Are some Nader bashers trying to divide Dean & Kucinich supporters?

[IndianaGreen]

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?," is the question posed by another poster in a GD thread.

Nader is a tool of his overbearing ego! The answer to the above 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.

[CWebster]

1. IndianaGreen

Don't participate in those threads, rather let them die a lonely death. They got nothing to do with nothing - other than flamebait for those out for a good bash. As Jim Sagle would say--those threads ain't nothing but shit.

;-)

[IndianaGreen]

2. Excellent advice

that is hard to follow sometimes, particularly when we get a flood of them.

[trumad]

3. Nah..I bashed old Ralph

way before I knew who Dean and DK were...;-)

[Forkboy]

4. lol

at least you're honest about it trumad! :thumbsup:

[Ardee]

5. while I agree in substance

I believe that the Ralphie bashing by some is an attempt to make falsehood credible by repetition, by others to deflect any criticism of the strategies of the conservative democartic leadership. The best reason to read these various threads, imo, is the brilliance and witty reparte they contain.....:eyes:

But seriously, one of the latest of these actually did have some genuinely thoughtful and literate defenses.....

[CWebster]

7. Something that you haven't heard 6 billion times already?

Those who exert more energy in attacking those who are genuinely concerned about the turn the country and party are taking, rather than attacking those who are pulling it in that direction--are victims of DLC spin.

If Gore was the man he is today, rather than the weakened pawn he was following the exausting Clinton scandals, Nader wouldn't have reason to launch a campaign to derail DLC corporate domination from hijacking the party.

We are regaining our footing - let's not allow the DLC to set the tone and compromise the party's purpose again.

[Terwilliger]

6. Indy, honey...

Nader did not march in any antiwar rallies, nor did he openly oppose the war

No he did NOT march in the anti-war rallies but I want you to find me a Democrat who DID!!!!

And he didn't openly oppose the war? He did more than most Democrats did!

http://www.nader.org/releases/020403.html

http://www.essential.org/features/spotlightiraq.html

http://www.essentialaction.org/spotlightiraq/clusterbomb.html

http://www.essentialaction.org/spotlightiraq/daschlepelosi.html

Now, in the remaining days before the outbreak of war, is the time for the Democratic Party's leaders to declare that while you of course support the troops and hope to minimize all dangers they face, that you oppose the President's dangerous, illegal and immoral war-invasion and occupation. The nation will surely rally around the troops once hostilities break out, but this war, its Presidential promoter, and especially its festering aftermath will feed public dismay and disillusionment. The citizenry will want to know not just who criticizes the inevitable problems after they emerge, but who had the foresight and courage to identify the risks in advance and counsel a more prudent path in our country's best interests.

I urge you to meet this challenge. Forcefully and clearly declare your opposition to the President's present war path. Not only is it the right course of action, but history, and this nation's citizens, will judge you kindly for offering a more sensible and peaceful alternative: containment, deterrence, UN inspections and doing what the early 2001 Bush administration once favored -- tightening military sanctions while easing the economic sanctions that have caused untold suffering for the Iraqi people.

http://www.nader.org/interest/021403.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader1109.html

http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/politics/4151237.htm

http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20021010/southsound/17101.shtml

Nader saved some of his harshest rhetoric for Bush and his administration's current move to declare war on Iraq. Nader pointed to a recent poll showing that two-thirds of the American people are opposed to a unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq that could result in heavy casualties.

"You would think the Democrats would see some opportunities in this," Nader said. "But instead, most of them -- with a few wonderful exceptions -- can't wait to roll over for George W. Bush. They're cowards on steroids."

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

These are just a few links from a simple Google. Now can we dispel the notion he didn't speak against the war? He spoke against the war long before Dean did...long before most other Dems played strategery with Bush and tried to get out in front of the war by trying to make it happen early.

[CWebster]

8. Kucinich, Sharpton, John Conyers

are three I saw speak at an anti-war rally. Also Ron Kovic, co-founder with John Kerry of Viet Nam Vets Against the War. John Kerry was making speeches elsewhere, of course. ;-)

[buddhamama]

9. Cynthia McKinney

can't forget her. She was a powerful voice for anti-war.

[IndianaGreen]

10. Yes, she was!

I hope she runs against that AIPAC/DLC/DINO Denise Majette!

[buddhamama]

13. So do I, IG !!!

so do I.

we need her now more than ever.

i'm inclined to 'see' what you have in some posters.

since coming to DU certain posters who claim to want unity, time and again start flame bait threads. then they deride the once Nader voters for supporting Kucinich. and questioning their choice and motives for being here.

[Terwilliger]

11. Cynthia McKinney who was drummed out by her own party?

You're using her as an example?

[buddhamama]

16. she is still a DEM,Terwilliger

and i think you know that she'd have been speaking out office or no office.

[Terwilliger]

18. That's all well and good...she has no influence

and nobody listens to her

She's not a member of Congress anymore. She was discredited by the party she still claims, and you defend the Democrats because she's still got DEM on her registration card?

[buddhamama]

20. i am not defending anyone,Terwilliger

i mentioned Cynthia because i did not want her to be forgotten.

you are barking up the wrong tree if you expect to get an argument from me. i do not defend DEMs unless they deserve it and i certainly don't agree with everything IG said. I am so tired of hearing about Ralph's ego, it is a weak attempt to discredit the man.

[CWebster]

15. Right

I had the pleasure of hearing the courageous, but ostrasized Cynthia McKinney speak in -5 degrees along with thousands of others from the ignored "focus group" of Americans, while so many of the establishment party Dems stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the chimp.

[Terwilliger]

12. Was Kerry at an anti-war rally?

and your feeble attempt at equivication notwithstanding, those people are considered OUTSIDE the party power, and you know it

[CWebster]

17. LOL

Me put forth even a feeble defense of Kerry? Terwilliger, that's hysterical. Surely he has no greater critic...;-)

[diamondsoul]

40. CW does ANY candidate have a greater critic

than you?!:evilgrin:

While you may irritate the absolute hell out of me, on a frequent basis, I have to give you credit for consistancy. ;)

[CWebster]

46. Got me there.

it's fun, you know?

