So I'm sitting here watching Nader on CSPAN

[Gman]

thinking how right he is on everything he's saying and how nice it would be if he were president. I'm thinking having Bush as president now is like having a terrible oil-burning lemon of a car that does nothing but cause you problems. So I need a new car and start looking around. I see this really beautiful Rolls Royce there that I would look so good in and would feel so good to drive. But wishing for Nader as president is no different than wishing I could have that really nice Rolls Royce that looks so good and rides so well and is such a classy car. The problem is that I can't have it. I couldn't even make the first payment even if I were to qualify for the loan. That Rolls would end up being repossesed before I even had a chance to enjoy it. I would lose that Rolls Royce.

I suppose I could go ahead and try to buy it anyway because that's what I want, and I won't sacrifice my principles to drive anything less. The only way I can fix my problems is to have that Rolls Royce. So, I don't care what anyone says about not affording it, I'm going to buy that Rolls Royce and I just believe I'm doing the right thing.

I think this is the same as when one decides to vote for Nader for president. Sure, he's right on just about everything especially corporate greed and corruption. But, the price of supporting Nader is entirely too high and you'd just end up losing in the long run. The bank would end up with the car and you end up driving the POS Bush again!

My best choice is to buy something I can afford and that's dependable even though I may not be completely happy with the way it looks and how it rides. But its a car that can get me where I want to go. Kerry isn't as right as Nader on a lot of issues, but dammmit, he's right on a lot of other things and he'll get us going toward where we want to be.

So if your principles won't let you vote for anyone other than Nader, you need to think about how you can't go back to driving that old beat up POS Bush because you were more concerned with principles than driving something that can get you where you want to go. Kerry may not get you where you want to go in the fashion we would like to, but he's better than driving the POS Bush.

[Caution]

1. This is great!

Sending this right now to my buddy who is planning to vote for Nader.

thanks!

[napi21]

2. Thanks!

I also sent your thoughts to a relative of mine who voted for Nader in 2000. I liked it because it's rational thought and not the trditional I just hate the spoiler Nader speak.

Thanks!

[quispquake]

3. You are SO right!

Thanks for explaining this so well!!!

[IndianaGreen]

4. Nader is meeting with Kerry next month

A historical analogy would be the year 452 CE when Attila the Hun met with Pope Leo I and was persuaded not to attack Rome or kill Christians.

[Gman]

5. You'd have to be a troll to disagree with Nader on the issues

Nevertheless, Nader is an opposition candidate, he is out to beat Kerry and presumably, Bush. Nader will not win the election in November and will only take many more votes from Kerry than Bush. The only real choices that exist to end the Bush regime is to vote for and elect Kerry.

Sure, Nader may be on the ballot and technically, he's a choice. But so is that Rolls Royce sitting on that car lot. I can't own the Rolls and we won't have Nader as president. Its best to go with what you can get which is Kerry.

BTW, I'm wondering who is Attila the Hun and who is Pope Leo?

[mzmolly]

6. In the words of Gloria Steinem...it's old, but still related.

TOP TEN REASONS WHY I'M NOT VOTING FOR NADER
(ANY ONE OF WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH)

by Gloria Steinem President, Voters For Choice

10. He's not running for President, he's running for federal matching funds for the Green Party!

9. He was able to take all those perfect progressive positions of the past because he never had to build an electoral coalition, earn a majority vote, or otherwise submit to democracy.

8. By condemning Gore for ever having taken a different position - for example, for voting against access to legal abortion when he was a Congressman from Tennessee - actually dissuades others from changing their minds and joining us.

7. Nader is rightly obsessed with economic and corporate control, yet he belittles a deeper form of control - control of reproduction, and the most intimate parts of our lives. For example, he calls the women's movement and the gay and lesbian movements "gonadal politics," and ridicules the use of the word "patriarchy," as if it were somehow less important than the World Trade Organization. As Congressman Barney Frank wrote Nader in an open letter, "your assertion that there are not important issue differences between Gore and Bush is either flatly inaccurate or reflects your view that...the issues are not important...since you have generally ignored these issues in your career."

6. The issues of corporate control can only be addressed by voting for candidates who will pass campaign-funding restrictions, and by conducting grassroots boycotts and consumer campaigns against sweatshops - not by voting for one man who will never become President.

