An Unreasonable Man - Nader Documentary in Theaters Soon

[ProudDad]

For those of you in the San Francisco area this movie's coming to the Landmark in East Bay, Lumiere in S.F. and Rafael in San Rafael this Friday.

For those of you elsewhere: http://www.anunreasonableman.com/ and check where it will be.

An Unreasonable Man:

"The undisputed leader of the modern Consumer Movement, Ralph Nader built a legislative record that rivals any contemporary president, all without ever holding public office. Many things we take for granted—seat belts, airbags, product labeling, no nukes, even the free ticket you get after being bumped from an overbooked flight—are largely due to the efforts of Nader and his citizen groups. Yet today, when most people hear his name, they think of the man who cost the Democrats the Presidential election. Directors Henriette Mantel and Steve Skrovan trace the life and career of one of the most unique, important and controversial political figures of our time."

I heard the producers on Larry Benski's program this morning. Very interesting.

Ross Mirikami, the Green S.F. Supervisor, was also on the program. He had an interesting tale to tell. Nader and the Green Party folks who were running the Nader campaign in 2000 tried numerous times to contact the Gore camp (the DLC aparatchiks) in order to work with them to devise a strategy that would allow the Greens to get their 5% without harming the Gore campaign. The DLC Dems never responded. The DLC response to the Nader campaign was so nasty that some were worried that Nader was in physical danger FROM THE DEMOCRATS!

It's too bad that people can't look at the air bags in their car and see "provided by Ralph Nader". Or their food in the supermaket "This food made safer by Ralph Nader". Or the air or water. Or after being bumped from an airline seat their refund with "this refund courtesy of Ralph Nader". Or the countless thousands of lives he's saved from corporate deprivations. This country owes more to Ralph Nader than any other single citizen of the last half of the 20th Century. And now some would like to deprive him of his right, as a citizen, to run for office.

I have a single-digit answer for that kind of person...

[mike_c]

1. hear hear...!

Agreed, 100 percent.

[chimpymustgo]

4. The shame is that Nadar ruined his legacy by helping to bring us BushCo.

Sorry. That's just a fact. He didn't do it singlehandedly, but may have played the largest single role.

[ProudDad]

8. I'd say the DLC

played the largest single role along with SCOTUS...

[wyldwolf]

10. that is wishful thinking on your part, pappy. No evidence.

[ProudDad]

12. Evidence

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

Bush v Gore - 5 to 4 to select g.w.bush

And the DLC Blames.......... wait for it ............. drum roll...............




AL GORE



"in the 2000 election Gore chose a populist rather than a New Democrat message. As a result, voters viewed him as too liberal and identified him as an advocate of big government. Those perceptions, whether fair or not, hurt him with male voters in general and with key New Economy swing voters in particular. By emphasizing class warfare he seemed to be talking to Industrial Age America, not Information Age America."

From the DLC website...

(As if there's no class war against us Information Age Americans -- what bullshit!)

they didn't mention Ralph...

It's all moot since the DLC is dead, they just don't know it yet...

[wyldwolf]

14. This isn't evidence Gore lost in 2000 because of the DLC. THAT is what you are claiming.

your reply states that someone at the DLC thought Gore ran a too populist platform which led to his defeat.

In your best of dreams you can't spin that into Gore losing because of the DLC.

But Nader handed 2000 right off to the bushies.

[mtnsnake]

16. You call THAT evidence of backing up your claim?

Nice job of reaching!

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

18. is this how proudpappy makes a point?

[sellitman]

2. He should be able to run and

if he does he can take Republican money to fund his glorious campaign once again. King Ralph then can do what he does best....help the Conservatives win again.

Thanks for the airbags!



:sarcasm:

[bobbie]

6. Yes, thanks... Ralph...

I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis greatly appreciate the airbags too.

[ProudDad]

13. bush, Clinton, bush and cheney

killed the Iraqis.

Ralph Nader has NONE of that blood on his hands.

Try to get a grip on reality. Blaming Nader just keeps you from realizing who's really f*cking you over...