[Terwilliger]

49. arent you one of those that excuses the Dem vote on the war resolution?

Why should I think you're that critical of Kerry?

[CWebster]

67. Do you have a screw lose or

a bee in your bonnet today?

Grumble, grumble, all that grief for nothing...

[Terwilliger]

72. grief is the word

its got mood, its got meaning

answer the question!

[CWebster]

76. You mean all those times I roused the scornful ire and

scathing one-liners from Sangha was because of my boot-licking loyality to the corporate wing of the DLC and their Bush-enabling proclivities?

I don't think so.

Perhaps I don't express myself appropriately jingoistically with all the attendant Leftist rhetoric in defense of the proleteriat, while conforming to the fundamentalist purity of the true believer at one with the cosmic Aum, but while I travel down to Washinton again for the 5th time or so this year to attend yet another anti-war protest, I will ponder the genesis of your ridiculous charge.

;-)

[Terwilliger]

14. Now, you going to address Indy's point?

or wallow in your satisfaction that a few Democrats stood against the party and spoke up at the rallies?

[CWebster]

19. Hmmmm

I don't believe that has ever been a practice I routinely engage in. LOL! Terwilly is looking for a good fight and there's none to be found this bright and early morn. ;-)

[Terwilliger]

21. actually, Im not

will you state that Indiana Green was wrong in her characterization of Nader as not speaking out against the war?

[CWebster]

22. Of course not.

Like nader could get any decent press anyway.

[Terwilliger]

25. of course not?

was Indy wrong in what she said in the original post?

[G_j]

90. I saw him while protesting the World Bank/IMF in DC

he took part in the educational forums.

edit: that was in '99 when he was also running for pres.

[buddhamama]

23. Bob Graham

is not an anti-war candidate. and i am kinda surprised by DUers who make this claim.

Graham opposed the resolution because he felt it didn't go far enough;that hardly makes him an anti-war candidate.

[bicentennial_baby]

24. Yep

He scares me...far too eager to wage war on Syria and Iran...

[buddhamama]

38. there's good reason to be scared too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=344794

:hi:

[Gman]

26. All well and good but, the Greens and Nader remain the ENEMY

of Democrats and anyone else opposed to the Bush regime. I say welcome and let's work together to every single former Green that's working for Dean or Kucinich. Together we'll win and free the country and the world from the Bush oppression.

Greens and Nader have been offered and probably taken GOP money to work against the Democratic Party. The Greens and Nader want Bush (re)elected in the delusional thinking that the country will somehow see the Green light of how to save the world. This makes Greens and Nader the enemy of all good people in the country and the world.

[CWebster]

27. O look

the Left's version of liberal bashing.

Right. Blame those opposed to the right-wing swing of the Party for being right-wing enablers.

[library_max]

60. Facts don't matter, apparently?

97,000 progressives voted Nader in Florida. If 10% of them had voted Gore, Gore would be President. That's a fact.

[Terwilliger]

62. sorry...that's not fact

97,000 people in Florida voted for Nader. Assuming half of them would have voted without Nader in the race...assuming half of that voting figure were Greens, liberals, progressives, Republicans, and others...that leaves 24,000 Democrats that voted for him. If 24,000 is the Dem figure for Nader, the Dem figure for BUSH is 288,000.

288,000 Democrats voted for Bush....Gore lost by 537...

DAMNED RIGHT-WING DEMOCRATS!!

They're the ones who were supposed to be captured by the DLC, since the DLC knows what it's doing! Why did SO MANY Florida Democrats vote for Bush, huh? Because Gore was too `populist'? So, maybe we should go after those 288,000 votes...what are you willing to sacrifice on the other side of the balance? You think it would just be a few fringe votes that you'd drive away?

[library_max]

65. We've been through this before

Below the Mason-Dixon line, many people register Democrat who are no more Democrats than Richard Mellon Scaife. This is for historical reasons and because local races are often Democrat-only. That 288,000 number is a howling irrelevancy. It's just a count of Dixiecrats who aren't Democrats, who voted for Bush because they liked Bush.

None of which changes the FACT that 24,000 or even a much smaller percentage of Nader voters could have changed the outcome by voting for Gore instead.

[buddhamama]

68. question.

if the 24,000 or less Nader voters weren't registered DEMs, how is that not more irrelevent than the 288,000 DINOs?

[buddhamama]

75. clarify

because i screwed up my own question. if 24,000 or less Nader voters weren't Democrats but were in fact DINOs, wouldn't that make them just as irrelevent as the 288,000 DINOs that voted for Bush?

not ready to concede yet i have another question. do you have 'proof' that the 288,000 DEMs who voted for Bush were in fact DINOs?

[library_max]

85. Thanks, I will

The issue isn't that 97,000 Nader voters were DINOs. The issue is that they thought they were furthering progressive programs in this country when in fact they were putting George W. Bush in the White House. This was a huge mistake on their part. That's what I have been trying to get across to Terwilliger et al.

That 288,000 registered Democrats voted for Bush (and I'm completely taking Terg's word for this figure) is irrelevant because, in Florida and other parts of Dixieland especially, lots of Bush conservatives register Democrat for historical reasons or because of local races. They didn't make a mistake when they voted for Bush. They voted for Bush because they wanted Bush. I hope some of them have changed their minds by now, but they didn't perversely screw over the very ideals they purported to be supporting.

[buddhamama]

91. doesn't answer my question.

do you know if the 288,000 DEMs who voted for Bush were DINOs?

do you know if the 24,000 or less DEMs who voted Green weren't DINOs?

A lot DEMs also stayed at home. I know story of the Dixiecrats and i have studied the election results from FL.

and if i remember correctly you made it a point to bring up the voters,especially the Dixiecrats in FL. but now you want to change the subject.