5. Toby Moffett, a longtime Nader Raider who also served in Congress, wrote that Nader's "Tweedledum and Tweedledee assertion that there is no important difference between the major Presidential candidates would be laughable if it weren't so unsafe." We've been bamboozled by the media's practice of being even-handedly negative. There is a far greater gulf between Bush and Gore than between Nixon and Kennedy - and what did that mean to history?

4. Nader asked Winona LaDuke, an important Native American leader, to support and run with him, despite his likely contribution to the victory of George W. Bush, a man who has stated that "state law is supreme when it comes to Indians," a breathtakingly dangerous position that ignores hundreds of treaties with tribal governments, long-standing federal policy and federal law affirming tribal sovereignty.

3. If I were to run for President in the same symbolic way, I would hope my friends and colleagues would have the sense to vote against me, too, saving me from waking up to discover that I had helped send George W. Bush to the most powerful position in the world.

2. There are one, two, three, or even four lifetime Supreme Court Justices who are likely to be appointed by the next president. Bush has made clear, by his record as Governor and appeals to the ultra-right-wing, that his appointments would overturn Roe v. Wade and reproductive freedom, dismantle remedies for racial discrimination, oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians, oppose mandatory gun registration, oppose federal protections of endangered species, public lands, and water - and much more. Gore is the opposite on every one of these issues. Gore has made clear that his appointments would uphold our hard won progress in those areas, and he has outlined advances in each one.

1. The art of behaving ethically is behaving as if everything we do matters. If we want Gore and not Bush in the White House, we have to vote for Gore and not Bush - out of self-respect.

I'm not telling you how to vote by sharing these reasons. The essence of feminism is the power to decide for ourselves. It's also taking responsibility for our actions. Let's face it, Bush in the White House would have far more impact on the poor and vulnerable in this country, and on the subjects of our foreign policy and aid programs in other countries.

Just as Clinton saved women's lives by rescinding the Mexico City policy by executive order as his first act as President - thus ending the ban against even discussing abortion if one received U.S. aid - the next President will have enormous power over the lives of millions abroad who cannot vote, plus millions too disillusioned to vote here.

Perhaps there's a reason why Nader rallies seem so white, middle class, and disproportionately male; in short, so supported by those who wouldn't be hurt if Bush were in the White House.

Think self-respect. Think about the impact of our vote on the weakest among us. Then we can't go wrong

[Gman]

9. This is still very relevant

"Perhaps there's a reason why Nader rallies seem so white, middle class, and disproportionately male; in short, so supported by those who wouldn't be hurt if Bush were in the White House."

This entire list is so true.

[mzmolly]

11. Indeed. It's one of my favorite.

;)

[WitchWay]

17. Agree.

I think this is the worst talking "point" by far, because it is really sexist and racist in itself (not to mention a false presumption). I find this offensive because it presumes/implies that women and minorities are basically "owned" or subject to the democratic party (who somehow won't "hurt" them). That's so paternalistic, disengenuous and belittling. It is basically a clever threat to women/minorities.

Yep. Part of a propaganda campaign where the dems sent out a bunch of operatives to attack Nader. What a waste of time and effort, when they ought to have been attacking Bush and noticing that Nader's issues had appeal and could be adopted to gain voters.

The democrats didn't argue with Nader on the issues, so they did a really intense smear campaign and shut Nader out of the debates. This showed that the democratic party didn't WANT to adopt these issues, which begs the question. This sort of smear campaign was a terrible maneuver, btw, it wasn't the sort of thing that would win over Nader supporters, back to the dem party. The dems, in effect, alienated those that they sought to win back over with fear mongering and smear-campaign tactics. Bad strategy and ill-thought tactics, through and through.

[mzmolly]

34. I don't take it that way. I take it to mean women are generally more

effected by Republican policy and thus make more *educated/practical* voting decisions?

