To Naderites and other third-party supporters...

[LoZoccolo]

Are you happy now?

[rockymountaindem]

1. They're going to say yes n.t.

[LoZoccolo]

3. Or take absolutely no responsibility.

It's funny how they're enamored with the fact that it's their vote, yet there's not a word about their responsibility that goes along with that vote.

[Warpy]

2. Are yout thrilled with Lieberman? The Nelsons?

This is flame bait.

Shame.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Don1]

72. yup flamebait.

[Touchdown]

83. Lieberman isn't a Dem. Try and keep up.

So those 11 (not 12) Invalidate the 35 who voted against it? The Nelsons, The Salazars, Landreu etc. will get theirs, but not by any third party. It wasn't any third party or St. Ralph that took care of Lieberman, was it?

[Deja Q]

4. Let's forget the flamefest.

It's been done before, for 5+ years running.

Nader was one part of it and does not deserve to be scapegoated for everything.

[pnwmom]

7. Nader was enough to tip the balance, ALL BY HIMSELF.

Sure there were other things that happened -- ballot problems, etc., but they were things WE couldn't control. Some of us deliberately voted for Nader though. And those people have to live with that.

[Touchdown]

84. Nader said in 2000...

Things will have to get a lot worse, before people will wake up and make it better. It's classic Leninist philosophy... the worse, the better.

This is EXACTLY where Nader wants this country.

[mod mom]

6. FLAMEBAIT: WHY DON'T YOU WORK AT BRINGING PROGRESSIVES TOGETHER

Instead of creating division?

[LoZoccolo]

8. I am. Everyone should vote Democratic.

That's bringing people together.

[bowens43]

11. It's not the Democrats who are creating division.

It's the greens and the third party folks.

[pnwmom]

12. Who created the division? Nader. He could have told his supporters

to limit their activities in the swing states such as Florida, but instead he CAMPAIGNED there. He knew what he was doing. His goal was to swing the election to the Rethugs in order to show how powerful he was. And he succeeded.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. You know ... I tried that once .....

A trip to PollyannaVille ..... and a suggestion to the Greens

Not a week after I posted that, a Green was up and running in PA, with financial and tactical and on-the-gound help from Sanitorium to siphon votes from the DEMOCRATIC candidate for senate.

I waited for the Greens to cry foul.

I'm still waiting.

[Zynx]

26. Naderites have always been interested in disunity.

Them and their Republican backers.

[LynneSin]

28. We are working at bringing progressives together

Why must some DUers come in here and suggest options that no matter how you spin it will enable the republican to win.

I'm pissed at the Democratic Party, but not as much as I'm pissed at the Republican Party. I'd rather be pissed for the next two years with a democratic majority that will get some of it right some of the time then a republican party that won't at all.

After the November election, we need to target the democrats that should be removed at office and start working to build better candidates that could win in the primary

[wiley]

41. Why not target the Republicans?

Chew your own leg off. Thanks.

[Don1]

71. Yes, this is flamebait. n/t

[pnwmom]

9. And yet there are still people here who think voting for Greens

is the answer.

[LoZoccolo]

13. And that's why this topic is not flamebait.

1. Third-party folly in an ongoing, not a past, problem.
2. If we do not learn from history we are doomed to repeat it.
3. The people who've learned from this mistake likely do so based on what's happened the last five years; someone who doesn't by now needs some serious attitude adjustment and no amount of coddling is going to change their mind.
4. You cannot make a decision that has repercussions five years later and once those repercussions happen say that you shouldn't talk about that decision because it was five years ago. That's a coward's way out.

[SledDriver]

15. BOTH of my DEM NJ senators voted for torture...

I oppose torture. Why vote for a party that does not represent my interests?

Why? Because they're not Repukes? Really? Could've fooled me. And don't give me any of that "don't wanna look soft on terror" crap. How about looking hard on the rights of the people who voted for you?

