I DARE Ralph Nader to come to Ohio

[ShaneGR]

Big HUGE angry crowds will await him. If I was him I'd stay in Texas, Utah, or whatever conservative state he can find conservatives to volunteer and contribute to him.

[KenLayedOff]

1. What brought this on?

Did Nader recently do something besides declare a run for office?

[MadHound]

2. Reality is striking the ABBers

That they can't take the liberal/progressive wing of the party for granted. They are realizing that they actually have to bring something besides a ham sandwich to the table.

[KenLayedOff]

3. I'll bring the mustard and cheese

But let's get this program together!

[Terry_M]

5. I agree

They want Nader's votes to come to them without them having to lifting a finger.

[liberalhistorian]

8. Yes, and I'm sure reality

will strike YOU when the country is destroyed by four more years of the Bushistas, if we even make it that long. I don't think we'll last another two years with them in power.

This is the worst, most dangerous administration we've ever faced as a country, where ANYONE else would be infinitely preferable, and it's infuriating that that's not taken seriously. Reality will strike when you're sent to the "re-education camps" along with the rest of us. And if you think that won't happen, you don't know the Bushistas and the way they operate and the way they WILL operate if they win and don't have to worry about restraining themselves for re-election. But don't look for a big welcome there.

And if you don't think Nader's being funded by the repukes, I got some land in the Everglades to sell you.

[MadHound]

10. You know, that boogeyman doesn't scare many people anymore

And it doesn't scare me either. People have gotten used to the bully boy tactics and the fear mongering, and it simply holds no water. The yellow dog Dems are always talking of compromise, well let's see some. Instead of trying to scare folks or bully folks into voting your way, why not offer them something to vote for, instead the same ol' same ol'? A little compromise shall we say, you throw in a platform plank for universal health care, the real deal, not that faux shit Clinton pushed, and I can guarantee that you would take the sails out of both the Naderites and the Greens. On top of that, you could probably pull in twenty-twenty five percent of the non voting public, the great apathy. Why you ask? Because a large number of those people are so poor, so far down that they have come to the rock bottom realization that neither party cares for them. But hey, you give them something that improves their quality of life like UHC, they would come out in droves.

But simply offering up ham sandwiches and scare tactics just won't cut it. Didn't you learn anything from '00 and '02? If not, well, it will be a remedial year this election.

[JVS]

11. Amen!

[liberalhistorian]

13. No, I'm afraid it will be a remedial

four years for ALL of us, you just don't see that, do you? If the past three years haven't shown you just how different the two parties really are, then I don't know what the hell rock you're living under.

I agree that Clinton wasn't exactly the progressive we hoped he'd be, but by compromising on some things he got a lot more important things done as well. Why have the repukes been winning the past thirty years? Because the Dems are seen as too LIBERAL and face it, the country DOESN'T WANT IT! That's why I'm seriously considering moving to Canada if Shrub wins this time, because I just will not live in a country whose citizens vote for the likes of him and I will not stay and watch this country be totally destroyed, either. And Canada doesn't seem to have the same problem with the words liberal and progressive that the U.S. does.

[SEAburb]

14. The '94 election was a rebuke of liberal policies

Why do they keep trying to push the party back to what failed in one giant step. We can move the country to the left, if we do it a little at a time.

[MadHound]

16. Hey, that's all folks are asking for, is a little, here and there

But all the Dems keep offering up is the same ol' same ol', and expecting that fear mongering and bully boy tactics will take care of the rest. Well guess what, we want a seat back at the table where we once belonged, and a little is all we're asking.

But if you can't or won't compromise in that once great Democratic tradition, don't be suprised when the table is swept clean.

[lams712]

18. 1994 was a rebuke of the DLC/centrist policies....

....liberals did NOT vote that year. Turnout was LOW amongst women, minorities, union members, and young people, because THEY HAD NO COMPELLING REASON TO VOTE.

[NightTrain]

30. The '94 election had only a 36% turnout. It was a rebuke of nothing!

The Republicans always do well when there's low voter turnout. Why do you think they're always trying to stymie legislation that makes it easier for people to vote?

[MadHound]

15. Excuses and Tripe my friend, that's all you and the Dems are offering

Excuses and tripe! "Ooo, the country has gone all hard and conservative, the Dems have to swing right!" Bullshit! Let me throw a few numbers your way:
57% of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases
86% of America believes in the goals of the civil rights movement, with 80% believeing it is important to have racially diverse campuses.
83% of your fellow countrymen believe in and agree with the goals of the enviromental movement
94% of folks here want federal safety regulations enacted on the manufacture and use of all handguns
88% of the populace wishes to see publicly financed elections
80% of our fellow Americans would like to see equal health insurance for all and 52% of us would be willing to pay more in taxes for it.
85% of your fellow Americans support equal oppurtunity for GLBT

OH MY GOD, THE COUNTRY HAS GONE SOCIALIST!!!