[WitchWay]

35. well

it's Steinem acting very white middle/upper class liberal intellectual elitist. She was telling women, minorities and the poor in her Smith-educated patronizing way that they are uneducated and foolish if they don't vote based on trust in the Democratic Party's two-faced, dream-deferred, don't-bean-count (Clinton's reprimand to feminists about his '92 cabinet appointments), tell-me-who-knocked-you-up-or-we'll-cut-off-your-and-your-children's-welfare (Clinton INSISTED paternity-testing be a mandatory condition of receiving even his crappy welfare-to-work that was designed in part to attack newly unionizing low-wage women's workers movements), sexual-liberation-means-promoting-interns-who-say-yes-to-quid-pro-quo wisdom about what the best strategy is for the women's movement.

what really shows her true disdain for the intelligence and practicaly of women is that she knew damn well there was a whole group called Feminists For Nader because she knows all the older leaders of that group personally from the seventies movements. but instead of responding to their VERY practical and VERY educated reasons for supporting Nader, she used her white-male-money-bought press/star power to drown out their concerns with her ABB Nader-bashing drivel and destroy the chance for a deeper feminist dialogue in the press and in the Democratic Party. but hey, that's what she's consistently done for thirty years, so why change now?

Steinem has always had this problem of presenting herself as if she speaks for, thinks for, acts for women in general to drown out opposing feminist views and voices. that's why so many radical feminists repeatedly denounced her and her use of white male upper class financial backing to appoint herself the corporate press' favorite spokesperson for the women's liberation movement back in the seventies. And Ms. Magazine itself has been privately and wholly owned by one middle-aged-and-up rich white male for over a dozen years now, so why is she complaining about the young middle class males at Nader rallies?

While I agree with you that the patriarchal policies of the Republicans do hurt women, minorites and the poor disproportionately in the short run, so do the patriarchal policis of the Dems, and it takes a Democratic administration like Clinton's to do the most deep structural damage to those same groups, hurting them more in the long run. And remember it was Eleanor Roosevelt, Hilary's hero, who used her enormous influence and star power to kill the Equal Rights Amendment when it was proposed in Congress EVERY SINGLE YEAR from the forties into the late fifties. And it was Republicans who opposed her strongest and Nixon who finally made a campaign promise of it, got it through Congress and signed it into law. I think most women, minorities and poor people know we are always best off never trusting either of the corporate/patriarchal-controlled major parties and taking every opportunity to play them off against each other to force them to take us seriously.
http://www.nps.gov/elro/teach-er-vk/lesson-plans/notes-er-and-womens-movement.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eleanor/sfeature/md_wi_05.html

[mzmolly]

39. I thought she simply made some very good points. It wasn't about

calling other women ignorant. She was quoting a statistic and drawing conclusions based on the facts.

Regarding the Clinton record. Clinton helped people out of poverty and lowered welfare rolls by 50%. He offered people hope and opportunity - a way out.

On a personal note: I know several people on welfare, as I grew up "in the system." I saw the DIRECT result of Clintons policies on the inner city that I grew up in. Lower crime, higher home ownership, furthering education, job opportunites, community revitalization etc.

For example, I had two sisters and a good friend who were on welfare when Clinton signed the welfare reform bill. 2 of them are now working and glad they are. *The other has found another Govt. program to assist her with montly expenses.

Both women got an education *with help from the Clinton administration-which is no longer available under Bush, and they both got help with child care and after school programs which are no longer available under Bush.* In fact, I have heard of several people who had to return to welfare roles because they were not making it since Bush cut out programs that help people "make it." I also grew up in the welfare system. It's a form of slavery in my opinion. It is a tool for oppression. A person gets about $500 to buy food/pay rent/pay bills feed their child etc... Under the Bush admin THERE IS NO WAY OUT! Under the Clinton admin there was.

Did you read Gloria's #7.

7. Nader is rightly obsessed with economic and corporate control, yet he belittles a deeper form of control - control of reproduction, and the most intimate parts of our lives. For example, he calls the women's movement and the gay and lesbian movements "gonadal politics," and ridicules the use of the word "patriarchy," as if it were somehow less important than the World Trade Organization. As Congressman Barney Frank wrote Nader in an open letter, "your assertion that there are not important issue differences between Gore and Bush is either flatly inaccurate or reflects your view that...the issues are not important...since you have generally ignored these issues in your career."

You said:

Eleanor Roosevelt, Hilary's hero, who used her enormous influence and star power to kill the Equal Rights Amendment when it was proposed in Congress EVERY SINGLE YEAR from the forties into the late fifties. And it was Republicans who opposed her strongest and Nixon who finally made a campaign promise of it, got it through Congress and signed it into law. I think most women, minorities and poor people know we are always best off never trusting either of the corporate/patriarchal-controlled major parties and taking every opportunity to play them off against each other to force them to take us seriously.

