Rather than simply lashing at Nader, how SHOULD we handle?

[vi5]

I was as anti-Nader as the next guy 3 years ago and still not a fan of his. And I Do think he had an impact on the outcome of the election. But I've always thought the biggest mistake we made was that it was easier to look in his direction than at the lackluster campaign that Gore ran and things like choosing Lieberman as his running mate and letting the media define him especially through his responses to what they wrote and said, which seemed to be pandering. I think that stuff was just as responsible as anything Nader did.

But that being said, rather than complaining about the past, how SHOULD we handle it better this time.

I think one of the biggest mistakes last time around was not pushing for Nader to be in the debates. It would have made Gore seem more the appealing moderate that he was and neutered a lot of the "liberal" tags that caused a lot of people I know not to vote for him. And it would have given the press something else to write about other than fawning over bush's vaulted low expectations.

So I think one of the key things is for the Dem candidate to be as gracious as possible to Nader and what he has to say, but also use it to his advantage in every way possible. Rather than attacking Nader he should use what he can bring to the table.

And if someone like Dean is as smart and canny with handling this potentially thorny issue as he has been others then it will very much impress me and be a good thing.

Just some thoughts on all this Nader bashing.

[jfxgillis]

1. I liked your first idea better

What's wrong with lashing out?

If the rational arguments against a Nader candidacydo not move Nader (which are simple enough that any THIRD GRADER playing cut-throat Pinochle understands), then nothing will.

So fuck him.

We should lash out or not based solely on whether the lashing out helps elect a Democrat. If ignoring Nader is more effective than trashing him, we should ignore him. If trashing him works better, we should trash him.

End of story.

[mdmc]

6. Why not work hard for the democrat

respect the greens, especially when they are rigth on the issues? Your lashing out at the greens isn't motivating non voters to come out for our ticket.
Ignore is better than trashing. At least when you ignore, you can do soemthing positive for the dems. Spending energy fighting the greens is silly.

[jfxgillis]

10. I CAN'T "respect" the Greens

They're either idiots, because they don't understand how to play three-handed Pinochle, or they're evil, because they do know how and play it anyway.

But that doesn't mean I can't respect you for respecting the Greens.

[mdmc]

17. work hard for the democrat

You don't need to respect the greens. The GOP doesn't respect the greens, they just work hard (or donate) for their party. I would rather my party looked my green then republican, so I respect the greens. I respect, and have even dated, some republicans as well (no one that i care to mention however).

[jfxgillis]

21. Well, I didn't mean

personally lash out at potential girlfriends.

Systemically or institutionally, though, the Greens need to be put down like a rabid dog at the Presidential level.

In fact, their disturbing actions at that level drives me AWAY from supporting them at levels I might I might well find appealing.

I mean I like Ralph Nader as an advocate, but he's an ASSHOLE who needs LASHING as a presidential candidate.

[Gman]

12. The Greens deserve NO respect. Greens are the enemy

just like the GOP. There is one purpose of an election. That is to determine a winner. Greens want to win and the Democrats to lose. That makes the Greens the enemy.

What is so hard to understand about that?

[Q]

15. Isn't there a difference between an 'enemy' and 'opponent'?

- It's as if the FReeper mentality has rubbed off on some DUers...or at least their use of certain kinds of hateful rhetoric.

- I'd rather think of the Bushies as the enemy and the Greens as opponents.

[mdmc]

19. now were talkin'

The GOP is our bigger opponent. I conceed that both the GOP and the Greens want to defeat the Dems. We need to work hard at bringing out our base. Chipping away at GOP / Green support should be a lesser priority only because it is not as effective as getting out our base.

[ecstatic]

2. There is a civil war going on between the liberals and moderates

The issue must be addressed and a compromise must be reached. If a substantial portion of the Democratic party continues to be ignored, then people like Nader will continue to be "spoilers" until the public catches on and starts voting for them.

[vi5]

3. What part is being ignored? I think that's the issue.....

We don't know when to say no to anyone. There's no doubt we need the centrists. There are nowhere near enough self identified "liberals" to win a general election. But there is no doubt we need to make overtures to some of the major core democrats like minorities and unions and environmentalists. I think the problem is we can't worry or stress over every loud liberal holding a placard with an axe to grind because not every single solitary issue he/she cares about is addressed all the time by the candidate. The problem is that neither side wants to give. The moderates are always worried about things seeming too liberal and the liberals worry about anything that seems remotely moderate.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. or until

the public starts clamoring for voting reform.

But that won't help us now.