If the Dems want MY vote then they had better start acting like an oppostion party and stop acting like *'s bitches.

[LoZoccolo]

21. Your argument makes no sense.

Which of your two senators ran against George W. Bush* in the 2000 general presidential election?

[SledDriver]

58. Irrelevant...

Which two NJ Democratic senators put their short-term electoral prospects ahead of their sworn duty to uphold and defend the constitution?

Neither of these two DINOs will be getting my vote ever again.

[LynneSin]

23. I'd rather spend the next six years fighting Tom Carper on the issues

than fighting his republican option. My senator, who is up for re-election, also voted for it AND he's endorsing Lieberman after the primary.

I'm going to vote for Tom Carper even though it pisses me off because at least I know that sometimes Carper is going to get it right in the next 6 years but his republican opponent, a fan of Bush, will probably get it right 0% of the time.

I'm not giving up the fight - but I have two options Carper or Not Carper (ie Republican). I'd rather have Carper, he still does some good once in awhile!

[SledDriver]

61. That is the defintion of insanity...

Repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different result? If Dems want my vote, they have to give me a reason to vote for them. I see no point in voting for Menendez if he's going to swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, and then cast his vote against it. Maybe he thought I'd think he was "strong on terror". I see him as weak and completely devoid of integrity. Another useless DINO politician.

[pnwmom]

38. Don't think of it as voting for them. Think of it as voting for Kennedy,

Leahy, Boxer, and all the other great committee chairs we will have if the Democrats can get a majority.

None of them would have ever let the torture bill out of committee. We wouldn't have this problem now, if the Democrats had a majority in either House.

[SledDriver]

63. Thanks. But I'll think of it as a vote against Menendez.

I understand the importance of getting the majority, but this is inexcusable. Menendez, as a Dem, should be aware of this as well and should have stuck with the Dems. He didn't. So he won't be getting my vote.

[bowens43]

10. Of course they are.

They screwed us in 2000 and they're trying to do it again. Nothing but a bunch of discontented spoilers.

[jonnyblitz]

14. you remind me of the republicans who still blame Clinton

for everything that goes wrong today. Yes, Lozocollo, I am sure that Nader and the third parties voters made those DEMS voted for the torture bill. :crazy: :crazy:

[LoZoccolo]

22. Way more Republicans voted for it, and Greens are effective Republicans.

For the hundredth time.

[hfojvt]

34. eyup. If there was no Bush administration there would be no torture bill

If there was no Nader candidacy helping to elect Bush, there would be no Bush administration. Cause and effect. Welcome to the Earth, third rock from the sun.

But, there's not a dimes worth of difference between a party with 96% of their Senators supporting the torture bill and a party with 33% of their Senators supporting the torture bill after they supported an alternative that was defeated by the Republican majority. "One thin dime won't even shine your shoes on Broadway."

[enigmacat]

40. I agree it's unproductive: Everytime a Dem loses the let's blame Nader

crowd appears.
:argh:

[LoZoccolo]

47. What?

Who blamed Nader for anyone but Bush*?

[mainegreen]

16. Flamebait. Here's why:

This has been hashed out lots of times and gone nowhere. Your post can go nowhere as evidently to many people here enjoy posting 'but its all your fault' to any rational comment. If I say I live in Maine, the reply will be "Its your fault we lost Florida." If I say I vote green locally the reply is "Your splitting the vote, its all your fault." If I post "But there ARE NO REPUBLICANS IN MY DISTRICT! They poll around 3% for crying out loud! We have a two party system in my city: Green/Democrat." The reply is "You must follow party line or its all your fault." Of course theres always the "But you WON Florida for christs sake. The democratic party lawyers blew it," the reply will be "Its all your fault." And then you wonder why independants and greens exist. You know why? Because with that finger pointing lack of ability to learn its "all your fault."