I have enormous trouble with this statement. No one takes "playing them against each other" seriously. It's a sham and you've been sold. The ONLY way to be taken seriously is to vote for viable candidates at all levels of Government. Mr. Nader may enjoy playing games with poverty, crime, education, the environment, the deficit, the world, our lives ... but the only ones enjoying THIS GAME are the Republicans.

Some organizations to consider.

http://www.21stcenturydems.org/

http://wellstone.org/

[sadiesworld]

42. Why is requiring paternity tests as a prerequisite for benefits a problem?

It makes sense that the government should be able to go to a working father and require that he help pay for raising his own child.

There are some legitimate criticisms of Clinton (NAFTA&WTO to name the biggies) but saying he was unfair to parents unwilling to support their children?

[WitchWay]

16. Another thing that the Dems did wrong in 2000

Yeah -- it's funny how the Dems spent so much time and effort in 2000 sending out a whole team of operatives to basically run around the country denouncing Nader. I remember the same old articles and talking points that really tended to avoid discussion of issues, and instead were part of the same sort of ABB witch hunt that we see yet again. Democrats have to start offering people something for a change. It's ridiculous to cower behind the same old "Big Bad Republican" fear mongering time in and out. Its really despicable how the democratic party terrorizes people with scare tactics, instead of inspires people and offering them something of substance. It's pretty much akin to the "terror-alert" levels that Bush uses to elicit pretty much the same sort of response from his Republican base.

But, if we just go Democratic things will "go to the left" and then we can vote in real leftists, later? Nah. That's a bunch of rubbish. The same vicious cycle of the "Big, Bad, Scary Republican" will happen each election cycle, enabling the Dem party to move to more the right and more towards the corporate trough...unless pressure can make some changes happen.

Why not spend the same time and energy denouncing Bush? Why not send out operatives and spend so much effort to attack all of Bush's policies? Gore and the Dems should have attacked Bush much harder, yet they never did. THAT was the problem.

It's too bad that the dems couldn't have spent more time and effort working in Naders policies into the 2000, or even 2002 campaigns -- because Nader basically hoped that the dems would do so.

The dems spent more time shutting out Nader, and shutting up Nader...when they could have done what Nader was hoping for and addressed the concerns that Nader had with the Dem party and direction of the country. Instead, the democratic party colludes with the republican party so both can cooperatively shut out third parties (competition) and serve the corporate interests of this country. Heck, they're not even REAL debates.

This time, again, Nader says his platform is there for the taking, and he hopes that the Dems can adopt some of his platform in order to win this electoin. I hope that his meeting with Kerry will be productive. Maybe Kerry will see the light and adopt some of these polcies. Then, he can run a more invigorating campaign and get more voters out. I'm glad he will meet with Nader, its a step in the right direction.

As for myself -- I am waiting till around the convention to see whether or not Kerry shapes up to look something like a democratic candidate ought to look.

[zoeyfong]

26. Good points, but i'm not even waiting till the convention.

The verdict is in on kerry and what the democratic party has become. And it isn't pretty.

[mzmolly]

31. The verdict is in on Nader and Bush too...

A wee bit of info on Bush for those *hiding under a rock for the last 3.5 years*

http://realchange.org/bushjr.htm

(snip)

Busted a union among his workers:

Ralph talks big about democracy and even unions. But when his own workers at one of his magazines, Multinational Monitor, got fed up with cruel working conditions and started agitating for a union of their own, Nader busted the union with all of the hardball techniques used by corporate owners across America. Workers at Public Citizen, another Nader group, also tried to form a union because of 60 to 80 hour work weeks, salaries that ranged from $13,000 down, and other difficult working conditions and were blocked by Nader, who remains unapologetic to this day.
Nader says "I don't think there is a role for unions in small nonprofit 'cause' organizations any more than ... within a monastery or within a union."

When ringleader Tim Shorrock filed the union recognition papers, Nader immediately transferred ownership in the Multinational Monitor to close friends who ran an organization ("Essential Information") that Nader had set up. When Shorrock showed up for work the next day, he had been fired, the locks were changed, and management called the police to charge him with theft (of his own work papers.) That charge was thrown out of court, but management fired the two supportive editors and sued the three of them for $1.2 million, agreeing to drop the intimidation suit only when they dropped their NLRB complaint. All of these action are straight from the hardball anti-union playbook, and Nader makes no apology.

