Democratic Party can "proactively" marginalize Nader this time

[Armstead]

It looks, if present polls reflect anything, as though there may be an actual "Nader Factor" this year. Like 2000, he could get a tiny sliver of votes, but enough to possibly make the difference.

One of the basioc characteristics about the post-2000 Nader/Green arguments on DU and in the bigger world was a lot of 20-20 hindsight on all sides.

This "woulda,shoulda,coulda" took many forms. Some people regretted voting for Nader in hindsight becauae of the results. Some Democrats considered Nader a traitor for ruining the election, and berated those who supported him. Anyone who has been around knows all of the points battered around.

Well, this time, instead of hindsight, there's an opportunity for foresight. To head Nader off at the pass. Not by insulting him and those who might support him. Not by trying to discredit his ideas. Not by trotting out the ABB mantra.

Instead, why not actually take his ideas seriously enough to actually address them? Co-opt Nader by recognizing that many of his points are actually valid.

I'm not defending Nader's decision to run this time. I think it is a foolish kamikazee mission and vanity candidacy. Nader knows the stakes, and by insisting on running anyway has proven that his ego and self-righteousness have gotten the better of his judgement.

BUT his basic message and policy agenda and critiques are still absolutely correct (IMO, of course). He is talking about many of the keyt issues that the Democratic mainstream leaders are ignoring or watering down or actively opposing.

I won't go through the litany, but admit it. Even those who were most angry with Nader usually included the caveat "I agree with him on many things, but....."

Well why nbot marginalize Nader this time by allowing some of that into the campaign this year. You know it's not a "radical leftist" agenda. It is what even his critics acknowledge is the type of message and policies the US needs now, more than ever.

IMO if the ABB anger of the majority of Democrats was wedded with Nader's basic pro-civic democracy message, it could do a lot to marginalize Nader's potential impact....And as an added bonus, it's the right thing to do, and also politically "pragmatic" in terms to appealing to many moderates and even conservatives.

Instead of ignoring or demonizing Nader and those who share his views this time, why not engage them, and pre-empt Nader's role as a spoiler?

Just my thoughts.

[ShaneGR]

1. Here's my list of Nader hypocricy

1. He's extremely wealthy, and his 2000 finance reports showed he's invested in Halliburton and Q-oil.
2. He hasn't done anything for the environmental or safety cause for well over a decade.
3. He's supposedly anti-corporate unless it's his corporation, where he's secretive, anti-union, and just like a Republican.
4. He's funded almost exclusively by Republican donors.

[IrateCitizen]

4. So in response to a call for pre-emptive action...

... you have chosen to ignore basically EVERYTHING that Armstead was saying above, and instead focus in on more of the ranting and raving (however true it may be) about Ralph Nader that gets us absolutely nowhere.

Thanks. :eyes:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. Try answering Armstead's points

:eyes:

[coloradodem2005]

2. Sounds like a good idea.

I would hope it would work.

[ewagner]

3. Thank you Armstead

What you are talkaing about is what I have always referred to as The Art of Politics . It is always about building coalitions and alliances. It is not bash-mouth politics as practiced by the Repubs.. At some point Nader will have to be brought back into the fold and it can only be done by embracing some of his issues.

I think you make a valid point and one well worth considering.

[IrateCitizen]

7. I don't even think it's about "bringing Nader back into the fold"

At this point, with this particular candidacy, Ralph Nader has demonstrated that he is a creature of pure ego. And his anti-union history within his own workplace portrays him as an autocrat as well.

To be quite honest, I could care less if he is brought back into the fold or not.

But that doesn't belie the fact that many of his criticisms of "business as usual" in Washington ARE valid. And by simply recognizing the validity of just a few of those criticisms, Nader's candidacy could be completely marginalized.

After all, that is what the people who want a (D) victory this fall should be primarily concerned with, right? If they still persist in attacking a non-relevant force, then we will know that they have put personal destruction BEFORE electoral victory, and they can be rightly labeled as hypocrites.

[Desertrose]

5. This could be addressed IMHO, by including Kucinich

Nader said he supported Dennis and is running in part or maybe en toto because the dems have basically ignored his message...doesn't it make sense to include and let this Democrat be heard??

...and Kucinich is STILL in the campaign.....give your vote to Dennis in the primary as a deterrent to Nader...


Peace
DR

[Armstead]

11. I didn't include Kucinich but...

The same can be said about he and his supporters.

The primary difference between Kucinich and Nader is that DK is working within the system and is a loyal Democrat. Kucinuich is what Nader claims to be in terms of a basic social and pllitical agenda.

So what i said about the threat of Nader from outside the democratic Party can also be flipped to address Kucinich and his supporters as an opportunity within the Democratic ABB structure.

[HFishbine]

19. Absolutley!

Many of the Nader/Kucinich issues are traditional democratic issues to begin with. There shouldn't even be a question of whether or not to give credence to them. Giving Kucincich a hand in shaping the platform would go a long way towards winning the support of the Nader-inclined voters without even involving Nader.

[Iverson]

6. too sensible

Any interruption in the counterproductive orgasmic frenzy may imperil future opportunities for bipartisanship.

Now, I think that's a good thing, but that's just me.

[IrateCitizen]

8. Yeah, well, we have our merry band of malcontents here...

... who despite all popular pressures to the contrary, STILL persist in attempting to discuss deeper issues and develop new strategies.

We're really all just a bunch of nuts, ya know? :silly:

[Iverson]

9. b-b-b-but ...

... if we actually discuss lefty issues, that will be caving in to intransigent extremists and teaching them that they can get all of what they want 100% of the time!

No, that's too risky. Now, where's my bipartisanship handbook?:crazy:

[Armstead]

10. Haven't you heard?

The American Psychiatric Assocoiation has recently classified "Left Wing Ideologue" as a mental illness.

