Ralph Nader: 'Cowering' Democrats face defeat

[cali]

If the “cowering” Democrats — who “are tortured daily by Republican leaders” — come away the losers in November, they will have only themselves to blame, according to Ralph Nader.

“If the Democrats in Congress were all drinking water from the same faucet, there might be a clue to their chronic fear of the craven and cruel corporatist Republicans who dominate them,” Nader began in a post on his website. “But they don’t, so we have to ask why their fear, defeatism, and cowering behavior continues in the face of the outrageous GOP actions as the November election approaches.”


“The Democrats should be landsliding the worst Republican Party in history,” the former presidential candidate added. “Instead, Democrats let Boehner and Cantor peddle their unrebutted torrents of falsehoods to the voters in their districts.”

Nader lamented the inaction of Democrats against what he views as an extremist Republican Party, alleging that the “Democrats are tortured daily by Republican leaders.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78171.html#ixzz1zxJAB8xU

[HappyMe]

1. Fuck Ralph Nader.

[MADem]

3. Jeez--great minds, look below!!

[russspeakeasy]

4. Yeah. Except he's right.

[TheWraith]

11. You left out a few words.

I think you meant to say "Except he's purely a right-wing-enabling hack with no grip on reality."

The fact that, after pushing the entire narrative that there was no difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore, ANYBODY could ever look at Ralph Nader with anything but contempt boggles my mind.

[russspeakeasy]

25. "the democrats should be landsliding the worst republican party

in history". Yeah, he's an asshole. Why in your "boggled mind", aren't the dems out there every fuckin day destroying the right wing pricks and their neanderthal ideas ?

[AndyTiedye]

204. Because the Repigs Control the Tee Vee

and way too many people belieeeeeeve whatever the Tee Vee says.

[rainy]

253. you nailed it. It is the TV. Any Democrat that says anything

negative gets destroyed by the press and the bullying republicans. We all know how the press will frame it:
"The dems are playing politics" "Look how angry they are" bla bla blah.

[ret5hd]

529. really?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014163683

[HiPointDem]

558. republicans control tv? since when? capitalists control tv.

[Iggy]

377. "Landsliding", Indeed

If if's and buts were gifts and nuts, we'd all have a happy Christmas!

yeah, I wonder why that is? if the repugs are sooooo utterly horrible, why is Rmoney catching up in the polls?

three points behind O? that's margin of error, folks. may as well call it a tie

[MADem]

58. +1,000,000! The guy is a vote-suppressing, self-aggrandizing, noxious scold.

Fuck Ralph Nader!

[mattclearing]

172. I'm sure he's done more for the American people than you have. n/t

[pnwmom]

201. Why isn't he helping now? Instead of just shooting his mouth off? He could be financially

supporting key Dems all over the country, but instead he's just sitting on the sidelines and mouthing off.

[MADem]

206. +1,000,000! nt

[mattclearing]

229. If you really want to know what Nader is up to,

Feel free to read this recent Slate profile.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_spectator/2012/06/don_t_hate_ralph_nader_.html

Nader doesn't support Dems because Dems are generally willing to bend over for Wall Street.

He thinks they are part of the problem, and a lot of time, he's not wrong.

[pnwmom]

232. He doesn't ever support Dems; he criticizes them. And who does this benefit? The Rethugs.

He's happily watching the country go down the drain, and the only people he's actually helping are on the other side.

He's not doing anything to help, because he'd rather starve than take half a loaf -- so HE'S part of the problem.

[mattclearing]

244. He's even harder on Republicans than he is on Dems.

We're all pretty dissatisfied with Dems' efforts overall, but with Nader it's somehow unforgivable. I don't think that's fair.

[MADem]

237. No one loves Wall Street more than Ralph--he has a very UNPROGRESSIVE stock portfolio.

The author of that load of excrement has a bad case of hero-worship. That is a biased account.

[mattclearing]

243. Load of excrement?

It's a favorable, even fawning profile, but excrement seems harsh. Happy to note the hypocrisy of Nader's investments if that's the case, but he's advanced progressive causes in the past and doesn't deserve personal blame for 2000, certainly not more than Gore, Clinton, and Bush.

[MADem]

278. Yes, a great big load of stinking, steaming excrement.

It hasn't been about "progressive causes" for decades. It's all about the canonization of Saint Ralph.

The guy is an asshole. He knowingly took money from the GOP to keep his "campaign" alive--for what? He had no hope of winning. He did it to be an asshole. When confronted about the GOP donors, he lied and tried to minimize their purpose and effect, even though public donation records told an entirely different story. He's a lying bullshit artist:

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/GOP-donors-funding-Nader-Bush-supporters-give-2708705.php

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader -- still not on the ballot in a single state -- has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party, an analysis of federal records show.

Nearly one in 10 of Nader's major donors -- those writing checks of $1, 000 or more -- have given in recent months to the Bush-Cheney campaign, the latest documents show. GOP fund-raisers also have "bundled" contributions -- gathering hefty donations for maximum effect to help Nader, who has criticized the practice in the past.

The donations from wealthy Republicans -- combined with increasingly vocal Democratic charges that they represent a stealth GOP effort to wound Democrat John Kerry -- prompted Nader's vice presidential running mate, Green Party member Peter Camejo, to suggest the consumer advocate reject the money that doesn't come from loyal Nader voters....But Camejo's views differ with Nader's recent defense of the contributions.

...the financial records show that $23,000 in checks of $1,000 or more have come from loyal Republicans. Among those who have given recently to Nader are Houston businessman Nijad Fares, who donated $200,000 to President Bush's 2000 inaugural committee; Richard J. Egan, the former ambassador to Ireland, and his wife, Pamela, who have raised more than $300,000 for Bush; Michigan developer Ghassan Saab, who has given $30,000 to the RNC since 2001; and frozen food magnate Jeno Paulucci, and his wife, Lois, who have donated $150, 000 to GOP causes...All have donated the maximum $2,000 to Nader's campaign since April, records show.

Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it.

Fuck Ralph Nader.

[mattclearing]

322. Condemning Nader for something Kerry did as well isn't particularly fair.

Should Kerry have returned his checks from Republican donors too?

[MADem]

323. I am condemning Nader for herding idealists away from the Democratic ticket, to benefit his stock

portfolio.

Unless you think that investments in Halliburton, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Wal-Mart, Big Oil, etc., are called "Walking the Uber-Progressive Walk" in your neck of the woods.

Kerry never touted the anti-corporate line of bullshit (and it was bullshit, because Nader didn't believe it either, based on his profit-making) in an effort to get the wide-eyed "We Can Change The World" crowd to vote against the one person on the ticket who might have made things BETTER--not perfect, just BETTER--instead of worse.

Nader gamed you. You bought his bullshit. We all paid.

[mattclearing]

331. You don't know me.

You don't know what I did or didn't do for Nader. And I did nothing. I just think the hatred is excessive and misplaced. Nader doesn't deserve the blame for 2000; that belongs to Clinton, Gore, and Bush. Bush and Cheney own their deeds. The notion that somehow Nader and his 3% of the vote, many of whom would have sat out the 2000 election without him, is solely responsible for the Bush administration, is again, unfair.

But yeah, dude could certainly get with a progressive investment portfolio.

[MADem]

333. When a candidate has to fight a battle on TWO fronts, they have a harder time making gains.

Anyone who doesn't get that reality of politics is not up to speed.

Gore had to fight back against Ralph's snarking and Bush's lies in Must-Win states.

Ralph DID make a difference, and he knew exactly what he was doing. Why do you think he made the most trouble in battleground states? Was that an accident of fate?

If he simply wanted five percent of the vote to "make a point," he could have/should have only campaigned in Democratic stronghold states, where a shift of the vote over to him would not have mattered.

Instead, he took his "fight" almost exclusively to battlegrounds. He took votes away from Gore in places where Gore needed them most.

And people continue to defend that GOP enabler-bullshit artist.

[mattclearing]

339. "Took votes"

Like people don't have a right to own their own decisions. Again, blaming Ralph Nader for the actions of others. Like people don't have a right to run for president or vote for their choice if they disagree with you. You seem to have a blind spot here that is incompatible with democracy.

[MADem]

342. OK, fine, own this.

Anyone who supported Ralph Nader, and continues to support him today, supports a guy who is heavily invested in the military industrial complex, who is invested in Big Oil, who is invested in anti-worker corporations, and his wealth is based on his suppression of Democratic votes to the benefit of the GOP.

You know where he invests his money. You know how rich he got with GOP-friendly investments and GOP support for a continued candidacy that should have died had not the Republicans propped him up.

So go on, own it. It's not about his "right." It's not about anyone's "right."

It's about the continued support of people who pretend to be progressives for this fucking, closet-right-wing tool, who should KNOW better.

Knock yourself out. Ralph Nader is part of the problem, and part of the One Percent.

Cognitive dissonance, anyone? Bueller?

[mattclearing]

354. You could say the same things of most of the Dems in congress.

Many of them take contributions from republican backers and have mutual fund investments that include the military industrial complex. You don't seem too concerned about them. Don't pretend this is about anything but the 2000 election.

[MADem]

359. If you really want to do that, then start your own thread on the topic and have at it.

I challenge you to find me a Democrat who talks the same trash as Saint Ralph does.

The problem with Ralph--the one you're willfully ignoring--is that he says one thing and does another.

He invests in war stocks, takes profit from war, while decrying it. He claims to be opposed to abrogation of worker rights, while he holds stock in CISCO and Walmart and McDonald's. He trashes Democrats and sells a bunch of idealistic college kids on his bullshit proclamations, while he rakes in the profits from his GOP-friendly corporate investments. He is a One Percenter. It was IN HIS INTEREST, both in terms of his media profile and his portfolio, to see Bush in the White House. He did his job very, very well.

Hypocrite is not that hard a word to spell.

Ralph talks trash about Democrats in order to elect Republicans. I don't see any of your so-called DINOs doing that.

