Does anyone here suspect that Nader is a tool of the GOP?

[Enraged American]

Come on, the guy is threatening to run again. I could sort of understand it in 2000 when we had the most unappealing candidates (in my opinion) since Johnson/Humphrey and when Bush was no more than your average Repuke. But NOW? when loss could turn the US into an unofficially one-party state and more fascist laws and when we have the most progressive and interesting (despite what the media wants you to think) field of candidates in a long while?! I think I know who Nader is working for.

[Don_G]

1. I Think Nader's A Tool

Not of the GOP though: just a dumb dick in general.

[cprise]

37. Do you think Buchannon is a tool of the DNC?

And what have you, as a Democrat, done to advance IRV so the American people can get past the Bully (R) and the Waterboy (D)?

[Caution]

2. No (and personally i think nader is a self-serving power hungry flake)

But i also think he is sincere in his beliefs and can't stand the right-wing.

[janekat]

88. Wrong!!! He likes the Right Wing - can't stand Dems

http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/000113.shtml

The BIG question:

Why is he willing to work with Republicans, but not Democrats?

[leftyandproud]

3. nope

the DLC is a tool of the right...Nader is just standing on principle...hopefully the green defections will eventually pull the dems back to their roots...back to the BASE where they belong.

[jcgadfly]

4. Understand your feelings

Personally, I think Nader is working for Nader and the GOP is happily capitalizing on the division.

[Pastiche423]

5. No

[OKNancy]

6. No

That's dumb

[TacticalPeek]

7. A hammer doesn't need to know who's holding it.

Judge the tree by the fruit.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. That probably sums up my sentiments. I like Nader. I like what he says

in many instances. I respect his accomplishments. I am not terribly pleased with the unintended consequences (if they really were a consequence)

[TacticalPeek]

22. "if they really were a consequence"

I can't imagine how this could be seriously questioned.

I, too, have liked and admired many things about Nader (even tho I really liked the Corvair). Our country owes much to him in many areas, like consumer protection, environment, etc. Yeoman's work.

BUT, the Presidential campaign thing is just batty. First, just carry one state-wide election; him, or someone else, just show me some potential electoral votes. He should put his campaign energy into some more practical, workable attack on corporatism. That's better for everybody.

[Terwilliger]

25. hahahahahahahah

now you see what I'M up against, Teena? It's Freeperism, only it's directed toward Nader.

[htuttle]

13. Well, by that standard, Resident Bush is working for Al Queda

Judging the tree by the fruit, that is.

(not that I'm saying that Bush isn't actually working for Al Queda...he may be, for all I know...).

[TacticalPeek]

17. It certainly is 'as if'.

[Ardee]

60. thanks to tactical, terwilliger and tuttle

the t's make good sense today.....

and of course Bush is working to foment AlQaeda, its damn good for his business buddies aint it?

[w4rma]

8. An unwitting tool (n/t)

[roughsatori]

9. The Democrats helped to vote in the Patriot Act and the invasion

of Iraq so we may already be closer to a one-party system then I would like to believe. I'm sure the Repukes want Nader to run, particularly now that they are not so assured that they will be able to steal the election again.

If the Democratic Reps had voted in a block against the Patriot Act and the invasion of Iraq it would be easier to blame it on the Repukes--but they did not.

[gully]

39. But, we would not have had an Iraq invasion or a patriot act to vote on...

A Gore administration would not have invaded Iraq, nor would they have devised a 'patriot' act. And, in fact, we (most likely) would not have had a 911.

*Imagine*

[mmm]

10. If he runs he is the ultimate dumbass

Of course, while I already have no respect for him,
this would be the seal of the prophets.

[Terwilliger]

12. YES

He was hired in the late 1950's by the Republicans to claim to be a consumer advocate, all the while his main goal was to dismantle all American institutions and rights. He worked with Democrats for years and years and years, but that means he was secretly stabbing them in the back.

His masterful work in sabotaging the Green party trying to look like a Democrat was masterful as well, since his incessant attacks on both parties gave the Green party an astonishing 2.74% (ask Carlos) nationally.

Brilliant! Devious! Sinister! Ironic!

[Rich Hunt]

21. ha!

Your satire was so well-written that I almost believed that Nader was a BFEE conspiracy!

:toast:

The Republicans don't like lawyers who are prone to suing the crap out of their corporate buddies.

