Ralph Nader: Liberals begin to bail on Obama

[Karmadillo]

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader01012010.html

Liberals Begin to Bail on Obama
The Awful Truth
By RALPH NADER

<edit>

They still believe that the President is far better than his Republican counterpart would have been. Some still believe that sometime, somewhere, Obama will show his liberal stripes. But they no longer believe they should stay loyally silent in the face of the escalating war in Afghanistan, the near collapse of key provisions in the health insurance legislation, the likely anemic financial regulation bill, or the obeisance to the bailed out Wall Street gamblers. Remember this Administration more easily embraces bonuses for fat cats than adequate investment in public jobs.

Of all the loyalists, among the first to stray was Bob Herbert, columnist for The New York Times. He wondered about his friends telling him that Obama treats their causes and them “as if they have nowhere to go.” Then there was the stalwart Obamaist, the brainy Gary Wills, who broke with Obama over Afghanistan in a stern essay of admonition.

If you read the biweekly compilation of progressive and liberal columnists and pundits in the Progressive Populist, one of my favorite publications, the velvet verbal gloves are coming off.

Jim Hightower writes that “Obama is sinking us into ‘Absurdistan.’” He bewails: “Ihad hoped Obama might be a more forceful leader who would reject the same old interventionist mindset of those who profit from permanent war. But his newly announced Afghan policy shows he is not that leader.”

Wonder where good ol’ Jim got that impression—certainly not from anything Obama said or did not say in 2008. But hope dims the memory of the awful truth which is that Obama signed on to the Wall Street and military-industrial complex from the get-go. He got their message and is going after their campaign contributions and advisors big time!

Norman Solomon, expressed his sharp deviation from his long-time admiration of the politician from Chicago. He writes: “President Obama accepted the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize while delivering—to the world as it is—a pro-war speech. The context instantly turned the speech’s insights into flackery for more war.” Strong words indeed!

<edit>

Gary Wills has crossed his Rubicon, calling Obama’s Afghanistan escalation “a betrayal.” Wills is a scholar of both the Presidency and of political oratory (his small book on Lincoln’s Gettysburg address is a classic interpretation). So he uses words carefully, to wit: “If we had wanted Bush’s wars, and contractors, and corruption, we could have voted for John McCain. At least we would have seen our foe facing us, not felt him at our back, as now we do.”

more...

[mike_c]

1. Nader speaks the truth, no matter how many folks bury their heads in the sand...

...to avoid hearing it.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

2. I do not for one second believe we'd be where we are now if Gore had been president.

So I have to disagree with Nader's truth there.

[Lorien]

5. This is about Obama, not Gore. nt

[SemiCharmedQuark]

6. Nader who keeps questioning whether Obama is an Uncle Tom?

Once again he is presenting his belief that the two parties are the same. I disagreed in 2000 and I disagree now.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Snotcicles]

48. We should have had a pool on when the new year's first NADER would be launched. nt

[Le Taz Hot]

46. It's unnecessary for Nader to pretend

Obama is, well, that term that you used that will probably be deleted because of the professional outragists on this board -- completely missing THE POINT. It wasn't Nader who folded to the MIC. It wasn't Nader who folded to the banksters. Let's face it. Obama is dancing with the $$$ interests that brung him and he's making no apologies.

[omega minimo]

95. If Nader has used those words, can you please link to a quote?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

105. Do a DU serach for it. There were several threads about it.

Here's one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7778935

And here's a Salon article on it complete with video.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/11/05/nader/

And he repeated it recently.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

106. And here's a fresh one from December of this year:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-18/the-man-cheering-obamas-health-care-woes/full/

[omega minimo]

111. Thank you for the links. I'm sorry to see that.

[mike_c]

7. context is everything, my friend....

This is 2010. The essay is about Obama.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

8. He's ending the essay with the same "The parties are the same!" theory he puts out

every election.

I don't buy that line.

[mike_c]

11. then why is the democratic president continuing so many republican policies...

...and sharing so many neocon objectives? I agree with you-- the two parties are NOT the same. They have different names, and they are entirely different flavors of corporate fascism. You like your fascism with a D after its pronouncements. That's fine. Just recognize that it's still the same fascism, and the same MIC whispers into the leadership's ear and reaps the benefits of national policy, either way.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

12. I'm not happy with everything Obama has done, but I'm not going to pretend he's the same as

McCain or Bush because he isn't.

