no doubt be even stronger efforts for a progressive party unless these issues are adequately addressed.

Yes, we've been hearing all about that for years. Those compassionate third parties, who wish nothing but the best for the DNC, have been warning us for years and years about how the Dems have to change or die. Funny thing is, we're still here.

[G_j]

111. change or die?

America's democracy would just be healthier with a broader spectrum of choices. This is a need that is not going to go away.
Third parties aside, clean elections would be a big step in that direction.

[sendero]

81. There is no way...

... a third party can ever gain a foothold in the US without major changes to election laws and the basic structure of gov't.

Since the parties in power aren't about to ever do that, the only real reform possible is to pick the party closest to your beliefs and try to move it.

I'm as sick of the spineless, equivcoating, pantywaist Dem senate as you are, but I recognize that the solution is getting new senators, not a new party.

[sangh0]

88. And the Naderite and Green "left" is in danger of discrediting itself

If they keep repeating the mantra of how they are offering a choice that the two major parties are not offering, and people STILL don't vote for them, they are at risk of discrediting the entire left's ability to influence the party.

If these "leftists" keep arguing that non-voters would vote if offered a progressive choice, and then they offer such a choice and the non-voters STILL don't vote, people will learn to ignore them, if they haven't learned that already.

Hint for the left: Get something done before threatening to do something.

[Cheswick2.0]

38. I have never said anyone should hang their head in shame for voting for

nader. If you told the lie that Gore and Bush were the same or if you insist that Nader's campaign had nothing to do with Bush being in the white house....well then that is a different story.

[jobycom]

54. You know

I attacked Nader with the best of them (and Trumad's claim that he was doing it before it wasn't cool is wrong, since some of my earliest posts here were against Nader, and that goes back a ways), but I NEVER claimed that Nader cost the Dems the election, and I got into a few arguments with others who did claim that. I dislike Nader because of his choices in attacking Gore. To me, that revealed who he was. But that's a far cry from claiming his supporters cost Gore the election.

Elections are complex things, and you can't reconstruct the entire campaign to guess how it would have gone without Gore. If not for Nader, Gore would have campaigned harder on the left, and that may have cost him some moderate support. On the other hand, Nader energized a lot of people, and many of them voted for Gore. No one can know how it would have turned out, and simply subtracting Nader's votes from the total is too simplistic.

But just because Nader didn't cost Gore the election doesn't mean I have to respect him. He campaigned against one of the staunchest allies he had in Congress to help a party that openly scoffed at his ideals (and many of my ideals). THAT's what I have against him. He revealed himself as more about himself than about his ideals, and that's the reverse of why I once liked him.

So I get upset when people claim that by attacking Nader I attacked Greens (you didn't accuse me, others have). Greens good. Nader a sellout. I know that others didn't make that distinction, but many of us did.

People should vote their conscience, though I'm not against trying to persuade them what their conscience should say. :-)

No, I don't know the point of my post, either. I guess just to hear myself talk, since it's so hard to get a real discussion going these days on DU. Except about Nader.

[G_j]

65. I very much agree with your assessment

and I think discussion on Nader is warranted and should be part of the dialog.

It is refreshing to hear someone who has major problems with Nader resist painting the 2000 election in black and white terms. It was a very complex scenario which also had roots that stemmed far back into the history of progressives and the Democratic party. Of course, the real struggle for progressive voices in government and within the Democratic party is not going to go away.

[TruthIsAll]

120. trumad, that was a truly CLASSIC DU thread....

It resides among the pantheon of the greats.

"Gloves are off" should be patented. It has been the inspiration for many subsequent threads by yours truly.

In fact, I would rate it among the Top 10 DU threads of all time.

[LittleApple81]

2. What happened to Carlos? Did he just disappear? Or did he get

tombstoned?

[IrateCitizen]

6. He was tombstoned during the primaries

I think he weighed in with several scathingly negative posts on an "Al Sharpton Campaign Thread" that was specifically set up by the admins for only GOOD THINGS to be said about the candidate in question.

Personally, I wish he were here right now so I could see his head explode over the success of F9/11. He always maintained a quite visceral hatred for Michael Moore.

[jobycom]

37. "Visceral hatred of Moore?"

I've always had a disliking for Moore. Still do, on a personal level. But I LOVE the success of his film. I suspect Carlos would, too.

I do miss the guy, for less vindictive reasons... :-)

[Cheswick2.0]

Moore acted like an ass after 2000

If he had only admitted that he had a problem with Nader campaigning in swing state and left the campaign in october. Instead he chose to be defensive about his role.
Everyone is allowed to modify their behavior and thinking. Moore has done that and perhaps Carlos would have given him credit for that. He isn't here to respond, so why comment?

[lazarus]

115. he did admit it

and was quite open about it.

