Want the war to continue? Vote Nader 2008.

[UrbScotty]

Divided progressive vote = Another Republican President = four more years of killing.

United progressive vote = Democratic President = Greater likelihood that the war will end sooner rather than later.

[Selatius]

1. If Gore gets into the race, I doubt Nader would run.

But I'm not Nader, and that was speculation.

[pnwmom]

12. Are you kidding? He hates Gore.

That's a big part of why he ran in 2000.

http://soc.qc.cuny.edu/Staff/levine/Ralph-Nader-As-Suicide-Bomber.html

"In the year 2000, Ralph Nader strapped political dynamite onto himself and walked into one of the closest elections in American history hoping to blow it up. He wanted to punish the Clinton-Gore Democrats for having betrayed him and the causes he believes in. His primary campaign mission was defeating Al Gore, but Nader concealed this from his supporters, even as he went after votes in swing states like Florida. On the day after election day, when everyone else was grim, and many Democrats were furious at him, Ralph Nader was a happy man.

The following essay presents evidence for this large claim and describes how I first learned this in the fall of 2000. Since the election, political discussions about Nader's campaign have often focused on its electoral effect. Did Nader's 97,000 votes in Florida defeat Al Gore making George W. Bush president? Most observers seem to agree that they did, but others insist that many factors defeated Gore. However, independent of the effect of the Nader campaign on the election results, one can ask about what Nader wanted to have happen. Now that he has decided to run again, in what promises to be another very close election, it is worth examining what Ralph Nader intended the last time.

SNIP

This is not the same as saying he wants to produce that effect, but in explaining what he means, Nader gave support for that idea. He excoriated the Democrats in general, called Gore and Clinton "liars," and said: "Let me tell you something: I'd rather have a provocateur than an anesthetizer in the White House. Remember what James Watt did for the environmental movement? He galvanized it. Gore and his buddy Clinton are anesthetizers. "

SNIP

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Nader ...

... zzz.

I think I'll wait for him to do something destructive to complain.

--p!

[rudy23]

3. Want Nader to be irrelevant in '08? End the war(s), and start acting like a real Democrat.

The keys to the kingdom, to who can give Democrats, and really the majority of the country, what we want.

[Phredicles]

5. Ding ding ding - we have a winner!

[Richard Steele]

6. If Dems even TRY to do that, it won't be their voters Nader is dividing next time. nm

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Exactly

Two of the three leading 'Democratic' candidates voted for the IWR, permanent job-obliterating 'free' trade with China, draconian bankruptcy bills, 'Patriot' acts... how are these people Democrats? If one of these wins the nomination, I'll likely vote for Nader.

[wyldwolf]

19. A "real" Democrat? Who defines that?

[Selatius]

23. Party registration papers define that.

The bar is pretty low as to who can be called a Democrat.

With that said, though, what the country needs is, frankly, another FDR.

[wyldwolf]

25. the people on DU, Chomksy, etc. would have despised FDR

[Selatius]

38. Yes and no. DU is not a monolith.

A good number of folks here would've supported somebody with the kind of positions on economic policy like FDR, but a good number of folks here would've condemned him if he were even remotely as authoritarian as he was on issues of national security. (See concentration camps for Japanese-Americans)

If somebody ran on an economic platform similar to FDR's and pounded it day in and day out, it could be the ticket to drawing a lot of middle class and working poor votes beyond what the Republican could hope to beat. Of course, such economic positions could also be scary to many middle-of-the-road Democrats in Congress who are afraid of being labeled a provoker of class warfare or afraid of losing the support of some wealthy business interests.

[bahrbearian]

26. It defined as , Representives that "don't " make secrets deals with a Chimp

[wyldwolf]

27. must be one of those "DU" definitions that isn't recognized in the real world

[bahrbearian]

28. It isn't recognized because it done in "Secret"

[wyldwolf]

29. you just revealed in in an open forum

[BringBigDogBack]

20. Beautiful. n/t

[UrbScotty]

42. The worst Democrat > the best Republican. (nt)

[Make7]

4. The Republican nominee will likely have a more pro-War platform than Nader.

If a pro-War candidate is what you are looking for.

- Make7

[ConsAreLiars]

8. Or Hillary or Obama or ???

Most have pledged to continue US military presence in the Middle East. Which pro-occupation candidate do you favor?

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Obama Made No Such Pledge

Link or slink.

[ConsAreLiars]

11. Link

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/20/obama.iraq/index.html

"We can't afford to be a country of isolationists in the 21st century," he said, arguing that it is "absolutely vital that we maintain a strong and active foreign policy, relentless in pursuing our enemies and hopeful in promoting our values around the world."

Obama was careful not to set a specific timetable for withdrawal of troops or suggest troop levels.

"We cannot compromise on the safety of our troops, and we should be willing to adjust to realities on the ground," he said.

