Just Say No, Ralph!

[pistoff democrat]

We need to decide. Now. Ralph Nader says he's "testing the waters" to determine whether he should run for President in 2004. He has set up an exploratory committee to raise money and recruit volunteers. He's launched a web site, which his 2000 campaign manager said would play a key role in raising money.

Ralph Nader has said he would decide soon, so we cannot afford to wait. Progressives everywhere need to speak out to let Ralph know that, while we deeply respect his contributions and his role in advancing progressive causes, he simply must not run in 2004.

cut

We need virtual organizers who will help us spread the word. Please use the link below to become a virtual organizer.

http://involve.progressivemajority.org/ctt.asp?u=446740&l=12045

[mikehiggins]

1. A clear and present danger

A Nader candidacy in 2004 would constitute a clear and present danger to the future of the United States. Anything that muddies the waters of the conflict between the freedom loving peoples of the earth and George Bush is harmful to politics, the environment and our national survival.

You may think I'm kidding.

I'm not.

No matter what you claim, the fact is that Nader's race in 2000 led directly to the establishment of the Bush regime. It may be that others contributed to it, particularly Al Gore and his spectacularly inept campaign, but the bottom line is, at the end of the day, Nader did it.

He should sit down and shut up.

eom

[ulysses]

9. ...

No matter what you claim, the fact is that Nader's race in 2000 led directly to the establishment of the Bush regime. It may be that others contributed to it, particularly Al Gore and his spectacularly inept campaign, but the bottom line is, at the end of the day, Nader did it.

Oh, well if you say it, it *must* be true.

:eyes:

[Fixated]

13. .....

Perhaps then, it's just a coincidence that it's true?

[ulysses]

15. you can make that argument all you want.

By all means, let the people who stole that election off scot free. I can't stop you.

[MadHound]

23. *Sigh*

And here we are, buying into the contradictory Nader/Green spin. Which is it? Are they ineffective or are they a "clear and present danger"(just gotta love that Tom Clancy histronics).

Let me repeat, Nader didn't do a damn thing to spoil the '00 debacle, Gore, the DLC, and Bushco did that all on their own. Let me show you why

During the recount process the Gore campaign was handed the voter disenfranchisement issue to them on a silver platter. Greg Palast notified the Gore campaign about the whole sorry mess, ChoicePoint, Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush et al. Gave them names, dates and numbers. And what did Gore do with this information? Well, in a clear violation of his VP oath to protect and defend the Constitution, he sat on this bombshell. Here it was, the means with which to not only win the election, but to also banish the Bushies to the political wilderness until Hell froze over, and Gore didn't do a damn thing. So much for his sworn oath.

People keep bitching about how Nader stole votes away from Gore in Florida, but refuse to acknowledge the fact that Gore pissed off his Florida base to the extent that he screwed himself. Here's the deal: Gore's stance on offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico(all for it)pissed off 397,000 registered Dems and 198,000 self described liberals so much that these folks decided to double screw Gore by voting for Bush. You think that if Gore had gone a little softer on this issue he would gotten these votes and won. But oh no, not BP's corporate whore Gore. It was full drilling ahead, and thus he lost all of those votes.

The Gore campaign's ineptitude during the recount. Gore, on the advice of his DLC handlers decided to cherry pick which precincts to recount. Rather than go for the surefire(and entirely legal) method of having the entire state recounted, they decided to take this precinct, skip that one, etc, the least favorable way of recounting.

And guess what? Gore won anyway. In a recount done by a media conglomeration after the election was over it was found(but little publicized) that Gore had won the popular vote in Florida.

But this is par for the course. The Gore campaign(like oh so many Dems since then) practically rolled over and pissed all over themselves in order not to appear confrontational, to project an image of being nice. Meanwhile the Bushies were in it hip deep, hacking and slashing away, not caring what the public thought, they were going to fight this thing out all of the way. It would have been nice if the Gore campaign had shown even half as much fight as the Bushies did. I think he would have won if they did.

Oh, and then there is the little matter of the Supreme 5, who actually made the selection.

In all of this I do not see the hand of the Greens/Nader. All I see is a weak kneed campaign, unable or unwilling to fight, who cared so little about what their base thought that they callously pissed off 600,000 otherwise reliable voters with their corporate whoring. All I see is a sitting Vice President who forswore his oath and didn't lift a finger to protect and uphold the Constitution.

So where is Nader/Greens in all of this?

And quite frankly if Nader wishes to run in '04 more power to him. For as it is looking now, the Dems are going to run another weak kneed corporate whore who is either incapable or unable to fight. And that is what we need in this country, a liberal/progressive who can fight, not just run, hide, and lick the hand of his corporate master.

[GreenPartyVoter]

24. Very Eloquent

:yourock:

[PissedOffPollyana]

27. Thank you, Mad Hound!

"For as it is looking now, the Dems are going to run another weak kneed corporate whore who is either incapable or unable to fight. And that is what we need in this country, a liberal/progressive who can fight, not just run, hide, and lick the hand of his corporate master. "

Oh boy, you sure said it! For all the calls for unity in the party and stroking of progressives to just fall in line like good little second class citizens, there has been no reason put forward other than fear.