I've noticed that most people who "have a problem with Moore" don't, once the truth is pointed out to them. This is similar to people who admit that Moore plays fast and loose with the fact, especially in Bowling for Columbine, when he actually didn't.

[trumad]

7. Yep...

...

[JCMach1]

14. I also miss Carlos... if you see this... e-mail me

:)

[madfloridian]

84. He is a Kos poster under the same name.

I notice he posts frequently there.

[Blue_Roses]

117. What is a Kos poster?

is that a new discussion board?

[madfloridian]

118. Not new. Pretty well-known.

www.dailykos.com

[TruthIsAll]

121. I know this for a fact: Carlos was trying to ingratiate himself on

FreeRepublic by bragging about how he spoiled our threads by frustrating us with his garbage. The freepers would have none of it and laughed him right off.

I happened to be trolling FR at the time and I saw Carlos' post. Absolutely disgusting.

Carlos, you piss everyone off.

[CatWoman]

3. oh boy!!! gotta get a pepsi and some popcorn.

this is gonna be fun!!!

:D

[WillyT]

29. You Just LOVE This Shit... Don'tcha ???

Me... I run out of the room screaming with what left of my hair on fire, LOL!!!

:bounce::scared::nuke:

Hey cute-stuff, how's it goin?

:loveya:

[CatWoman]

46. LOL

*smooch*

:hi:

Tru knows how to keep those fires stoked, doesn't he?

[anarchy1999]

124. You were so right this morning about pepsi, popcorn and this is gonna

be fun. I only just now was able to get back to this thread and what a great thread. Reading all the posts was like being at an elder DU meet up and reminds me of why I love DU so much. Intelligent debate, thought, lots of information and so much passion and as always with family, lots of heated debates as well (usually without fists actually being used, just lots of yelling).

[Loonman]

4. No, folks like Trumad and myself(and Jacinto) had Nader pegged all along

Yet the Kool-aid drinkers called us "freepers" or worse.

Turnabout is fair play.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

108. Yeppers.

Anyone who'd turn his back on a pleading Sierra Club (amongst others) and refuse to drop his suicidal bid and continue on his egotistical way deserves to be shunned.
...and I actually miss Carlos!

[mstrsplinter326]

9. does it feel good to be right about ralph

while dividing up the left into a million pieces?

I don't support ralph, but the inherent problem with DU's anti-nader crowd is there "tow-the-line" belief. They expect to obtain green support in battle ground states. But it's pretty perposterous to expect kerry, after winning, to 'reward' the greens with attention on ANY of their issues in the way they aught to be addressed.

It's a two way street that only the greens are traveling right now. Kerry wants greens to tow the line? If he really cares, he'll co-opt green issues, maybe not all the way, but right now, he's almost got nothing.

[trumad]

12. I'm so sick of that argument about dividing the left!

There's no dividing going on by dissing Ralph (Conservative support) Nader. The left that supported Nader is history! The only support that Nader has left is the Fucking Conservatives who are signing his petitions....

[Kahuna]

41. For the record. I'm tired of that argument also. Those who do the...

most dividing are the ones who bring it up the most. Ever hear the saying, too many chiefs, not enough Indians? That's what we have on the left.

One thing the right rightfully accuses us of. It's not having a message. We don't have a message. That's why we keep getting our butts kicked at the polls. Right now, Kerry is our chief. We need to do all we can to facilitate his and our success. Instead of running around like a bunch of headless chickens.

[mstrsplinter326]

78. A message, a long, clear, precice message

http://www.gp.org/platform/2000/gpp2000.txt

"left" candidates get their butts kicked at the polls because when crunch time comes their supporters can expect to be abandoned for more "mainstream" ideals. If Kerry is truly looking to unite the left and expects green party voters to vote for him, then he has some work to do.

Would you expect Bush to win the republican votes without pandering (at least in rhetoric) to the progun, promilitary, antifederalist and religious zealot crowds? No...

It just doesn't make any sense to expect the votes of voters you aren't going to further...

[AndyTiedye]

57. He Is Still Polling Around 5%, and Putting * Over the Top

in almost every poll. So yes, he is still hurting us. Maybe killing us.

I don't hate him for it, the poor old guy is senile and doesn't
realize the rethugs are using him. I'm sure he actually believes
that if he destroys the Democratic party that the Greens will rise
up as a true opposition instead of the Repubs becoming all-powerful.

The events of the last 3.5 years have demonstrated how wrong he is.

[trumad]

13. BTW: The Greens tossed Nader for good the other day

and I say Bravo.....

[mstrsplinter326]

18. Missed point.

you addressed about 4% of my post. I was making the same point the other person you were arguing with did in the "dividing" line, but the rest of the post was much more important than your inflated ego being pumped up about 'defeating' nader.