[Old and In the Way]

43. Hey Terwilliger....I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Who'd know that Bush would try to single-handed destroy this country in 4 years?....even in my wildest dreams, I could never have anticpated the magnitude of taxcuts or his willingness to commit us to an unwinnable war in Iraq.

But, that said, I think the operative mantra in 2004 with regards to Nader would be:

"Fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice, shame on me."

[Terwilliger]

49. yes, but you're the fool

so why should I say that?

[Old and In the Way]

62. I take it you think we haven't suffered enough yet...

Yes, another 4 years of Bush is just what this country needs.

So why doesn't Ralph run in the primaries? Wouldn't that prove his progressive prowness being the only one who can take on Bush? Heck, I'd vote for him if he won the Democratic nomination. Because I'm hanging with ABB (but he has to be a Democrat, sorry).

[Terwilliger]

66. Anybody But Bush?

Or, Anybody But Bush Only If It's A Democrat?

ABBOIIAD?

[Old and In the Way]

77. It's in the fine print....

So why doesn't Nader run as a progressive Democrat in the primaries?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. An unwitting tool.

[spotbird]

15. Ralph’s loyalty is to Ralph.

He is the HR Perot of the left; no one cares about him anymore.

[Clete]

16. Considering that he is a Republican and doesn't practice

what he preaches, there is a good chance that he is a tool of the vrwc. http://www.realchange.org/index.htm#nader

[Terwilliger]

23. so there's a good chance that Clinton is part of that VRWC too, right?

you want to see the realchange.org dirt on Clinton and Gore?

OOO!! They probably have an update site for people like Howard Dean!!!

[Clete]

29. Considering Gore and Clinton are victims of the vrwc,

I don't see by what rubber band stretch of logic you connect them to it. Ralph Nader on the other hand seems to have no one picking on him except us. They are beginning to smear Dean. If you don't think so, just look at any of the Dean bashing threads right here on DU and checkout their sources. I really don't care what realdirt has to say, because there is nothing new there that is verifiable that hasn't been said before.

Also, neither Clinton nor Gore are running for office, so it has absolutely no relevance to what Ralph Nader is doing. Ralph probably will run as a Green, because he knows he can get enough votes away from the Democratic candidates if he does so. He is nothing but a right wing backed spoiler for the left wing. But if you don't want to believe that, go your merry way. I will soon be dead, but you will have to continue living in the world you gave away.

[Terwilliger]

50. VICTIMS?? give me a damn break!

How has Clinton been victimized? Who started all this? How many times did he lie? How much of a Repuke was he? How often did he institute right-wing programs?

Your sycoophancy is disturbing.

[Clete]

79. So be disturbed.

Clinton had to compromise with an increasing majority of Republicans being elected to Congress, no doubt helped by you guys, to keep the government from grid-locking. He lied about personal matters after a partisan witch hunt. If you are pissed off with eight years of prosperity, environmental improvements and almost near world peace, all of which have been reversed by BushCo, then I hope I have disturbed you enough to face what your painted saint, Ralph Nader did for you.

[Gore1FL]

95. umm Yeah, victims

remember the impeachment?
remember Florida?

[janekat]

85. Nader & His Meeting with Grover Norquist, Christian Coalition

http://www.mediawhoresonline.net/naderletter.htm

A number of your supporters have written MWO asking why we have criticized you so sharply since 2000, and especially in connection with your recent appearance at Grover Norquist's Wednesday Morning Group.

In soliciting an invitation to Norquist's group, you knew exactly whom you were getting involved with, didn't you? Not a harmless assembly of conservatives or Republicans, as some of your supporters seem to think, but the national nerve-center of the hard-right wing advocacy groups and political machinery.

And when you were there, you ingratiated yourself, seeking their support, noting that much of what they said was "good" and much of the rest at least "arguable," taking in their cheers and applause over your vital aid to them in the 2000 election, making fun of liberals as conspiracy freaks, winning kudos from Phyllis Schlafly and Grover himself.

Not all of your supporters seem aware of exactly who is involved in Norquist's Wednesday Group. So here's a partial list of the core members, which includes either leaders or representatives of:

-- The Christian Coalition
-- The National Rifle Association
-- The Free Congress Foundation
-- The Eagle Forum
-- Tom DeLay's office
-- The Republican National Committee

Now, Ralph, we don't see you out there these days soliciting invitations to meetings for and seeking the support of People for the American Way, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Alliance for Justice, the National Abortion and Reproduction Rights Action League, the Sierra Club, and similar liberal and progressive groups.