But, again, you're off topic. The topic is Ralph "Lying Bullshitter" Nader. Not "Those so-called DINO guys are no better..." even though they don't shift votes to the GOP like Saint Ralph does.

[mattclearing]

369. My only point here is that you don't subject anyone else to the same scrutiny/standards. n/t

[MADem]

395. If you want to talk about someone else, fire up a thread about them and let's have at it.

This thread is about Ralph Nader, the faux progressive.

Here's a tip of the Ralph iceberg: http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm#vindictive


...Unfortunately, Nader has become exactly what he attacks. His organizations allow no public input, intimidate foes and journalists, bust unions, hide almost all details of their finances (to the point of breaking laws), and have amassed millions of dollars - all under Nader's direct and autocratic control. Meanwhile, Ralph has gotten rich off of investments in stock; in other words, by owning and profiting off the very corporations he is attacking.

Anti-Democratic Authoritarian:

Saint Ralph loves to preach about democracy and "citizen power", but he runs his carefully concealed empire with an iron grip. Of 19 groups associated with Nader, the most powerful and important groups are all directly controlled by Nader or completely under his influence and no one else's. With some groups, Nader is the only contributor; others are controlled by his sister, Laura Nader Milleron, or his cousin.
And there is nothing democratic about Nader's groups -- citizens have no power at all. Of 19 groups in Nader's network, only one relatively minor one is a membership organization, which would allow individuals to vote and challenge the decisions of the small elite running them. The groups' managers operate in strict secrecy, releasing the absolute legal minimum of information, and sometimes not even that. And when Nader IS challenged, he gets vindictive and often attacks his questioner.

Nader and his PIRG groups also fought for (and got) a very coercive funding mechanism -- dues charged automatically to all college students, whether they support Nader or not.

[Chisox08]

423. Nader didn't "take votes" from Gore

In 2000 I knew some Nader supporters and there was no way in hell the would have voted for Gore, even if Nader hadn't ran. They would have stayed home and voted for nobody.

[MADem]

428. Ah yes, "you knew some," so therefore your experience is controlling across the depth and breadth of

the land.

[Chisox08]

436. I never said that it applied to every Nader voter just the ones I knew

[MADem]

440. So, it's anecdotal. It doesn't hold sway, then. nt

[Chisox08]

466. Saying every Nader voter would have voted for Gore just doesn't make sense

[MADem]

479. No one has made that claim. nt

[Ken Burch]

465. Why can't you admit that the Democratic ticket helped cause those idealists to go away

by making it clear that it wasn't interested in reaching out to them or engaging them on the issues they cared about?

Yes, it would have been better if all progressives had voted for Gore, but it was Gore's fault and his campaign's fault that they didn't. There was nothing in the 2000 campaign that offered any good reason for them to do so.

Why, after all this time, are you STILL bound and determined to deny that this party has some responsibility for the defection of progressive votes in 2000? Why can't you admit that it's simply stupid and wrong for Democratic presidential candidates to focus their fall campaigns solely on "the center"?

Progressive votes, like any others, have to be earned. They can't just be demanded. Is there something wrong with admitting that, after all this time?

[MADem]

473. No one is making anyone stay. If you don't like the party--leave. See if you can get a better

deal elsewhere.

Here's an idea--try working from within. Try getting out there and supporting local candidates to your liking. Or run yourself. That's how you make change--incrementally.


When I look at 2000, I see one of the most brilliant disinformation campaigns on record--run by the GOP through their front man, Ralph Nader. Anyone who was stupid enough to vote for that clown shares the blame for Bush. His reputation preceded him, but too many "I wanna believe!" acolytes thought that they would be "cool" and "edgy" and "different" by going with the "unique and quirky" guy because, like, dude, he's like, different, ya know? He's not, like, all corporate and stuff, dude. All these people had to do was scratch the surface and see what "Saint Ralph" was all about (all of the information about him WAS available back then to anyone with a mouse and a computer and an internet connection) --but they were too busy patting themselves on the back for being "ahead of the political curve" and they helped all of the voting machine riggers and vote suppressors and voting list purgers and the Supreme Court to give us eight years of hell.

You know, that GOP base doesn't always get what they want, either. Nor do the far righties or the centrists in the GOP. But they somehow find a way to tolerate even an unattractive party line and/or they have an ability to take a long view.

I find it funny how so many people who call themselves progressive cannot, themselves, take a long view. It makes me wonder sometimes, particularly when the perfect is made the enemy of the good--and always, always in an election year--never in an off year. I will tell you this--the people I have met, here in the real world, who insist that they are HYPER liberals and ultra progressives, and who complain the loudest, often as not do not vote, and some aren't even registered. When I say WTF? I get told "Well man, the parties are all the same....!"
Yeah....right.

So why even waste time with them? They just like the attention, they aren't helping. They're like those fake "undecideds" that the networks drag out every four years to poll about who they're gonna vote for, who sit there with their finger up their nose going "Gee, I dunno--I liked what this guy said about X, but I like the other one's hair!" The truth is this--anyone who is "undecided" in this election, or the one four years ago, or the one eight years ago, is a fucking IDIOT. And the people who will withhold their vote because they aren't getting everything they want? They're dumb as posts, too. The lines are very clearly drawn--either you are voting for the "Sanity" ticket, or the "Batshit Crazy Fundy Hellhole" ticket. Pick one.

I think the lesson of 2000 is this: spend less time kowtowing to people who aren't going to help you anyway. Refute their shit and tell them to participate in the process instead of complaining about it. Get out that REAL base--the ones who vote for Democrats, reliably, year in, year out. Reach out to registered voters who are independents. Register people who support the party. GOTV on election day. Speak frankly and honestly about what we hope to accomplish, and don't make bullshit promises that won't bear fruit. Be real.

Being real, though, doesn't mean you'll necessarily get what you want.

[Ken Burch]

474. There was nothing for progressives in the Gore program in 2000

Fine, they should have voted for Gore by default, but we both know that such votes could never be positive votes for progressive politics or any sort of popular gains. We both know Gore was a status quo candidate and that there was no good reason to run a status quo candidate in 2000. The progressive wing was owed a return to influence in the party at that point...There was no good reason to run someone who's program was "I'll be just like Clinton". There was no good reason to stay the course when the failure to regain Congress for four straight years(when we were should have just automatically retaken the House in 2006 after the Gingrich shutdown)proved that bland centrist politics doesn't work for this party.

And no progressives were able to do anything at all working within the Democratic Party in the Nineties. Clinton had total control and tolerated no dissent. There was no debate, and we ended up in 1996 with TWO parties that hated the poor(we lost any right to ask poor people to vote Democratic after Clinton signed the welfare bill-we made it clear we weren't on their side). Those who wanted cuts in the war budget were silenced within the party in the Nineties...there were NO instances of any progressive victories over the DLC on any issue ever during that decade. How can you demand people stay loyal to a party that does all it can(as the party did than)to drive them away?

Can you at least admit, at the very least, that the progressive wing of the party NEVER deserved the treatment it got from Clinton and Gore in those years? Can you at least admit that there was no good reason to put all those good people totally out in the cold that whole decade? To create a climate in which ceo's and defense contractors mattered to a "Democratic" administration but workers and the poor didn't(and clearly, Clinton's support of free trade proved he never cared about the poor and the workers at any point in his life, because you can't care about those people AND kowtow to multinational corporations at the same time)?

You say progressives should have worked within the party. If you felt that way, you had an obligation AT THE TIME to stand up to the DLC and tell them to stop silencing all debate. And, really, you had an obligation to support a primary challenge to Clinton in 1996, since he'd stopped being a Democrat once and for all with the way he'd run things in his first term.

The base of the GOP right, by contrast to the base of OUR party(none of which is "centrist" in the economic royalist DLC sense)were never, EVER treated as contemptuously by Reagan or either Bush as our base was treated in the Nineties. If you are going to condemn progressives for leaving(and most of those who left worked their asses off for Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale and even Carter, if you're going to be honest about it)then you need to admit that it was wrong for the party to spend the Nineties treating progressives and activists as if they were to blame for all the defeats in the Seventies and the Eighties, and thus had to be punished and totally disregarded by the party just to get someone CALLING himself a Democrat elected. The truth is we'd have lost every election we lost in those decades, and by just as large a margin, even if all our candidates had been just like Clinton and everyone damn well knows it.

Why was it asking so much for progressives, for people who'd marched for peace and civil rights, for people who'd walked picket lines, to be treated with as much respect as ceo's and merchants of war? It's not like it gained us any votes when Clinton told the left to fuck off and die.

The lesson is clear-progressive votes need to be earned just like centrist votes. Why can't some people accept that? Why SHOULD the Democratic party just be able to demand progressive votes without ever moving towards progressives at all?
How is there any legitimacy at all in treating people like that. Loyalty always has go in both directions. Is this too much for you to grasp?

Do you actually drink the Joe Klein "America is a center-right country" koolaid?

[MADem]

478. You keep replying twice to my posts. It's a bit annoying.

I'll just say this--Clinton had that "total control" because no one else would step the fuck up and lead. He was a damn governor from Arkansas, not a Goliath. He took charge and so what? Those that can, DO. Those that can't, sit on the sidelines and mumble, and then write shitty mean retrospectives years later to try to make a buck while minimizing their own failures (hello, Stephanopolous!).

I knew what Clinton was doing. I didn't agree with him all the time, but I was damn glad that he had the deck and the conn and was willing to step up and lead. Just because I didn't agree with everything he did, I never felt like I was treated "contemptuously." See, I understand the whole "Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good" thing. Most people I know--who do get involved, either a bit or a lot, in elections, big and small-- feel the same way. Of course, I hang around with people who are active and do actually work to get candidates elected. So no, I can't "admit" what you want from me, because I just do not buy your argument.

Maybe spending more time on a local election would help your perspective. If not, maybe you really are in the wrong place and you'll never be happy. All I can say is, if Wellstone and Kennedy and Feingold could deal, I am challenged to understand why someone who purports to understand their ideals can't "get" the Big Picture like they did. They certainly managed to hang in there and do their pissing from inside the tent out--I just find it odd that someone without their responsibilities, their workload, their challenges, thinks it's somehow optimal to stand outside the tent pissing in.