[trumad]

24. Don't bring my ego in when I'm attacking Naders Ego

that wouldn't be fair. ;-) There is no dividing line anymore regarding Nader... If you support Nader then you support his means in getting on ballots with Conservative support. Naders shot himself in the foot/Heart.

[mstrsplinter326]

34. Main point still unaddressed

Frivolous issues overkill....

[ProfessorGAC]

19. A Two Way Street?

Seems perhpas the traffic has been redirected by the criminal administration to a one way street. No?


If we accept your metaphor as true: Then wouldn't it be logical to expect that the Greens and Naderites would step up to the plate this time and make sure that we shed ourselves of Bush and gang? The two way street should not involve begging Naderites and Green voters to vote democratic. It would seem to involve them stepping down from any progressive purism to do the right thing and launch the bad guys, with absolutely no doubt. An anti-mandate if you will.

Maintaining a sense of progressive or liberal purity, and voting against the true contender would appear, to me, to be counter to any sense of a two way street.

If you would like to explain to me how this two way street doesn't include a compromise from the Green/Nader folks, i'd sure like to hear it. Unfortunately, i'll be out of the office the rest of the day. So, i'll look for any reply tomorrow. I can PM you further points of discussion, if you'd like.
The Professor

[BillZBubb]

25. Hey, Prof, stop asking tough questions!

Asking the Naderites to actually act on a "two-way" street is like asking a Repug to support a Dem president.

[ProfessorGAC]

30. Didn't Know It Was A Tough Question

Honest question, yes. Not that tough! Sure shouldn't be. Do we want to get rid of Bush, and resoundingly enough to discredit the agenda?

If answer is yes, the two way street must include a concession from Green voters that purism is less critical than pragmatism.

If the answer is no, then we know that Nader voters and hard core Greens believe that it is acceptable to sacrifice good on the altar of perfect.
The Professor

[mstrsplinter326]

39. Sure we all want bush out, or we wouldn't be here

The real question is do we want to disenfranchise millions of liberals again or do we realize we shouldn't expect their votes until we have their issues?

[ProfessorGAC]

49. I'm A Hardcore Liberal

I'm not disenfranchised by Kerry. Why are you? You make some pretty broad and sweeping assumptions. What would possibly make you think i'm not a full-bore liberal? Because i don't particularly respect Nader's political ambitions? Because getting Bush out is my primary motivation in this election?

Perhaps the main difference is that i don't let my ideals blind my sense of pragmatism. And, i can also prioritize my goals.

I don't assume you can't, however. I'm just not sure your posts reflect that you've given such prioritization the appropriate amount of thought.

Like i said, "sacrificing good on the altar of perfect" does not seem a wise course of action, to me.
The Professor

[mstrsplinter326]

63. About Kerry

These are not things that Kerry supports and why I would swallow an apple whole before voting for him (Indiana, don't freak):

TEN KEY VALUES


1. GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY
Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives and not be subject to the will of another. Therefore, we will work to increase public participation at every level of government and to ensure that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them. We will also work to create new types of political organizations which expand the process of participatory democracy by directly including citizens in the decision-making process.

2. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and homophobia, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law.

3. ECOLOGICAL WISDOM
Human societies must operate with the understanding that we are part of nature, not separate from nature.
We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet. We support a sustainable society which utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation. To this end we must practice agriculture which replenishes the soil; move to an energy efficient economy; and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems.

4. NON-VIOLENCE
It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to society's current patterns of violence. We will work to demilitarize, and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments.
We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations. We promote non-violent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace.

5. DECENTRALIZATION
Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.

6. COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
We recognize it is essential to create a vibrant and sustainable economic system, one that can create jobs and provide a decent standard of living for all people while maintaining a healthy ecological balance. A successful economic system will offer meaningful work with dignity, while paying a "living wage" which reflects the real value of a person's work.
Local communities must look to economic development that assures protection of the environment and workers' rights; broad citizen participation in planning; and enhancement of our "quality of life." We support independently owned and operated companies which are socially responsible, as well as co-operatives and public enterprises that distribute resources and control to more people through democratic participation.

7. FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY
We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control with more cooperative ways of interacting that respect differences of opinion and gender. Human values such as equity between the sexes, interpersonal responsibility, and honesty must be developed with moral conscience. We should remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want.

8. RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY
We believe it is important to value cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious and spiritual diversity, and to promote the development of respectful relationships across these lines.
We believe that the many diverse elements of society should be reflected in our organizations and decision-making bodies, and we support the leadership of people who have been traditionally closed out of leadership roles. We acknowledge and encourage respect for other life forms than our own and the preservation of biodiversity.