As far as you're concerned, it seems, YOU are the sole true embodiment of "progressivism," the one man who really speaks truth to power, the man who, in his passion to destroy the Democratic Party, will gladly keep the right-wing Republicans in power.

[lostnfound]

18. No way..

No way...the Repubs plan in advance but not THAT far in advance. I think Nader is what he is. And, by the way, there was some talk that he might join the Kucinich campaign at one time -- he definitely had positive things to say about DK.

I had heard that the Greens are planning to run a presidential candidate, but to campaign only in states where there is expected to be 'no-contest', and hence wouldn't sabotage the election.

[TacticalPeek]

24. "run a presidential candidate"

To what conceivable end?

Achieving what benefit?

Vanity, vanity, thy name is legion.

[Ardee]

61. building a viable third party is the plan

having a national candidate is the necesity.......I wish the Greens would focus more closely on building from the ground up, but, shockingly, they never asked me. I do ,however, support the right of any political party to exist.....this is still, for a little while yet, America.

[ulysses]

19. no.

And to the "unwitting tool" voters - just a reminder that the Democrats have it well within their power to render another Nader run moot if they only will.

[library_max]

40. Hey, cool!

You mean the Democratic nominee could end up with the 3% of the vote (0% of the electoral vote) that Nader got? What a brilliant strategy that'd be!

[ulysses]

42. you're buying into the whole

"Greens demand that the Democrats become socialists" bullshit. Think.

[chadm]

20. Read Crashing the Party

and then tell us what you think.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

26. bullshit

i've talked to nader at length on a few occasions and he has more integrity than all of the daschles and liebermans of the party.

he had the balls to start going after bush days after 9-11 when it was becoming apparent what the PNACers were up to, while most of our parrty was vowing blind loyalty.

and i'd like to think ralph's campaign has a little something to do with the fact that primary candidates are actively addressing progressive issues, unlike the gore/bradley dlc borefest of 2000

[Yupster]

27. No

Just a very vain man. If he really cares about the Green Party, he has to let it establish some type of leadership structure so it doesn't become a one-man party a-la the Perot Party.

[Cappurr]

28. Nadar ran because he really believes

there is no difference between the dems and the repukes. And to a certain extent I agree with him. They are all working for themselves in one way or another. Very few are willing to stand up for what they believe if it is going to hurt them. And all of them take money from corporate interests and give special deference to their big contributors.

The problem with Nadar's position is that the presidency really can make a difference. Clinton was far more progressive than a lot of people give him credit for. Al Gore certainly would have carried on Clinton's policies and tried to complete what Clinton didn't finish.

Clinton was willing to look for a third way....not hew to one dogma or another. And his intellect is damn near intimidating (and I have a pretty good IQ myself, but Clinton's intelligence is overpowering}

I just finished reading Sidney Blumenthal's book "The Clinton Wars". Great book. It explains a lot about how the presidency can be used --for progress or retreat.

So Nadar is wrong about there being no difference....there is. We can have a President who deliberately thwarts government programs for citizens through fiscal policy and flaunts US power globally or one who tries to use government to make life better not just for Americans but for the global community.

Ralph wasn't a tool of the GOP. He took a lot of heat from family and friends who tried to get him to pull out of the contested states. But he refused because he wanted to make his point. And unfortunately, his point is flawed.

[Clete]

32. I could give Arnold a pass on that argument

because Arnold is basically, kinda dumb, kinda naive. Ralph on the other hand is a brilliant person. He knows that the argument that there is no difference between the parties is an out and out lie. Sorry, he gets no pass from me.

[Terwilliger]

54. If he's so brilliant...

maybe he knows something you don't know. Ever thought of that?

[Clete]

80. Maybe he knows a lot that you don't know

that he hasn't been forthcoming about. Ever thought of that?

[Terwilliger]

93. actually, more than a few times

but since you dont seem to care when people in your party are lying to you, why hold Nader to a different standard?

[Iverson]

30. Of course people here suspect it.

Their visceral hatred of Nader leaves them vulnerable to suspecting anything that soothes their preferences.