[library_max]

100. Maybe what I'm missing is the relevance of your question.

Since DINO means whatever you say it means, how could anybody confirm or deny whether this or that voter is or was a DINO?

I didn't make a point of bringing up the Dixiecrats. Terwilliger was using the old excuse that 97,000 Nader voters didn't cost us Florida because 288,000 registered Democrats voted for Bush. He tries to make it appear that they voted for Bush because Gore wasn't liberal enough for them. In other words, his claim was that we lost those 288,000 votes because Gore didn't embrace the Green agenda. And I am saying that that's nonsense, those were Bush voters who voted for Bush because they wanted Bush.

Is it clearer now?

On Edit: I know what the acronym DINO stands for. But whether a person is or isn't a DINO is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. Hence, DINO means whatever you say it means.

[buddhamama]

105. i don't think that is his point

you're missing the point.

you blame those who voted Nader 97,000
but discount DEMs who voted for Bush
(DINO= DEMs in Name Only)
The DEMs who voted for Bush wanted Bush- ahh, great point.
But You don't know that they were DINOs or Dixiecrats as it were.
For all you know, they had never before voted for a repub.
Face it, you don't know why individual voters voted the way they did and you don't know their voting records. all you have is a bunch of numbers with some history thrown in.

btw, non-progressives in my state voted for Nader;
agriculture and Trade issues were their main reasons.

[library_max]

107. Fine

I hope you and Terwilliger and your perfectly imaginary "point" will be very happy together. The truth is, if Nader voters had voted for Gore, even a small percentage of them, Gore would be President. And the rest is BS.

[buddhamama]

108. BS is right.

if Bush and CO. hadn't stolen the election by disenfranchising FL. voters Gore would be Pres.
how nice of you to discount the theft by blaming Nader.

[library_max]

109. Nader made the theft possible

by making the margin so small.

Do you really think it's okay to completely change your argument on edit?

[buddhamama]

111. i was trying to tell you that

numbers mean nothing. glad you're catching on.

i edited my post.
and changed my point,btw.

[buddhamama]

113. i pointed in out to you in my above post

that i had edited.

Nader did not make it possible. More people were disenfranchised than the number of Nader voters.

[library_max]

116. Even if that was true

And I believe the best estimate of the number illegitimately disenfranchised was around 20,000, which is less than 97,000.

But even if it was true, so what? Jeb Bush didn't conduct the voter purge to further progressive causes. He did it to help his brother win. You might as well say that the two million plus Republicans who voted for Bush are at fault for the Florida theft.

All of which is just another tapdance around the point. The 97,000 who voted for Nader wanted the country to move left. What they got was Bush and a move to the right. Therefore, they voted against their own best interests. They need not to do that again.

[buddhamama]

121. and i keep telling you, you do not have facts to back that up

you do not know why people voted for Nader.
you're assuming they're progressives and i am sure some were, but i am not about to state with fact that i know the motivation behind the 97,000 voters. a lot of people are one issue voters perhaps the Greens had an issue that appealed to them.

nope. i pretty sure the number of purged voters is higher than 20,000.

i feel to see how though, their stealing an election puts the blame on green voters in FL.

[library_max]

123. I think your argument just broke

You can only stretch these babies so far . . .

And regarding your third question, I already answered it in post 109.

[buddhamama]

129. i'm stretching

that's very funny.

you've argued the Dixiecrat angle.

how many of Dixiecrats actually voted for Bush we do not know. How many actually DEMs (re:not DINOs)voted for Bush we do not know. Yet you claim to know the motivation and intent of the voters. This beyond a shadow of a doubt *know* and i am the one who is stretching :eyes:

[library_max]

84. Asked and answered

Try reading the post you replied to again.

[buddhamama]

69. the 288,000 Democrats in name only

voters could have changed the outcome too, by voting for Gore instead of ?.

[Terwilliger]

73. *WE* have?

Have I even approached the Democratic party disenfranchisement of the black voters of Floirda, disenfranchisement of the whole state? The fact that Gore did better in Florida the last two months of the election and STILL lost???

[library_max]

89. You're just babbling now

The voter purge was a Republican thing, unless Jeb Bush turned into a Democrat while I wasn't looking. And what possible difference does it make (even if you could document this) that Gore did better in Florida in the last two months of the election?

[Terwilliger]

138. babling like you?

The voter purge was AUTHORIZED AND OK'D BY THE DEMOCRATS WHO DID NOT FIGHT FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE THEY LEFT BEHIND.


Now, as for your other idiocy...

This fits in well with the liberal myth that Gore lost the 2001 election because of Ralph Nader. In fact, Gore lost the election because he was a poor candidate, ran a bad campaign, and failed to separate himself morally from Clinton. Further, not only the Democratic Party, but the liberals within it, made it absolutely clear over eight years that they had no interest in, nor would respond to, the sort of politics espoused by Greens.

A study by the Review of national and Florida polls during the 2000 election indicates that Ralph Nader's influence on the final results was minimal to non-existent. The Review tested the widely held Democratic assumption that Nader caused Gore's loss by checking changes in poll results. Presumably, if Nader was actually responsible for Gore's troubles, his tallies would change inversely to those of Gore: if Gore did better, Nader would do worse and vice versa. In fact, the only time any correlation could be found was when the changes were so small - 1 or 2 percentage points - that they were statistically insignificant. On the other hand when, in September of 2000, Gore's average poll result went up 7.5 points over August, Nader's only declined by 1 point. Similarly, in November, Gore's average poll tally declined 5.7 points but Nader's only went up 0.8 points. In the close Florida race, there were similar results: statistically insignificant correlation when the Gore tally changed by only one or two points, but dramatic non-correlation when the change was bigger.