I think if the DNC had run Wellstone in '00 you wouldn't have had a Nader issue. I bet he wouldn't even have run, as he says he won't do if Dennis gets the nod this time around. (He also suggested at one point he would hold off if Dean won the nom. I hope he will stand by that as I really feel that Howard will win it. And once he's in the Oval office we can ask him to follow up on the election reform changes he mentioned, and put plurality voting to bed for good.)

[ecstatic]

14. Then all of us need to stop bickering and give our support to Dean

If we all support him, then he will be elected. Greens will also be on board. Dean is not a far left liberal either, he's actually quite moderate. His policies will leave most Americans satisfied.

[Nashyra]

22. Then all of us have to stop bickering and give our support to Clark

[Ficus]

24. Wellstone did run

very breifly in 2000, and dropped out for health reasons.

:dem: :dem:

[mdmc]

5. As a Dem / Nader voter

There is only one way - work hard for the dem.
Let the Greens do what they will, and GOD bless them!
If we work hard enough, then we will win. Wasting time telling someone that Bush is evil and that voting for the death penalty and the drug war is okay as long as Bush is defeated doesn't help the dems. Greens look at evil Bush and see evil Dems taking photos with him in the rose garden. They see the lesser of two evils, and their "good" candidate.
Further Greens bring many non voters to the polls. Non voters like these green issues and might vote dem when there is not a need to vote green.
Local dems fliped when my friend ran for mayor as a green. I told them that the greens would not get more than 80 votes, and that instead of fighting with this green candidate, they should register 81 new democrats, because that would be a better use of their time. The GOP won (1857), FOLLOWED BY THE DEMS (1,110), then the greens (121). All the dem - green fighting was for nothing.

WORK HARD FOR YOUR PARTY. Don't fault others for working hard for theirs.

[vi5]

7. Exactly....very good points.....

But I think ignoring Nader and the Greens is tantamount to ignoring their issues. I think if the Dem candidate at least makes overtures and presents some form of empathy without pandering then it can only help rather than hurt.

[mdmc]

20. Let the Green candidate debate?

(I personally think that the green ticket will be home grown greens and that Nader would end up running on a reform / independant line . Not exactly mainstream reasoning)
I think that is plausable.

[jfxgillis]

13. That's a reasonable avenue of action

On the LOCAL level.

It doesn't translate to Presidential politics.

If the Greens would run races like your friend ran, that would be fine. But that field of play, strategy and tactics are almost opposite that at the Presidential level.

Third fucking parties can never sustain themselves shooting for the top anyway. Ask the Libertarians. The Greens would do much better winning possible offices down ballot and proving THERE that their agenda is viable.

[rogerashton]

8. It's like this:

if an organization can't compete, there will always be a big contingent in denial, finding someone to blame.

The demonization of Nader is just that: denial. The party took its left for granted, staged a plastic campaign, and in that way let a winnable campaign in 2000 slip so far that it bacame possible for the Pukes to steal it. And what they can steal, they will.

So blame the leadership that screwed up the campaign, not Nader nor Nader voters. (I voted Gore, by the way, mainly on the social security issue which, in my view, Nader had way wrong.)

Until Dems get over blaming and denial, there will be no renovation of the party and a very good chance that the Pukes will be close enough to steal another one.

[kysrsoze]

29. Again, out of touch with reality

In this country, when you run an election campaign, you unfortunately have to appeal to the majority of voters, OR ELSE YOU DON'T WIN. If I were a candidate, I would gladly try to run on the (overall) wishes of the majority of voters but push the important issues, rather than cater to a narrow 3% of the population, many of which appear to be more concerned with proselytizing than working with the reality of the situation. This is what democracy is all about - you help as many people in your constituency as possible.

If the Green Party, as a whole, had any sense, it would run a campaign if it likes, then as the election draws near, throw its support to the party most likely to bring about some change and further its interests. This is most definitely NOT the Republican Party and the race is too close to sensibly run a third-party candidate. Too much is at stake right now - the environment, energy policy, foreign relations, the economy, education, medical care, etc.

Once the more sensible majority party gains leadership again, they could then work to push the party's issues - which will much more likely be accepted. It's all about working within the bounds of realism.

That said, if Greens all vote for Nader again and Bush keeps his position, they can all go to hell - along with their country.

[Iverson]

31. I do not let corporations dictate "realism" to me.

Anyone who accepts it as inevitable has given up on democracy.