9. PERSONAL AND GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY
We encourage individuals to act to improve their personal well-being and, at the same time, to enhance ecological balance and social harmony. We seek to join with people and organizations around the world to foster peace, economic justice, and the health of the planet.

10. FUTURE FOCUS AND SUSTAINABILITY
Our actions and policies should be motivated by long-term goals. We seek to protect valuable natural resources, safely disposing of or "unmaking" all waste we create, while developing a sustainable economics that does not depend on continual expansion for survival. We must counterbalance the drive for short-term profits by assuring that economic development, new technologies, and fiscal policies are responsible to future generations who will inherit the results of our actions.

QUALITY OF LIFE
Our overall goal is not merely to survive, but to share lives that are truly worth living. We believe the quality of our individual lives is enriched by the quality of all of our lives. We encourage everyone to see the dignity and intrinsic worth in all of life, and to take the time to understand and appreciate themselves, their community and the magnificent beauty of this world.


Read more at: http://www.gp.org/platform/2000/gpp2000.txt

Sure he might say he's for some of 'em, but really, when's the last time he introduced a serious bill that protected choice or promoted non-violence?

[mstrsplinter326]

36. Many staunch republicans are going to be supporting kerry

I see posts here everyday: "My RW (insert relative name here) now sees the light"

[mstrsplinter326]

28. We agree green votes will help kill BushCo

"Then wouldn't it be logical to expect that the Greens and Naderites would step up to the plate this time and make sure that we shed ourselves of Bush and gang?"

That's what EVERY pro-kerry here says, but that's all they're concerned about. It's as if there is no other side of the street.

That's the whole point of the post and every nader post in DU - Kerry supporters expect greens to tow the line. That's the only direction of traffic EVER adressed at DU. What I am trying to explain is the fact that the traffic won't flow if green issues aren't addressed.

Don't want to beg Greens for their vote? Then support their issues. So basic, so ignored.

[ProfessorGAC]

44. Who Said I Don't Support Their Issues

This is the reason why the two-way street argument falls flat.

You don't appear to want a 2 way street. You assume i don't support Green issues. Faulty premise, friend.

Here's what expect: Not that you toe(!) any line. I expect you to be pragmatic enough to make sure that Bush is not only beaten, but thrashed. The point isn't just to win. It's to invalidate the agenda of the neocons. The reverse mandate, i mentioned.

Supporting Green issues, as a secondary gain, is perfectly ok by me. But, if those gains are affected after the primary cause is served, through, and not outside of, the power base that is the mainstream Dem party, i'm all for it. If the purpose of Greens and Naderites, is to extort any concessions from the party in order to garner support, than i'm against them. That puts the secondary gains ahead of the primary goal.

I can't support that.
The Professor

[mstrsplinter326]

68. You aren't the DNC, unfortunately

They will, once kerry wins, do everything they can to remain "moderate" or "mainstream" or whatever they think will win them more money. I would support Kerry if I truely believed green issues were a second or third or forth or hundredth goal of his, but by committing more troops, voting for the war, voting for the patriot act, etc, he's proven that the green values are not his.

The primary goal is progress, equal opportunity, well-being. And sure Kerry will do better than bush. But if you always just settle for good enough, will anything ever really be good enough??

[sendero]

83. No matter WHAT the DNC or Kerry does...

... what Bush* will do will be twice as bad. I fail to see ANY POSSIBLE RATIONAL argument for not voting for Kerry.

This election is for chocolate or vanilla. Strawberry is not a choice. Get real.

[mstrsplinter326]

91. The waiting game that goes on forever

As long as I wait for people like you to tell me when it's a-o-k to start a third party to reinvigorate the voters your candidates have left behind, I'd wait for eternity.

Who's chocolate, who's vanilla? And why does Bush get to be either one?

This election is Lead or Mercury. Which one tastes better?? Well I am not in, not partaking in insanity is a choice. Kerry and Bush are definitely different, but they're too close for comfort.

"I fail to see ANY POSSIBLE RATIONAL argument for not voting for Kerry."

That's because you believe Kerry will champion your rights. I wish that were a realistic view of the future.

[sendero]

96. No...

... its because I understand the obvious that we live in a two-party system, and a third party WILL NEVER GET AN ELECTABLE MAJORITY IT IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

I'm not enamored of Kerry, check my post record. But the choices are chocolate or vanilla. I have to pick one and I pick Kerry. Picking strawberry is just wasting my vote, throwing a baby tantrum. You can do that if you want, I'm not.

[mstrsplinter326]

102. See outside the current paradigm

"third party WILL NEVER GET AN ELECTABLE MAJORITY"

You're right so let's just ignore them and their issues, shall we?

Or, oh wait, yes, that's right, in a two party system the role of a third party is to make one of the two parties acutely aware of their abandoning of their former supporters.