During almost all of 2000, Bush led Gore with the major exception of a month-long period following the Democratic convention. During this high point for Gore, Nader was pulling a running average of 2-4% in the polls. While it is true that during October, Nader began pulling a running average of 6% at a time when Gore was fading, Gore continued to lose ground even as Nader's support dropped to its final 3%. In other words, despite the help of defectors from Nader, Gore did worse.

Further, as Michael Eisencher reported in Z Magazine, 20% of all Democratic voters, 12% of all self-identified liberal voters, 39% of all women voters, 44% of all seniors, one-third of all voters earning under $20,000 per year and 42% of those earning $20-30,000 annually, and 31% of all voting union members cast their ballots for Bush. In other words, Bush did better among these traditional liberal constituencies than did Nader.

[gully]

139. Ahhh, nevermind...

I don't want to but in

O8)

[library_max]

145. Don't suppose anyone is still here but us

and Buddhamama, trying to convince me that I have no good reason to believe that people who voted for Nader are leftists. :eyes:

But it is a ridiculous argument to say that the voter purge was the Democrats' fault because they were unable to stop it. Republicans held the governor's mansion and the state legislature - how were Democrats supposed to stop anything? This is just another desperate reach for something to blame on the Democrats, some silly non-point claiming that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Sirhan Sirhan shot RFK and I did nothing about it (I was nine years old and in Indiana at the time), so I am equally guilty with Sirhan Sirhan. That's your argument.

As for the long quote, opinion does not magically turn into fact just because it is in italics. The fact remains that 97,000 voted for Nader, and 10% or less of those voting for Gore instead would have made Florida unstealable.

[Iverson]

28. If you isn't with us, you agin' us.

"...offered and probably taken GOP money...delusional thinking..."

Who else follows the model of thinking that everyone outside the cohort is the ENEMY (sic)? Hmmm...

[Gman]

30. We (Democrats) are on a mission

to rid this country and the world of Bush in November 2004. The Greens are in the way and are purposely trying to thwart our deadly serious mission. That makes Greens and Nader the enemy.

Yes, you're either with us or against us. It's past time for Nader and the Greens to choose. We can only assume the Greens and Nader have chosen Bush.

[CWebster]

31. The Greens wouldn't pose a threat if the Dems

had never veered off their mission to begin with.

[Gman]

44. I take it from your statement that you see nothing wrong with

aiding the (re)election of Bush. Am I correct? If not, please say so.

[CWebster]

51. Nothing fires me up more

The damn DLC and their betrayal of everything the Democratic party represents--labor, minorities, civil rights, education, FDR's legacy - in order to become more corporate and leaving Democrats no where to turn but alternatives to the establishment who no longer represents them.

Yeah, I get it.

[Iverson]

32. you actually wrote it!

"Yes, you're either with us or against us."

Good god, man, I hope that one day you understand what your argument represents.

[Gman]

43. After many years in the labor movement

I know exactly what those words mean and represent. They mean exactly what they say. For us or ag'in us. No middle ground. In politics, you've got to know who your enemies are.

[CWebster]

45. You also need to be able to recognise them

when they claim to be on your side, but they are publically announcing they need to be more like the other side - that has a brain-dead chimp at the helm. Sheesh.

[blindpig]

70. what a dingbat

please see post #62. such dualistic reasoning is worthy of (your choice religous fanatic) or whistle ass.

[JVS]

98. If it is so important to you, why do you even need our votes?

You could just as well attempt to raise an army and topple the government. I guess you don't really care.

[Forkboy]

29. LMFAO

This makes Greens and Nader the enemy of all good people in the country and the world.

Are you channeling Bush or are you really that insane?

[library_max]

59. Why would Bush object to Greens?

They put him in office.

[buddhamama]

61. how much did the DEMs pay Ross Perot

he must have been a DEM plant :eyes:

[library_max]

86. Perot took as many votes from Clinton as from Bush

That's been documented. And I'm not saying Nader is a Republican plant, just that leftist voters who are too pure to vote Democratic play into Republican hands.

[buddhamama]

93. too pure or too left?

there's a difference.

i wonder what my socialist friends would say to your post.

'we're too pure' not likely

[library_max]

102. There's no practical difference

Vote for Nader or another splinter candidate or stay home because you're too pure to vote Democratic - result, George W. Bush.

Vote for Nader or another splinter candidate or stay home because you're too left or too socialist to vote Democratic - result, George W. Bush.

If your socialist friends wanted four years of Bush, war in Iraq, etc. etc., they did the right thing. Otherwise, they need to reconsider the advantages of pragmatism.

[JVS]

99. Please give me a link to that!!!!

I've seen that asserted many times here, but never any evidence. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE give me a linke to where that has been documented!!!!!!

[library_max]

106. Here you go

www.posner.com/articles/stealth.htm

Fifth paragraph.

[JVS]

110. Interesting

Thanks.

The article does say the same thing as you, but I was hoping for a bit more. Posner didn't even provide a citation. You don't happen to know where I could look at the exit poll data, or better yet an analysis of the data?

[Plaid Adder]

35. Oh for Christ's sake.

Look, I look forward to lining up behind the Democratic nominee this time around as much as anyone else does, but this "united we stand" stuff is starting to chafe when I see it here as much as it did when I saw it on flag-bearing SUVs right after 9/11. There is such a thing as an honest difference of opinion, and not everyone who disagrees with you is a brainwahsed Rovian operative.

I voted for Nader in 2000. I thought it was the right thing to do at the time. Since I live in Indiana it didn't make a damn bit of difference anyway. I am, of course, not going to vote for Nader again in 2004; I don't imagine very many of his 2000 supporters will. In fact I don't recall seeing anyone recently declaring support for Nader over one of the Democratic candidates. His memory is being kept green mainly by the people who are still scapegoating him over the 2000 election.

It's easier to beat up on your own than to place the blame where it belongs. Liberals have a higher developed sense of guilt and it's more fun to watch them defend themselves and their integrity. The Republicans don't bother doign that; they just laugh at the spectacle of us eviscerating each other and go on.