According to Nader, "Public interest groups are like crusades…you can’t have work rules, or 9 to 5." Shorrock, with his "union ploy," became an "adversary" according to Nader. "Anything that is commercial, is unionizable," but small public interest organizations "would go broke in a month," Nader says, if they paid union wages, offered union benefits and operated according to standard work rules, such as the eight-hour day. Remember that Nader's well-funded organizations were amassing tons of extra money that Ralph has been playing the stock market with during all these events.


Abuses workers

"How can we go out and try to save the world from people when we're grinding people to death all the time?"-- John Esposito, original staffer at Nader's Center for the Study of Responsive Law
"Nader strikes me as conforming to the stereotype people have of sociologists and politicians: they bleed for the poor and downtrodden but mistreat their maids." -- David Sanford

Like many Washington politicians, Ralph Nader's groups have long taken advantage of earnest young ambitious workers, with two differences; Nader was more controlling and paid far less. In 1976, many were paid $5,000 per year and only a few at the top made as much as $20,000. (Nader's organizations refuse to release information on what they pay workers.) Meanwhile, Nader required daily logs of everything the workers did from 7am to 9pm, plus monthly summaries of these logs. If you didn't turn in your logs, you didn't get paid.

Nader often called workers after midnight or on sunny weekend days, with instructions, or just to test their willingness to work hard. When a revolt over working conditions broke out in the Congress Project and students demanded a group session with Nader, he contemptuously scheduled a meeting at 7:00 am, believing that few would show up.

9 marriages of staffers broke up under the pressure, including John and Nancy Esposito's, Mark Green's, Sid Wolfe's, and Davitt McAteer's.

What makes this meanness worse is that Nader claims to be defending workers -- for example in opposing the GATT treaty -- and that his organizations have a huge surplus of money, accumulating millions of dollar with which Ralph has played the stock market.

(end snip)

http://realchange.org/nader.htm

[mzmolly]

30. "Sent a team of operatives?"

:eyes:

"This time, again, Nader says his platform is there for the taking, and he hopes that the Dems can adopt some of his platform in order to win this electoin. I hope that his meeting with Kerry will be productive. Maybe Kerry will see the light and adopt some of these polcies. Then, he can run a more invigorating campaign and get more voters out. I'm glad he will meet with Nader, its a step in the right direction.

What makes you think anyone wants Naders platform? Nader is a phony hyporcrite who talks a good game if you like sound bites.

Re-Read Gloria Steinems #9.

I would ask Nader what rock he's been hiding under if he doesn't think the Bush regime is in fact, "scary" after the past 3 years.

[WitchWay]

36. read my post #35

and it seems like you are talking in sound-bites instead of engaging in real dialogue. Nader has written and said a great deal in detail about the issues he is raising, if you would just bother to educate yourself by looking up his articles and reading them instead of limiting yourself to what the corporate media lets him say on their outlets.

the majority of Democrats want Nader's platform to be the Dem platform. i thought that was pretty well understood on DU. that's what's most galling -- the progressive wing of the party is the clear majority of the party, but the corporatist minority is whipping everyone into following a disastrous self-betraying agenda.

telling people to re-read Steinem's soundbites isn't going to convince anyone of anything. that's just more ABB dittoheadism.

Nader has been doing what he's done continually for forty years, go from town to town and help local activists, progressive politicians, citizens' groups and unions fight local bread-and-butter issues. he's also started at least two new national grassroots organizations, done lots of fundraising for the Green Party, and engaged in uncompromising but constructive dialogue with people across the political spectrum to press them all to work against corporatism and the moneyed-interest lockhold on our electoral system. Last week he debated (not sound-bited) Alan Keyes about big business, corporate crime and business regulation.

[mzmolly]

40. You are making assumptions.

Uhm, I have "researched" Nader and briefly considered voting for him in 00. Then I heard some of his quotes/soundbites, and realized they guy was not living in reality.

Additionally, I am quite aware of Mr. Naders record of the past 40 years. In fact, my family and I used to enjoy his television program with a bowl of popcorn. ;)

Further, I assure you that I and others here are not the victims of "the whipping of the corporatist minority." :eyes: This is yet one more of the condescending and ridiculous "sound bites" put out by Naderheads.