Edited to add: Also even if I vote green locally and vote democrat nationally (which I do) somehow its still ALL MY FAULT. Yes, I have no right to an opinion or choice I guess.

[hfojvt]

33. Maine must be an awesome place to live

I break into a parody of "Imagine"
"Imagine there're no Republicans
it makes you want to fly
nobody endorsing torture
nobody telling lie after lie..."

PS - It's all Nader's fault. :P

[mainegreen]

35. Aye, that it is. Especially Portland.

I love this city. It's so liberal a Freeper would spontaneously explode upon setting foot inside city limits!

[mhatrw]

18. To all Bush critics....

Are you happy now?

[LoZoccolo]

20. I have no idea what you're saying.

And don't change the subject, please.

[acmejack]

19. One trick Pony!

Some one please teach the glove a new trick, I beg you. Oh, I remember, he's excellent at tweaking progressives with barbs like this, too. Christ, man let's do something constructive, you're better than this. Surely DLC people have some ideas to promote!

[LoZoccolo]

24. Not my fault that vain splinterism has ongoing severe repercussions. n/t

[LynneSin]

27. Carl Romanelli proves the point

That guy was fully funded by Rick Santorums people.

The repukes know how to tweak our buttons and siphon off the votes - the sad thing is, we're still falling for it

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. so in a lot of ways i agree with you

naderites very rarely take any responsibility for this debacle and still like to pretend Carter=Bush=Clinton=Bush Jr=Nixon

They are all the same man...all the same! :eyes:

however

With some of the DEMs voting for the torture bill...its becoming hard to defend the dems

also this nader thing happened 5 years ago and we lost all by ourselves in 2004

[LoZoccolo]

29. Sure, but we all need to do what will work.

If that means working for a primary candidate, that's one option. If that primary candidate can't win the general, then you have to find one that is compelling, or make sure the people are compelled. Right now, people don't know why we shouldn't torture anyone. That's a big problem, and one that will require a lot of work to overcome. The problem is way larger than this or that candidate, and requires a lot more work than assuaging one's anger in the half hour it takes to go vote on election day. You hit on an important point, this responsibility. It's larger than a lot of people are conceiving...and for a lot of us, it starts with maybe getting off this website a lot more than we do.

Which is why I posted this yesterday!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2851779&mesg_id=2851779

[paulk]

30. no problemo, dude....

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ulysses]

32. Harold Ford is. n/t

[windbreeze]

36. I voted for NADER....

so are YOU happy NOW??? I admit it...I alone am responsible for Bush becoming President, it's all my fault...damn...not once, but twice...even though I voted for KERRY in 2004...

I was under the mistaken impression that I was allowed to vote for the person who best represented me?....my state's ELECTORAL VOTES DID go to Gore..It didn't only have to do with Nader voters, in 2000...the SC had a great lot to do with it...and there were no voting irregularities, or scrubbing of Democratic voters names off the rolls, right?...I have voted for many presidents...this is the first damned time, that FLORIDA'S VOTE ever came into question....now I wonder if that had anything to do with JEBBIE promising his older brother that he would win Florida, way before anyone even voted???? ..I really, really wish you could find something else to bitch about...

I VOTED FOR NADER, I VOTED FOR NADER, I VOTED FOR NADER, I VOTED FOR NADER...and I'd like you to tell me how Nader is responsible for the situation today..or have you FORGOTTEN THAT WE HAD ANOTHER ELECTION IN 2004?????...How about we assign blame where it's deserves to be assigned....at the feet of most of the current members of this congress...and also at the feet of those who refuse to believe or do anything about the ELECTRONIC MACHINES (that's been proved, steal/alter votes), and finally at the feet of the fully 50% of Americans that DID VOTE HIM BACK INTO OFFICE IN 2004!! (oh wait, or did that happen because of voter fraud, once again) How about using your wrath to help rid us of faulty voting machines once you can get past Nader...??
wb

(ps...I guess you could say, even though I mean to offend no one, I AM offended)

[LoZoccolo]

37. One can have voted for Nader and not be a Naderite.

And vice versa.