[sangh0]

104. Proof the 3rd parties don't care about the issue

in a two party system the role of a third party is to make one of the two parties acutely aware of their abandoning of their former supporters

3rd parties are about revenge.

[mstrsplinter326]

109. Or they are about promoting an abandoned vision

But those sound like the sound like the same thing... not.

Say we were about revenge, what would we have to avenge. Oh yeah, that whole being abandoned thing, I forgot for a second.


I want Kerry to win and get us out of Iraq and force the Patriot act out of this country. If that's too much to ask, and according to you, I should never vote for a party that isn't the democratic party, well then screw voting, what's the point?

If I vote for bush I am screwing myself; If I vote for Kerry then I am making it ok, once again, for the democratic party to promise things it wont even try to deliver and making ok the tyranny that comes about when two parties have the same financial contributors.

You're either with us or against us.
You're either with us or against us.
You're either with us or against us.
You're either with us or against us.
You're either with us or against us.
You're either with us or against us.
.....

[sendero]

106. Better yet...

... let thme get a clue and try to effect change within the party closest to their beliefs. Because anything else is nothing but WANKING.

[mstrsplinter326]

110. intellectual and mature n/t

[sangh0]

98. Then stop waiting

and try something that's been proven effective. Join the party and change it from within, the way the conservatives did with the RNC.

[mstrsplinter326]

105. Been proven effective...

You are so right. When gore lost the election in 2000 with many democrats disenfranchised and even some voting Green, the DNC figured out that they were pushing in the wrong direction. That's why Kucinich is expected to receive the backing of the party at the convention.

Oh wait, no, that didn't happen...

[sangh0]

94. Then why pretend you can be persuaded

In another example of the hypocrisy exhibited by the loony left, we often see the lonny left complain about how a Dem isn't trying to reach out to them and persuade them to vote for the Dem. At the same time, they often demonstrate WHY Dems won't reach out to them - It's because they are not being accurate when they claim they could be convinced. No matter what the Dems do to try to persuade the loony lefties, it will all be a waste of time because most of the loony left believes that:

They will, once kerry wins, do everything they can to remain "moderate" or "mainstream" or whatever they think will win them more money.

If you really believe what you said, then there's no hope of persuading you to vote for Kerry, so why do you complain that Kerry is not trying to do the impossible?

[mstrsplinter326]

99. Many greens voted for gore

And many more will vote for Kerry.

We've taken the first step and extended the olive branch.

Kerry's camp sits silent.

[sangh0]

101. I was asking you

It was *YOU* who said Kerry would ignore the left once elected, so why would ever vote for him? And if you're not going to vote for him, then why do *YOU* complain when he doesn't court your vote?

Palming it off on other Greens isn't a responsive answer

We've taken the first step and extended the olive branch.

No, the Greens haven't taken the first step. We have no way of knowing if Greens actually did vote for Gore, as opposed to saying they voted for Gore.

Joining the DNC is the first step. We're still waiting for the Greens to do that.

[mstrsplinter326]

107. so it's still the same old message

you're either with us or against us...

Green values in the party... I know I heard of somebody like that once........ Wait, I remeber - Kucinich, that's right. Worked out really well for him didn't it.

Pulled Kerry away from supporting the war with his threat of winning the nomination. Again, didn't happen.

[Dhalgren]

43. And the left will hold their collective noses and vote

Democratic this fall. Ok? But next time around, when the only other "viable" party is a strongly progressive/left party (be it Green or other), then the center will be expected to "shut up" and vote for the left's candidate. Of course they won't. The center would perfer Bush to any true leftist. But "the times they are a changin'..."

[ProfessorGAC]

51. I'm Not The Center!

What's with you guys? I am NO centrist.

What makes you think that just because i find the dominant priority to beat Bush soundly enough to invalidate the neocon agenda (what i've called "the reverse mandate) that i'm not a progressive, or that i'm a centrist? You obviously haven't read enough of my over 7000 posts, or you would know that to be untrue.
The Professor

[Dhalgren]

56. I wasn't referring to you as a centrist.

I was saying that the left is being shouted down at to vote for Kerry and shut up, because beating Bush is all that matters. But it isn't all that matters to the center. Most centrists would rather vote for Bush than Kucinich. So, a deal with the center is also a deal with the devil, since the center is closer to Bush than to any real progressive candidate. The Democratic Party is a centrist party and the left (for the good of the country) will side with the center (Democrats) in order to beat Bush. But this is not an endorsement of the Democrats by the left - it is simply a realistic political move - for this one election cycle.

[ProfessorGAC]

59. Well, It IS By Me

I am the left and i am endorsing Kerry as a man, not merely as an alternative.