So... the Dem party NEEDS us, LOVES us... but not enough to let us at the table. We are urged once again to do the DNC shuffle, sweep our ideals under the rug and vote for another guy who is a watered-down version of what we have already.

Why don't all of these "Ralph, don't run" threads address the REAL issues, that Progressives are not being served, that the "projected" candidate is so committed to campaign reform that he is opting out of public funding to dazzle us with more BS commercials, that none of the "mainstream" candidates will take on the appalling waste at the Pentagon, that most will keep letting privatization eat away at our country, that most are the same brand of corporate toady we have come to expect from the DNC & DLC.

Now that the steam is starting to gather, does anyone think that Dean will NOT kowtow to the cash? If this was REALLY about the poeple instead of the corporations, public funds would be just fine. Good example we set; we want campaign finance reform... but we don't REALLY believe in it. What will all the 'power to the people' folks do when Dean starts playing the game? Will he fight for us or for the people who REALLY got him there (you know, with all those big, fat donations)? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of any of the 'mainstream' candidates, but Dean is the one who most rubs me the wrong way (I don't count Smokin'Joe, since I have seen no relevant proof that he's a Democrat) and strikes me as the most disingenuous.

We have already had a fine example; where are the 'mainstream' candidates statements about the actions of ABC... or is unity a one-direction path where it only involves Progressives compromising. Honestly, the DNC should be thinking about the effect of their actions for Progressives' candidates now, while they have a shot at convincing us that they give a damn about our issues, our voice and our votes. Their damning silence speaks volumes and could come back to bite them square on the ass.

If Ralph runs, it is because people want him to. All the attempts at maginalization cannot erase that. The only road I can see leading to his cooperation with the party is a nod for Kucinich. Nothing else will bring all the factions of liberalism together like that. Otherwise, I hope they are ready for a long, hard road because it won't be easy.

[GreenPartyVoter]

28. Dean has said

that he supports campaign and election reform.

I say if he gets the nod we should back him and hold him to it. Send a slew of "Congratulations, Mr. President-Elect. I voted for you because you support campaign and election reform. I look forward to seeing the progress you make on these measures."

And then we just keep on him on a monthly basis or whatever to make sure this gets addressed.

[PissedOffPollyana]

30. Wouldn't it be nice

if he supported it in more than just theory? It feels like a junkie, who keeps telling you that he needs 'just one more fix'.

Actions speak louder than words.

edit for spelling **oops**

[GreenPartyVoter]

So if Howard gets the nod instead of Dennis

will you not vote for him?

[PissedOffPollyana]

33. Honestly?

Haven't made that call yet. I keep hoping that I won't have to jump off that bridge, if you know what I mean!

I've been an almost 100% voter since I could vote, a supporter since I was 11 & ran the Carter faux-election at my Jr High. It would take A LOT for me to bail, but they get closer all the time.

On edit: Thought I'd add... what I would really love to see is a solid liberal cooperative effort, with Greens & Dems rallying behind Dennis Kucinich. He has great policy ideas and is the only candidate who can reach the solidly anti-corporate voters. One of the DK volunteers in my area is not even a Democrat (he leans anarchist), yet canvases neighborhoods and works like Hell for him. Think Greens, anarchists, liberals, progressives voting along with the Democratic party... we could bring in all the folks who are pissed about what GW has done to labor, NAFTA, WTO, FTAA, etc. It would be a truly beautiful thing to behold!

[GreenPartyVoter]

34. I know what you mean

Dennis is my dream candidate. I am voting Blue just to spite Bu$h, and am going to hold my breath and hope we can prod whoever it is into reforming our elections process already.

Even if that doesn't pan out, I'll keep working at the state and municipal levels for it. We have to have it sooner or later. The gears of our "of the people, by the people, for the people" government have ground to a halt.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. I think he had one good effect in '00

which was that issues that would otherwise have been glossed over last time around were put in the spotlight.

And I don't buy the spoiler argument as THE reason Bu$h got into office. There were other far more devestating issues which put Bu$h in the WH.

I do worry that his run might siphon off a few votes here and there again, but the reality is most folks will vote Dem by default just to get the chimp out.

[cryofan]

3. sorry--i told nader i would work and donate for him if Kucinich does not..

...get nominated. Some of us are not yellow dogs dems.....

[pistoff democrat]

6. I'm sorry you can't see things

in shades of gray.

There is a tremendous difference between Kucinich and Bush; calling the rest of us 'yellow dog dems' is grossly unfair.

Please take a look at Skinner's Daily Democrat on Kerry. I believe it is #10 where Kerry's record is delineated. Please...it doesn't have to be Kucinich or Nader.

Kerry's views are darn good!

[velocity]

4. Ralph Nader is going to run and nobody will

talk his ego out of it. Sad to say.

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. He should be allowed to run

He has a constitutional right to do so, and keeps discussion going on what direction we want this country to go.

You should concentrate instead on explaining to folks why, at this time, it would be best to vote Dem.

[ShaneGR]

8. Simple, George W Bush

If you haven't figured that out yet, I want the number to your drug dealer.