If you really want dialogue lets talk about the actual ISSUES that effect AMERICANS.

For example: I would think a seasoned Nader supporter would stay away from the union issue.

Here is some *dialogue* for you on this subject:

http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm

Ralph talks big about democracy and even unions. But when his own workers at one of his magazines, Multinational Monitor, got fed up with cruel working conditions and started agitating for a union of their own, Nader busted the union with all of the hardball techniques used by corporate owners across America. Workers at Public Citizen, another Nader group, also tried to form a union because of 60 to 80 hour work weeks, salaries that ranged from $13,000 down, and other difficult working conditions and were blocked by Nader, who remains unapologetic to this day.

Nader says "I don't think there is a role for unions in small nonprofit 'cause' organizations any more than ... within a monastery or within a union."

When ringleader Tim Shorrock filed the union recognition papers, Nader immediately transferred ownership in the Multinational Monitor to close friends who ran an organization ("Essential Information") that Nader had set up. When Shorrock showed up for work the next day, he had been fired, the locks were changed, and management called the police to charge him with theft (of his own work papers.) That charge was thrown out of court, but management fired the two supportive editors and sued the three of them for $1.2 million, agreeing to drop the intimidation suit only when they dropped their NLRB complaint. All of these action are straight from the hardball anti-union playbook, and Nader makes no apology.

According to Nader, "Public interest groups are like crusades…you can’t have work rules, or 9 to 5." Shorrock, with his "union ploy," became an "adversary" according to Nader. "Anything that is commercial, is unionizable," but small public interest organizations "would go broke in a month," Nader says, if they paid union wages, offered union benefits and operated according to standard work rules, such as the eight-hour day. Remember that Nader's well-funded organizations were amassing tons of extra money that Ralph has been playing the stock market with during all these events.

Additionally...

Ralph Abuses his own workers

"How can we go out and try to save the world from people when we're grinding people to death all the time?"-- John Esposito, original staffer at Nader's Center for the Study of Responsive Law
"Nader strikes me as conforming to the stereotype people have of sociologists and politicians: they bleed for the poor and downtrodden but mistreat their maids." -- David Sanford

Like many Washington politicians, Ralph Nader's groups have long taken advantage of earnest young ambitious workers, with two differences; Nader was more controlling and paid far less. In 1976, many were paid $5,000 per year and only a few at the top made as much as $20,000. (Nader's organizations refuse to release information on what they pay workers.) Meanwhile, Nader required daily logs of everything the workers did from 7am to 9pm, plus monthly summaries of these logs. If you didn't turn in your logs, you didn't get paid.

Nader often called workers after midnight or on sunny weekend days, with instructions, or just to test their willingness to work hard. When a revolt over working conditions broke out in the Congress Project and students demanded a group session with Nader, he contemptuously scheduled a meeting at 7:00 am, believing that few would show up.

9 marriages of staffers broke up under the pressure, including John and Nancy Esposito's, Mark Green's, Sid Wolfe's, and Davitt McAteer's.

What makes this meanness worse is that Nader claims to be defending workers -- for example in opposing the GATT treaty -- and that his organizations have a huge surplus of money, accumulating millions of dollar with which Ralph has played the stock market.

That was just a bit of research and dialogue on Mr. Nader

[blondeatlast]

22. (blondeatlast stands up) YES!

clapclapclapclapclapclapclap...

She had some great things to say in Time's 10 Questions this week as well.

Damn, I'm proud to be a second wave feminist!

[zoeyfong]

25. GORE vs. Bush is not the same as Kerry vs. Bush.

First of all, IMO, Kerry made a deliberate, conscious decision to give his support to an unecessary war because he was afraid if he voted against it he would lose votes in his upcoming presidential run. That is a deal breaker. Secondly, the performance of dems over the last 10 years, particularly the last 3 years and the 2002 elections, is proof positive that the party is hopelessly lost and corrupted. We did not get where we are solely through the evil of the republican party and george bush; the democrats have been utterly incompetent at best for many years.