So, you are taking the "hold your nose" approach and doing the right thing for the good of the country, and i can buy that. I, will vote for Kerry, and don't need to hold my nose, just because he's not Dennis Kucinich. I think he is sufficiently committed to a government that serves and promotes the general welfare. His history backs that up.

That's close enough to an agreement for me. Have a good day.
The Professor

[Dhalgren]

69. That's fine. And I meant no disrepect.

The problem many people have is that being in the "left" part of the Democratic party, is not the same as being a "leftist". Any politcal party will have a "right", "center" and "left" with in that party. The Democratic party is a "Centrist" party, not a "Leftist" party. What I was saying is that the "Leftists" will (by and large) vote for the Democrat in November, because Bush has got to go. But that does not mean that the Democratic party represents the "Left" in this country in any real or meaningful way. I think that somewhere along the line, Democrats started to think that any politics to the left of them were somehow "fringe" - that is not the case.

[sangh0]

100. 3rd party predictions of extortion have been heard before

and they never come true. No one believes them anymore but the people who support the 3rd parties, all three of them.

[cprise]

62. Which of the Green poisitions did the Dems adopt

...as the Greens continued to grow in 2000 and 2002?

Zilch.

No voting reform, no devolution, and I won't even mention Kyoto (oops I did).

The Democrats feel they need learn nothing except from their Republican mentors.

So no IRV-style voting system to allow Democrats and Greens to co-exist and cooperate. This was a non-environmental position that the Greens put a lot of resources into promoting, for the sake of *saving* the Democrats.

Ignored.

I guess all that 'bi-partisanship' (single-party rule) we've had has transmitted a lot of stupidity to Democrats by osmosis.

[mstrsplinter326]

70. Brilliant. n/t

[jobycom]

16. It is possible to attack Nader and not those who supported him

At least, you can do it most of the time. I always tried, though I'm aware I snapped at times.

I have a lot of respect for Naderite/Green views, positions, ideologies, outlooks, and lifestyles. I signed the Nader petition here in Texas in 2000. I've worked with Greens quite happily in the past. I have some issues (there is a reason I'm a Democrat and not a Green), but overall I love the Green Party.

But I don't like Nader, I don't trust him, and I think they were fooled on Nader. I was too, at one point, before 2000. So I've always tried to attack Nader and not the Greens (with varying success).

I guess my point is, I'm glad people are starting to see what I saw in Nader in late 2000/early 2001, but I don't take any joy in knowing I was right, or that people I like are becoming disillusioned (as I did). Frankly, I'd rather still look on Ralph as a hero. I'm sad that I can't.

[Cpt Spaulding]

21. you want a medal?

It sure does take a genius to figure out any politician is an egomaniac.
Does Nader being a jackass make Kerry less of one?

[trumad]

26. egomaniac is only one adjective....

I have many more... And yes I want a Medal...

[Cheswick2.0]

61. Here ya go

[Spentastic]

22. Well done

I've always thought you were a self congratulory knob end. It seems I'm right too.

Hooray for being right.


What's the point again?

[trumad]

27. The point!

Good question... HMMMMMMM...maybes it's to bury Ralph once and for all....

[Nlighten1]

93. Snarf

:)

[bpilgrim]

23. talk about an ego

oh well, ya know what they say... 'takes 1 to know 1'

anyways, nader seems to be a 'monster' of the dems own creation from where i'm sitting.

and it doesn't fill one with hope to see the juvenial reaction from many, like carlos, who eat their own.

but who cares what i think, eh, i know.

peace

[trumad]

33. What...no comment on his conservative support?

No comment on how Ralph is using Conservative Organizations to get on ballots in Oregon etc? Nah..you'd rather gloss over that.

[bpilgrim]

45. what? no comment on the dem senators selling out gore in 2000?

look, i'm sick of the overblown, rightously indignant scapegoating that distracts and divides and just wanted to point that out.

now i gotta run (work)

bye :hi:

peace

[jobycom]

55. Damn.

That one touched, I hate to admit.

[trumad]

71. another straw man...

No comparison in your argument and you know it!

[sendero]

87. Oh WOW!

Let's equate a board poster who wants to gloat a bit that his long held opinion has turned out to be correct.....

... with an egomaniac who willingly threw an election to the worst president in the history of the country, chanting "there's no difference between the Dems and Reps".

Well that sure turned out to be a load of bullshit, do you know ANYONE who thinks Al Gore would have gotten us into this mess? I didn't think so.

In the scheme of things I find trumad's ego trip to be one to the grocery store and Nader's one to the moon. Excuse me if I see little comparison.

[Zorra]

32. Any candidate that accepts funding from GOP sources is automatically

from my list of "progressive" candidates because of ethical considerations.

[cprise]

50. They're not GOP sources

They are conservative sources.