[mike_c]

14. paraphrasing from the Rude Pundit-- better than the worst president ever...

...is setting the bar pretty low.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

15. But come voting time you bet your ass I'm not going to take the chance that WPE's successor gets

elected and we're all screwed...AGAIN.

[laughingliberal]

41. We're screwed anyway. Only question is how fast.

Conservadems can, rightly, run on a platform of slowing down the fascist policies. Would be nice to see them commit to reversing the fascist policies. You know, while we still have a working and middle class.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tabasco]

79. And fixing the clusterfuck the neocons left behind takes more than a year.

Utopians who flock to fuckheads like Nader are idiots.

[omega minimo]

93. that comment sounds like the view of someone still in high school. Both statements

aren't dealing with reality -- first is some drive by assumption, the second is some bizarre projection (connected? how?) as if "Utopians are flocking to Nader" to "fix the clusterfuck the neocons left behind."

Sorry, but it doesn't make any kind of sense.

[sendero]

122. Yeah..

... but to fix anything you have to change directions. We haven't. Obama is not fixing JACK SHIT.

[whattheidonot]

32. CORRECT

Politics of campaign contributions. Corporate control of policy. loss of competition, loss of choice,loss of salary, benefits,loss of emerging companies, loss of critical thinking in education. The economy is top heavy and moving slowly. the cost of unemployment is huge. how is it that we absorb it? Keeping up with unemployment and all the offshoot problems has got to be very costly. Why is it done?

[paulsby]

103. you are begging the question

by labeling, for example, the afghanistan was a republican policy.

and our afghanistan policy is many things, but it aint fascist.

and if you weren't referring to the afghanistan policy, then i apologize and never mind cheddar :)

[Flaneur]

86. Not the same, just too goddamned similar.

[omega minimo]

91. He predicted corporate government. You've got corporate government, supported by "two" parties

whether you "buy that line" or not. Incredible that you would pretend otherwise, at this point.

[MH1]

19. credibility matters. Ralph "not a dime's worth of difference" Nader has NONE.

[Fading Captain]

24. Do you really think Nader is to blame?

Are you unwilling to accept legitimate criticism of your political heroes that you must point the blame at someone who has done more for the American citizen than any President since Johnson?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

26. Do I think he's to blame for Gore losing?

Hmm, don't know. But he was wrong about that whole Gore=Bush thing. Yet he cannot admit this. He just keeps repeating the same thing over and over and over again. I might have believed that in 2000 but not now.

[suzie]

50. If you start with the fact that Obama inherited a huge amount of mess from

the previous administration, then YES, Nader is to blame.

He delivered GWB to us. Or delivered us to GWB.

Without Nader's assistance, we wouldn't have to worry quite so much about health care changes that were deficit neutral.

Or whether the new administration was doing enough about torture, etc.

[Fading Captain]

71. It's that stupid kind of thinking that is killing the party

Honestly, you're engaging in stupid Bush-fan thinking.
Holding on to one tiny factor and pinning everything on it.

Nader was one of a about 100 million reasons why Gore didn't win.

But for Democrats who refuse to take a hard look at the corporate sellouts in their party, he's an easy target.

What do you think hurt Gore more?

Nader's 1 percent?

Or Gore's selling out of the working class with NAFTA and other trade agreements?

If you answer Nader, you're an idiot.

[davidwparker]

119. Not to mention Clinton fatigue and Gore's inability to lighten up when in

public, which is reportedly, the opposite of him when in private.

That was before the New Pearl Harbor when times were good for everyone. People like an underdog and found it in Bush, an idiot.

All these things had an effect on the outcome.

Here's another: Gore deciding to count a few areas of Florida rather than the whole state.

[Jamastiene]

136. Gore has charisma.

I will always wonder why he never let it show when he was campaigning like he does now. He actually personable, funny, witty, and very charismatic, but he never let that show when he was campaigning. I'll never understand or know why either.

[suzie]

143. Save your Nader apologies for someone who didn't live in Florida in 2000.

It would have taken 9, count them on your fingers if you will, NINE VOTES in each county in Florida for Gore to have won.