[Ken Burch]

481. All "Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good" ever meant was

"Check your dreams and your soul at the door". It never lead to anything of value for this party.

It was and is an arrogant attitude. It's a demand to be freed from accountability.

And Wellstone and Feingold NEVER accepted that the way things were done in the Nineties was the only way things COULD be done. Neither did Teddy. They played the hand they were dealt, but they weren't down with it.

BTW, I've worked in Democratic politics since 1976(on many local campaigns, a number of which were successful), so I don't deserve that "I'm involved and you aren't" tone. Neither do any of the others you unleash it on. Those to your left are just as involved as you are. You don't speak for all of those who are involved.

[MADem]

482. Maybe that means that to you. Don't try to tell me what it means to me.

I'll take a Dem any day over a Republican. Without apologies and with conditions, even. I am not stupid and I perceive a real difference in how each party regards the middle class, the poor, the people in need of a social safety net. If you don't, well bully for you.

If you think that's "arrogant," all I can say is you live in your own head and you can think what you'd like.

It doesn't bother me that you don't see things my way. I don't see things your way, so I guess we're even.

[Ken Burch]

475. You assume that nobody tried working from within

And you forget that, in the Nineties(the decade that produced the Nader campaigns)it was IMPOSSIBLE for progressives to work within the Democratic party.

This led us, in 1996, to a Democratic platform that Gerald Ford could have run on. Even you would have to admit that it was a disgrace that our party went that far to the right in that decade and that internal democracy was essentially abolished during that time.

We ONLY have a reason exist as a party when we fight for the powerless. The DLC forbade the party to do that and silenced all opposition and all free speech in the Democratic ranks. It was a time when people like Paul Wellstone and Russ Feingold were always disregarded, when Marian Wright Edelman was ignored by both Bill and Hillary(she had a RIGHT to expect that Hillary would fight for Bill to veto the welfare bill), when Bill Clinton fought only for free trade and didn't even try to get healthcare reform.

For the love of God, remember what a decade of utter misery the Nineties were...what a time of total waste and failure.

[MADem]

477. Name them. Everyone I've talked to -- and I mean face-to-face--talks a great game of complaints,

but they have never precinct walked, collected signatures, done a voter registration drive, volunteered to smile and dial for a candidate, driven any little old ladies to the polls...nothing, nada, zip.

They just gripe.

Now that is my experience, YMMV.

People keep whining about the DLC, but here's a little fact--the DLC does NOT EXIST ANYMORE. Stop punching at ghosts. The DLC came into being for the purposes of beating the GOP at their own game and they did succeed at that, even if they did have to jink right here and there to do it--but dammit, they WON. Which is a helluva lot more than some whining vegan playing Joan Baez as a campaign song would have done. We were able to acquire power and we DID get some shit done. As for the DLC, they are dead. Done. Kaput. No more. They did what they did, and then they went away. Their paperwork is in boxes at the Clinton Foundation--they are a piece of HISTORY.

So, sorry, I can't take listening to the DLC bugaboo argument. Say what you want about those guys, they played hardball, they acquired power, and they did what a bunch of gripers never were able to accomplish. That said, they're in the past. They're dead and buried. So are the nineties. Time marches on. We all need to keep up. I am old, but even I get that.

[Ken Burch]

480. How many people have you talked to?

There's no way you've met every activist in the country. Or even everybody who made the choice to vote Nader in 2000.
Many of those people had worked for the party for decades...sometimes when nobody else would. And rather than being rewarded for their loyalty, they were given the blame for all the party's troubles, when, in truth, they weren't to blame for any of them. ANY Democrat would have lost 49 states to Nixon in 1972(even Scoop Jackson and for damn sure Humphrey). ANY Dem would have lost 49 states to Reagan in 1984(even John Glenn or Ernest Hollings). And any Dem would have lost 44 states to Bush the First in 1988(even Clinton or Gore). And you damn well know it.

And it wasn't just about the DLC...it was about the whole idea that our party HAD to tell all these people to fuck off, to tell them that what they lived and died for didn't matter to the party anymore(that "winning an election" was ALL that mattered...oh, and btw, we could have beaten Bush the First with ANY Democrat in 1992...it didn't have to be the most right-wing, anti-labor, pro-corporate death penalty freak we could possibly find).

The notion that the base is the enemy, that activists are the enemy, still lives on in the highest sectors of our party, DLC or not. So it doesn't matter whether the DLC exists or not anymore.

It's that attitude...the attitude that everybody except the ceo's and the Southern sheriffs had to be told to "pound sand and peddle it walking", that drove people to the choices they made in 1996 and, to a larger degree, 2000. If we'd even had a primary challenge in 1996(which Clinton clearly deserved, and which would have done no real harm, since Clinton and Dole agreed on everything but a few trivial side issues)the Nader phenomenon might well have been prevented. But it was never going to be prevented simply by DEMANDING that progressives support a party whose presidential candidates had no respect for them. They were OWED respect in exchange for their votes. That wasn't asking too much.

If you want to make sure THAT never happens again, learn from it. We must never again be a party in which those who want the least change possible, and the least debate possible are given unchallenged dominance.

[MADem]

484. Oh please.

You haven't met every activist in the country, either.

Most of the people I met who were Nader enthusiasts were the usual suspects--always complaining, always touting Third Party candidates, always intruding into Democratic fundraisers to gripe and complain, despite never handing over a dime or a vote. Fuck 'em. They don't deserve my attention or my time. I'll spend time with the little old ladies who vote reliably for Democrats, I'll drive them to the polls and the hairdresser and the grocery store--that's a far better use of my time than listening to some vote suppressing whiner who will not help my candidate.

Look, your glass is plainly half empty, and you're working hard to knock it over so you will surely die of thirst. I think that's your wish. That is how you're coming off. That's fine--knock yourself out.

My glass is more than half full. I like being a Democrat and I have no problem supporting the Obama - Biden ticket. If you think they suck, then go work for someone with no chance of winning, if it makes you happy. I'm not going to play Frank Luntz to the Undecideds, begging and pleading. Screw it. You do what you gotta do.

What you call "the base" is not the base. I keep saying that, you keep ignoring it. The base is the people who vote reliably -- not the very vocal people who stomp their feet and run off to meaningless third parties to "make a point" and "teach 'em a lesson." Those people are whiners, they are not the base--they are the FRINGE.

I guess the old Lead, Follow, or Get the Hell Out of the Way applies, here. Find a candidate you like and work to put them in office. Then find another, and another. Live your values instead of griping at people because they don't think the way you do.

Or stay on the fringe and call it the base--I'm too busy trying to help Dems get or stay in office. That, to me, is a good use of my time.

[Ken Burch]

468. Ralph wouldn't have won ANY votes in 2000

If OUR party hadn't made it clear that progressives, labor, and the poor didn't matter to its presidential ticket.

You don't have to like Ralph to admit that focusing solely on the bland center in the fall doesn't work for us anymore. Or to admit that we can only win if we CHALLENGE corporate power, rather than give it luxury boxes at our conventions.

[MADem]

485. You keep replying more than once to a single post. Please stop doing that. nt

[Ken Burch]

506. Sometimes it's necessary, when more than one point in your posts needs to be responded to.

It's about avoiding a single, cumbersome run-on post.

Plenty of people have done multiple responses to my posts...and to others.

If it bothers you that much, put me on "ignore".

[MADem]

509. It's bothersome--better to edit your post instead of adding on.

Just because other people tolerate it doesn't make it polite.

The best thing is to take your time formulating your reply--then you don't miss any points in the first place. Much better than playing the "Oh...and ONE MORE THING..." game.

I don't "ignore" people. I would find that kind of over-reaction to a bit of sloppy housekeeping/bad nettiquette a bit immature.

[Ken Burch]

512. I'll take your comment here under consideration.

n/t.

[Ken Burch]

467. This isn't about Ralph's personal character. It's about the point he's making here

That point isn't discredited by the guy's personal inconsistencies.

Democratic fall campaigns CAN'T focus solely on "the center". The base has to be treated as equally important in the fall.
The other party never leaves THEIR base out in the cold or treats it as the enemy.

Our party does, and it's time to admit that our party is always wrong to do that. OK?

[MADem]

472. Sorry, it IS about his personal character, because when you understand his personal character, you

understand--all too clearly--his motivations.

He doesn't care about "We The People." Not one bit.

He cares about himself, and his behavior demonstrates that quite clearly.

You watch RMoney tack left in the debates. Watch. I've seen him do it before. You can see it too--just go to Youtube and watch his gubernatorial debates and his hilarious attempt to debate Ted Kennedy for Ted's Senate seat. He'll veer left and some well-fed nitwit will say "Oh he's just saying that to get elected." But it will happen.

Our party treats the people who are loyal to the party well. It doesn't have time for scolds, shamers, people who yell but don't vote, and people who don't contribute--in time or money. They're more interested in motivating the already-inclined. Seriously, if the Democrats have to spend all their time begging and pleading, then there's no time left for care and feeding of the REAL base--which is not the people who are complaining that the party is not sufficiently left.

The fact of the matter is, like it or not, that the real base are senior citizens, minority communities, women, people who give a shit about essential social justice, a safety net for all, a living wage, decent schools, jobs, people who understand that more Scalias on the court will be a disaster, and--hate to break it to you-- these people, many of them, are those awful "centrists" that some people just love to hate. THAT's "the base"--not all of the crabbers and gripers who plan on withholding their vote because their causes aren't placed first in the pecking order of important stuff the Dems need to do.

[this is unreal.]

299. Yup, grabbing their ankles whilst accepting the hot beef injection of Wall Street

In any case, it's all Illuminati--a rigged game. I look at it now as professional wrestling. It keeps me from too much.

[Chorophyll]

385. YES.

Thank you.

[Major Nikon]

241. You could say the same about Larry Flynt

Just sayin'

[FarPoint]

259. I adore larry Flynt.

Really I do....he took a bullet for the first amendment.