Clinton and Gore had no problem accepting massive contributions from self-interested corporations (some of which were murderous).

But Nader is supposed to be a pariah because he is playing on conservative's superiority complex? Because of their ideology? Hmmm.

[Zorra]

60. Well, maybe this information is wrong:

GOP Donors Double Dipping with Nader
Contributors deny that financial support is designed to hurt Kerry

AUSTIN – Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader is getting a little help from his friends – and from George W. Bush's friends.

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

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

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0327-05.htm

[cprise]

66. It's correct, and you're wrong

They can give to multiple parties if they so choose. They are promoting a political message that will make any left position Kerry might take actually seem more centrist (broadening his appeal).

Of course, Democrats have long accepted double-dip contributors on a VAST scale. But that's not supposed to matter here.

[Zorra]

92. Yes, of course they can give to multiple parties if they choose, but

don't you think it is clear what their intentions are in funding Nader?

Do you really believe that they are funding Nader because of their generous nature and unflagging belief in democracy?

Ralph is anything but stupid, and knows full well why these republicans are giving him their cash - it is with the intention that he will take enough votes away from Kerry in order to allow Bu$h to win the election in November.

Therefore, based on Nader's platform, and under these circumstances, I have lost respect for him for taking GOP money. If I were in his position, and was expounding the beliefs he is expounding, I would not accept cash from republicans with suspect intentions.

[cprise]

113. I *know* what their motive is

It doesn't mean RW groups are the ones to gain from their actions. I don't give them that much credit in that department.

More than that, I also know perfectly well what a Microsoft or a Worldcom wants when they donate to Democrats: They are ideologically committed to the 'freedom' to establish private, international monopolies and umlimited coercion over local governments.

And here is the difference: The RW political groups trying to help Nader are far more honest. Not only do we know right where they stand, they'll simply tell us in plain language what their general goals are.

REMEMBER this however: The Left now has the advantage on social issues; If this DLC-style social left continues to ally with and facilitate economic extremism, then soon someone not as nice as Ralph Nader will successfully marry envorinmentalism and anti-consumption politics with a fascist social agenda. And don't think it can't happen with the conditions of a second dustbowl encroaching upon us.

[Zorra]

125. I understand you, and the possible future scenario you describe is

something I need to think about for awhile, because I see the plausibility and it is frightening. But Bu$h is a present danger and has got to go, and Kerry is the only one that has a shot at beating him in the election. After Kerry is in power, IMO, liberals must remain focused and re-unite, and use the tools, leaders, and organizations that have developed as a reaction to our present fascist government in order to bring about a genuine democratic state. This will not be an option if Bu$h remains in power for four more years, or consequently, indefinitely.

I think you might find this link interesting:

The global power of the financial centers is so great, that they can afford not to worry about the political tendency of those who hold power in a nation, if the economic program (in other words, the role that nation has in the global economic megaprogram) remains unaltered. The financial disciplines impose themselves upon the different colors of the world political spectrum in regards to the government of any nation. The great world power can tolerate a leftist government in any part of the world, as long as the government does not take measures that go against the needs of the world financial centers. But in no way will it tolerate that an alternative economic, political and social organization consolidate. For the megapolitics, the national politics are dwarfed and submit to the dictates of the financial centers. It will be this way until the dwarfs rebel.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/1997/jigsaw.html

[sangh0]

103. So you think "there's no difference" between Nadir and Dems?

In two of your posts, you defend Nadir by pointing out how Dems do the same thing. I guess Nadir is SO different because he does the same things Dems do.


:crazy:

[kentuck]

35. Is it possible to be wrong 4 years ago and right today and vice-versa?

I think so. The times are totally different. Liberal Democrats had every right to be pissed off at the DLC and the Democratic Party of the 1990's, whether you agree or not, it's all just Monday morning quarterbacking.

[cprise]

42. Is this all you have on him?

"Her original complaint charged that the Nader campaign had violated federal election law by leasing its Washington headquarters space and telephones from a Nader-affiliated nonprofit called Citizen Works."


Given the problems with legality that the Democrats have had in the past, I'm not surprised when such an accusation is made.

As for these Right-wingers, they are the ones responsible for trying to independently aid his campaign. They are arrogant and foolish for thinking that their ideology won't suffer from the promotion of a progressive platform; In addition to spreading the message, they are drawing people to the polls who are otherwise alienated from politics.

[trumad]

47. And Ralph sits by and Hums....

Yah,,Uh Huhh...sure...

[SoDesuKa]

52. Salon is Blocked

Click and watch brings you back to page one of the ad. It's an endless loop.

[madfloridian]

119. Here is the link to the Conason article. You must choose to view ad.

If you don't have a subscription, you choose the day pass to view the ad first.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/06/29/nader/index.html

OR you can just go to the site, find the Conason link on the site, and enter that way.