Rove is a Machiavellian genius but he is not behind EVERY goddamn bush.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[jonnyblitz]

48. wow

the only thing that matters to you is party affiliation and party loyalty apparently. Stalin would have loved you. People who think like you scare the crap out of me. Right wing Democrats are more the enemy to me than other progressives who think like me but belong to another party.

[leftofthedial]

33. All Americans who did not vote for Gore in 2000 deserve bashing

in my opinion

[buddhamama]

34. don't forget to include those who didn't bother to vote at all

hope you got a lot of time on your hands.

[Plaid Adder]

36. Generalize much?

Look, you have to remember that in 2000 we didn't know that Bush was the antichrist, nor could we have predicted that 9/11 would present his administration with a blank check. And you can say what you want, but if Gore had been a better candidate, there would not have been as many defections to the Greens, and he would have buried Bush at the polls instead of ending up with a razor-thin margin.

Go ahead. Bash me. I'm 34 years old and I've been flamed a lot in my time. Enjoy it. Get it out of your system, and then maybe afterwards you can think about whether beating up on your own coalition partners is a useful activity.

Yeesh,

The Plaid Adder

[CWebster]

39. Wise words from the

Plaid Adder.

[leftofthedial]

92. I knew Bush was the antichrist in 2000

Why didn't you ask me?

I'm not flaming you. I'm far to the left of any Democratic candidate in my 47 years of life in this country. I have way more in common with the average Green than with the average Democrat.

But as a political realist I say--in my opinion--anyone who votes for anyone other than the Democratic candidate in ANY election deserves bashing.

Bash bash bash.

If Gore had had demons from hell flying out of his ass blowing demon snot on you, he was a better choice than Bush, and if you didn't see that in 2000, you were blind.

Bash bash bash.

Until and unless you find some miraculous way to abolish the two-party system, failure to vote for the Democratic candidate in any election has one effect--it helps the Repug candidate, which is ALWAYS bad for America.

So bash bash bash bash bash.

Nader gave us Bush. Period. If half of Nader voters had pulled the Gore lever instead, the election would not have been close enough to steal. They chose to cut off their noses to spite their faces instead. Bad for all of us.

So bash bash bash bash bash.



edited for typos and for one more thought.

[diamondsoul]

42. No, they really don't.

I can't tell you how vital it is to the democratic process that we stop blaming people who actually had the gumption and the integrity to vote their own conscience. That, my friend, is what we're fighting for, the right to vote our conscience and be heard, no matter who that vote is cast for.

[library_max]

56. Well, which do you want?

To vote your conscience, or to be heard? You have the right to do either, of course. But when voting your conscience means voting for a candidate who has literally no chance to win, you're throwing away your chance of being "heard." You're leaving the real decision-making up to the voters who select from the menu of real choices.

[leftofthedial]

96. exactly right

if you want to make a philosophical statement, write a frigging book.

Voting is a practical, physical act with real consequences in the world. It is not a symbol of your personal purity.

[leftofthedial]

95. I didn't say anything about a person's right to vote for whomever

my friend.

Every American has the RIGHT to vote for whomever they choose (or at least they used to before 2000--Florida showed that to not really be true).

This is about how stupidly some people exercise that right.

my friend.

As for blame, it is appropriate to blame those at fault. It was OBVIOUS in 2000 to anyone with a brain that there were profound differences between Bush and Gore. It was OBVIOUS to anyone with a brain that the election was likely to be very close. It was OBVIOUS that the media was doing all in its power to sway the public against Gore. Every vote for Nader was a significant percentage of a vote not given to Gore. With those percentages, Gore wins without a court challenge.

So we have the Naderites in large part to thank for four years of hell, 3000 Americans dead in NY and DC, the virtual destruction of the American economy, pushing 10 million Americans out of work, the destruction of our international reputation, two illegal invasions, tens of thousands of dead, quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, a fascist regime hellbent on conquering the world with our money, the gutting of the Bill of Rights, and on and on.

And hell yes, I'll blame the smug, self righteous lefty puritans who handed America to the Bush/PNAC cabal.

my friend.

[bicentennial_baby]

47. Jeebus H Christ

I voted for Nader and I'm not ashamed!!! Of course, I live in Massachusetts, so it really made no difference here. Regardless, I will not be cowed by Dems who can't accept that all Americans have political freedom to vote for whomever they choose, even if it's Nader.

[diamondsoul]

52. Huge high-five to you and other Nader voters.

Seriously, you had the courage to vote your convictions which is more than most can say. AND you got off your butts and out to the polls, again, more than most (including me) can say.

To this day I'm ashamed that I didn't make sure I had transportation to the polls that day. It likely wouldn't have made any real difference, but at least I would have been counted in opposition to Bush, and I KNEW what a rat-bastard he is! That fact alone is enough to shame me, so kudos to you and all the rest of the Nader voters.

[ulysses]

94. not ashamed! STRUMPET! HOW DARE YOU?

;-) Just channeling for the apoplectic...

[leftofthedial]

97. again, this is not about my acceptance of your rights

you have the right to vote (or not) however you wish.

I'll defend that right. My father and millions of others before him died to defend that right. It is sacred.

This is not about your rights.

It's about smug, self righteous stupidity.

[bicentennial_baby]

144. Like I said

I live in MA, so my voting for Nader did'nt do shit to effect Gore's chances. That being said, if y'all spent 1/2 the energy you waste on this go-nowhere arguement on something like the disenfranchisement of thousands of African American voters in Florida and the illegalities of the post-election period in 2000, we'd all be a hell of a lot better off.

[JVS]

101. I normally wouldn't say this, but move on!

I am beginning to understand why Kerry said that. A party cannot run a successful campaign on a slogan of "Everyone who didn't vote for us four years ago is worthless shit! Vote for us now, so that you won't be worthless shit anymore!"

[leftofthedial]

104. who said that is a slogan?

I heartily endorse Kucinich and his campaign issues. Slogans aplenty there.