[mattclearing]

336. Agreed. n/t

[Ken Burch]

456. We're past 2000 now, for God's sake.

That election wasn't the only one that mattered.

The point is to listen to the truth, no matter who says it.

You know perfectly well that the only reason we're not way ahead of Romney is that our party's "strategists" are running a bland, timid campaign. We need to admit that campaigns like that never work. Agreed?

[pnwmom]

200. Why doesn't Nader try to help the Dems beat the extremists?

He doesn't think the Dems are pure enough, so he'd rather sit on the sidelines and cheer the Rethugs on.

[russspeakeasy]

378. Because he needs the spotlight and nobody will give it to him.

Somebody needs to hire him to mow lawns or something.

[Ken Burch]

492. We shouldn't reduce ourselves to just "beating the extremists"

Every race should be about electing not only a Democrat but a Dem that will actually fight for the powerless and the non-corporate majority.

Electing bland centrists isn't worth anyone's time. Centrist politicians don't ever end up being part of the solution in this country.

The 'Pugs are vile, but they at least stand by their convictions. Our party's leaders act like we can't ever do that, that we've permanently lost the argument and can no nothing but tinker slightly around the edges. This is the path to continual defeat. We need to campaign like we can actually win people over to a clear alternative to the corporations-first, war-first policies of the other party.

[yellowcanine]

417. Only in a narrow sense. And he has done precious little to support the case against the

Republicans. Tends to only show up in presidential election years. He was pretty much AWOL during the ACA debate and the debt limit debates, for example. It is damn easy to sit on the sidelines and snipe about others being cowards.

[Zalatix]

165. Can we recognize his statement as correct?

If we must shoot the messenger, at least validate his message.

Cowardice always means defeat. He is right about that.

[MADem]

283. No, we can't. We can recognize it as quite possibly ghost written by Karl Rove.

Or someone with that same, shitty, mendacious and corporate mindset.

That's a dirty campaign trick--like LBJ used, eons ago. You call someone a coward, it's like calling them a pig fucker. Doesn't matter if it's true, the joy comes in hearing the individual try to deny it.

So fuck Ralph Nader and his Halliburton/CISCO/Raytheon/Walmart/Gap/General Dynamics/Big Oil stock holdings.

Ralph is one of those one percenters -- and he's laughing--at you, at me, and even at his little unthinking, unblinking, unquestioning cultish, worshippers--all the way to the bank.

[Zalatix]

338. I for one would label the Blue Dogs as cowards. Or traitors.

[MADem]

344. They never talked like Nader and invested like Bush, though. Nadar did exactly that. nt

[Marr]

358. Right, they talk *and* invest like Bush.

So much more noble.

[MADem]

362. So, you're saying "Bullshit the stooges with progressive talk/invest like a Republican" is better?

Seems to me you're complaining that people whose collars and cuffs match are somehow "wrong" for not lying to their constituents?

I really don't take your point one bit.

Go on, keep supporting the GOP enabler if it makes you feel good. You KNOW, now, what he is all about. You can't play the wide-eyed innocent anymore. His agenda doesn't include your well-being...it's all about HIS. He'll gladly use you to get his way, though, and it sounds like you're willing to go along with that.

[Marr]

400. Will you stop calling everyone a Nader supporter, for Christ's sake?

And I still don't see how you can consider politicians who both talk and invest like a Bush to be somehow morally superior. If you can attack Nader for his investments, acknowledge that it's also a problem for your blessed Blue Dogs.

You're attacking Nader for behavior you excuse in others. The double standard makes the criticism seem irrational.

[MADem]

402. Ralph Nader is not a politician. He's a tool of the GOP. Politicians win the occasional contest.

If you want to complain about "others," you are free to start your own thread about that very topic you find so interesting. Let me know where it is and I'll join in.

And I don't own any "blessed blue dogs." My dog is white, and I'm from Massachusetts, but thanks for your 'concern.'

I'm attacking Nader for a lot more than his sources of income, insider trading and stock manipulation:

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

[catbyte]

426. Ditto, HappyMe. Fuck Ralph Nader.

Diane
Anishinaabe in MI & mom to Taz, Nigel, and new baby brother Sammy, members of Dogs Against Romney, Cat Division
"Dogs Aren’t Luggage--HISS!”

[Ken Burch]

455. It doesn't matter that's Ralph...what matters is that it's right.

A left-populist Democratic ticket would be ten-to-fifteen points ahead of Romney right now. It's only the centrism that's keeping it close.

Learn from history. Centrism and "bipartisanship" don't work anymore, and they never will again, now that the moderate wing of the GOP is extinct.

[Egalitarian Thug]

463. They're bound and determined to avoid learning this lesson, it doesn't fit their internal

narrative. The Democratic Party is controlled by a minority of well-funded republican plants speaking for a vocal minority of disaffected republicans.

Ralph was right in 2000, as were hundreds of writers, actors, politicians, comedians, columnists, reporters, scientists, Nobel Prize winners, activists, clergy, leaders of industry, labor leaders, military leaders, etc., going back decades.

We have been warned, and warned, and warned again, and we chose to ignore them every step of the way. We continue choosing to ignore them today.

[Eddie Haskell]

501. Truth hurts

no matter weho the source.

[MADem]

2. Fuck Ralph Nader...

To riff on a theme from one of our very succinct admins.

That guy screwed us in 2000 and now he's telling us what to do?

Fuck Ralph Nader.

[zeemike]

49. Oh that's right.

If Nader had not run then they would not have stole the election...
But it was Pat Buchanan that did it too....30,000 Jewish voters voted for him in one county.
But let's not go there....it is so much easier to blame it on Nader running.... then you don't have to deal with the corruption.

[MADem]

54. To be fair to Pat Buchanan, he was the first person to sound the alarm and say that he KNEW that

there was a problem with the results because he KNEW that all those little old Jewish ladies did not intend to vote for him.

Can't blame Pat Buchanan for a butterfly ballot designed by a Bush Toady.

I do blame Ralph Nader and I will continue to blame him until the day I die. He denied us President Al Gore, through a process of self-aggrandizement, voter suppression, and (we assume unwitting) collusion with the GOP.

Fuck Ralph Nader.

[zeemike]

63. Well your feelings are your own and you can blame him till you die.

But he did NOT deny us a president Gore...that was done by Jeb Bush and Kathy Harris and some clever vote rigging....and had Nadar not been on the ballot there would have been no difference in the outcome....because they had a plan and it was going on with or without Nadar.
But it is easier to blame it on a person than to face the fact that our elections are corrupt and blaming Nadar is just an easy way out.
And If you think that Bush would not have been selected no matter what you are living in a dream world.

[freedom fighter jh]

77. +1 nt

[99Forever]

92. Weak arguments need scapegoats to blame their failures on.

This is a classic example of that. For whatever reason Gore might have failed, it most certainly wasn't because Nader exercised his Constitutional RIGHT to run.

[MADem]

207. Not about his "right." He has every "right." It's all about his shitty, selfish JUDGMENT. nt

[99Forever]

246. I don't argue with people that resort to...

.. to gutter language because they can't make their point in a civil manner. You are dismissed.

[MADem]

273. You are dismissed? What MTV video or teen movie did you get that from?

Thanks for the best laugh of my day, Internet Tough Guy!

Being vociferous doesn't ever make one right. It just makes one loud.




Ooooooh....I've been....dismissed!

[zappaman]

275. LOL

How will you recover?

[MADem]

279. Ha ha ha!

That dude reminds me of one of my uncles from back in the day!

I remember that movie...but what I did not remember is that, if you look on the stage, to the right, the white dude with the supermullet towards the front is "Christopher Moltisanti," (AKA Michael Imperioli) from the Sopranos.

We all gotta start somewhere!!

[zappaman]

284. I love watching old movies and recognizing future faces.

The best still is...

Although this one is good also...

[MADem]

288. My GAWD!!! That first film has an A List cast!

They all must have needed money!!!

You can hardly make out Clint Eastwood in the 2nd flick, he was a real young 'un back then!

[zappaman]

292. I love the DEVIL'S RAIN!

Saw it when it came out. I was 12 years old.
Worth watching!

[MADem]

295. I was in the Middle East and I'd never heard of it before today--it didn't make it over that way ...

Gee, I wonder why? (Church Lady Voice): Could it have been.... sha-tan????

American movies were (still are) popular, but that one wouldn't have flown. Those "devil" themes are just unwelcome, unless it's the Ramadan "Elders of Zion" propaganda favorite!

[zappaman]

296. And it's VERY satanic.

Anton Levay was a supervisor on the film.
I remember him and Ernest Borgnine being on The Mike Douglas Show talking about how realistic it was.
Yeah, guys turning into goats and melting is the height of realism.

[MADem]

301. The Mike Douglas Show!!!!

I wish they'd rerun that on TV Land...along with Merv Griffin, Dinah Shore, all the old daytime talkers.

I didn't get to see them all the time, but when I did, I enjoyed the hell out of them!

I'd love to see old Carson shows on TV, too--but his estate is still making money selling them on DVD.

[zappaman]

352. Well, we were just discussing Ernest Borgnine and now he is dead.

So, how about that Dick Cheney guy, eh?

[MADem]

360. Ha ha ha! Followed by a sob and some fond memories...

I shouldn't laugh, that's a bit creepy...it's happened to me about four times in the past month, where I've talked about someone and they ended up dead.

Poor old EB--I always liked "McHale." Loved "Marty," too. He wasn't the most "politically correct" guy going, but his age probably influenced a lot of his somewhat regressive attitudes.

And the tales of his ill-fated marriage to Ethel Merman were always hilarious!

Time marches on. A very good actor. Still too young at 95, IMO.

[MADem]

199. I will. For want of FL a Presidency was lost. nt

[Iggy]

256. The Gore Apologists are Hilarious

First of all, Gore couldn't even win his home state, Tennessee. what does THAT tell us?