I have listened to the Nader voters who returned to being Democrats after 2000 and complaining more loudly than the rest of us who actually voted for Gore, so I'm probably a little less sympathetic to the
NADER apologist rationalization than others.

But no, those voters chose the biggest Republican sellout there is, RALPH NADER.

[Flaneur]

87. Jesus Christ, that canard again!

Way more Democrats voted for Bush in 2000 than for Nader.

[omega minimo]

98. That's so absurd. You're using Nader as a scapegoat for anything and everything

your imagination can come up with. Be HONEST.

Start with this lie:

"He delivered GWB to us. Or delivered us to GWB."

[suzie]

144. Nader, the guy who gets his financing from Republicans and then tries

to sway as many Democratic voters from voting Democrat as possible?

And I'm not using Nader as a scapegoat for anything--he delivered enough votes in Florida to help the Bushes win in 2000. He deserves to have everything that the 2001-2008 administration did hung around his neck.

[davidwparker]

116. what does the inherited mess have to do with blocking probs into criminal

conduct and war crimes?

[suzie]

145. Are you a prosecutor?

[beardown]

27. Correct. Lieberman would be even more powerful

There's a connect between two disconnects going on here.

The first disconnect is the posters here who gnash their teeth over everything that Lieberman has done over the last several years and the fact that out of probably hundreds of qualified candidates that Gore chose him as his veep.

The second disconnect is the posters here who thought that everything would be different once we got a democratic president (to say nothing of both houses of congress) and are now defending a president who has made strong moves to protect rich incompetent bankers and surges while being nowhere to be found in the fight for real health care reform, etc.

It's a tough sell to those of us who lost a lot of faith in Gore when he nominated Lieberman when we've now seen what has happened when Obama surrounded himself with the same Goldman Sachs and Iraq surge crews that got us into this mess in the first place.

If you're going to be a real progressive president, it's not a good sign if you start out by surrounding yourself with radicals and interventionists.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

28. Because Joe Biden is so powerful?

Vice presidents are not usually given the power that Cheney was.

[beardown]

33. And neither does one single senator

"Usually" doesn't seem to be a appropriate term to use in this discussion after what we've seen over the last few months with regards to Lieberman controlling the health care legislation.


Aside from that, it's who Gore chose as his veep and how it's turned out after Obama surrounded himself with radicals and corporate hacks.

[debbierlus]

89. You know, it is the American's peoples apathy and ignorance that allowed Bush to STEAL the election

Bush never won.

Blaming Nader is simplistic.

People were complacent. Many people thought Gore was a shoe-in. I know people who didn't even bother to vote, let alone campaign.

Nader isn't responsible for Bush. The American people are to blame for allowing him to steal the election and those who gave him enough votes to make it close.

We will be forever enslaved into this one party system, if we don't have the courage to challenge them with true patriots who will represent the people's interests.

[Jamastiene]

137. +1000000

[davidwparker]

115. Of course you make the assumption that a vote for Nader would have

been a vote for Gore if Nader wasn't in the race.

Travel forward to 2012 .... I've got my paper ballot in front of me. It has some (R), Obama, and a 3rd party. Now, if Obama continues to be Bush's 3rd term, I'm picking a 3rd party. If he continues to jive talk me in speeches and do the opposite in actions, then play me for a fool with rationalizations, I may even pick the (R) TO DUMP HIS PRESIDENTIAL ASS.

Now, what will you say then ... a 3rd party candidate ruined it for Obama's second term?

No. Obama wasn't getting my vote in the first place. He ruined his own chances.

In the case of the future 2012 election, a 3rd candidate would a least give me an option of NOT picking the (R) out of anger.

[cali]

3. It's called opinion. truth is largely a subjective thing.

In any case, polls do not reflect a loss of liberal support for Obama.

[whattheidonot]

17. where to go

OBAMA HAD A CHANCE AT BIG CHANGE , CHANGE TO RALLY PEOPLE BUT HE PASSED IT BY.HE HAS IN FACT SUPPORTED THE THINGS THAT NADER MENTIONS. DID HE HAVE TO?

[spanone]

29. you don't think things have changed? you should study the last 8 bu$hit years.

[Le Taz Hot]

47. "Truth is largely a subjective thing."

I'm just going to let that lie there. Pretty much sums it up for the die-hard Party Faithful.