Desperate times call for desperate measures; voting for the lesser of two evils is no longer a viable strategy. The party and the country needs change of a magnitude that neither major party is willing to undertake without outside pressure. Unfortunately, if Bush wins again (or should i say, for the first time) in 2004, the democratic establishment and it's loyal band of yes-people supporters will no doubt find a way to blame their loss on anybody but themselves.

[Sparkly]

29. I am a Democrat

and I find your post offensive. Nothing is ideal, least of all politics and the processes of government. The Democratic party has been the only effective means of progress in Congress for decades. Nothing "outside" the party or the government can change the party or the government, because it's not subject to the same conventions, restrictions, and other harsh realities.

There are people who disagree with us, and we have to deal with them. There are systems and rules and laws and processes and beaurocracies and all sorts of awkward encumbrances to accomplishing anything substantial. There are compromises and sacrifices and bribes and deals and persuasive political necessities. That's democracy, that's government, that's the harsh reality of what IS -- not what *should* be, perhaps, but what IS. It's what we've got to work with.

Now, you can come on DEMOCRATIC underground and tell me that my party is "hopelessly lost and corrupted" and "utterly incompetent," and you can try to convince me that "outside pressure" is going to accomplish something, and you can tell me that people like Paul Wellstone and Maxine Waters and Max Cleland and George McGovern are just an "establishment" and that people like me are just "yes-people" -- and I can tell you I don't believe a word of it.

I've got decades of fight for and from my party -- a record of accomplishment and a history of saving us from Republican-driven disaster, especially in the last 20 years. All I'm seeing from your point of view is a lot of words. Empty criticism isn't going to change anything. Opposing the only hope we have isn't going to help anything. And opposing the Democratic nominee in this election isn't going to accomplish anything, unless you consider George Bush's policies "accomplishment."

Like I said, I'm a Democrat -- and I make NO apologies for that.

[mzmolly]

32. See Gloria Steinems reason #9

:hi:

[VOX]

7. Excellent post, Gman!

Very well thought out. Thanks for writing this --
:toast:

[messiah]

8. HA HA HA

this post is so funny because Kerry and Bush are backwards thinking, they both want authoritarian societies. A vote for Kerry is for slower takeover of peoples rights than Bush, that's the only difference so both are unreliable and untrustworthy. It's not so much about principles but about reality which is currently a no-win situation.

[Gman]

10. You are apparently not very informed about Kerry

You cannot give one iota of proof that Kerry wants an "authoritarian society". I think that, on the other hand, you say this because you know its not true but you'd rather just throw that out there and run off.

Tell me, are you one of those white men that Gloria Steinhem spoke so eloquently about, that have nothing to lose if Bush wins?

[mdmc]

12. I am, but I'm thinking

of trading in my visions of driving a roles Nader Royce for the hunter green 2004 Buick Kerry Park Ave! So much better than those obnoxious Hummer w2 SUV.
I really enjoyed your post. What automobile do you picture Kerry as?

[Gman]

14. I'm not sure

if Kerry's a Ford or a Chevy, but he's one of the two. I'm partial to Ford trucks but I like GM cars (except Cadillac Deville's which have a disasterous engine block design--2 hunks of metal with a gasket in between. My wife has one and it was built to eventually leak oil. I'll never own another..... but I digress).

[nolabels]

20. One thing I know for sure, the one we are test driving around today SUCKS

My only guess about the sell outs at SCOTUS is they are truly worried about giving the keys to Junior and the damage that might be done to their (probably) already soiled reputations.

I wouldn't give a rats ass if they all retired. From watching, I have noticed very few opinions in the majority that would be supporting of the people as whole anyway

[messiah]

15. I'm just a black male that does'nt take any bullshit

from two sided politicians who act like sissies to get elected.
Kerry is nothing but a wasp handing his ass over to his corporate masters.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. The future of our constitution is the difference between Kerry and Bush...

Bush elected = 4 more Scalias. Kerry elected = at least moderate if not liberal justices.

[jpgray]

13. This would be true if the Rolls were a mirage, or a cutout

Sorry, but Nader is too much of a hypocrite to be a Rolls. When he stops investing in the very corporations that profit from US imperialism, let me know. At best he's an Eclipse, or some of the cheesier import 'sport cars' that look great but have little intrinsic value.

He talks the talk, but that's about all you can expect from him.