Second, Gore couldn't muster a win in Ohio-- critical for anyone serious about winning the election. Even
if you add Nader's votes to Gore's (pretending those voters would have automatically voted for
Gore had Nader not been on the ballot) the math doesn't work. it's still a win for W by 50,000 votes.

Third, Gore stupidly thought he was as popular as Clinton, and thought he could win _wiithout_ Clinton's help.
BIG mistake.

Finally, I was "blogging" over at Salon's public forum in 1999-2000, where 99.9% of the "progressives"
there were predicting a "landslide" victory for Gore, they were slapping their knees and guffawing loudly
over the "nobody hick governor from TX", how he "didn't have a chance against Gore", blah, blah.

Well? what happened?

Here's what: Gore was not a great candidate (outside of political Bloggo world which frequently gets it
wrong) and he ran a very dumb campaign.

Not only was this not a landslide victory, it was one of the closest races in U.S. history (if not THE closest)
in terms of the popular vote.

Blaming it all on Nader is a weak excuse.

[MADem]

280. Yeah, what did happen, "Blogger?"

The GOP engaged in voter suppression and outright vote fraud, aided and abetted by their Little Buddy, "Ralphie The Tool" Nader.

The most effective cheating is done within the margins. You're trying to suggest that because a small cadre of self-important "bloggers" over at the itty-bitty universe of Salon were chortling and laughing over a done deal, that this somehow translates to feelings held by the rest of us who worked our fucking asses off getting out the vote only to find that the voting machines were rigged. Well, you'd be wrong there, too.

No one is "blaming it all on Nader." He was just a stinking, steaming piece of the GOP shit pie. He was an enabler interested in his own self-aggrandizement. If you regard that corporate toady sitting on his Raytheon and Cisco stock as a hero, you are willfully ignoring what he really is.

It's not like the information isn't out there. It's easy to find.

[Iggy]

375. You've Got to Be Kidding

the criticism of Nader as self-centered is about as ignorant and misinformed as it gets.

I can tell your a hard core Gore supporter-- no problem, but don't expect the rest of us to drink the Kool-Aid
when we know how the election went down

Ralph Nader's activism is responsible for saving hundreds, probably thousands of lives. Hellooooooooo? ever hear
of seat belts??? Air bags?

You think the wonderful, benevolent car companies _voluntarily_ added those safety features to the products they
were making a huge profit from?

"funny" how it's taken progressives thirty years to catch up with Nader. it took the destruction of our economy (by
wreckless, unregulated corporations) for some of you to _finally_ get it.'t

This is why I don't hold out much hope for the so called progressives in our nation

[MADem]

384. Nader is a tool.

Anyone who would call Obama, after he won the election, an Uncle Tom on FauxSnooze merits no respect from me. And anyone who would say such a thing is no progressive, "so-called" or otherwise.

Nader should have stuck to auto safety. As a Presidential candidate and a scold of the Democrats (to the benefit of the Republicans) for the last twelve years, he is a tool of the GOP.

No one has "caught up" with Nader. Anyone with judgment has his number, is all.

[sabrina 1]

107. Gore won the election. So what exactly are you

blaming Nader for? His actions were legal, this is a democracy, you don't get to blame a legal candidate for the theft of an election, WON by Gore, by the Supreme Court. No matter how many times anyone tries to make it so. Facts are facts.

Again, Gore won the 2000 election. And it was NOT Nader who stole it from him, it was the criminals on the SC.

[MADem]

203. I am blaming Nader for not putting the group before himself.

He saw how tight the numbers were, he knew it would be close. If it were me in that position, I'd strike a deal with my closest ally, negotiate for a cabinet position or "kitchen cabinet" task force in order to be inside the tent pissing out, as LBJ would say, and urge my voters to get out and work their asses off for the ally.

So fuck Ralph Nader. I'm tired of hearing from him. He is a petty little scold, a "do as I say, not as I do" attention-seeker.

The point isn't what is "legal," the point is, why would I listen to an asshole who is SO selfish that he'd fuck society for his own anxiously-sought-after self-aggrandizement? If he couldn't see that a) He had no chance of winning; and b) That there was a real difference between Bush and Gore and Bush would be a disaster; then I think the guy is pretty damn stupid. So, if the guy is stupid, why do I want, or need, to hear the pontificating whining of that cheap-ass millionaire who plays poor (while investing in an anti-union corporation) in an effort to con his acolytes?

He was given an opportunity to guide the course of history, but all he could think about was himself.

http://www.salon.com/2000/06/20/nader_10/

[AndyTiedye]

209. It Was Worse Than That, Nader Was Running a Spoiler Campaign ON PURPOSE

In every swing state that Gore needed to win, there was Nader, campaigning against him.

Nader told us he was just trying to get to the 5% threshold. So why was he doing it in those small swing states instead
of big states like California and New York that were safe Democratic states with plenty of potential Nader voters?

Whether the Repigs could have stolen the election without Nader or not, Nader's intent was perfectly clear —
to run as a spoiler and throw the election to the Repiglickins.

[zappaman]

213. Gore pretty much spoiled it himself

when he ran away from the CLINTON record and chose Joe "Douchebag" Lieberman as his running mate.
When a sitting VP runs for POTUS and can't even win his home fucking state, the fault is his and his alone.

[MADem]

218. Didn't he take GOP money, as well? And wasn't there a GOP campaign to funnel money to him to keep

him going?

Talk about a tool--a tool in every menial respect of the word.

Not surprising from a guy who invests in a union busting concern.

[sabrina 1]

214. Why the focus on Nader, that is my question? We KNOW all the dirty tricks that

were perpetrated by the Republicans to try to steal that election. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Democrats who voted for Bush eg.

Has everyone forgotten Katherine Harris? Karl Rove? The voter purges? The machines?

And even with all their dirty tricks and outright criminal activities, Gore still won. Even if Nader had not been in the race at all, that election would have been stolen. They couldn't win, even with all their dirty tricks, but their Ace in the Hole was the SC. And they, more than all the rest, committed the worst crime, because they are in such a position of trust that their abuse of that trust alone, was a crime. But to abuse it to steal an election, as Vincent Bugliosi said 'none dare call it treason', because that kind of crime was so beyond imagination when the laws governing treason were written, it is not actually included.

But as he further stated, it may not be possible under any statute to charge them with treason, but it was in fact treason. They became domestic enemies when they decided to interfere in an election like that and stop the counting of votes.

Had all the votes been counted, we know now, Gore would have won. He did win. My objection to the constant harping on one minor issue in that horrendous, shameful historical event, is that it covers for the real and actual crimes that were committed.

Edited to add, the out of proportion focus on Nader, in light of the real outrages that occurred in that election, makes zero sense to me, unless you are Republican and would prefer to ignore the actual crimes committed by your party. Any outrage expressed over that election should always be directed to the actual reason for what happened, NOT at a minor part of it, not even at the Democrats who voted for Bush. Those were legal actions, no matter how wrong-headed. But to ignore the real crimes in favor of something so minor and LEGAL, is very, very strange to me.

[zappaman]

215. All true

and as I said above, does no one remember Joe "Douchebag" Leiberman?
(sorry, I just like writing Joe "Douchebag" Leiberman...)

[sabrina 1]

216. I did not know who Lieberman was back then. If I knew then what I know now

about him, I would have been very worried that Gore picked him of all people as his VP. But I'm sure other people knew. Which might have affected their view of Gore himself.

What is it with the Dem Party and Lieberman anyhow? He supports McCain/Palin in the last election and this time says 'he's still thinking about who he will support', but the Dem Party gives him Committees to Chair and never even threatens to remove them.

I don't get it.

[MADem]

220. Lieberman was a principled moderate back then, with a gentler world-view.

He only got shrill and nasty after "his" seat was primaried. Then, to preserve "his" authority, he got in bed with the GOP. That pissed off a lot of Dems, of course, and even though he caucused with us because he had relationships that went back decades, and we desperately need his vote on a few vital issues, he was and is tainted.

The stink on him causes him to be resentful and angry, and the rest is history. However, so long as we need his sorry ass vote and his caucusing with the Dems to preserve a Senate majority, he'll be tolerated.

Power corrupts. And so on.

[MADem]

217. Katherine Harris wasn't a self-proclaimed lefty. Nor was Rove.

There's a line, and some people fall to the right, others to the left.

When someone on OUR side of the line, in an election that was MOMENTOUS with regard to the direction of the nation, and knowing that HE cannot win but HE can influence the result of the election, doesn't work to help the guy that was going to prioritize clean air, clean water, sustainability, the environment--and Gore would have done a LOT of good that way--and instead, makes it all about his big mouth in a brutally close election, that tells me he's not on OUR side.

He's a greedy little millionaire with a ton of CISCO (union busters) stock. A hypocrite.

Plus, the subject of this thread is that selfish jerk. That's why people are readily giving the FRN salute.

[sabrina 1]

219. Neither were the 300,000 Democrats who voted for Bush.

Why no anger at them? The only people I ever saw focus so strongly on Nader, were right wingers, right after the theft of the election. Iow, people who simply do not like the left and did not want to see the blame placed on Republicans. Nader had zero to do with losig that election because it was not lost. It was stolen.

Yes, the title of this thread is about Nader. Further proof of my contention about the out of proportion outrage at a minor and legal part of one of the great crimes against this country. With zero mention, once again, of the actual crime itself.

[MADem]

224. It's not my job to tell a VOTER what to do. There are plenty of "Reagan Democrats" who have been

de-facto Republicans since before many here were born; just as there are the odd "New England Republicans" and elderly "southern black Republicans" who just haven't changed their party affiliation but who wouldn't vote for a Republican on a bet. Plenty of people also switch parties in an effort to cause mischief. One's voter registration is not always defining.


But this clown Nader sold himself not as a voter, but as a leader on the left, when he was actually a tool of the right and a corporate profiteer. And a selfish attention-seeker. So, I say again: FRN. He coulda done good, but instead, his greed and hubris defined him.

[MannyGoldstein]

268. It wasn't Gore's job to win those votes

nor was it Gore's fault that he fought tooth and claw for job-destroying NAFTA, etc.