[cali]

54. oh, c'mon. you can (I sincerely hope) do better than that.

that long held belief of mine has little to do with party politics and I'm hardly the party faithful.

truth is largely subjective. one person's truth is frequently another's lie. this is hardly a revolutionary statement. Philosophy is rife with such discussions and has been for a couple of thousand years.

[Lorien]

4. Yep. They discount the message because they hate the messenger

I expect that from the other side; it's pathetic seeing this kind of kneejerk reactionary crap from our own.

[omega minimo]

101. Succinct and to the point, Lorien

:yourock:

[KittyWampus]

18. the factual numbers say Nader is full of poo. He is wrong.

[FLAprogressive]

21. what numbers?

[KittyWampus]

25. Recent polls. He's only suffering amongst liberals in the minds of a very few DU'ers

[saltpoint]

60. IMO he speaks the truth less than he brays it.

"She don't bray like no jackass," says one of the traveling Shakespeare Theater members to his acting colleague who botches a characterization in HUCKLEBERRY FINN.

Nader is howling in the fog. He has no national constituency to speak of. He's been a presidential candidate for some number of cycles now and has been duly crushed each time out. The Sunday news shows throws him on once in a great while just to tokenize his role even further. He's essentially as inessential a public figure as could be imagined.

There is about Nader a whiff of the automaton. He's smart and prepared and wields interesting points which never land past the first dozen rows of an audience whose members agree with him in the first place.

He cannot persuade. He is not a persuasive figure in the public forum. He is not a mind-changer, therefore, he is not a paradigm changer.

If a progressive howls in the night fog in the far field does anybody inside the Beltway hear it? No.

[Dogmudgeon]

9. Ah, Counterpaunch!

They bailed on Obama a full year before the Inauguration -- and managed to hail it as a great step for the Oppressed Masses at the same time!

Perhaps Nader will undertake to "punish the Democrat Party" again in 2012.

Meanwhile, here's a tasty Blues cut to show how hip I am.

Blind Lemon Pledge -- Recyclin' My Mojo

--d!

[MH1]

16. Ah yes, they supported Bush in 2004 as well.

or at least they said to vote against Kerry ... same thing in my book, just clarifying for the electorally-challenged.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

10. If the parties were the same you wouldn't see the rabid attacks

from the right... also, I'll never forget the time Ralph Nader almost saved the world... woo hoo that was cool.

[Fading Captain]

73. Rapid attacks keep the nation where big business wants

Fighting each other over nothing, while the barons who control the parties laugh at how stupid we all are.

[MisterP]

77. to see how similar two parties are, you look at the issues (eg, IWR votes), not the rhetoric

I mean, the Gilded Age was full of electoral violence, and Dem and Repub then were in consensus; 19th-century Argentina's political violence was tremendous, yet the personalist factions were indistinguishable policy-wise

if two factions answer to the same handlers and ideologues on 80% of the major issues, it's irrelevant how often the lambaste each other

[ProSense]

13. As usual, Nader is full of shit

link

[dkf]

20. Look at this board and tell me there isnt a lot more

Objective criticism than there used to be.

Nader is scum but that doesnt mean he is always wrong. His problem is an outsized ego and an inability to see he is the skunk at the party.

[ProSense]

23. "Nader is scum but that doesnt mean he is always wrong." Correction

"Nader is scum," and he is wrong.

[Fading Captain]

125. Anyone who calls Nader "scum" is foolish

Sorry your DLC'er Gore didn't get elected.

Maybe it's because he doesn't give a fuck about the millions of good-paying manufacturing jobs he sent overseas with NAFTA and other trade deals.

[dkf]

129. He deliberately campaigned in florida to make Gore lose

He is the scum of the century. Everything bad resulting from the disaster of w is on his head.

[Larkspur]

22. Nader is right about Corporations corrupting our government, but

he doesn't offer a practical plan to resolve the problem. As long as we have the Constitution, third parties will fail because our electoral system is a winner-take-all system and even James Madison realized shortly after passage of the Constitution that America will be locked into a 2 party systems.

It costs lots of money to run campaigns and for a political party to coordinate national an a quiltwork of state campaigns. So even if a third party starts making a dent into the other 2 parties seats, corporate money will swing to that party and corrupt it too.