But I see a raft of DUers poised to jump in with both feet to repeat the debacle of 2000 and I'm not going to sit here silently about it.

Also, I believe, 2000 totally aside, that ANY vote not for the Democrat in ANY national election deserves to be bashed. Unless you figure out a way to change the two-party system, you have two choices that count in America. Any choice other than voting for the Democrat is a bad choice for America.

[JVS]

114. So are you denouncing all americans who didn't vote for Gore?

Let's see that is the 50% who didn't vote at all and we'll round down the voters to the 25% of the population that voted for candidates other than Gore. So that gives us 75% of the population that we should bash because they deserve it. Personally it doesn't bug me, I was one of the 25% that voted for Gore. Denouncing that 75% is probably not a good strategy for electoral success though.

[leftofthedial]

117. you're damned right I am

If you didn't vote for Gore, you helped hand America to the fascists and you need to be called on it.

[Terwilliger]

37. Indiana?

You going to acknowledge that you were wrong in what you said about Nader?

[Terwilliger]

41. kick for Indiana

wtf? cant you answer?

[Terwilliger]

50. IndianaGreen...are you there?

[diamondsoul]

54. Um, Ter?

Even if IG is online atm, there are a LOT of interesting threads on DU. Yeesh, give it some time, eh? Can we also not forget some people are working and other things that mean they can't follow the threads minute by minute, please?

[Terwilliger]

57. thanks ds

please dont interrupt

[IndianaGreen]

125. Nader is a self-serving charlatan like Ross Perot

and he is as much of a corporatist whore as Dick Cheney. On top of that, Nader is not even Green!

Nader is another of those British Fabians that Lenin derided so much in his essay "British Pacifism and British Dislike of Theory." Like the Fabians, Nader is a bourgeois intellectual that advocates cosmetic reforms while denying the necessity of class struggle and opposing socialism.

Nader's only claim to fame in 2000, is that Terry McCauliff turned him into a martyr when he kept him from the Presidential debates and had him arrested. The DNC created the boogeyman of Nader just as much as Sharon has created the boogeyman of Arafat.

BTW, I voted for Nader in 2000!

[gully]

126. You nailed it Indiana.

The Greens have so many wonderful people within, and Nader has done the Party more harm then good IMHO.

I would like to see them break with Nader. He is not a member of their party.

[Terwilliger]

132. Now, when are you going to admit that you were wrong?

I'm just waitin.

[buddhamama]

133. questions, IG

did you vote Nader or did you vote Green?
and why did you?

[IndianaGreen]

143. I voted for Nader for President, LaDuke for VP

I voted for the late Frank O'Bannon for Governor.

At the time, my district was in wacko Republican Dan Burton's who runs largely unopposed. I am now in Julia Carson's newly redrawn district.

I am a long time supporter of liberalizing archaic Indiana election laws that restrict free speech by barring minor parties from the ballot. This goes back to the early 1980s, when an unholy alliance of the two major parties bounced the Socialist Workers Party from the ballot.

There are several Hoosier peace and progressive organizations, including a couple of labor unions, that support liberalizing access to the ballots and proportional representation.

The two major parties in Indiana have a vested interest in controlling the electoral process. This collusion is undemocratic!

For more information about electoral reform in your state:

The Center for Voting and Democracy

http://www.fairvote.org/

[library_max]

53. It's a question of practicality

If the 2000 Green voters are prepared to get on the bus for ABB, fine. Welcome back. We love you, we missed you. :loveya:

But if they're only going to support the nominee if the nominee is the long-shot of their choice, and they're prepared to jump ship if (when) a more mainstream candidate is nominated instead, then what use are they?

And if they're going to prosyletize for the you're-not-really-a-Democrat (or leftist, or progressive) if-you're-not-as-pure-as-me view, they need to expect rebuttal. Who starts these threads, anyway? It isn't us pragmatists.

[diamondsoul]

55. Please tell me you didn't just say that?

"But if they're only going to support the nominee if the nominee is the long-shot of their choice, and they're prepared to jump ship if (when) a more mainstream candidate is nominated instead, then what use are they?"

What use? Are you kidding me?

Some days, I'm so ashamed of the thinking of my compatriots.*sigh* They are the conscience of America, that's what use they are. They have the determination, the guts, the "balls" whatever you want to call it to never, ever compromise on their principles and the very foundations of democracy. They go to the polls and they vote, every time, without fail, they vote. How many self-proclaimed Dems sit on their lazy butts at home on election days? How many Greens do that?

Think about it. These people have some f*cking GUTS! They aren't playing the political BS game and they aren't sitting silently by while the whole country goes to hell in a handbasket. Give credit where it's due and swtop slamming them for being honest enough to stand up for right over popular.

[library_max]

58. What's the practical difference

between voting for Nader and not voting? The main difference is that lazy-asses too lazy to vote do not come on DU and try to win others over to their way of thinking!

Look around you. Look at what the BFEE is doing to this country. This is no time to compare dicks or win debater's points about courage and honesty. We need to WIN!

[diamondsoul]

64. Ah, I think I see the difference here.

My belief based on all I hear and see from others is that courage and honesty are the keys to winning now. People are tired of the see-saw game, the game of "we need to do this" with no explanation of HOW to do it, and we're tired of not being represented. The Nader voters had the courage and personal fortitude to say "Dammit represent us NOW or deal with what happens when you negelect an entire segment of this country!"

Here we are. THIS, the Bush Junta, is what happens when you try to ignore an entire segment of our population. The Green Party is what happens when you ignore an entire segment of the population. I predict there will be more parties formed in the near future unless progressive minded Americans are drawn together in a cohesive unit. That CANNOT be done if we continue to blame others for not motivating all the voters to get out and mark their ballots. It's up to US.

[library_max]

88. Once again

The choice you're giving us is, publicly embrace our agenda holus bolus and go down in flames, or woo the necessary middle and we'll send you down in flames if we can.