[pnwmom]

42. It's Nader's fault, not the fault of people in "safe" states who chose to

vote for him.

It's Nader's fault for deliberately campaigning HARD in important swing states like Florida. He was trying to swing the election. There's no explanation for it. Otherwise, he would have stayed out of the critical swing states and limited his campaigning to the states he could attract votes without helping the Republican party.

If 2000 had gone to Gore, 2004 would have been an entirely different election. 2000 was the beginning of the end, and Nader was greatly responsible.

[windbreeze]

45. Seems to me....there's been

quite a few presidents that did NOT get to serve a second term in office...HE could have, and most likely was..replaced...however...we're back to those dreaded machines that can be hacked w/in minutes...and voter disenfranchisement again...that's where the responsibility really lies...and the fact that they still haven't been dealt with on a national level...until they are...they will continue to be hacked...and elections will be lost...I hope it's the other sides turn next though..
windbreeze

[pnwmom]

48. No way to know, of course, but I think that if Al Gore, not Bush,

had been in office in July 2001, then when the CIA came with their warning that bin laden was about to strike AND their plan for killing him first, then Gore would have authorized it. (You heard about Woodward's story about this, right?)

Imagine no 9/11. No climate of fear. No Iraq war. None of the horrible steps that have led us to where we are now.

And it all started with losing the state of Florida, by a tiny, tiny margin. A loss that wouldn't have happened if Nader had thrown his support to Gore.

[windbreeze]

64. See, the point is.....

There is NO way to know for sure what may have turned out different...NONE, NADA, ZIP...It didn't happen that way, and that's the end of it...from what I understand...Gore did NOT lose the state of Florida..and it was the Supreme Court that awarded the presidency to Bush..I dare say that it would have turned out that way in any case, because some were determined that Bush had to win...imo...Just like some felt it was Kerry's turn to be the nominee for the Democrats the last time.....it's redundant to even discuss this...because there is NO way to prove what may or may not have turned out different...and we are back to throwing it all in Nader's court...and that is just ridiculous...sorry..it's his fault as much as it's mine for having voted my conscience instead of party line...no problem....we can agree to disagree...and I have no problem with that...
windbreeze

[enigmacat]

39. How dare someone try to run outside our mandatory two party system?

You should be directing your years old vitriol at the Dems in Congress for letting us down.

[pnwmom]

43. He's welcome to run, but voters need to understand the

consequences of voting for someone who hasn't a chance of winning.

[ulysses]

49. and party leaders need to understand the consequences

of abandoning their base.

[pnwmom]

51. The Nader wingtip isn't their base.

[ulysses]

52. if so, why should you stress about Nader voters?

:shrug:

Hi, I'm ulysses, lifelong Democrat, what used to be known as a middle of the road liberal, and two-time Nader voter ('96 and '00).

[The Magistrate]

53. When Matters Are Closely Balanced, My Friend

Shaving a small amount off of one side can have very large consequences. Politics just now is a game of inches, and the absolute power of Legislative majorities does not reflect the often very narrow margins by which it is acquired, any more than does the allocation of state electors. But that one or two percent is hardly the base of the Party, though it does have in some circumstances the power to wreck the Party's prospects. The situation is made even more difficult because in many instances, what this sliver demands would, if granted, alienate a much greater number of persons who routinely vote for the Party's candidates without complaint.

[ulysses]

55. perhaps Nader voters weren't part of the base of the party,

but I certainly considered my pro-labor, pro-choice, anti-racism, pro-poor, lifelong Democratic ass to be so. I suppose I should have learned better by now - I've voted for a non-Dem exactly twice in my life.

More consideration is given former lifelong Republicans.

Sorry, my man, but the dipshits running the party in the Clinton era lost my vote.