The right thing to do in this case is to refuse to consider anything about the Green party, fixate on Nader, and take steps to prevent dialogue.

I suggest that you start a thread that pushes people's buttons. That will surely help.

[Piperay]

31. NO doubt

about it.

[leftofthedial]

33. Nader is a tool

The Democratic slate includes liberals with even a more forthright, better thought through and more porgressive agenda than Nader an on in 2000.

[Brian Sweat]

34. Nader is a tool, but he is not a GOP operative.

To assume that Al Gore had the right to the votes of the people that voted for Nader is anti-democratic. To assume that the interest of the people who voted for Nader would be better served if Gore were president is presumptious.

[tom_paine]

35. Perhaps an unwitting tool

n/t

[KG]

36. too late! the DLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP

they were the low bidders and got the contract. :)

[mlawson]

38. Anyone who helps bush win in 2004 is a 'tool', wittingly or not.

Not only nader, but that goes for the millions of Dems who won't bother to vote unless they get a candidate with whom they agree, close to 100%.

[Lindacooks]

41. Yes

n/t

[denverbill]

44. No, and I think it's a cheap shot to say that.

Read his book. He is correct about everything he says about the Democratic party and the Republican party.

The only thing I disagree with is his method of fixing the problem.

[Old and In the Way]

45. Ralph played the role of the Pied Piper in 2000

His message resonated with just enough of the politically naive to really think he had a chance to win. Or maybe they just wanted to waste their vote and send a "message" to the middle class. Whatever, the message was delivered and we are suffering for it.

Personally, I think he'll get less than a 1/3 of the votes he got last time. There are some who think we haven't suffered enough yet, I guess. :shrug:

[Terwilliger]

52. His message was fucking ignored, and it's still being ignored

at YOUR peril

[Old and In the Way]

63. Nah, he'd be totally ineffectual, as any 3rd party candidate would be.

His whole agenda would be co-opted by political realities of how legislation is passed in government. Instead of working so hard to elect someone who couldn't get anything done, you ought to do the hard work of getting local and state party slates elected.....but, of course, that's been a dismal failure to date as well.

[edward]

46. To hell with democracy.

Nader should shut up. So should anyone who differs from the power elite.

[Monte Carlo]

47. Hey, he didn't vote for himself a million times in 2000.

Whenever I hear someone call Nader a GOP operative, I'd like to ask them why someone would vote for Nader, if those million people were also GOP operatives, and whether or not we should be in the business of dictating who can and cannot run for President.

[Old and In the Way]

64. Maybe his core democgraphics consisted of a bunch of 1st time

voters, naive about the reality of 2 party politics? Heck, I admit to canvassing for George McGovern and I really thought he'd win in '72.

[Monte Carlo]

69. I confess, that's me.

I was really introduced into politics by Michael Moore, and tended to follow him where he went, and it was the first presidential election in which I could vote.

Looking back, I may have switched my vote, but I don't see why I'm supposed to apologize for the vote I made. In the 2000 election, I _really_ didn't see much of a difference between Bush and Gore; where one's policies ended and the other's began was a very fuzzy place. Capturing the center, after all, was the theme of both campaigns.

I voted for Nader because, damn it, he spoke English and not Washington-ese during the campaign. Gore really let me down when he nominated Lieberman, one who embodies some of the worst stereotypes of politicians and is, for the lack of a better word, compromised. I thought maybe, just maybe, a miracle would happen.

[Old and In the Way]

81. I can respect that.....really.

Hey, at least you voted. Hope you didn't take my post as being deraugatory, either. I think an 18 year old who considers the candidates will opt for the message that sounds most appealing. I readily admit that Ralph has many, many positions that I can relate to. In another time and different circumstances, I could even see myself voting for him.

But the MO on Bush is well known now. Few could have predicted just how radical and reactionary his agenda was. In my 32 years of voting in elections, I cannot ever remember an administration that was so blatantly anti-democratic and anti-middle class (Nixon included). If they manage to engineer another "coup", I think we can kiss our 2 Party system goodbye. We are one "event" away from dictatorship, I think.

[Monte Carlo]

99. _I_ misunderestimated Bush...