[IrateCitizen]

12. If that's the case, then send me to the sanitarium...

... where at least I can feel sane in an insane world!

Plus, I've heard that the meds pack a killer buzz!!!

:straitjacket:

[HFishbine]

20. Does Oxycontin work for that? (nt)

[Rowdyboy]

13. In reality, PUBLICLY embracing Nader's vision would move the party

further to the left than even Kucinich. To gain Nader's 3% of the vote that represents the left, we'd lose the 20% that is the moderate middle. I just don't see it as a winning strategy.

As president, I think Kerry would govern from the left and would embody much of what Nader wants. He cannot, however, afford to openly campaign as a leftist, it loses every time. Just ask Mondale and McGovern.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. I don't know

I've heard the following things around town, and not just among my neighborhood elites, but from working class people on the bus, from my soccer mom and office park dad relatives, and from a store owner whose wall is plastered with posters about supporting Baptist missionary work:

1. The health care system is screwing people over to an almost unbearable degree. I hear horror stories everywhere I go almost every day.

2. The Big Boys always watch out for themselves--witness the Twin Cities bus strike, where management is demanding draconian concessions from drivers after giving themselves a 12% raise recently

The happy swing voter who doesn't want to rock the boat may be a media-generated myth. After all, it's to the elites' advantage to make the average voter believe that no one wants things changed.

[dad]

24. .

This is so not true. THe Repubes have publicly embraced that radical right winger agenda. Note the constitutional amendment nonsense and the racist judges. The Dems do nothing but shun the left wingers. What do the D's really expect is gonna happen? They give up nothing for us yet expect our vote. They do not care about the radical left wing faction. How about throwing the left a freaking bone every so often, standing up for what is right even if the majority doesn't support you. The D's have no spine.

[G_j]

14. you are correct

in fact most Americans agree that Washington is controlled by an "old-boy" network of corporate interests and Americans are collectively sick of it. Thats why when Nader talks about this people respond. It's not rocket science.

[rodbarnett]

15. Here is a proven stategy : Anatomy of an "independent" smear campaign

Political Mugging In America
Anatomy of an "independent" smear campaign

March 4, 2004) — As Mark Twain once put it, "A truth is not hard to kill and a lie told well is immortal."

In the 21st century in the United States of America, it is still astonishingly easy to assassinate a political opponent's character, with little or no accountability or basis in fact. It is hardly new to politics anywhere that money and the messages it buys often create devastating perceptions. But such smear tactics are more serious and offensive when they benefit major "mainstream" candidates seeking the Presidency, are utilized anonymously by mysterious, outside organizations and they occur in the wake of recent, historic, campaign finance reform and new political disclosure requirements.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=557&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. Nader may repeat some good ideas, but he has no credibility

There is nothing wrong with addressing Nader's ideas. But unfortunately the messenger does affect the perception of the message. Nader is so totally lacking in credibility that he is in danger of discrediting anything valid he has to say. Remember during the NAFTA debate when the media annointed Ross Perot as the number one anti-NAFTA spokesperson? Considering that, is it really a surprise that we have NAFTA now?

And he lost any credibility he would have had with me by not putting the corporate personhood issue front and center of his 2000 campaign. As far as I am concerned it is the one, central issue, and the most basic and far-reaching positive change we could make is a constitutional amendment clarifying that corporations are not persons under the constitution. However, I see this as a truly grass-roots, multi-generational effort, a struggle that will be more difficult than women's suffrage or civil rights. It's not a change that will come about because of the election of any one person.


Slightly off-topic, did you see this in TPM?

A note I got tonight from a friend and bona-fide Gore insider ...

We took Nader too lightly in 00. We didn't challenge him. We didn't point out his sizable personal fortune, his complete lack of assistance on any environmental cause for decades, his sources of funding. Oh progressives do not make this mistake twice in your lifetime or Nader's.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_02_29.html#002639

[G_j]

18. ok, so just leave 'you know who' completely out of it

and address the issues that he raises that have appealed to people.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. Really

Forget Nader and his considerable personal failings. Don't let your dislike of the messenger make you ignore the message.

By the way, I'm wondering about the "6%" support for Nader. Recall that last year at this time, Lieberman was the "Democratic front runner" according to the polls. Could the "Nader supporters" be a group of voters who are vaguely discontented about the political system but not very well-informed simply latching on to the only dissident name they know?

I've talked to some people who supported Nader in 2000, and all of them are angry at him for running. In addition, our local paper covered the Green Party caucuses' discussions about whether to run a presidential candidate, and Nader wasn't even on the list.

So can we talk about the ideas that motiviated the Nader voters (of whom I was almost one) in 2000 and leave that pathetic egotist out of it?

[G_j]

26. there may be a certain "personality cult"

with Nader, but most everyone I know who voted Nader in 2000 was trying give the Green party and it's fine platform some legs.

[Armstead]

27. I'm hoping the Green Party plays it smart this year

IMO the Greens would do best for their long-range goals if they focus on local and safe state level and don't add to the dilution in the Presidential race and more vulnerable Democratic Congressional seats.

There's a time and a place for everything. And this isn't the time for the Greens to potentially help give Bush anotehr term. They'd also gain a lot more sympathy and perhaps support by staying out of that.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. I'm all for that.

I am really hoping for chance to talk to Kerry when he comes to Montana, and corporate personhood is what I want to ask him about.

[Armstead]

25. It isn;t about Nader

The fact is that if you had someone else record one of his speeches, didn;t say who said it, and took out any disparaging of the Democratic Party, a lotta people would agree with it.

[Raya]

28. As Long as Poll put NADER on list, Kerry is hobbled. Some will say Nader

rather than Kerry, who would otherwise choose Kerry over Bush.