[Telly Savalas]

60. Then a politician shouldn't meet that sliver's demands.

However she shouldn't expect to win that sliver's votes.

Conservative Democrats have an unwarranted sense of entitlement about the votes of anybody to the left of the GOP. Some people are far enough to the left that the Democratic Party fails to represent their views. Such people aren't to vote Democratic, so Democrats shouldn't be whining when they vote for somebody else.

[The Magistrate]

67. What You Call 'Conservative Democrats', Sir

Have a good understanding of how the two-party system works, and the expectation people will guide their actions by some reasonable calculation of self-interest. In a multi-party system, such as is employed in most European parliaments, coallitions are generally put together after an election: in the two-party system we employ, they must be put together before the election. When the furthest left element refuses to join the coalition, or makes demands that must alienate much larger factions, it is not acting in a rational calculation of self-interest, for it is acting in a way that guarantees defeat for the entire left coallition, and cements the power of the rightist coallition. The rational calculation would dictate action that would put power into more friendly hands, and enable participation as a junior partner, with a shot, at least, at augmenting power by affecting policies and provodinging active personnel.

[Telly Savalas]

73. I understand how the two-party system works.

I'm just saying that on the fringes of both the left and the right you'll find people who don't perceive they are even remotely represented by the respective coaltions of the Democratic Party and the GOP. For such people the coalition doesn't necessarily constitute "friendly hands". Whether or not this is a rational calculation by them is beside the point. The people building the coaltions need to accept this situation and factor it into their equations. A good place to start would be to recognize that casting blame on the fringes and chanting "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" is a pretty poor way of winning their votes. Somebody with a real understanding of coalition building in a two-party system would recognize that hurling abuse at Naderites is an ineffective way of getting them to join the coalition.

[The Magistrate]

77. Not So, Sir

One of the major forces harnessed in political activity is the desire to be part of a group. Very few humans are wholly immune to this. Ostracization and denigration serves the purpose of discouraging persons from identifying with the group so assailed: it works to prevent further growth of it, and to peel off from it all but a very hard core who pitch their identity on defiance, and cannot usually be brought to work with any group they cannot imagine centered on themselves.

The right is, as a general proposition, far more cohesive than the left. There are several reasons for this. One is that the right has practical experience of wielding power, while the left, particularly at its farther reaches, has only theoretical projections of how they might wield it, and it is more difficult to get a good quarrel going over matters of practical experience than over a variety of hypotheticals. Another is that the right has a nmuch higher proportion of authoritarian opersonnalities in its ranks than does the left, and persons so formed are more apt than the average to move cohesively under accepted leadership. Thus, there is less splintering, once things come to the sticking point, on the right than on the left. Rightist politicians have less to fear from their fringes than do left politicians. It is up to persons on the left to recognize this tendency, and act themselves to correct it.

[pnwmom]

79. I don't think the true Nader voters are persuadable.

If they were logical thinkers, they wouldn't have voted for him in a swing state contest.

But there are discouraged Democrats right now who are dispirited enough to consider the Greens, for example, and there are Greens right on these boards who are trying to convince them that the Democrats and Republicans are equally repugnant.

I'm trying to speak to discouraged Democrats. I know the Naderites and the Greens have already made up their minds, for good or ill.

[pnwmom]

68. We're not entitled to those votes. But those voters should look in

the mirror when they want to find someone to blame. If they had voted for Gore instead of Nader, we wouldn't be on the road we're on now.

[Telly Savalas]

74. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't more self-identified Democrats

vote for Bush in Florida than the total number of Bush voters in Florida?

Shouldn't actual Democrats bear a greater responsiblity for getting Democrats elected than members of the Green Party?

[pnwmom]

78. That could be more proof that the election was stolen.

The machines could well have flipped Democratic votes into Republican votes.

Or it could be the result of people's registrations being outdated. A person's party affiliation from 20 years ago might not be the same as today's.