The advantage of reforming the Dem Party from within is that progressives will not have to build from scratch a national network. But a reform-from-with strategy needs to be joined by a Progressive Movement from the grassroots up. A critical mass of engaged citizens inside and outside of the Dem Party and who support Progressive policies is what is needed to counter corporate corruption. We're not there yet, but in the meantime we can lay the groundwork for future progressives, just like the Progressives of the late 19th century and early 20th centuries did. Their work, theories and philosophies helped shape FDR's New Deal.

[mike_c]

31. I agree-- unfortunately, the dem leadership actively resists reform...

...and they largely control the mechanisms of reform, making it a generational process, at best. I would LOVE to see reform from within the democratic party, but there will never be a better chance than now, when dems control congress and the executive branch with little to fear from republicans-- yet this opportunity is being stangled, not by the "other" party, but by the dems own leadership, which is just as corrupt as the republicans. THAT is Nader's message, not that there are no differences between the parties at all, but rather that they are equally corrupt and equally resistant to change that would benefit the nation, rather than their personal interests.

[change_notfinetuning]

131. The two parties even control which candidates are allowed in the debates. n/t

[WonderGrunion]

30. Nader only cares about nader, he cares nothing of Obama

or even progressives for that matter.

[Vickers]

34. Fuck him. n/t

[grytpype]

35. Saint Ralph pray for us

:cry::cry::cry::cry:

[LWolf]

37. If they'd recognized him for the center-right politician he is

back in the fall of '07 and winter of '08, they wouldn't need to "bail."

Better late than never, I guess.

[GreenArrow]

43. Nah. Then we would have gotten Clinton

and we'd still be in the same boat. At least Clinton was more upfront with her corporatism.

[LWolf]

45. I'd like to see

one national vote-counting day, with no ballots counted, and caucus results kept secret. I don't like that the same two states get to narrow the field, thus dictating the rest of our choices, every time.

Even better...add IRV.

In '08, there were only 2 caucuses and 2 primaries (and 2 primaries whose votes were at issue) before the wide field was narrowed to two unacceptable choices.

My own primary didn't happen for another 5 months.

Clinton was more upfront with her corporatism, and more friendly to public education. I'd still rather have real choices on the primary ballot for EVERYONE.

[Vidar]

39. K&R.

[WeDidIt]

40. Why bring this RIGHTWING trash to DU?

NAder is a rightwingnut. He's funded by the right and everything he does benefits the right.

[Bluenorthwest]

49. That's just absurd

You must be very young, or just daft.
Rightwing nuts are opposed to equal rights for all. Ralph supports equal rights for all. Obama, Rham, and your pals are all anti equality. Far to the right of Ralph. So far that they stand with Evangelists who are open hate preachers of the worst sort, so far that they actually declare openly that they think some people are more worthy of rights than others. Right wing nuttery. Religious insanity. DLC Policy.

[WeDidIt]

51. What's daft is beliveing this rightwingnut

Nader says one thing, but his actions result in the opposite.

He's a rightwing snake in liberal clothes.

[Luminous Animal]

69. If you say so, it must be true!!!!!!!

Evidence, please?

[WeDidIt]

74. Nader is directly responisble for George W. Bush being president.

When running in 2000, Nader took funding from the Republicans.

'Nuff said.

[Luminous Animal]

76. The 200,000+ Floridian Dems who voted Bush are responsible for Bush.

Both Kerry and Gore took money from interests that give to both Dems and Reps. So what.

[boston bean]

118. wow, just wow!

talk about cognitive dissonance....

[Flaneur]

88. Are you intentionally that stupid?

[MilesColtrane]

42. "good ol' Jim"?

That's "Mr. Hightower" to you, you smarmy, condescending fuckstain.

[Luminous Animal]

57. You do know that good ol' Jim campaigned with Nader, don't you?

He even gave the keynote speech at the Green's convention in 2000 when Nader was nominated.

[MilesColtrane]

62. That makes Nader's little jab at him all the more dickish.

[Luminous Animal]

63. (Insert rolly eyes here)

[Tarheel_Dem]

44. Yeah. If only we'd had the good sense to elect St. Ralph. He can't stand..

the fact that he's been rejected time & time again by the American people, and yet he keeps coming back as if anyone outside of DU gives a shit what he has to say. I mean, other than constantly bitching about Democrats, what has he actually done between presidential elections? Does he try to build a party to win local & state elections? Or is that beneath him?