... as it was coming out of the Election fiasco, Bush was a president with no popular mandate, getting scrutinized from every angle by both Democrats and the media, and questioning his integrity was not considered treasonous. When I voted for Nader, I thought Bush would be so weak by the time the 2002 and 2004 elections that the Democrats would easily roll over him. But then some morons decided to hijack a few planes and crash them into the WTC and the Pentagon, and that put an end to that prediction. I, too was suprised just how sharply to the right Bush and the national agenda turned.

Unless a nightmare happens and Lieberman gets the nod, I wouldn't consider voting for Nader again. (Frankly, Ralph stands a better shot at Bush than Joe does...) But this "he's a GOP operative" crap gets on my nerves. Can't anybody just be old and cranky and extremely stubborn anymore? Someone to the general left of the Democrats needs to start holding their feet to the fire, anyway, just to remind them that the swing vote is not the only prize in American politics.

[Iverson]

101. No.

"Can't anybody just be old and cranky and extremely stubborn anymore?"

Sorry, the new edition of life's rule book is out, and there on p.55 it clearly states that liberalism is officially discouraged, and liberalism or (shudder) things further left are disallowed outside the two-party apparatus.

"...the swing vote is not the only prize in American politics."

fair notice: You may continue saying or writing this only until Feb. 1, 2004, after which there will be fines for each utterance or inscription.

Have a nice day.

[molly]

48. I do not like the man - he has deceived his supporters

he is a mulit-millionaire selling himself as a pauper-progressive.

[edward]

51. How did he deceive his supporters?

Funny how his supporters never make that charge.

[janekat]

70. Even Michael Moore is backing off Nader....

By supporting Wesley Clark and by several statements he's made since the 2000 election.

This is what he said in Florida in 2002:
http://www.socialistviewpoint.org/sept_02/sept_02_25.html
On a speaking tour at Florida State University Tallahassee, Moore surprised reporters when he told Floridians, “‘But if you were voting for Nader, I want you to think long and hard about your vote.’ The stakes, I felt, would be different in Florida. If it’s more important to you to stop Bush, then you might have to vote for Gore. I would understand and respect your decision.”

Michael Moore, who is a mass of contradictions, accuses Green Party activists of failure “for not showing Americans that there is no difference between these parties; yet he tells voters in Florida that there is a difference, and it’s best to pull the lever for Al Gore. Moore, however, contradicts himself saying that he had voted for Green Party presidential Candidate Ralph Nader, but he explained to readers, “Of course, that’s easy for me to say—I live in a state where Gore is already going to win by a landslide.”

[edward]

71. Moore didn't say he was deceived.

Did he?

[janekat]

72. What another ex-Naderite has to say....

This guy voted for Nader in 2000:

The real problem with Ralph Nader is that he refuses to accept the partisan politics that makes our system run. He is still, to this day, not even a member of the Green Party, and he was never a Democrat before he became (or failed to become) a Green.

I remain convinced that his candidacy was originally a protest candidacy intended to "send a message" to the Democrats. Unfortunately Green turnout was low. Relatively few new voters were brought into the system, and most of the many Democrats tempted by Nader remained loyal, so the Democratic Party now has no reason to deal.

By and large, what happened was the worst thing thing that could have happened, giving us a right-wing Republican President and a bitterly divided left.

.........

I am hardly a Nader-hater: I voted for Nader in 2000 as a protest vote, and I mostly agree with him on the issues which motivated him to run. But two recent events have caused me to lose respect for the man and his party. First, in Minnesota the Greens are running a very poor, not-even-very-Green candidate against the populist liberal Paul Wellstone, who happens to be #1 on the Bush hit list. (It turns out that the Green candidate, McGaa, was nominated by people who really didn't know his stands on the issues. The official Green Party response seems to be something like, "Shit happens, man. Don't get all bent out of shape about this, OK?")

On top of that, not too long ago, Nader (non-partisan to the end) visited Grover Norquist's right-wing Republican war council in the belief that he could find some areas of common interest with them and perhaps change their minds about some things. This is lunacy. Grover Norquist and his friends represent the worst of the worst in the Republican party. These are people who think Trent Lott is too moderate.

I think that we can conclude that, motivated perhaps by bitterness or despair, Nader has gone off the deep end. And judging by the anti-Wellstone candidacy, the Green Party seems to have lost it too. The saddest part is that the Green issues which led me to vote for Nader in 2000 are probably also going to be lost.

[Terwilliger]

53. where the FUCK HELL did he sell himself as a pauper?

EXCUSE ME, MISS "INDIANS ARE WELFARE QUEENS!"