Yes, we live amongst a liberal populace. Unfortunately it is one with a conservative media. Thus the good name of liberal gets demonized and nobody wants to be associated with it. But that undercurrent is there, and people will do anything to make their voice heard, like those desperate enough for a voice to vote for Nader in '00, or Green in '02. Or those 600,000 registered Dems and self described liberals in Florida in '00. They were so desperate to be heard over the issue of offshore drilling in the Gulf(Gore was for it, at the behest of his corporate master BP) that they decided to double screw Gore, and voted for Bush instead.

Some you could enact some of these planks in the Dem platform this year, and attract voters in and win. Or you can continue with the bully boy scare tactics and lose. Compromise is a delicate art, I suggest you use it.

[lams712]

19. Right ON!!!! We shouldn't have to apologize...

....for being liberal. We have mainstream values, our party needs to move away from their corporate paymasters so that they can be implemented.

[WitchWay]

17. Liberal

Why do People have a problem with the word liberal?

When even the Democratic frontrunner, Kerry, wouldn't even defend the word liberal. So, no wonder that people have serious problem. He ought to have more courage and firmly defend the word. If more democrats had backbone, there would be far fewer problems with words like liberal and progressive.

Most people arent' voting. Is this because they think that dems are "too liberal" -- but if you go to the right, the democratic party then becomes the republican party. Indeed, if you shy away from the "left" -- you are giving creedence to the idea that it is somehow bad. Besides, people are disillusioned because they don't trust the politicians, not because the politicians are too liberal.

Compromisig not the answer. There is no end to compromising. The WTO and Nafta have caused irrevocable problems in this Nation. Besides, Clinton was no pacifict, and engaged in bombing Iraq and Serbia. If you think that Kerry will not engage in imperialist actions, look into Progressive Internationalism (and this is what the meaning of "progressive" is being skewed into by the Democratic party, and the word liberal applies less and less to people and more and more to economic policies abroad).

Alot of the reason things seemed better under Clinton were due to the economy, but alot of the economic downturn was due to Clinton, as well as economic cycles. I just don't think that all the problems get solved by getting rid of Bush. It is much deeper than that.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

27. IMO - It wouldn't make any difference to those people.

n/t

[lams712]

9. AMEN!!!!

I am supporting Kerry in Nov., but I can't stand the Nader bashing. If Nader's supporters are so insignificant, he would pose absolutely no threat.

You can't have it both ways. You can't marginalize the "left" by telling them how they don't count, are out of touch, have wacky ideas etc., then bash Nader for taking away those people who "don't count".

[UGABrother]

6. You're a very forgiving person

if you're not pissed at Nader right now. From one perspective his unwillingness to compromise is noble I guess. Personally I find it disturbing--compromise is part of politics and part of life.

I don't like his dismissive attitude towards his critics either.. He's a True Believer in his own rhetoric. No argument can sway him, he's so convinced of the righteousness of his cause. And even if he was a serious contender, who really wants a leader like that?

I respect the fact that he's spent his life fighting the good fight on behalf of consumers. But I get the feeling that he's the type of idealist who cares more about People in some kind of abstract way than he does about real people. He's living in the realm of ideas, which is maybe a good place to start, but great leaders know how to find the right balance between idealism and pragmatics.

[MadHound]

12. And that is what us folks on the left are asking for, compromise

Not bully boy tactics or fear mongering, and certainly not taking our vote for granted. Give us something to vote for, like real universal health care, or a living wage, something, anything. Co-opt 2-3 planks from the Green or Nader platform, make them the Dem's very own, and you will have a victory in Novemember.

But if you just keep doing the same ol' same ol' like happened in '00 and '02, well, I guess you can expect the same ol' same ol', losing again. You say life and politics are all about compromise, you're right. So bring something to the table besides a ham sandwich.

[tedoll78]

24. Yes..

because nominating one of the most liberal senators available is sooo just a ham sandwich.. :eyes:

[NightTrain]

31. You make a good point

That's it! Just wanted to say that. :)

[ozone_man]

4. Um, did Nader vote for NAFTA?

Did Kerry? If I lived in Ohio, I'd be looking into which Congress critters (I didn't say cockroaches) who voted to send these jobs over seas. I think Clinton had a heavy hand in it IIRC. Be careful what you wish for.

[liberalhistorian]

7. I'm convinced Nader is being

funded by the repukes, and, given that I'm in Ohio, I will certainly join sgr2 in "welcoming" him here where he's definitely not welcome.

[WitchWay]

22. Can I ask

Why you are convinced that Nader is being funded by the republicans?
Do you have any evidence/proof? It's not like his campaign even has very much money.

In addition, as an independent he is going after disgruntled Bush supporters this election, so it doesn't make sense for them to fund him, anyways.