Poor Ralph, taking money from the right to fight the left. Not quite sure why he should be so concerned about where Obama's money comes from after the shit he pulled. Didn't seem to matter then where his own donations were coming from.

[LouKneeLib]

52. k&r

..........

[we can do it]

53. Fuck Nadar - I Don't Give a Shit What That Asshole Says

[sellitman]

61. Zactly!

Nader has taken a perverse pride in destroying Democrats at every turn. If he had given one tenth the effort to destroying Rethuglican's he might have some equity. He has been a huge disappointment and a friend to the Right.

Fuck him.

[we can do it]

138. and his little dog too

[G_j]

81. there are letters in my local paper saying the same thing..,

don't need to hear it from Nader


Another military-industrial president in progressive garb
Bill Branyon | 12/30 | 12:00 AM | 7 Comments


The best possible spin on Obama's plan to kill thousands of ... Afghans is that he's a captive of our military-industrial complex. It may be political — and maybe personal — suicide to oppose the complex. The worst spin is that Obama believes that killing, maiming and impoverishing more people will create a friendlier Afghanistan. And that he's following Dick Cheney's scheme to establish American hegemony in many Middle Eastern countries, so that we can preserve our oil-based, ecology-killing, fast economic growth.

Regardless, Obama should know that any American-backed solution to Afghanistan's agony will be quickly demolished, should we ever withdraw our troops from there. Most Afghans hate us for the horrendous destruction and suffering we've inflicted upon their land. Our thousands of bunker-busting smart bombs, heartless predator drones and door-smashing house invasions have created a public-relations situation similar to the story told in Apocalypse Now, in which Americans inoculated a Vietnamese tribe against some disease but the villagers then cut off their arms. Those Afghans who smile for our cameras are doing so because we have our awesome arsenal pointed at their heads.

The sad truth is that we progressives who voted for Obama with fervent hope in our hearts actually voted for what in practice has become the latest disguise of the military-industrial complex. He is their black camouflage. And if you believe Obama's withdrawal promises, I have some bundled, sub-prime mortgages to sell you.

Perhaps what's left for progressives is to stage yet another march on Washington and try to symbolically wash our hands of Obama's bloodthirsty policies.

But for whom should we vote in 2012? Nader? Which means the Republicans might win and invade Iran, or worse. Maybe it's impossible to restrain our corporate/Pentagon overlords. But we might as well keep working at it because it's the only meaningful politics around.

— Bill Branyon
Asheville


Talking peace, preparing for war
Eileen Walkenstein | 12/30 | 12:00 AM | 2 Comments

The juxtaposition of President Obama's receiving a Nobel Prize for peace and his decision to continue the war in Afghanistan and send 30,000 more troops there brought to my mind one of Berthold Brecht's searing statements:

"When the generals talk peace, they are preparing for war."

— Eileen Walkenstein
Asheville

http://www.mountainx.com/opinion/letters.php

[saltpoint]

55. It's not coming together for Nader. It never has, as far as that goes.

Consumer advocate? it came together pretty well then. The translation to presidential politics? A total failure.

I think Nader exaggerates the number of dissent sensibilities and misses the big picture altogether.

Go ahead, Ralph. If fury and betrayal is loosed upon the land, then run again for President. We'll see if it's coming together for ya then as well.

[flamingdem]

56. NADER IS EVIL - HE WOULD HAVE BEEN HAPPY TO DIVIDE THE VOTE AND HELP BUSH WIN right!!! NT

[omega minimo]

92. Gore won. So did Kerry. When do Dems take ANY responsibility for their actions that made the vote so

close? It was catering to R Lite and Blue Dawgs that CAUSED that. Ya'll need to stop shouting and start being real.

[liberal_at_heart]

123. exactly.+1. The dems need to take responsibility for losing votes instead of blaming others

Why should I vote democrat when they no longer represent my values? Am I suppose to vote democrat just to appease people who blame third party candadites for the dems loses? I don't think so.

[omega minimo]

124. It seems at this point, things are bad enough for more folks to admit to themselves

and other DUers: how wrong the party has been to cater to R-Lite since Reagan.