[StandWatie]

55. is anyone here clinically paranoid..

unfortunately, the answer is affirmative.

[edward]

56. Nader just stole my socks.

Right after I took off my shoes I layed the socks on the floor.
When I came back from the bathroom, they were gone.
Now you tell me who's crazy.

[StandWatie]

57. did Karl Rove tell him to do it?

;-)

[edward]

58. Like you don't know.

Nader lovers are all alike. Just like the communists. And farmers.

[StandWatie]

59. oh no!

Don't tell me you stopped drinking your fluorinated water...*cough* <aside>Listen we have a code-magenta human, who is becoming aware get him on some of our purity of essense draining chemicals and a copy of Crashing the Party stat!<aside>

[janekat]

65. Ralphs #1 Objective "Bring Down Dem Party"

above all else.

http://www.mikehersh.com/printer_67.shtml
Importantly, Nader never joined the Green Party, and still refuses to share resources with them. It almost seems that Nader is using the Greens to advance his goals, some of which look more like a personal crusade if not a vendetta against Democrats. More and more, Nader's allies and supporters wonder how this promotes the interests of Greens and progressives.

Nader's "war" against the Democrats - all Democrats - takes priority over all else. He wants Wellstone to lose, but he understands it would hurt his "war" if progressives find Nader's fingerprints on Wellstone's political corpse.

......

I admire Green Party Presidential candidate Ralph Nader. I also admire Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota.... It does mean that I feel obligated to do my small part to avert the loss of one of the few progressive Senators worth worrying about, a loss that could put the U.S. Senate back in Trent Lott's hands."

Cobble explained the stakes, and called upon Nader and Senate candidate McGaa to call off their efforts: "Thus, my plea to the Minnesota Greens: take a breath, put aside your anger at the Democrats, and act in your own best interests, as well as the nation's -- please reconsider your challenge to Senator Wellstone."

[Woodstock]

67. Gloria Steinem touched upon this in 2000

TOP TEN REASONS WHY
I'M NOT VOTING FOR NADER
(ANY ONE OF WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH)
by Gloria Steinem
President, Voters For Choice


10. He's not running for President, he's running for federal matching funds for the Green Party!

9. He was able to take all those perfect progressive positions of the past because he never had to build an electoral coalition, earn a majority vote, or otherwise submit to democracy.

8. By condemning Gore for ever having taken a different position - for example, for voting against access to legal abortion when he was a Congressman from Tennessee - actually dissuades others from changing their minds and joining us.

7. Nader is rightly obsessed with economic and corporate control, yet he belittles a deeper form of control - control of reproduction, and the most intimate parts of our lives. For example, he calls the women's movement and the gay and lesbian movements "gonadal politics," and ridicules the use of the word "patriarchy," as if it were somehow less important than the World Trade Organization. As Congressman Barney Frank wrote Nader in an open letter, "your assertion that there are not important issue differences between Gore and Bush is either flatly inaccurate or reflects your view that...the issues are not important...since you have generally ignored these issues in your career."

6. The issues of corporate control can only be addressed by voting for candidates who will pass campaign-funding restrictions, and by conducting grassroots boycotts and consumer campaigns against sweatshops - not by voting for one man who will never become President.

5. Toby Moffett, a longtime Nader Raider who also served in Congress, wrote that Nader's "Tweedledum and Tweedledee assertion that there is no important difference between the major Presidential candidates would be laughable if it weren't so unsafe." We've been bamboozled by the media's practice of being even-handedly negative. There is a far greater gulf between Bush and Gore than between Nixon and Kennedy - and what did that mean to history?

4. Nader asked Winona LaDuke, an important Native American leader, to support and run with him, despite his likely contribution to the victory of George W. Bush, a man who has stated that "state law is supreme when to comes to Indians," a breathtakingly dangerous position that ignores hundreds of treaties with tribal governments, long-standing federal policy and federal law affirming tribal sovereignty.

3. If I were to run for President in the same symbolic way, I would hope my friends and colleagues would have the sense to vote against me, too, saving me from waking up to discover that I had helped send George W. Bush to the most powerful position in the world.