[KG]

9. not sure what 'lashing out' at nader does

except maybe make the nader-haters feel good about themselves. :eyes:

[demnan]

11. Here's what I think

We have the advantage right now of having a wide spectrum of candidates in the running. We should use this fact to our advantage. Each of these candidates is (presumably) a loyal Democrat. If Nader runs, the more liberal candidates (Kucinich, Mosely-Braun, Sharpton) should make a point of speaking out about the effectiveness of a third party vote in quashing our hopes of banishing Bush. The main stream candidates should be sure to be inclusive of the liberal ones and they should be considered in drawing up the party platform. We should do the same to the moderately conservative candidates of on party's spectrum (yes be inclusive of Lieberman, excluding him from the last debate was a huge mistake, makes us look so petty).

When the primaries are over and the selected candidates debate I don't see any point in excluding Nader, I agree with your points on that. We can instead send Kucinich, Mosely-Braun, Sharpton out to rally the liberal wing so they won't be disinfranchised as they clearly were in the 2000 election. This whole thing can be carefully orchestrated to our advantage if we keep a cool head and use the resources we have.

[LeahMira]

32. Insulting, don'tcha think?

When the primaries are over and the selected candidates debate I don't see any point in excluding Nader, I agree with your points on that. We can instead send Kucinich, Mosely-Braun, Sharpton out to rally the liberal wing so they won't be disinfranchised as they clearly were in the 2000 election.

Why should anyone who supports the Green Party listen to Kucinich, Mosely-Braun, or Sharpton and any "guarantees" they might offer if Democrats don't think enough of them to give them the nomination?

Send Lieberman out to rally the right wing of the Democratic party after you nominate Kucinich, Mosely-Braun, or Sharpton and maybe we'll talk.

[Walt Starr]

16. Nader, for those people who want to make a statement

while deliberately keeping Bush in office.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

18. 25 of my Nader voting friends will NOT NOT NOT vote Green again

as a matter of fact they have all re-registered Dem

they will not allow bush another shot

[LeahMira]

33. I'm sorry to read that...

... as a matter of fact they have all re-registered Dem

It's certainly nice to be able to vote in the Democratic primary which, in my state, Greens can't. But once you're in the voting booth, it doesn't matter how you are registered, does it?

I live in a small state, and the state went for Gore in 2000. My vote for Nader made absolutely no difference because Gore had a strong majority and because the Electoral College system gave the state to Gore. As things are going now, that's how I'll vote again. If the Democrats need my vote, they have it. If not, I vote my conscience. Depending on who gets the Democratic nomination, my conscience might tell me to vote Democratic. Or I may leave that space blank.

Sorry your Green friends are that way. They made a choice when they could have had both. Oh well...

[Ardee]

23. sheep in the pasture

silly rantings from some, unwarranted cricisms from the more mature, all still smoke and mirrors.

You are being led by the noses and few of you understand that. All the speeches of Ralph Nader could have been given by Robert Byrd and received overwhelming support , excepting from you neoconservative propagandists to whom Nader is a convenient excuse and Byrd an embarrassment.

These unscrupulous followers of the tactics of Hannity, Limbaugh ,O'Reilly and company use Nader to focus your attention away from the complicity of the democratic party with Bush. I did not see Nader in that Rose Garden smirk fest, but I definitely saw the democratic leadership there.

I did not see Nader supporting the invasion of Iraq but I did see an awful lot of democrats doing so.I didnt see Nader fooled by Bush (again) into supporting an education bill that reeks and is bankrupted almost before the ink is dry (Ted Kennedy shame, shame), nor did I see Nader lining up to support a privatisation of Medicare that will lead, inevitably ,to the eliminsation of another government service( the real plan)and make it impossible, through the inevitable soaring costs, for seniors to afford medication.

I await with sorrow that first arrest of some poor schmuck caught smuggling reasonably priced medicines from Canada to keep his grandmother alive. That will not be Ralphs fault, indirectly it will be yours through your stupidly naive swallowing of the neocons lies about Nader.

[janx]

25. IGNORE.

Ignore the guy.

[Hep]

26. Screw Nader

Of course he has the right to run. But he doesn't have the right to mislead. And that's all he's there to do.

[kysrsoze]

27. Throw More Pies

Embarrass that @sshole into dropping out.

[Iverson]

28. a modest proposal

Actual liberals within the Democratic Party should seek a dialogue with the Greens.

Screaming "fuck" at and about Nader hasn't accomplished anything over the last three years, and neither has helping the Bush administration achieve major portions of its agenda achieved anything good. Maybe don't do those things.

I fully expect that this suggestion will be unacceptably radical to the majority. Carry on.

[RichM]

30. Imitate him & learn from him -- because almost everything he says is true.

Compared to Nader, Dean is a pathetic twit. Most Democrats can't hold a candle to Nader's truth-telling.