You and I both know that what really counts is that someone tried to stop the craven Democratic triangulation - *that* person must be power-shunned as an example to any who might not embrace the Third Way. Because, after all, 20 years of Third Way domination of our party has worked so well for everyone.

[MADem]

282. Ralph Nader took money from Republicans so that Republicans could defeat Democrats.

Ralph Nader has a non-progressive stock portfolio. Ralph Nader doesn't care about progressives, otherwise he'd work to make our government more progressive, not less. He can kvetch about what people don't do, but he hasn't had a clue in decades.

Ralph Nader is all about Ralph Nader. He doesn't give a fuck about "stopping craven triangulation"--he cares about Ralph Nader. The only saving grace is that he can't get younger. Time takes care of all of us.

Let's take a trip down memory lane, shall we, and have a look at a few of Ralph's investments, some donated to "his" public interests groups, so he has use of the cash without having to pay taxes on it? http://www.salon.com/2000/10/28/stocks_4/

...But even if Fidelity were to divest its holdings in Occidental, it holds shares in so many companies Nader has crusaded against, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that Nader’s participation in the fund is supremely hypocritical. The fund, for example, owns stock in the Halliburton Company, where George W. Bush’s running mate, Dick Cheney, recently worked as president and COO. The fund has investments in supremely un-p.c. clothiers the Gap and the Limited, both of which have been the target of rocks by World Trade Organization protesters, as well as Wal-Mart, the slayer of mom-and-pop stores from coast to coast.

...In a June interview with the Washington Post about his millionaire earnings — much of which he has donated to his public interest groups — Nader said the stocks he chose were “the most neutral-type companies … No. 1, they’re not monopolists and No. 2, they don’t produce land mines, napalm, weapons.”

But this is not true. The Fidelity Magellan fund owns 777,080 shares of Raytheon, a major missile manufacturer. And this isn’t the only example of his rhetoric not matching up with his financial investments.

“I’m quite aware of how the arms race is driven by corporate demands for contracts, whether it’s General Dynamics or Lockheed Martin,” Nader told the Progressive in April. “They drive it through Congress. They drive it by hiring Pentagon officials in the Washington military industrial complex, as Eisenhower phrased it.” The Fidelity Magellan fund owns 2,041,800 shares of General Dynamics.

Sheesh. Get with the program. Ralph doesn't care about you. He cares that his CISCO stock has lost value. Good thing for him that his Raytheon and McDonalds and Wal-Mart and Shell, Sunoco, Exxon-Mobile, etc. holdings are keeping him afloat.

He's a HYPOCRITE with a capital H. If anyone is "craven," it's Ralphie. He runs a cult of personality where his acolytes ignore his inconsistent conduct because they perceive this guy as "one of them," when he's actually one of those One Percenters that everyone is hollering about these days.

[MannyGoldstein]

388. Clinton, Gore and Obama all took vast sums from bankers

Clinton and Obama fought mightily for them. Given his stance on NAFTA and other Third Way delights, we can reasonably assume that he would have too.

Campaign financing is a catastrophe.

But that's not really my point, which is that Nader was only a small problem, if he was a problem at all. I don't know much about him, but he did claim to run in order to call attention to the treachery of triangulation and the Third Way, which is reasonable. The Third Way crowd has been an utter catastrophe, pushing Republicans and our nation further and further to the right for 20 years. And here we are. It would have been nice if it had been stopped in 2000. It would be nice to stop it now.

I think we should stop blaming Nader and start focusing on ridding ourselves of the Third Way plague. When Democrats start to fight for working Americans again, they'll win elections like cray no matter who runs.

[MADem]

391. Nadar was a big problem--he gave us President Bush, and I don't think we should EVER stop blaming

him for that. He knowingly participated in battleground state contests, with GOP funding, with objections from his running mate, for the purpose of pulling away D support and benefitting the GOP. And he absolutely benefited from it; he became very wealthy on Halliburton, General Dynamics, Raytheon, etc. holdings. He had war stocks, and he threw his energies behind the war president. Not once, but twice.

Fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice...won't git fooled agin--Dubya.

Marginalizing that greedy, Phony-Progressive, GOP tool is just a start. But it's a good start.

Again, Fuck Ralph Nader.

[sabrina 1]

289. Lol, yes, of course. We must protect the third way at all costs.

[HiPointDem]

559. so much vitriol for nader, so little effort put into fighting bush's election theft.

[7wo7rees]

222. Thanks Sabrina

[MADem]

225. Your second image is a laugh riot....since Nader made his millions off of union-busting CISCO. nt

[7wo7rees]

231. Yep a riot

But the first image is more for you.

[MADem]

233. And Raytheon...and McDonald's. Yeah, Ralph is a real "champion of the people." A con artist. nt

[PDittie]

153. Theresa LePore was a Democrat

Emphasis on 'was'.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/09/us/2000-elections-palm-beach-ballot-florida-democrats-say-ballot-s-design-hurt-gore.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_LePore

That Nader cost Gore the election is a false premise. An urban legend. It rests upon a foundation of sand: that people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore had Nader not been on the ballot. You might know a few Greens who will quickly disavow you of the notion that they will vote Democrat with no Green option. They will not.

If you still need someone to blame for 2000's debacle, you may pick from among these three more plausible excuses:

1. The SCOTUS cost Gore the election, but only because he gave up fighting to win it.

2. Gore cost himself the election by failing to win either New Hampshire or his home state of Tennessee.

3. As previously mentioned, Theresa LePore designed a ballot that confused nearly 30,000 of her county's voters to mistakenly cast a ballot for Pat Buchanan. (This probably should be #1, but Florida is moot in light of the the above).

But hey, go ahead and fuck Nader all you like if it makes you feel better.

[BlueCaliDem]

171. That's a half truth. LaPore was a registered Republican

but switched her party affiliation to Democrat because the incumbent who position she ran for, was a Democrat.

"LePore was a registered Republican, but then switched her party to Democratic because, according to her, "when I ran [for the supervisor position], I chose Democrat because the incumbent was Democrat and the county registration is predominantly Democrat." After the 2000 election, she switched her party registration to No Party Affiliation."
http://www.factbites.com/topics/Theresa-LePore

Although it notes a link to her Wikipedia, the first part has been scrubbed, but Greg Palast even mentions her Republican-turned-Democrat and nominally Independent in his August 2004 piece when he mentions just how close she'd become with John Ellis Bush (JEB).

[MADem]

208. +1,000 nt

[roseBudd]

258. The butterfly ballot was dumb graphic design....

Lazore thought aligning the second page to the bottom looked funny. There was no user testing.

[BlueCaliDem]

271. Yes. That's the official explanation. I'm not buying it. eom

[PDittie]

350. One of the grandest conspiracy theories yet on this thread.

I make no defense of LePore, but I think attacking her apparently nefarious motivations for the butterfly ballot are just laughable.

It was a poor design made worse by a serious case of Murphy's Law. That's as far as a reasonable person could go.

A far better scapegoat would be to blame all those county elections officials throughout the state for supplying poorer precincts with ballot boxes filled over with chads, which ultimately disenfranchised thousands of minority voters.

Yes there was chaos surrounding the recounting which the Republicans made hay of, to sa nothing of the state and federal court challenges stopping and restarting.

That was just barely an unintended consequence (not the reactions but the circumstances). Not as bad as Choicepoint's caging of voters with names similar to felons, however...

See, there are so many areas to legitimately place blame that I don't get why people without a grudge or a bias have to single out Nader or LePore. I suppose it's just too easy.

[Nativo13]

190. Gore & Clinton & Newt Gingrich Gave Us NAFTA & China MFN: Republicans All

Gore debated against Perot for NAFTA;
Clinton triangulated against the Democrats;
Clinton was a Republican in all but name;
the Democratic élites demonstrated that the only thing important was the "Plum Book".

I had enough of triangulation, Free Trade, and "monitizing" public service.
I voted for Nader, but I live in Texas

[MADem]

197. As you are a newcomer here, I will invite your attention to the TOS.

There's a link at the foot of the page.

You have no idea what President Gore might have done. None of us do. We were denied the proper opportunity to find out.

I hope you're not voting for Nader or some other third party clown this time around--it would be unfortunate for you to waste your vote yet again.

Welcome to DU.

[frylock]

424. TOS is the last refuge of a scoundrel..

always go to the TOS when getting your ass kicked on the facts.

[MADem]

427. No it isn't--it's a friendly notice to someone who is new, so they don't get PPR'd.

What...you'd rather people wander into Third Party Fuck POTUS territory, so they can get their ass handed to them?

How very uncivil, Frylock--I am surprised at you. I don't like seeing newcomers getting pizza before they've even fully familiarized themselves with the site's policies and procedures. Some people do wade in before reading, you know--it happens.

And when the topic is opinion-laden, it's impossible to get one's ass kicked with facts.

[mattclearing]

337. I love how you are concerned with being fair to Pat Buchanan. Comical. n/t

[MADem]

345. What's comical is your insistence that Ralph Nader's POV is progressive, when his conduct and

personal investments prove otherwise.

Pat Buchanan may not be a saint, and you do not see me claiming that he is, but he told the truth in that instance. Why should I be invested in lying about the guy and saying he had feelings that he didn't possess?

You aren't very wired in on the Butterfly Ballot story, clearly, if you could even make such an odd comment. Buchanan's comments were well known to anyone paying even the slightest attention.

[mattclearing]

356. I know the 2000 election like the back of my hand,

and I don't see you bemoaning Pat Buchanan, or where his votes would have gone if he hadn't run.

[MADem]

363. I do not think you do otherwise you wouldn't have made those remarks.

No one is "bemoaning" Pat Buchanan. Do read carefully. PB commented on numerous occasions that he knew those little old ladies weren't voting for him.

That's the extent of my conversation about Pat Buchanan.

The "two wrongs make a right" gambit never works, either. The topic is Ralph Nader and you are plainly having a tough time sticking to it.