He proposed redeploying troops to Northern Iraq and to other countries in the region. He recommended boosting troop strength in Afghanistan, "where our lack of focus and commitment of resources has led to an increasing deterioration of the security situation there."

"For only through this phase redeployment can we send a clear message to the Iraqi factions that the United States is not going to hold together this country indefinitely _ that it will be up to them to form a viable government that can effectively run and secure Iraq," he said.

(On edit) If you have a strong stomach, see also this discussion of his desire to increase the military by another 100,000 in order to promote US imperialist domination over the rest of the world -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3316444

[pnwmom]

14. Nothing in that link supports your claim about Obama.

The article is about his support for the phased redeployment of troops out of Iraq, starting in 2007. Nowhere in the article does he say that he supports a continued occupation.

[ConsAreLiars]

15. Uh, maintaining troops in Northern Iraq and eslewhere in the region

is "getting out?" Believe what you will, but he clearly advocates continuing the attempt at military domination and control of that region. Why else does he want to add 100,000 more to the military? To reduce the role of militarism in Multinational Capitalism's foreign policy? You really think so?

[John Q. Citizen]

33. Good job of meeting the challenge, CAL. I notice those who issued the

challenge have gone silent.

The truth of the matter is all three of the so-called "top tier" candidates are pro-American Empire. None have issued any statements to the contrary, none have denounced the criminal invasion and occupation of soveriegn states by the US or our allies.

At best they have only denounced the incompetent invasion and occupation of soveriegn states. Not one has addressed the issue of American Empire.

[ConsAreLiars]

40. Thanks. The pro-imperialism wing of the party and their followers sure made it easy with this

thread. It seems that facts are something they don't feel comfortable talking about.

You've probably noticed the corporate media operatives on the so-called news programs all agreeing that "nobody" doubts the need for the US to maintain a military "presence" in that part of the world for the indefinite future. Just as they proclaimed that "everybody" was terrified by Saddam and wanted to initiate wholesale slaughter in Iraq. Of course, in their counting system, common people and the common good count for nothing.

And far too many of "us" get conned by those lies, and by the slick politicians who cover for this murderous system with flowery words. Me too. In 1992 I thought Clinton might be a real progressive who was actually a pragmatist pretending to be a pure opportunist. I got that backwards.

[pnwmom]

13. Oh yeah? Can you back up that claim?

[ConsAreLiars]

17. Read his suck-up speech to AIPAC if you have any doubt

I'll let his words stand as recorded. Nowhere does he say the US war machine should get out of the Middle East. Quite the opposite.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/03/obamas_aipac_speech_text_as_pr.html

(edit to add the second and third sentences).

[bahrbearian]

31. Thanks for Link.

[DemBones DemBones]

37. Wonder how many Obama supporters have read that?

Thanks for the link.

[ConsAreLiars]

41. Very, very few, I suspect. "Seems like a nice guy" is probably as far as they get.

And he does indeed seem to be a nice guy. But he is a player who accepts the rules of the game, probably never even asked who made those rules, and follows them. That makes him a puppet for the powers that be, rather than a challenge to them, and they will reward him with good PR, and he will appease them in return, as with that speech to AIPAC.

[saltpoint]

10. Have never said that Ralph Nader was not an intelligent and perceptive

man, and a notable often laudable citizen, but just the same have never been convinced he would make a better chief executive than say, Gary Hart or Al Gore or John Kerry or many other Democrats.

He keeps everyone on their toes, and it doesn't hurt to be alert and informed. He performs that valuable service. And has for a long time.

But this year's field of Democratic candidates is way stronger than usual, and the winds seem good for a Democratic year if we work very hard and make the strong push.

And that confluence of events conspires to relegate Nader to an also-mentioned status.

If we nominate a strong ticket, we win the White House in 2008.

[Peace Patriot]

16. You are very naive if you think a Democratic prez is going to give up this new

foothold in the Middle East and stop the war.

1. No person who WOULD give up this new foothold in the Middle East and stop the war will be permitted to be President of the U.S.

2. They now have a non-transparent vote counting system to enforce the will of the war profiteers. They don't even need to assassinate anybody any more. All our votes our now counted by rightwing Bushite corporations, using 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, with virtually no audit/recount controls--an election theft system that was passed by Congress, nearly unanimously, in the same month as the Iraq War Resolution (October 2002), and is closely related to it.

3. We just had another (s)election, with over 70% of the American people opposed to this war and wanting it ended, and what do we get?: An ESCALATION of the war INSTEAD, and another $100 billion stuffed into the war profiteers' pockets.

This is quite apart from the question of "who you should vote for." "Who you vote for" is very nearly--but not quite--irrelevant. I'd say, odds are it might be easier to fight the local/state battle that is ahead of us for transparent vote counting--which will be a long battle, I think--with a Democrat in the White House. But the Pukes are so unhappy right now, maybe I'm wrong. The Democrats at least have a history of "good government," in some respects. Looking at Sen. Feinstein, however, and her predatory destruction of the already inadequate HR 811 (election reform), and some other indications, I'm not 100% sure that it will be easier to reform this egregiously non-transparent, inherently fraudulent election theft system with our party in control.