2. There are one, two, three, or even four lifetime Supreme Court Justices who are likely to be appointed by the next President. Bush has made clear by his record as Governor and appeals to the ultra-rightwing that his appointments would overturn Roe v. Wade and reproductive freedom, dismantle remedies for racial discrimination, oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians, oppose mandatory gun registration, oppose federal protections of endangered species, public lands, and water - and much more. Gore is the opposite on every one of these issues. Gore has made clear that his appointments would uphold our hard won progress in those areas, and he has outlined advances in each one.

1. The art of behaving ethically is behaving as if everything we do matters. If we want Gore and not Bush in the White House, we have to vote for Gore and not Bush - out of self-respect.

I'm not telling you how to vote by sharing these reasons. The essence of feminism is the power to decide for ourselves. It's also taking responsibility for our actions. Let's face it, Bush in the White House would have far more impact on the poor and vulnerable in this country, and on the subjects of our foreign policy and aid programs in other countries. Just as Clinton saved women's lives by rescinding the Mexico City policy by executive order as his first act as President - thus ending the ban against even discussing abortion if one received U.S. aid - the next President will have enormous power over the lives of millions abroad who cannot vote, plus millions too disillusioned to vote here.

Perhaps there's a reason why Nader rallies seem so white, middle class, and disproportionately male; in short, so supported by those who wouldn't be hurt if Bush were in the White House.

Think self-respect. Think about the impact of our vote on the weakest among us. Then we can't go wrong.

[demgrrrll]

74. Absolutely brilliant. Thanks so much for posting that information. n/t.

[janekat]

82. More repentant Nader voter 's on Nader...

http://www.repentantnadervoter.com/

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/opinion/other2003/nadervoter_2003.shtml

http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Frepentantnadervoter.com%2F

http://www.mcheney.net/archives/00000060.htm


I was a Nader voter almost right up to the 2000 election, but in the end I voted for Gore. Not because I was afraid Bush would win and "the lesser of two evils" was better than Bush in the office, but because Nader supporters kept insisting there was no difference between Gore and Bush, an irresponsible lie in my opinion. I thought I was campaigning for someone who was going to tell people some truth, and Nader turned out to be just as good at distorting facts as Gore or Bush. So I voted for Gore.

http://www.praesentia.us/archives/000274.html

[tedoll78]

68. I have a funny metaphor for Nader and the Greens

The Veruca Salts of the political world. Check-out the lyrics, particularly in the last round ('Don't care how' is very fitting):

"They want the world.
They want the WHOLE world!
They want to lock it
all up in their pocket -
it's their bar of chocolate.
Give it to them -- NOW!"

...

"They want a party
with rooms full of laughter.
Ten-thousand bowls of ice cream.
And if they don't get the things they are after -
they're.. going.. to.. screeeaam!"

...

"DON'T CARE HOW -
THEY WANT IT NOW.
DON'T CARE HOW -
THEY WANT IT NOOOOOOOoooooooooooowwww...!"


* HONK HONK * (camera zooms on the lever going from Pragmatic to Idiotic)

==============

That's my view of Nader and the Greens.
They want it all, they want it all NOW, and they'll never be happy.

[jiacinto]

73. I do

But some people worship Nader as if he were a god here.

[Q]

75. No...but I think YOU are using Nader as a tool...

...to deflect blame and responsibility away from the Democratic party.

[union_maid]

78. There's plenty of blame to go around

but if you aren't part of the solution you're part of the problem. Thing is, Nader has been part of the solution for years, but as a presidential candidate he becomes part of the problem. The reason for that is math, our two party system which can't be changed by wishing it away and because there is a difference and he knows it and it's disingenuous to blow off the areas where the differences are. What I'll always wonder is how many people, knowing Nader couldn't win, didn't even bother to vote at all. Nader's following tended to be white, young and educated and didn't have nearly as much at stake personally in the outcome of the election as much of the Democratic base does. If you're in a less fortunate demographic you're more likely to be aware that Democrats are better for you than Republicans, even when they're not as good as they should be. Nader was certainly a tool of the Republicans. That might not have been his objective, but it was inevitable, given the campaign he ran and it was clearly a price he was willing to pay.

That said, I think he's going to be a whole lot less relevent this time around.

[buddhamama]

76. does anyone here suspect that the Reform party,Independent party

Libertarian party, Right to Life party are the tools of the DEMs?

Hmmm...something to think about.

or perhaps they're all just tools of that pesky little democracy.