[mattclearing]

370. This is where hypocrisy comes into play.

You don't care that Pat Buchanan's (non-butterfly ballot) votes would have gone to Bush.

You give the impression that you think Ralph Nader's votes are more important than Jeb Bush's felon purge, Gore's overvotes, and Scalia's intervention. Ralph Nader isn't the cause of the problem. The cause of the problem is Republicans. Whether or not Nader enabled them, they deserve responsibility for their actions.

[MADem]

374. Now you are proving that you don't know a thing about that election.

Pat Buchanan's non-butterfly presence in the state of Florida was statistically insignificant. Nader polled one point six percent of the vote to Buchanan's (including the butterfly votes) point two percent. There is no equivalence.

The only place Pat got on the map was Palm Beach County. And there, Pat Buchanan's votes would not have gone to Bush. He wouldn't have racked up thousands of votes in that county. Those votes, with a decent ballot, would have gone to Gore.


No one is saying that one thing is more important than the other--so take your felon purges and stuff those.

The point is this--Ralph campaigned as a progressive, but the truth is, he wanted the GOP to win--of course, what else would a guy with a pro-war, anti-worker stock portfolio want? Even today, he's still screeching at the CISCO board of directors because he wants more dividends, dammit!!! CISCO--anti-worker, anti-union. Yeah, Ralph is a real champion of the masses. Not.


But he is one rich One Percenter, thanks to all that Bush War/Oil/Corporate Greed returns over the past decade.

I will agree with you that the cause of the problem was the Republicans, and those who worked for them--and that would include Ralph Nader, who worked with George Bush to defeat Al Gore, who benefitted to the tune of MILLIONS as a result of Bush's election, and whose faux "campaigns" were funded heavily by Republicans to keep him beating up Gore in battleground states.

Ralph is in bed with the GOP and he has been for well over a decade. He's not a progressive--he's a greedy old man with a shitload of hubris. He deserves to be repudiated by anyone with even the slightest ability to connect a dot or two.

Anyone with an internet connection who still buys his bullshit has only themselves to blame.

[mattclearing]

376. Fair enough.

I think the main thing that was bothering me is the idea that Pat Buchanan somehow deserves a fair shake for hypocrisy (as well as Gore, Clinton, most Dems who are/have been in bed with non-progressive businesses), but Ralph Nader doesn't. And .2% is a significant number in context of the Florida margin of "victory."

Also, the stuff about being invested in tech stocks is from 2000-2002, which is shortly after the tech bubble, but not exactly a time where being invested in tech stocks was considered anti-progressive.

Again, Al Gore was on the board of Apple, and I don't see people talking about what a hypocrite he is, or how he's secretly a Republican, despite taking donations from many horrible sources in 2000. He's a corporate-friendly Democrat, so no one cares.

I understand that Nader has won eternal ire from Democrats for his role in 2000 and continued attacks on Democrats. I don't think it's fair to draw the conclusion that he is somehow a closet Republican, or that his assets disqualify his work, especially when there's no evidence that he uses those assets to enhance his personal lifestyle.

Hypocrisy is something that most in the political game can be rightfully accused of; for the reasons above, I don't see Ralph Nader anywhere near the top of the list of deserving targets.

[MADem]

381. With Al Gore, we knew what we were getting--a corporate (if not friendly, not unfriendly) Democrat.

We all knew where Gore was coming from, from his wife with the music lyric parental notifications, to his environmental enthusiasms, to his blind spots--like moving huge chunks of DOD administration to his home state.

Nader came off like Mister Sack Cloth and Ashes, Mister "I Live Like a Poor Monk Because I Have No Assets" when he was -- and continues to -- rake it in.

He also continues to do the GOP's bidding. See, here he is, ragging on POTUS when he knows full well that Congress controls, oversees and funds the District--NOT the President: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/ralph-nader-general-strike_n_1639111.html

Anything to make it all about the Democratic candidate for the President. Anything at all. You'd think if he really cared about this issue, he'd also talk to the guy who controls where the funding and laws originate--our buddy Orange Bonehead--and try to, just a little bit, hold HIS feet to the fire. But no--it's gotta be all about Barack, the guy he actually--without any shame at all-- called an Uncle Tom. http://themoderatevoice.com/24118/the-incredible-shrinking-ralph-nader-his-uncle-tom-remark-about-obama/

He's not even subtle. He's a nasty tool of the GOP.

[coalition_unwilling]

84. Gore didn't even win his own home state, FFS. Is that Nader's fault too? The

Supreme Court installed Bush WITHOUT ALL THE VOTES BEING COUNTED! What does Nader have to do with that?

[Capn Sunshine]

212. and yet, without Tennessee, he managed to win the election

Where was Ralphie boy when the fix came in?
Oh, right, was that the year he took contributions fom the republican party? Or was that the next cycle? It all kind of smears together, like his rhetoric.

[BlueCaliDem]

234. It's amazing how some people forget that Al Gore won the presidential election.

And I recall Nader standing with the Republican'ts, saying that Al Gore lost the election because he had a lousy campaign. I don't, however, recall Nader standing with the Democrats protesting how the rights of the people of Florida was being eviscerated when Bush's family friends at SCOTUS stopped the recount. That was very disappointing.

[Nativo13]

187. Bush Junior was selected, not elected

Gore won both the popular vote and the electoral vote
(the Washington Post paid for a recount of Florida and published the results in the paper about 2 years later);

the Supreme Court selected George Junior.

[uppityperson]

188. And Nader took away enough votes to make it be closer than it should have been.

Both were a factor.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

189. Welcome to DU, Nativo13!

We're glad you found us!

[Nativo13]

191. Thanks

I am hopeful that since Democrats cannot compete with Republican money that the Democrats will return to being Democrats, the party of the people, instead of Republican-lite.

Obama's destroying Romney in Ohio with the populist message; this is strong evidence that a Democrat acting like a Democrat works!

[MADem]

205. He was elected five to four, because Florida wasn't "clear."

Nine guys took Florida's voting power, and by doing that, they took all of our's.

Florida would have been clear had Ralph done the right thing for the people of the USA, and guided the hand of history by throwing his support to the "good" candidate and urging his people to GOTV for Gore.

[leftyohiolib]

5. well they cant stop fox from lying to the public so idk how they LET boner cand cantor peddle

anything

[backscatter712]

6. He does have a point - we still have a DINO problem in the party.

If you run as Republican-lite, you're gonna get out-Republicaned by the Republicans, and you'll have a very hard time winning.

If you want to really bring the Democratic party forward, you have to sell progressive ideas - get people desensitized to them if they've been made taboo (which is what I've been doing being an asshole atheist on this board), then move to persuading and selling our ideas.

We have good ideas. We just have to sell them. If we take the route of setting the ideas on the back-burner and playing GOP-lite, we're never going to gain ground.

[GarroHorus]

16. Do yu know how DINOs are like unicorns?

Neither exist in reality.

[sadbear]

100. ???

(Did you forget the sarcasm smilie?)

[mythology]

127. Doubtful that the sarcasm tag was missed.

After all, every Democrat in Congress voted with the Democrats more than they voted with the Republicans. People often use the word DINO, or RINO because they don't like how somebody voted on a particular bill, rather than looking at the overall record or that somebody who would qualify as a far leftiest, in the US would be able to be elected in every state/district.

The four Democrats in the 2008-2009 Congress who voted with with the party less than 60% of the time all had district rational for their votes due to being in districts that favored the Republicans.

[dtom67]

20. That is what we should take from this article.

you have nailed it.

although, to me, Economic disparity and the elimination of the corporate ownership of our Democracy are the primary ideas that need to be pushed.

Dems need to move to the left on economic issues.

If we don't, there will not be a democracy left to push the other issues...

[Tippy]

57. EXACTLY....said for years they would bring us down

I told some of TN's Blue Dogs no matter what they say or do the Republicans would vote them out...and they did we only have one left...once he is gone well enough said..

[sabrina 1]

101. And the truth is that when the public is polled on ISSUES

they overwhelmingly support Progressive ideas. The question is, why are Democrats so willing to cave to Republicans so often on the issues that the public does not support?

I think the answer becomes more and more clear. As you pointed out so correctly, because we have a DINO problem in the Dem Party that badly needs to be addressed.

[Sgent]

141. Don't worry -- Landreau is gone

I'd almost be surprised if she runs for re-election in 2 years.

The new senator will be Bobby Jindal (assuming he's not the VP), or someone like Vitter.

That's a lot better...

[Ken Burch]

542. We don't have to nominate a right-wing Dem to win in Louisiana

What BP did changed all that. We can nominate a populist there now and win.

[Sgent]

560. Bobby Jindal

won 67% of the vote in Oct 2011 (1yr 3mos after the spill) election. His two major issues were arguing against the ACA and the Obama administrations response to the oil spill -- he's upset that they stopped issuing drilling permits.

[Ken Burch]

561. And the candidate nominated against him was undoubtedly the most right-wing Dem available

n/t.

[Sgent]

565. Open primary

LA has an open primary. There were 3 different Democratic candidates with different views -- but the sum of their votes couldn't force a run-off.

Mary Landreau is a sitting duck, to be replaced with Jindal or Steve Scalise.

[Ken Burch]

567. What is the point of saying that? And are you blaming liberals for Jindal for some reason?

Also, her last name is spelled Landrieu.

[pnwmom]

7. Nader got the ball rolling when he assisted George Bush into the Presidency.

If just 1% of the 95,000 voters who voted for him in Florida hadn't believed his spiel -- that Gore and Bush were the same -- and had voted for Gore, we wouldn't have started the downward spiral and collapse during the Bush administration.

Nader was asked by other progressives to not campaign in the swing states, but that's where he campaigned the hardest. He lost my respect 12 years ago.

Edit to add: Yes, Katherine Harris helped to throw the election, but she was never claiming to be a progressive.

[TheWraith]

15. Bingo.

The Naderites still love to come out in droves to blame the Supreme Court, while completely denying and repressing the fact that if even a microscopic fraction of Nader voters in Florida had gone for Gore instead, there NEVER would have been a court case.