[saltpoint]

58. It's interesting, or maybe it isn't, that for whatever truth-telling Nader

is praised for hereabouts the negative response to him is consistent and vehement.

It would be interesting, or maybe it wouldn't be, to determine the variables in Nader that repel so many voters.

I admire and respect his intelligence but I otherwise don't like him at all. Apart from the clueless Cynthia McKinney, he's as marginal as they come.

[MilesColtrane]

72. I'm guessing hypocrisy would poll pretty well.

[saltpoint]

80. In Nader's case, he invests handsomely in the corporations he claims

to oppose.

If hypocrisy polled well he'd live in the White House.

[Luminous Animal]

82. He doesn't oppose corporations.

He opposes corporate control of government.

[saltpoint]

83. His investments strengthen the corporations whose influence over

government he allegedly opposes.

Sorry. No sale.

And by the way, check Ralph's vote totals. I'm not the only one he's failed to convince.

[Luminous Animal]

85. Sorry. Any person that has a 401K or an account in any bank invests in these corporations.

I do and I am anti corporate personhood activist. There is a price to pay for living in the modern world but that does not mean that you can't advocate that this modern world be organized differently.

[saltpoint]

108. Nader argues just that, however, and has for some decades.

My point is his arguments, while intelligent and insightful, cannot persuade critical mass.

He is ineffective.

[Luminous Animal]

127. And yet, Newt Gingrich's arguments do!

Of course, Newt doesn't have ideological allies working against him. The meanest most despicable bigots get a platform and thus legitimacy through mere repetitiveness through the mass media until the despicable becomes the norm. This most outlandish ideas (like torture) that would have had no quarter a few years ago, now garner consideration and respect. Meanwhile, a man who has spent his entire life effectively fighting for the rights of his fellow citizens (consumer safety, clean water, disability rights...), is ripped apart by those self same citizens who, if they exert a bit of energy, have the power to advance his ideas towards a critical mass.

Some day, decades in the future, an historian similar to Zinn, will write about Nader. That historian will chronicle his incredible accomplishments, it will also chronicle the gross and perverted propaganda against him.

[saltpoint]

128. Point taken on Gingrich enjoying a path of fewer impediments.

Zinn speaks eloquently but has no loneliness and ambitious ego to mollify, as I suspect is the case with Nader. It is also essential in praising Zinn that one consider that he is the superior writer, and that his reach is global, as witnessed by his partnerships with many international leaders. Nader is far more the local boy; Zinn is the traveled sage.

[Luminous Animal]

130. Nader's alleged loneliness and ambitious ego are patronizing speculation.

And you missed my point about Zinn. I said a future historian (say 50-100 years from now), someone like Zinn, will one day write about Nader's societal changing changing accomplishments, and that historian will also write that ordinary citizens that were his ideological allies used the language of the ruling class to denigrate and demoralize him.

[saltpoint]

140. You like to scold on this site.

I didn't miss your point on Zinn. I did disagree with it and reframed it.

You could very possibly consider a wider playing field, LA.

[flamingdem]

112. He's loopy, cannot trust him, and he can serve to divide the dems and help the repukes nt

[soleft]

59. It worked out so well when they bailed on Gore

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[saracat]

66. Ponytariat? Is that what those who stand for equality and Democratic Principles are now called?

[LostInAnomie]

65. Every time Republicans need a few Dems led away they call out Ralphy.

[Itchinjim]

67. Shut up Ralph.

Just go away.

[saltpoint]

68. Ralph ran as a true progressive and put his name on several states' ballots

but voters, even progressive ones, bailed on him.

Repeatedly.

[cliffordu]

70. Nader coulda been a contenda.

not.

About 15 years past his sell by date.

[blues90]

75. All of that seems to be true enough.

People in this country for the most part are sold on slogans and banners just like the TV ad's use. But they never really listen or read the fine print.

In the back ground the rumble and smoke still continue on.

[Skidmore]

78. Nader can kiss my liberal fanny.

[freddie mertz]

84. I never voted for Nader but I know a bit about him and he is not a right-winger.

He's a solid. old school leftist who has no use for compromise with the corporate world anymore, and this makes him a sometimes infuriating but also a fundamentally honest individual.

His analysis of liberal's disappointment with Obama may have more than a drop of self-serving "I told you so" in it, but it is not factually wrong.