[Clete]

83. I don't think anyone was suspecting the Green Party

just the Republican that keeps popping up as their Presidential candidate.

[buddhamama]

98. oh right.

i forgot that without Nader there'd be no green party :eyes:

if not Nader than someone else.

i'm sure it's just a matter of time before Jello is accused of being a Repub tool. he was in the running the last time, you know?

do you guys realize how pathetic this all sounds.

[really-looney]

84. Not a tool of the GOP just .......

A self-important asshole!!!

[janekat]

86. He used to be a Republican - has never been a Democrat

He .... was never a Democrat before he became (or failed to become) a Green.

Nader .....began as a free-market conservative of approximately the Barry Goldwater type.

I am NOT saying (as some have said) that he is still a conservative, and is deliberately trying to wreck the Democratic Party. Nader had a genuine change of heart and has completely rejected free-market dogma. However, I think that his original right-wing instincts made it impossible for him ever to involve himself with the "corrupt, pork-barrel" Democratic Party.

When Nader abandoned the Social Darwinist right wing, what he became was a good government crusader ("goo-goo") of the old-fashioned Republican Progressive type (think Teddy Roosevelt). The goo-goos opposed the corporate malefactors, but they opposed the unions and Tammany Hall just as vigorously.

On top of that, not too long ago, Nader (non-partisan to the end) visited Grover Norquist's right-wing Republican war council in the belief that he could find some areas of common interest with them and perhaps change their minds about some things.

......I think that we can conclude that, motivated perhaps by bitterness or despair, Nader has gone off the deep end. And judging by the anti-Wellstone candidacy, the Green Party seems to have lost it too. The saddest part is that the Green issues which led me to vote for Nader in 2000 are probably also going to be lost. As I said, the worst thing that could possibly have happened is what actually did happen.

[ulysses]

89. erm...

Nader .....began as a free-market conservative of approximately the Barry Goldwater type.

Cite, other than your own delusions?

[Terwilliger]

90. OHH yah...didn't you know?!?!?

Nixon compared John Kerry to Nader because Nader was a right-wing Republican, trying to unseat Nixon's left-pandering ass

[janekat]

87. Nader Could Run as a Republican????

Has anybody heard about this???

http://politicalwire.com/archives/002261.html

Nader Could Run as a Republican
Ralph Nader "says that if the Greens reject him, he might choose to run as an independent, or possibly even as a Republican, which would pit him against George W. Bush in the primary," the AP reports.

(from June 19, 2003)

[Terwilliger]

91. I have

it's bullshit...Nader was asked if he would run as a Republican, and he said it was an interesting idea. He did NOT (I PUNCH the T even though it means nothing to you) say that he was considering running as a Republican.

[Rowdyboy]

92. Even I, a dedicated enemy of Nader...

know that the man has no intention of running as a Republican. He's not my choice but, people, he's not Satan...Lighten up.

[Forkboy]

94. D.A.D. Strikes Again!!

Democrats Against Democracy!

The nerve of that man,"threatening" to run again in America!!! Where does he get the crazy notion that anybody in a democracy can run? It's shameful I tell ya!

[IndianaGreen]

96. No, but I suspect some of the Nader bashers are helping the GOP

There are many people that voted for Nader in 2000 that are backing antiwar Democratic candidates today, such as Dean and Kucinich.

Nader did not march in any antiwar rallies, nor did he openly oppose the war like Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, and Mosley-Braun did. I also have to include Bob Graham's vote against the Iraq war resolution.

"Does anyone here suspect that Nader is a tool of the GOP?"

Nader is a tool of his overbearing ego! The answer to your question is a resounding NO!

I do suspect that some of the Nader bashers are helping the GOP, either by accident or design. Every Nader bashing thread in DU invariably ends up in a thread bashing all Greens, and all Americans that did not vote for Al Gore in 2000. The result is to piss off a lot of people that are supporting Democratic candidates in 2004.

I wonder sometimes if there are some Nader bashers that actually support candidates that voted for the Iraq war, and they use the Nader/Green flame baits to turn off supporters of Dean, Kucinich, and other antiwar Democratic candidates.

Whatever your intentions in posting this thread, I must put it in the proper perspective and dismiss its premise.

[LittleApple81]

97. well put. n/t

[CWebster]

100. Must be a slow news day

Otherwise why would the old standard and forever stand-in whipping boy, Nader, be making the rounds?