There IS a class war in the world. Nader just want you to realize that and get off of your hindquarters and do something about it... He also wants you to realize that the "leadership of the Democratic Party" ain't gonna help you much unless you pound on them since most of them are in the class war on the wrong side, bought and paid for.

[bobbie]

19. All of the above is true, they're all fucking us over.

Republicans pols suck. And Democrats pols are usually Republicans Lite.

However, Democrats pols are not always Republicans Lite.
There are some great ones like (at the time) Wellstone, Kucinich, McDermott, Kennedy...
There are some decent/tolerable ones like... Al Gore.

Name one Republican pol who is a great person.
...
Take all the time you need.

So Ralph made sure we got the worst of the worst of the fascist Republicans instead of a decent/tolerable Democrat.

[ProudDad]

9. They ALL take republican money

Kerry took 100X as much "republican money" as Nader did in '04...


http://votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=295

"But the reality was only 700 Republican contributions (no individuals, but individual contributions) had given donations to the Nader campaign and most of the contributors were people Nader had worked with on justice issues in the past. Even among these 700 the Democrats received more money than Nader/Camejo—$111,700 to $146,000. But, the Democrats continue to use the Big Lie—despite the facts."

[Double T]

3. Agreed. Big ZERO!!

Arrogant idiot.

[MasonJar]

5. At the time what I heard was that Gore wanted to give all of his

Texas vote to Nader in exchange for Nader's votes in tight states. Nader allegedly refused.

[ProudDad]

7. Have you got a source

Democracyrumor?

On Edit, from 2000:

"The Green Party is expected to field candidates in four statewide races: for U.S. Senate, attorney-mediator Doug Sandage; for two seats on the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates oil and gas, Gary Dugger, a UPS pre-loader and union steward, and Charlie Mauch, a retired petroleum and environmental engineer; and for Texas Supreme Court, former appeals court judge Ben Levy.

All four offices are held by Republicans, and only one is contested by a Democrat, a dramatic illustration of what Green Party officials are calling “democracy in decline.” Combined with Deomcratic presidential candidate Al Gore’s apparent willingness to concede the state to Bush, this presents Texas progressives with a unique opportunity to “vote their hopes, not their fears,” David Cobb said.

“I’ll tell you why a lot of Texans are going to cast their votes for Nader in November,” said Mr. Cobb. “Because they know that a vote for Al Gore in Texas is a wasted vote. This is our chance to send a strong, clear message that we the people are fed up with the corporate takeover of our politics, our institutions, our government our very culture.”

http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/0530-02.htm

"I do not believe that things have to get worse before they can get better. I think you will find that most mothers object to the idea that you would deliberately do something to make a child's life worse in order to bring about some presumed greater good in the long run. I believe that the best can be the enemy of the better. I believe in taking half a loaf, or even a slice.

And how do we ever change the whole rotten system at that speed? Brick by brick, child by child, slowly, toward liberty and justice for all. The urgent, crucial need right now is to fix the money in politics. It can be done, it will be done, it is being done, and we will get better politics.

In Texas, we'll vote for Nader and a perfect world. You swing-state progressives need to make the hard choice -- but you're not making it just for yourselves. Good luck to you all."

http://www.commondreams.org/views/102600-103.htm


We were also lucky here in California, didn't have to vote for the DLC but could vote our conscience instead...

[Forkboy]

11. I'll watch it

Should be pretty interesting no matter where you come down on the debate.

[ProudDad]

15. That's the main reason I posted

I was sure that thinking folks would like know about it...

:hi:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

20. Good movie. I watched it Friday night. n/t

[Forkboy]

22. I'm betting it's pretty fascinating.

I like Nader as much as I like the Dixie Chicks,which is to say not at all,but I want to see their movie too.I'm not very interested in movies that are just an echo chamber for my own beliefs.That's not always a bad thing mind you (Michael Moore's movies spring instantly to mind). But I wouldn't want a steady diet of only things I agree with.Gotta shake our brains up every now and then or it rots. :)

[ddeclue]

21. Add George W. Bush provided by Ralph Nader to that list...

He cost Gore 90,000 votes in Florida and thus the election and the subsequent unfortunate series of events known as the Bush administration:

9/11
the tanking economy / tanking dollar
the ballooning national debt
the Iraq War
Hurricane Katrina
torture and kidnapping

I can't help but believe that things would have been quite different under President Gore.