[checks-n-balances]

53. Recent news: Ralph feels dissed, addresses Michael Moore's weight

just in case anyone missed it.

"Unsolicited Advice From the Far Left (Nader Says Moore Like A Beach Ball)":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=650559

"Hey Michael, Where Were Your Friends?" from Nader website:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=650559

[CWebster]

58. Interesting how so many "progressives" pick up the DLC cause

and set their targets on Nader more than they do on the Republicans.

Be advised, it was these same tactics of public ridicule and humiliation that were used to politically assasinate Dean.

When are y'all ever going to learn, so long as they can keep you from voting against your best interests by targeting the Left...

[trumad]

73. Nader is no Dean..Not even close...

could you imagine Dean taking Conservative support...ROTFLMAO

[Cheswick2.0]

75. Or setting out to spoil an election to punish other demcrats for not

following him or because of his personal animosity towards other candidates?

[CWebster]

82. the thing that revs you up the most, ches...

Not the stolen election, not the disinfranchised Afro-Americans, not that Gore was handicapped by Clinton and his scandals and poor campaign advice, not the butterfly ballots where even Buchanon admitted the votes weren't intended for him, not Katherine Harris and Jeb's machinations, not the Republican operative hire-a-mob to prevent the recounts, not the Supreme court at their lowest ruling of the century, not the Democrats unwillingness to pursue justice and support Gore---No, it is all Nader's fault.

Now, who would it benefit to target Nader and\or the Left? Could it be the same party that would target Dean for the same reasons...

Better to quit crying in one's teacups, huh? That would just be bitter...like Michael Moore bringing it all up again---Can't we just get past this and move on?????

[CWebster]

76. Yes actually--like the NRA for example?

Isn't that the point of winning?

Amazing how the present Democratic party, so incapcitated by it's compliance with the Republicans, a Democratic party who actually sought to court a Republican for their "Unity" ticket, with a candidate who stated there was little difference between the parties, can actually accuse anyone on the Left of...lack of purity.

Vote for Kerry if that is your choice, but don't entertain any illusions.

[ibegurpard]

74. I don't know about anyone else

but for me, it has VERY little to do with Nader. What pisses me off is Democrats who ignore the problems in the party in favor of placing all the blame on something else...like NADER! We still have a huge problem with corporate money corrupting the party and the political process in general and Democratic politicians who are either afraid or unwilling to stand up for policies that benefit the public in GENERAL when it could possibly come at the expense of alienating big-money campaign contributions.

[Cheswick2.0]

77. those two things are not mutually exclusive

I do not ignore the problems of the party. I am willing to fight to make changes. That doesn't mean I can't think Nader is an asshole. I only blame Nader for what he is responsible for. Some people would like to pretend that his deplorable campaign tactics were not PART of the problem in 2000.

[ibegurpard]

80. I agree Cheswick

The problem I see is that there are many who DON'T and instead choose to focus on stamping out third party insurgencies without trying to fix what's wrong with the party that's driving people away in the first place.

[Nlighten1]

97. Ding! Ding! Ding111

We have a winner! The problem isn't Nader...the problem is corporate money ruining our Democracy.

[Armstead]

112. Nader is a butthead but his message is right

I have joined the ranks of the Nader Haters. But it's not because I disdagree with his basic positions.

He is an arrogent prick for refusing to recognize the current state of the country at this point. He should retire from public life today.

However, the message that he represented is still valid and important.

It is sad that the Democratic Party has once again decided to go the Center-Right DLC route and abandon liberalism, and assume that liberals will blindly follow because they have nowhere else to go.

If Bush were not so bad, this would be a losing strategy. And it's bad for the country not to have a real choice.

The Democrats can count on ABB thos year, but unless they want to become totally irrelevant down the live, it's time to stop being modrate Republicans and at least be moderate liberals instead.

[JackDragna]

114. Laff..ego Ralph..

..maybe people here should themselves in a mirror. Ralph Nader, unline our candidate (who I'm voting for with a held nose) has never backed away from liberal stances. Meanwhile, everyone on DU seems to think we're having some Renaissance because our man happens to be in the lead in polling, conveniently forgetting Mr. Kerry supported one of the most aggressive wars in U.S. history and had no problem supporting the Patriot Act. Spare me your sanctimony.

[Nlighten1]

116. Don't you know?

Ralph is the Jesus Christ of the left these days.

[Cat Atomic]

122. I've never known a "Naderite". I HAVE known alot of people who

were fed up with the right-leaning Democratic Party.

Many of them will hold their noses in November and vote for Kerry, but I'd hardly call that a vindication for people who hate Greens.

[Forkboy]

123. It seems someone has an ego just as big as nader around here

Dont break that arm patting yourself on the back.