These are our friends?

You can huff and puff all you want about courage and fortitude, but at the end of the day the President is going to be the candidate that did the best job of persuading middle America to vote for him. Every vote the Democrats gain by wooing the left costs us at least two votes in the middle. The right is smart enough to vote Republican with very limited encouragement. Why can't the left do likewise?

[leftofthedial]

115. yeah, takes guts to willingly waste your vote

and to fail the moral test of "what did you do in the war against fascism daddy?".

Talking about their ideals takes guts. Trying to move a party that actually counts toward their view takes guts. But once they close the curtain inthe voting booth . . .

Willfully throwing away your vote--a vote that the left-most candidate needs--so that you can feel smugly self satisfied about being more pure than someone else isn't courage--it's gutless self indulgence.

Swallowing your pride and voting for the one of the two candidates with any chance to win who more closely (no matter the degree) represents your beliefs takes guts.

Voting is a nasty, practical act. It is plugging a leak in a sewer, not singing a glorious song with the liberal angels of your conscience.

[library_max]

119. I agree with you

except for one thing. Rhetoric does also matter. If it didn't, I'd just ignore all these threads, because contrary to popular belief I don't post just for the sake of punishing Greens.

When people go on the boards in a progressive/Democratic forum and challenge other progressives/Democrats to be as pure as they are (or as left as they are, or whatever) and accuse those of us actually trying to win an election of being sellouts, quislings, DINOs, etc., they do harm. They encourage others to "drink the kool-ade," even if they themselves opt not to after they enter the voting booth.

[StandWatie]

63. do you really think they are that smart?

From what I've seen 99% of the "Nader Haters" would probably have a hard time trying to pour piss out of a boot if the directions were on the heel, I think trying to ascribe thought or a purpose to their little rants is quite pointless.

[gully]

66. Are Dem bashers trying to divide supporters of the Democratic Party?

I'm a Dean supporter. And, I'd vote for Kucinich anyday, but I see Nader worship here is par for the course, and Dem bashing is OK?

I hear Nader talking points over and over again about Democrats. Ralph Nader is not a friend of the Democratic Party. So, I ask why all the outrage about Nader bashing? This is DU. Not GU.

I am not bashing Greens as a whole. Shit I almost voted for Nader after hearing him speak. He's captivating and angry and has some excellent talking points. In addition, I love Granny D, Ronnie D, Winona Laduke etc...

I would ask, where's the empassioned plea from the left 'here' to stop blanket bashing Democrats?!

Nader is the divider folks. He has admitted he is trying to stir the pot. That he has done.

[Forkboy]

71. Nader isn't the one starting all these threads

So who is really the "divider"?

[gully]

74. No poor little Ralphie just called Democrats Republicans...

Among other things.

Gosh, I think I'll head straight to confession now. In fact, I'll call the pope and wash out my mouth with soap for bashing a true progressive hero such as Mr. Ralph Nader. *snif snif* :nopity:

[buddhamama]

77. some have tried to explain it to you

i think even Skinner tried down in Ask the Admin forum.
but as tends to happen in these threads no one is listening.

it is not Nader bashing that gets people in a huff, it is the dismissal of those who voted for Nader and the same arguments over and over again.

First thing i would suggest, grow some thick skin. People talk politics here and it ain't always pretty. Second, What is bashing? What is valid criticism? and who gets to decide?

And again, and i know that this has been pointed out to you before, the DEM bashing threads that you'll find here are started by fellow DEMs. period.
So if you have a problem with the DEM 'bashing' you should take it up with them.

[gully]

78. Actually the dem bashing here with in the threads is done by some Greens.

I support Dean and have NEVER suggested he should be off limits. Who needs some skin here?

[buddhamama]

81. wrong.

i said the DEM bashing threads are started by fellow DEMs.

btw, you assume way too much in your assessment of who voted for whom.
in your Nader poll, you assumed Q voted for the Greens. WRONG.
and Terwilliger is not a GREEN.

[gully]

118. wrong...

Terwilliger said he voted for Nader, perhaps he has changed his voter reg to dem for the coming election, I'll give em that? :shrug:

[buddhamama]

128. what does voting Nader have to do with ...

whether or not he was/is a reg.DEM

presidential elections are open. you could be a reg communist and vote for Bush if you wanted.

This is what irks me. you fail to see that just because someone may have voted green in 2000 doesn't mean they're a reg.Green.

[gully]

130. A vote is more important then what your registration card says...

In fact I was a registered independant in 2000. I am acually a Democrat.

[buddhamama]

131. yeah i know

the vote is more important.
but you keep saying "wrong" when people try and tell you Terwilliger is a DEM not a green.

it's selective listening isn't it?
i just saw your reply to IG's post where she claims Nader is Fabian blah blah blah.
with IG you'll agree even though she voted for him, why? because she says the stuff you won't to hear?
Terwilliger is not a DEM though, because he still defends his vote!

[gully]

136. Indiana Green appears to be working toward a common cause...

ousting Shrub in 2004. I'm not so sure where T stands on that issue? T????

I think he is entitled to his opinions on the issue though, as am I. I just don't agree with him that's all.

[buddhamama]

137. okay cool!

that's the most straight forward post you have made in this thread so far.

[blm]

79. Dean did the same, calling the others "Bushlite"

for months. What's the difference between what Dean said to benefit his campaign and what Nader said? Oh, I know, Nader actually has liberal credentials while Dean's record is more like Zell Miller's.

[gully]

80. Your damn right he did, and he's paying a price...

I dont deny the other candidates the right to speak out against Dean He created his karma and so did Ralph.

Why the suggestion that Nader is off limits though? That is the question here. Do you not see the hypocricy in that suggestion? It's ok to trash Dems. But, not ok to trash Nader?

When there is a hint at Nader derision, his followers flock like crows to the kill and say how dare you? That is a double standard.