But anyone who left the Democratic party specifically to vote for Nader was part of the problem.

[pnwmom]

66. Exactly right. If the demands of that small group were fully satisfied,

you could alienate a much larger group of Democrats.

[Telly Savalas]

75. So isn't your implication that alienated Democrats are no longer

obligated to vote for the party?

[pnwmom]

80. No one is obligated to vote for anybody. But if a leftist votes for a

Nader or a Green, he is withholding his vote from a Democrat, and thereby assisting the Republican -- whose positions are that much further away from anything he would ever support. So if he wants to blame anybody for the current state of affairs, he can start with himself.

Don't forget how many times Nader said that Gore and Bush were the same. Nader voters didn't believe Democrats who knew that wasn't true. Too bad.

[pnwmom]

65. Because only a few votes was enough to swing the election.

[ulysses]

76. then someone should have taken that into account

before they moved the party to the right. Truth is that they probably did, and just didn't think it would matter.

[IndianaGreen]

44. Tell that to those that support Lieberman's third party candidacy

and if you think that's nothing consider this: if Lieberman wins in November, he plans to run for President as a unity candidate.

[LoZoccolo]

46. As a senator, Lieberman has 1/400th the power of a president. n/t

[ulysses]

50. you base that on what?

I know you have me on ignore, but maybe someone else will answer...

[The Magistrate]

54. One Two Hundredth, Sir, Would Be A Better Calculation

Based in the equality of branches, in theory, anyway, and the number of persons with power in each. The Congress is equal in power to the Executive, but the Executive is one individual, while the Congress is two chambers, and each chamber is comprised of many individuals. Thus each chamber is "half" a President, and as there are one hundred Senators, each is about one two-hundredth of a President, while each of the four hundred thirty-five Representatives would be about one eight hundred seventieth of a President.

[ulysses]

56. what that doesn't take into account

is the public impact of a Senator's actions. Lieberman's actions are multiplied in a way that a Ben Nelson's aren't because he's more in the limelight.

[LoZoccolo]

62. Right you are! Thanks. n/t

[Don1]

57. YOU ARE SO RIGHT!

HERE IS WHAT I THINK OF NADER:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2854652

[liberaliraqvet26]

59. enough of this crap.

We all have a common enemy and they are imploding on themselves. lets focus on them

[pnwmom]

69. It's not over. There are Greens still running and posing the same risk

of tipping an election to the Republicans as Nader did. Some of them are taking Republican funding.

For example, there is a Green running against Maria Cantwell for Senator, and he's said in interviews that he doesn't care if he swings the election to the Republican party.

During a tightly contested election, the Greens are NOT our friends.

[Don1]

70. This thread is clearly flame-bait.

And it is quite illogical. Nader did not cause 27% of the Democrats in the Senate to refuse a filibuster of the torture bill.

[pnwmom]

81. Nader helped ensure Bush's election by insisting on campaigning hard

in Florida and other important swing states.

And that was the beginning of the hellish road we're on now.

[pnwmom]

82. Some people have such short memories.

Here's a little fact that I think a lot of people have forgotten. During the 2000 election a lot of people were concerned that the Nader vote would cut into the margins in important swing states. There was enough concern that there was an organized effort to "swap" votes for Nader and Gore in swing vs. non-swing states, with Democratic voters in safe or hopeless states agreeing to vote for Nader, in exchange for Nader people in swing states agreeing to vote for Gore.

But would Nader ever endorse this? No, because he didn't care whether Gore or Bush won. All he wanted to do was attract attention to himself. So he made a special effort to campaign hard in Florida and other swing states.

[AtomicKitten]

85. this remind me of an ex

He also had trouble processing events and moving on. When the teensiest bit agitated, he would regurgitate ancient history with the same verve as when it initially occurred.

No offense, but can we live in the now, please? We have plenty on our plate to deal with without the pointless rehashing of things we cannot change.