Thanks for nothing Ralph Nader..

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[Forkboy]

23. How come nobody blames all the Dems who voted Repub?

Or better yet,the people who didn't care enough to vote at all? Or SCOTUS,the real culprit why Gore wasn't President? The argument that Nader cost anyone anything is a total red-herring because the votes were never counted.And the same people who say that Nader cost Gore the election will jump on anyone that suggest Gore didn't win.So to them Gore won but he lost because of Nader.Did he win or did he lose?

I realize that my first question in the subject line demands an inward look at the party,which seems verboten to a lot of people,but it's a totally valid question that I have yet,in my five years on DU,see anyone really answer without resorting to simple attacks on Nader.

As I stated above,I don't like the man.Whatever good he did in the past has been wiped out by his ego.However,the man has every right to run for office,just like you or me,and the Democrats are no more entitled to his votes than he's entitled to the Dem votes.

It's called democracy,and when I see all the people who jump down Nader's throat I can't help but wonder if they care about democracy as a whole,or just their own little piece of it. :shrug:

[ddeclue]

24. Because they were going to vote for a Republican anyways.

They are called "Southern Democrats" and have been voting Republican since 1968. They voted for Reagan and for Bush I.

They are by definition conservatives, indeed often religious conservatives and they would never vote for either Nader OR Gore.

The liberals who voted for Nader, however WOULD have voted for Gore had Nader not run in 2000.

THAT'S WHY NADER's 90,000 votes mattered and those Southern Democrats who crossover to the GOP don't.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[ShortnFiery]

25. Yes, but we all also KNOW that Gore could have run a much better campaign.

It might have been impossible to bring Nader and the Greens into the fold, but they didn't need to piss them off, not all that dissimilar to how some party loyalists bully Kucinich backers to vote for "The Democratic Nominee" no matter what. Remember, our mothers' are correct when they say "you can snag more flies with honey rather than vinegar?"

Nope, I've mentioned before that my husband talked me into voting for Clinton the second time (1996) and for Gore in 2000 because I'm not all "that thrilled" with IMO DLC semi-sellout candidates. But I held my nose and did my duty as a LOYAL Democrat both times.

Sure, Hindsight is always 20:20, but please face the fact that there were a number of factors relating to how UN-SAT (thanks Donna Brazille! :eyes:) Gore's campaign was run that contributed to the bottom line, i.e., The Supreme Court selecting Dimson. This event did not occur in a vacuum, therefore, let's not be nasty and reach out to bring in the Greens and Liberals during 2008?

[AtomicKitten]

27. ahem

I guess Gore wasn't feeling the love from Nader when Nader declared that there was no difference between Bush and Gore.

[ShortnFiery]

28. Hey, I'm not defending the guy, but we could have done more as a party

to snag some of his supporters. Instead we turned to DLC attack mode. IMO not a good idea. :shrug:

On Edit: Nice to bump into you here again AK. :-) :hi:

[AtomicKitten]

29. good news

Gore has evolved (thank god). I'm hopeful a 2008 run would go down different.

[Forkboy]

30. No,those 90,000 votes never mattered because they were never counted.

And you didn't address non-voters or especially the SCOTUS.Gore would have won regardless of Nader if they had actually stuck to their love of "state's rights" that they always went on and on about.

Out of the non-voters,SCOTUS and Nader,Nader did the one thing that actually illustrated the idea of democracy,and he's the one that takes nearly all the blame from Democrats.It's honestly very disheartening to see because I thought we saw through the bullshit,but we keep playing into the Right's by ignoring the true threats to democracy.They use Nader as a tool,and it plays into his ego.We keep taking the bait while their other hand is stabbing the Constitution in the back.

:shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

26. I appreciate Nader's work as a consumer rights activist

... as to the rest of his "work," not so much.

[SaveElmer]

31. Ralph Nader is a snake...

On Bush and Gore...

"There's not a dimes worth of difference between them"

- Ralph Nader

'Nuff said!!!