[pistoff democrat]

10. Of course he IS allowed to run.

However, as democrats (even ones who have voted for Nader in the past, such as me), we must realize that the election of 2004 is desperately (nuclearly) important. Bush has got to go!

[PissedOffPollyana]

29. But that wouldn't have the required effect

of demonizing Nader! It's become one of the most wide-spread Dem pasttimes these days.

Can we finally accept that Al Gore 'lost' because he was a mediocre candidate at best, whose people ran a sh*tty campaign? They sold out significant constituencies. They did not fight for the right of their party members to vote in Florida for crying out loud and then rolled over when the coup came calling. The DNC 'lost' all on their own and needed no help from Nader.

Some wise words come to mind...

"Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it."

[madison]

7. Republican money is probably already pouring into Nader's headquarters.

The Republican money is probably already pouring into Nader's headquarters.

Heck, they financed him last time, and it worked.

Nader garnered 95,000 votes in Florida; Bush "won" by about 500. Does anyone need say more?

And do not bother to try telling me Nader also siphoned off potential Bush votes; I get fits of laughter from that story.

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. More Dems voted for Bush in Fla

than they did Nader.

[JohnLocke]

31. That's despicible. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

[pistoff democrat]

14. See, for some who are still very idealistic,

this isn't about changing the world, this is about politics! As someone told me recently, better to make friends with a bureaucrat than a presidential candidate.

That is so sad, but it is true.

Social justice and politics are not the same things. This is why I hate politics. For me, it is a means to an end, however the possible nuclear end Bush may have in store for us in his 2nd term is not the end to which I refer!

[La_Serpiente]

11. Well it seems like Nader and McAuliffe have been dining out together

Reaching out to Nader

Tending to another trouble spot these days is McAuliffe, who sources say has opened up a steady line of communication with Nader over the past three months. The two had lunch in Washington on November 5, the day after Democrats lost gubernatorial races in Mississippi and Kentucky, and spoke most recently Tuesday, shortly before the debate in New Hampshire.

Democrats said McAuliffe, who might speak with Nader again this weekend to talk about his Thursday night fund-raiser in New Jersey, is trying to avoid the mistakes made in 2000, when Nader complained Democratic leaders largely ignored him.

"My assumption is that Nader is running . The working hypothesis is that he's running," one party insider said. "But you don't want him to run and then air these claims that no one from the party ever talked to him."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/12/mgrind.day.friday/index.html

[pistoff democrat]

17. But, sweetie pie, I

thought McAuliffe is on the way out.

Did I misunderstand? Is he just losing his position but taking another equally important one for us Dems?

Thanks!

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. It amazes me

that Nader is such a focus here. Either he and the Greens are nothing to worry about because they are a piffling little fraction of voters, or they broke the country by getting Bush into office.

WHY is it people are more terrified and angry at Ralph than at Harris, Baker, and the Supreme Court?

Ralph exercised his right to run. Baker and Harris trampled over the rights of thousands of voters.

Please, rethink about where your anger ought to be directed. Instead of telling Ralph to shut up, try calling out the thugs who have corrupted our election system.

[pistoff democrat]

18. You misunderstand me, anyway.

My anger is with Baker and Harris and Thomas and Scalia etc.

My fear is with Ralph; it's not the same - honest!

[Tinoire]

20. No reason to be afraid of Nader.

The power to win this election is totally within our hands. If the defection of so many Democrats to the Green Party over the last few years hasn't scared us enough to really pay enough attention to progressive issues that benefit everyone, then what right have we to expect them to be scared enough into forking over their votes?

I'm not angry at Nader- I'm angry at the people who allow Nader to be an attractive alternative.

[pistoff democrat]

22. Beautiful reply.

Thank you!

[Tinoire]

26. Aw shucks...

I really hope the Greens will stay with us on this one. I think they will- especially if we can tone down the lingering vitriol.

Peace

[PissedOffPollyana]

32. You've got that right!

This simple nugget of truth seems to escape so many people. If the party keeps taking it's base for granted, it has nobody else to blame. They can do this the right way and actually be inclusive to all facets of the party or they can alienate millions of voters and hope they are scared enough to hold their noses and vote for sweeter talking corporate shills.

I hope they see the forrest for the trees before it's too late!

[GreenPartyVoter]

21. But you fear that Ralph will draw voters away from the Dem

And I still really don't think he will. The folks who are going to vote Nader no matter what will do so. If he isn't on the ballot, the votes do not autmatically slide over to the Dem. In fact, I think a lot of those diehards would stay home before they vote for anyone other than Ralph or a Green.

However, I do not feel that all of the votes Ralph received last time came from Green-or-nothing folks. I am voting Dem next time. So are several other Greens I know.

I really do not think a Ralph and/or Green run are worth getting that worked up over at this time.

[Tinoire]

19. It's too easy to beat up on Nader and the Greens

Calling out the thugs who have corrupted our election system would force us to take a long hard look at ourselves and that would be too painful.

Nader exposes the lip service we pay to progressive issues and that's baaaad.

[mzmolly]

25. No to Ralph...but if Dean gets the nom, he won't be much of an issue.

I think Dean can handle Mr. Nader. Clark too for that matter...