[Kerry in 04]

18. Awesome post!

We need to get that out there in the public somehow.:)

[mdmc]

19. welcome to DU 04

:kick:

[absyntheNsugar]

21. Kerry is at least a Jaguar

The most liberal candidate we have had in YEARS!!!!!

Why some lefties don't recognize this is beyond me.

For years we've complained about not getting a leftist Dem to run...and finally we DO!

[blondeatlast]

23. But it's about MY needs! Mine! MINE, dammit!

EFF liberalism, he isn't Howard Nadir, so he doesn't walk on water.
//sarcasm off, blondeatlast is decidedly ABB.

When one looks at Nadir's opinions regarding feminism and gay rights, it's a wonder anyone could stomach a vote for him, but...

How anyone can say John Kerry is NOT a liberal and say that Howard Dean IS is beyond my comprehension.

[Hippo_Tron]

28. I'd say they are pretty much the same...

Both Liberal, but not radical. They had a few different stances on some key issues and some serious pissing contests with the DLC vs. Dean but in reality they are pretty much in the same place on the political spectrum.

[WitchWay]

37. you mean Nader's support for

a woman's right to choose, gay marriage and full civil rights and liberties for gays, privacy rights and civil rights for victims of AIDS, restrictions on the price of anti-HIV drugs, a $10 minimum wage and universal healthcare, repeal of Taft-Hartley to help the toughest-to-unionize industries (highly disproportionately consisting of women workers) like home healthcare and contract custodians, his founding thirty years ago of the first organization fighting against discrimination against women as consumers, his support of patients' rights and nurses' rights which won him the endorsement of the California Nurses Association -- the largest healtchare union in the largest state?

are you saying you can't understand how someone could stomach a vote for someone who says this:

"The Advocate: But Clinton's gay rights efforts were blocked at every turn by the GOP majority in Congress.

Ralph Nader: Clinton and Gore made a calculation. If they went a certain distance, they would get support from the gay rights movement. But if they went too far, they would lose support from other voters. Do you think they would have done anything if gay rights supporters were not organized to the limit? The key test of politicians is whether they will do the right thing whether or not they get votes.

The Advocate: So as president how would you get beyond the opposition to gay rights in Congress?

Ralph Nader: You can't be a transactional president, cutting deals. You have to say, "This is a country dedicated to equal rights and equal responsibility, regardless of race, gender, sexual preference, whatever. That is the basic touchstone from which all other policies flow." When you rise to that level, you force the opposition to say, "Oh, no. We don't want equal rights." The civil rights movement forces the bigots to either recede or display their bigotry. When you start cutting deals, that's when you slow down rights and put yourself in a credibility gap."

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1589/2000_Oct_24/66279045/p1/article.jhtml?term=

If you really support the rights of gays and lesbians, you would bother to read the Advocate, which published a long interview with Nader in 2000, after Barney Frank attacked him for his run and Carol Migden tried using Nader's long commitment to gay rights to "out" Nader by saying Nader "has strong ties to the community--and has for years--and hasn't been forthright about it." Was she trying to dissuade Republicans from voting for him?

As for who can say John Kerry is NOT a liberal, well, John Kerry apparently has no problem saying he's NOT a liberal. He said it loud and clear in the New York debate when he ridiculed his number one ranking as a liberal by the National Journal as "the silliest thing I've ever heard.":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16969-2004Feb29?language=printer

[zoeyfong]

24. My piece of shit car didn't get anybody killed for votes.

Not all priniples are equally expendable. Everyone has a moral obligation to stand against unjust, unneccessary killing, and democrats should really be spending their energy trying to get people to *have* principles, rather than abandon them. The democratic party continues to underestimate the cost of sacraficing principle; the cost is that you lose respect, and when you lose respect, you lose votes.

[mzmolly]

33. Principles? Tell me who in this election meets your standard for being

"principled?" :shrug:

[WitchWay]

38. here's some principles of political reality

the politics of disdain and dismissiveness promotes apathy and business as usual, and gives a pass to corruption and unaccountable abuses of wealth and power.

the politics of taking the risk of respecting, engaging and sincerely joining in deep dialogue with voices across the political spectrum presses the hard work of real change.

we can all judge for ourselves who meets these principles.

[mzmolly]

41. I agree with your statement below.

"the politics of disdain and dismissiveness promotes apathy and business as usual, and gives a pass to corruption and unaccountable abuses of wealth and power."