Kerry is the one who has a bunch of money. His family sure has a whole bunch of corporate interests on their own (and Teresa Heinz's husband was a republican senator). So, is he being funded by the republicans? you never know.

[liberalhistorian]

25. You really don't know too much about

Nader, do you? He's a millionare and has never lacked for money, despite his phoney pious attempts to appear otherwise. And as to why the repukes would fund him, they know how close this election will be, they know how much Nader divided the liberal/progressive community, even among the Dems, and they know he could do the same thing this time.

[NightTrain]

29. Lisa my love, YOU'RE the one who doesn't know too much about Nader.

He grew up in a working-class family in the working-class town of Winsted, CT. So it's incorrect of you to claim that he "has never lacked for money." Trust me, you don't live in a town like Winsted unless you can't afford to move someplace better! And yes, Nader has money now, but he has used a lot of it to help fund non-profit organizations like his own Public Citizen.

Also, despite the Nader-haters' attempts to brand him a narcissist, the man's parents taught him the value of humility. Like him or hate him, Nader has done everything he has done in the past 40 years out of a sense of morality.

Even if the GOP offered to fund Nader, there's no way he'd accept. Despite what the Nader-haters would have us believe, the man has never placed a price tag on his soul. How many Al Gore voters can honestly say that?

And though you didn't bring it up, I also would like to address the "Vanishing Ralph" issue. Despite the claims that Nader skipped merrily away back into private life after Election Day 2000, not giving a good goddamn about the "damage" he had caused, that simply is not the case.

During the 36-day fiasco that followed Election Day 2000, Nader held more than a dozen press conferences, all of which the mainstream media ignored. Seems they were more interested in the Florida situation. Hardly surprising, but having been ignored by the media does not mean that Nader "abandoned" the American electorate following the election.

And despite what you're undeoubtedly thinking, I do not belong to the "Nader can do no wrong" crowd. It's just that when I think someone is being unfairly maligned, I'm compelled to speak up, no matter who it angers.

I won't be voting for Nader this time around, but the fact remains that he has every right to run if he sees fit. Personally, I think he's wasting his time, but it's Nader's time to waste!

If y'all want to do something constructive regarding the Nader factor, try convincing those who are inclined to vote for him this year that it would be far better if they voted for Kerry. Seems to me, you could make an awfully strong case!

[Forkboy]

20. So?

What are ya gonna do,kick his ass :eyes:

[shivaji]

21. I heard this real WEIRD theory today on radio....

that the right wingers in congress want Bush to lose so that
in 2006 there will be the historical loss of seats for the
party in white house and the repugs will have a bigger
majority in congress.

So by that theory, if Kerry wins, we will win the congress
in 2006.

[tedoll78]

23. Yeah..

Nader voters in '00 Florida are re-living Lady MacBeth's nightmare over and over again.

Hand soap, anyone?

[NightTrain]

26. If you insist on hating...

...try hating George W. Bush for stealing the 2000 election. Try hating the voters who cast their ballot for Bush, Nader, or any of the other alternatives to Al Gore. (That includes the millions of Democrats who cast their ballot for Bush.) Try hating the 50% of eligible voters who couldn't be bothered with going to the polls in 2000.

Did Ralph Nader hold a gun to three million people's heads and force them to vote for him in 2000? Did Nader illegally rig the Florida elections? Did Nader coerce Al Gore into agreeing with George W. Bush something like 34 times during one of their joint press conferences...excuse me, debates?

I voted for Nader both in 1996 and 2000, and I've never regretted either decision. When Gore chose Joseph Lieberman (who comes from my homestate of Connecticut) as his running mate, that for me was the final Democratic slap in the face to progressives. So I said "Fuck you!" to the party that abandoned me, and I voted for the candidate who most closely reflected my values. And I don't give a good goddamn who still disapproves!

It's people like the Nader-haters who make the American political system the cesspool it currently is. I'll bet most DUers agree with Nader more than they agree with any other candidate on most issues, but the two-party system has brainwashed them into thinking they have to vote for a candidate who can "win." In reality, the two-party system is the only thing that wins, as it continually takes for granted and exploits its loyal servants.

I plan to vote for John Kerry this November 2nd because the most important thing in this election is to get Bush out. It's only a shame that the people who insist on bashing Nader don't instead redirect that energy into (re)defeating Dubya.

[BringEmOn]

28. Jesse Helms

"QUOTATION: Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. He’d better have a bodyguard.

ATTRIBUTION: Jesse Helms (b. 1921), U.S. Republican senator from North Carolina. New York Times, p. A19 (November 23, 1994).

Public statement made a week after calling the President unfit to be commander-in-chief."

http://www.bartleby.com/66/41/27741.html

I hope you're advocating to protesting, sign carrying, heckling crowds and not mob violence. I don't know why any candidate should fear protesting and heckling crowds (I don't understand why Bush fears them). I'm not a Nader supporter, but I do support his constitutional right to run.