To me, this is the only issue. The will of the people is not being done on ANYTHING. This is why. This is Priority no. 1.

And we might want to swallow our vomit, and go out and support the pro-war, pro-corporate, lying, hypocritical, traitorous, bought and paid for Democratic candidate that has been chosen for us, in order curry favor with the empress (or emperor, as they case may be), to sneak election reform in by means of local/state grass roots efforts. I really mean this. Just figure ourselves to be courtiers in 8th century Imperial China, and quietly acting for the future good of the people.

That's about the size of things.

My first vote for President was in 1964. I voted for "the peace candidate." LBJ. Two million slaughtered people later--in Southeast Asia--and I learned something about American politics:

Beware of Democrats bearing peace.

Lifelong Democrat here! Forty-plus years of loyally voting for Democrats and supporting them. So don't get me wrong. I tend to favor working within the party, despite the terrible traitorousness of our leaders, because it has a history and strong tradition of representing the people against the oligarchs, and seems to be the only viable institution for pursuing the goal of restoring democracy and lawful government. I have great faith in the grass roots of the Democratic Party, but none in our leaders. None.

Don't be fooled. Have heart. Revolution is sometimes a long road. And, as the South Americans are proving, it can be peaceful and joyful. It needn't be harsh--just strong and determined. The first step must be to open your eyes and see the painful reality that our democracy has been lost, through our own inattention, and through crime and betrayal. It is not very important what Clinton does, or Obama does, or Nader does. What's really important--really, REALLY important--is what YOU do, and what WE, the People, do collectively, to throw this "military-industrial" monster off our backs. Step one: restore our right to vote.

[bahrbearian]

32. Well Said,,,n/t

[puebloknot]

35. Hear, hear! nt

[Solon]

18. I think too many people on this board are more anti-third party instead of being Pro-Democrat...

So many people blame Nader, Green party voters, or just plain voters, for 2000, yet, the fact is, whether the election was stolen(my belief), or not, the Democratic party failed to get the votes. So, instead of trying to IMPROVE the party to appeal to the voters that didn't vote for them last time, they blame those very same voters for all the problems of the country since. This is both immature and foolish, not to mention electorally stupid.

If third party voters, Green or not, can swing an election in this manner, then try to appeal to them, not insult them, otherwise the party will just lose again, and again, and again.

[MadHound]

21. LOL, yeah right.

Judging from what the campaigns have said and what the Dems have done in Congress, I think that the chance of the Dems actually bringing the troops home is hovering somewhere under the chance for a Green nominee to get elected. I don't trust the top three candidates to do the right thing, and if Hillary gets the presidency, it is almost assured that we're staying for another eight years.

You know, sometimes creating and sustaining a massive protest is what is needed to wake up the complacent. Depending on who gets the nod, this might just be one of those times.

[LWolf]

22. Sweet fucking Jesus. Another threat/redirect blame thread.

I guess the day the Democratic Party stands up and takes accountability for its losses, donkeys will fly.

Nader, and Nader voters, aren't responsible for the loss in 2000. Or '04. There are many other factors that Democrats who truly need to place blame might want to take a look at.

If the Democratic Party wants to unite the progressive vote, all they have to do is nominate a candidate that can earn a united progressive vote. Nominating a corporate candidate, and then demanding unity, is folly. BLAMING 3RD PARTY VOTERS FOR DEMOCRATIC LOSSES IS DISHONEST, WEAK, AND EMBARRASSING. If the party wants the votes, the party can earn them, or accept blame for splitting the progressive vote with a candidate that too many won't swallow.

Threatening independent, 3rd party members, and left-leaning Democrats with Republican rule if they don't unify behind your poor choice is a really good way to make sure that unification never happens.

While I've never voted for Nader, I can guarantee you that I will not EVER be voting for a poor candidate because some jackass threatens to blame me for a loss.

If the loss of progressive votes leaves a republican in office, that problem can be laid at the doors of the Democratic Party for choosing to leave the progressive vote behind.

If you are concerned about the loss of votes, how about vigorously campaigning for a candidate that can earn them, instead of trying to threaten/blame progressives into compliance with a non-progressive agenda?

[vssmith]

24. And like the Dems have done everything they could to end the war

[GeneCosta]

30. The Democrats have adopted a policy of centralism

And I refuse to vote for mirky corporate "I care a little" politicians. I want a progressive. If Nader is the best choice, I'll go with him.

[wyldwolf]

34. centralism?

[DemBones DemBones]

36. Want the war to continue? Vote for Clinton, Edwards, or Obama.

[Rockholm]

39. I WANT NEITHER...No war...No Nader.

[UrbScotty]

43. Agreed (nt)