Just saying.

[omega minimo]

90. Simple, clear, true statements-- the Nader haters in this thread have nothing to hang him up on

[cali]

94. it's opinion, not fact. And I, for one, don't hate Nader.

[omega minimo]

97. He's reporting on decisions of others and quoting them directly. That's fact.

[cali]

104. jthat's hardly all he's doing- not to menton that he's being selective

about the facts he's using. nothing wrong with that, but it is indeed opinion.

[omega minimo]

109. He's reporting. Deal with it. It's your opinion that he's doing something other than that.

[cali]

113. lol. sad that you don't even recognize an opinion piece. pathetic is more like it.

it's not reporting. it's the fucking definition of an op/ed piece, sweetie.

[omega minimo]

114. I don't care what your opinions are

[treestar]

96. Wrong

86% of liberals support the President.

[omega minimo]

100. What is your source?

[treestar]

120. Google DU for polls - they've been posted repeatedly

[omega minimo]

121. Why should someone else do the work to prove your point?

:shrug: no thanks

[Edweird]

99. I didn't bail on anything. I'm not the one failing to hold up their end of the agreement.

[paulsby]

102. Wills et al are idiots if

they couldn't see that Obama's Afghanistan escalation was a GIVEN.

for pete's sake. how many frigging times did obama make it clear LONG before he was elected that he thought afghanistan was a "good war" and that he would ramp it up.

this just boggles me how myopic these people were when obama made it damn clear where he stood, which is where he now stands.

[davidwparker]

107. “as if they have nowhere to go.” - I'll be going straight to a 3rd party,

minimally.

Obama had better had a Saul to Paul conversion on his way to Hawaii this Christmas and come back January with a new attitude.

[Better Believe It]

110. The anti-Nader character assassination squad is alive and well. Reminds one of the swiftboaters.

[DefenseLawyer]

117. No, Ralph, I won't send you any money. n/t

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[change_notfinetuning]

132. Ralph Nader isn't the problem. The problem is that there aren't more Ralph

Naders in government. I think the same could be said about Obama, especially Obama as senator. Unfortunately, there aren't more Obamas or Naders because Obama chose to appoint and be advised by, for the most part, status quo Democrats who favor business as usual, and who fear change to the point of obstruction. But if Congress were overpopulated with Naders and Obamas, we progressives would have a lot less work ahead of us.

As for the 2000 election, if Al Gore had only won his own state of Tennessee, as every candidate usually does, he would have won the electoral vote and been president, regardless of the outcome in Florida or any Supreme Court decision. He might have done that if he had allowed Bill Clinton to campaign for him. So how anyone can blame Nader for what happened in 2000 is beyond me.

[SeattleGirl]

133. SeattleGirl: I bailed on Nader years ago.

I admired the hell out of you, Ralph. I really did. What you did for consumers for so many years was great.

But,

when you decided to be a preennial presidential candidate, you disappeared for 3+ years, and then at the last moment, would throw your hat into the ring and expect me to get behind you.

But I can't.

Not when you essentially go into hiding for years.

Sorry Ralph.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

134. As always, Nader is 100% right about the problem: corporate dominance of government, BUT

wrong about the solution.

Third party efforts only split the progressive left and allow the far right to win in the end.

I wish Nader would quit going after Democrats in the general, but would instead focus his efforts fully on targeting corporatist DLC-ers in the primaries. There are plenty of good folks working in these efforts to challenge sell-out DLC-ers.

Work with us, Ralph! We;d love to have you on board.

I'd alsolike to see a multi-party system of government, but until systemic changes are made, third party runs are self-defeating and will only make things worse.

For the record, I say this as someone who worked proudly for Nader in 2000 and campaigned hard for Obama in 2008.

[shotten99]

135. I think Ralph wants another neo-conservative president.

[Better Believe It]

142. Are you suggesting he's got one now?

[jpak]

139. Breaking: Nader is still and asshole

just sayin'

[DainBramaged]

141. When you need to clear your sinuses, find a Nader thread

the stench is impossible to ignore.


All nader knows is how much he can get from the republicans for stirring up shit.

[hayu_lol]

146. When you need to discover things about Ralph,

put him together on google with Grover Norquist. Really interesting friendship there.