[Iverson]

82. On the other hand

There is plenty of Nader bashing, inclusive of a thread started by you (although I do not mean to single you out; they are plentiful). The suggestion that criticism of Nader is off-limits is simply a red herring. There is plenty of Green criticism of Nader. The difference is that the foamy, visceral hatred of Nader around here often results in spurious arguments or tacit calls for purges of Greens from these boards.

I will always argue against unthinking partisanship. If unthinking partisans choose to interpret that as "Dem-bashing," then that only illustrates the need for better funding of public education.

[gully]

103. Who are the "unthinking partisans," foamy Greens or the foamy Democrats?

Seems foamy Greens are above reproach here though. I may not have paid attention to your posts, but I don't recall you calling 'them' on it?

And, as you may or may not know the inspiration for my Green threads comes from Greens who provide links to GP rhetoric constantly at DU. They use Nader talking points to insult Democrats and get warm DU fuzzy's for doing so?

And btw, ... if you want better funding of public education, vote Dem in the coming election!

[Iverson]

122. Well, since you asked ...

... anyone can be foamy, and your insitence upon dividing a principle by party lines provides what some of us would call a "clue."

Disingenuous claims that no one makes such as this ...
"Seems foamy Greens are above reproach here though."
... are a substitute for reasoned argument. That rather nakedly serves as a pretext for Green-baiting. I've seen discussants do it to Dean and Lieberman too, but none with the gusto and volume of the Nader hating that so closely mirrors the Hillary-bashing of the far right.

When I encounter political opponents, I generally prefer to critique their actual words and/or policies, not ridiculous things that I wish they'd said, but didn't.

When I encounter potential allies, I resist the urge to demonize them on the basis that doing so will make them "wise up" and accept my viewpoint uncritically.

I recommend both of the foregoing to you.

[gully]

124. I recommend you actually read my posts...

there you will see a critique of 'words.'

In addition, I recommend you determine what a "political ally" is? I think a political ally is someone who is interested in a regime change in 2004. Apparently your standards are a bit more 'loose?'

Lest I remind you that the far right and Hillary are not in the same political party, and the last time I checked, Nader wasn't running as a Democrat.

Note the 'critique of words'?

[library_max]

120. Oh, sorry, no luck in turning this into a "bash Dean thread"

But nice try, and we have some lovely parting gifts.

[blm]

127. The reply was to a Dean supporter whose complaint

about Nader was the same point as mine about Dean.

My post was fair, addressed a point in the post I replied to, and was not a bash. The poster even agreed that they acted the same.

Are you applying for net nanny or something?

[dkamin]

83. Nader is a tool

I think anyone who studies elections and modern democracy has to quickly come to the conclusion that a two party system is the natural outcome of the winner-take-all system. Studies have consistently shown this to be true, as has our own country's history. The only way we have a third party, or fourth party, etc., is to change the type of democracy we have. The most obvious solution would be to change to some type of system, like automatic runoffs, that would allow more parties to develop. But the system itself has to be changed; to just talk about making a third party is bushit.

The basic argument here is that in a winner-take-all system, the equilibrium is a 2 party system, because only 1 party can win, which encourages consolidation. Bush's 2000 election and Nader's Green Party candidacy were the perfect example of why in a winner-take-all system, you end up with 2 parties in the end. in alternative voting schema, such as an automatic runoff, you can have many parties, because all that happens is that the two top vote getters from the first vote are put on the ballot again. in 2000, this would have meant that gore and bush would have faced off again, as the only options on the ballot, and presumably gore would have beaten bush by several percentage points.

Nader, as a graduate of Harvard Law, knew or should have known this established knowledge. If he was actually interested in establishing a third party (which I believe is an absolutely worthwhile goal), he would have started lobbying intensely for a change in the voting systems, which would allow for parties to develop organically. Instead, Nader chose the much higher profile, and ultimately unsustainable, path of running for president, which was of course doomed to failure.

if Teddy Roosevelt at the height of his popularity couldn't maintain a third party under our winner-takes-all system, what would make Nader think he could?

simple answer? he didn't. he is a sack of crap who i think basically decided, "if i can't have it my way, nobody on the left can." and we're all paying the consequences now.

bastard.

[sujan]

87. If Green party field a candidate

I'd be voting for him/her.

[leftofthedial]

112. Nader bashing helping the GOP

That's rich.

Blame the victim.

[buddhamama]

134. i'm a victim of democracy

quick start a support group. :cry:

[leftofthedial]

140. no, you are a victim of the GOP rigging the vote

first and foremost

and of some on the left carelessly wasting their votes.

[Terwilliger]

142. how about victim of the Democrats traitorous behavior?

since it was incumbent on them to "uphold and defend the Constitution"

[library_max]

146. Uphold and defend the Constitution with what?

Stern faces? Bad language? What exactly were the Democrats supposed to do after Bush v. Gore was decided? Lynch Antonin Scalia? Might've been fun, but it wouldn't have changed anything.

[John_H]

135. "Dividing" implies a statistically significant number of people

to be divided. Greens can vote for Nader or they can vote for a Dem. It won't effect the outcome of any race, primary or general, unless the race is as close as the 2000 fiasco.

What people who considering supporting Nader (I'm talking here about groups that can deliver votes--not individual voters) have to ask themselves is this: Is our support of a lying, megalomaniacal hypocrite to "prove a point" worth the risk of burning the bridge that will carry support to our agenda if a Dem wins?

Aside from the phony DK supporters who support his candidacy as a means to say "hey, I suppoted a dem in the primaries" most of the groups that support DK are smart. They'll come home to the Dem nominee and fight for their agenda as Democrats.

Those that don't will have to ask soon-to-be-ralph-who for help in 2005 and beyond.

[leftofthedial]

141. I support DK wholeheartedly right now

He's the best Democratic candidate I remember in the last generation.

I will heartily vote for whomever the Democrats nominate. It is the ONLY chance to depose the Bush/PNAC Cabal peacefully.