[morningfog]

62. Not actually true.

More votes were miscast for Buchanan that should have been to Gore in poorly designed ballots than the vote differential if all Nader votes had gone to Gore. The blame is with Kathrine Harris and the SC.

[pnwmom]

79. Yes, it's true. If all the miscast votes were allowed to stand, but the Nader voters

had voted for Gore, Gore would have won by a landslide. Even with the miscast ballots, Bush was only 500 votes ahead. Just a tiny fraction of Nader's 95,000 would have put Gore on top.

And no progressive deliberately caused a ballot to be miscast to Buchanan. But Nader deliberately lured progressive candidates away from the only other progressive in the race who had a chance. That was his prerogative, of course; but that doesn't mean he can't be held at fault for a decision that hurt the whole country.

[morningfog]

85. If all of the miscast votes for Buchanan had rightfully gone to Gore, Gore would have won

by over 2,000 votes.

Those were erroneous votes. Those who voted for Nader were intentional and those voters felt he was the better candidate. Nader didn't cost the election. Poor ballot design, the republican secretary of state in FL and the SC stole the election. It is just laziness to blame Nader for Bush.

[coalition_unwilling]

88. +1,000,000,000 x 1,000,000,000 - Well put and definitely

needed to be said.

The SCOTUS presdied over a bloodless coup d'etat. Nader was incidental to the coup, necessary but not sufficient as logicians might say.

[pnwmom]

129. So? That was a drop in the bucket compared to Nader's 95,000 votes, which he won by lying.

He spent his whole campaign pretending that there was no difference between Gore and Bush, and many of his fans were too naive or inexperienced to understand what was going on -- Nader was in it for his ego, more than for the country. He knew we'd be worse off under Bush, and he didn't care.

[morningfog]

150. Here is my point for all the Nader haters.

Hate him if you want. Bush was not his fault. The voters who voted for him preferred him. The will of the voters was a Gore win, with Nader getting some votes. The will of the voters was overruled by Harris and the SC.

I voted for Gore, I don't care for Nader, I think he has an ego problem. But, Bush was not his fault. It is lazy to claim that.

[pnwmom]

226. It isn't lazy to claim that. It's practical, common sense. Nader and many of his followers were

idealists who thought Gore wasn't pure enough for them. Nader LIED to the voters about Gore's views compared to Bush's. Many leading progressives begged him to stay out of the swing states, and to collect his votes in the other states -- even suggesting vote swapping. But Nader's ego carried the day.

[morningfog]

252. So, hate Nader, I have no problem with that.

Hate that he ran. Hate his ego. Hate that people exercised their will to vote for him. In this democracy, I think we should encourage options for voters and encourage voters to vote how they feel. Personally, I don't care for Nader, never voted for him, never would.

But, the blame does not rest with him, not solely, or even mostly. The blame lies with Harris and the Supreme Court. Gore won the fucking election. Every person focusing on and blaming Nader is giving the corrupt Repubs who STOLE THE FUCKING ELECTION a free pass. Why they hell would anyone want to ignore, dismiss or minimize that?

[pnwmom]

293. I don't give SCOTUS a free pass. What those 5 did was despicable. But that's what

I've come to expect out of them. I expect a lot more from people who call themselves progressives.

[Selatius]

223. He did nothing illegal. Katherine Harris purging black voters was a far greater offense.

About 15% of the 50,000 voters purged were wrongfully purged because they purposely rigged the criteria to be as loose as possible to knock out as many black Democratic voters as possible.

[pnwmom]

228. He LEGALLY helped Bush. Does that really make you feel better? That a so-called

progressive did everything he could to LEGALLY help Bush?

[MADem]

235. A "progressive" who owned stock in Raytheon, McDonald's and union busting CISCO, for starters!

He's a hypocrite!

[Selatius]

458. Nope. However, it was his constitutional right to run.

The fact that Harris likely broke federal election law and disenfranchised thousands of black voters doesn't strike you as the greater offense? Really?

[pnwmom]

459. Legally, yes. But he deliberately helped the Rethugs win the race.

So morally he was on the same plane.

[Selatius]

469. With all due respect, I see no moral equivalence here. One intentionally disenfranchised thousands.

It Katherine Harris and not Nader who removed so many thousands of blacks from the polls in a state in a part of the country that has historically treated blacks so badly. I guess we'll agree to disagree.

As much as he can be blamed for Bush getting the victory, I believe the greater responsibility lies with the people who willfully and intentionally committed election fraud and the people of the Supreme Court that legitimized the fraud.

[PDittie]

155. This is a false premise.

"If Nader's voters had voted for Gore". They would not have. You likely know a few Greens in your own community who can disavow you of the notion that they vote Democrat when there is no Green. They do, will not.

It is speculation, and speculation only, to assume that any percentage of them would have done so.

[MADem]

330. All Ralph had to do was endorse the Dem.

That would have sent his votes to the actual winner of the contest.

Of course, then he wouldn't have made all that big money off his Halliburton-General Dynamics-Raytheon-Big Oil stock portfolio.

He got RICH when Bush went to war. He kept Bush in office in 2004, and he got richer.

[PDittie]

347. So you're mad at him for not endorsing?

I thought you were just mad at him for running.

So since RN isn't a Green any longer -- if he ever, by your premise, was -- do you hate the Greens, or not?

[MADem]

365. Ralph invested in war stocks, Walmart stocks, McDonald's stocks, Big Oil stocks,

and then fomented a great deal of bumptious foofaraw amongst the well-meaning but politically naive youth and other inattentive idealists, costing the Democrats votes in battleground states to the benefit of the GOP. He did this knowingly, and with forethought.

If you look at Ralph's One Percenter portfolio, his agenda becomes clear. Of course a guy holding Halliburton, General Dynamics, and Raytheon stock wants Bush in the White House. Of course a guy with Walmart, Gap, Limited and McDonald's holdings would benefit from the anti-worker Bush agenda. That's why he took money from the GOP to keep his failing campaign afloat, over the protests of his VP candidate. That's why he dissed Dems in battleground states, to suppress turnout in those key states.

It was never about Ralph "making a statement." It was about Ralph actively helping George Bush become President, and Ralph getting much richer owing to his well-timed corporate investments.

WTF is this "hate Greens" nonsense? No one here should be supporting a Green for President. That's against the TOS--in case you were at all unclear on that matter. That doesn't mean anyone has to hate them.

If there's no Dem running, I'll consider voting for a Green or a Socialist or anyone who prioritizes social justice and equality. However, Greens will never get my support in any Presidential contest--they don't even have the brass or talent to grow their party from the ground up, so why should I think that a Green could run the country? Get the party out of "point zero little number" percentages first and then maybe they will merit some attention. The Greens need to start locally, and get off the Presidential bandwagon until they have a network and a structure.

All that said, I'm a Democrat, this is Democratic Underground...you should not be surprised if you run into people here who actually SUPPORT Democrats for elective office here.

[TheWraith]

95. Bullshit. That's nothing but an excuse.

What I said is completely true: Without Nader, or with even a TINY fraction of the people he bamboozled voting for Gore instead, there would have been NO court case. Period. Ralph Nader singlehandedly got George W. Bush elected. Anything else is just trying to obfuscate that and excuse Nader for being a Republican shill whose only purpose in the race was to hand it to Bush.

[A Simple Game]

118. So if Nader was only in it to get Bush elected, who was he trying to get

elected the other 4 or 5 times he ran.

Nader ran because of his ego, not because of Bush.

Much as I liked Gore, he lost, among other reasons, because he was a bad candidate.

[sabrina 1]

120. Gore won the election so what is your point?

None of the attempts to stop him from winning worked, so they were forced to turn to their last resort, the Felonious Five on the Supreme Court.

And with or without Nader, that election was going to be stolen.

He had zero to do with the theft of the 2000 election. The SC stole it from the winner for Bush.

[morningfog]

149. BULLSHIT! Nader did not "single handedly" get Bush elected. Shame on you for

giving Harris and the SC a pass. WHy would you do that? Do you think Gore v. Bush was correctly decided? Answer that before you dish out single handedly.

[PDittie]

156. Please see #153 above.

[deutsey]

371. It gets too complicated for some to process

how the GOP actually stole the election.

It's easier to put fixate on Ralph Nader as the reason.

[jeff47]

494. That's because Nader made it close enough to steal. (nt)

[hfojvt]

32. I wish you hadn't mentioned Florida though

it opens up a worms nest, and in spite of all the media attention, it was not THE deciding factor

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/118

[pnwmom]

81. There could be said to be many deciding factors; but the only PROGRESSIVE who helped Bush

was Nader. Just a tiny fraction of his 95,000 votes, if they had gone to Gore instead, would have put Gore over the top.

All the other factors wouldn't have amounted to a hill of beans if Nader had stayed out of Florida.

[morningfog]

87. Correcting any of the other factors would have given the election to

the actual winner.

[pnwmom]

89. True. But the only PROGRESSIVE who could have made a significant difference

was Nader. No progressive could control Katherine Harris. And unfortunately, no progressive could control Nader and his massive ego.

[morningfog]

151. So, why place the blame on the "only progressive", when Harris and the SC were the

ones who really did it?

[bvar22]

170. Game. Set. And Match!

[pnwmom]

184. Because, in this situation, only the progressive can be said to have betrayed his own cause.

You can't blame a reptile for being a reptile.

[sunnystarr]

269. You're absolutely right...

in all of your posts in this thread. While one can point to all the other things that happened, ie: voter purge, butterfly ballot, Harris, etc etc, those are all to be expected from the other side. Even with everything the Republicans could conjure up and throw at Gore, Gore would have been victorious if one of our OWN, a progressive, didn't insist on putting his own ego before the good of the country.

That one act from our side was the cause of Gore's defeat. Had he not run there wouldn't have been the recount. Even if it was close enough for Bush to challenge it, Gore still would have been the presumptive winner and the Supreme Court would have been hesitant to step in.

Of course his run for president was legal. Of course it was his right. He knew he would be the "spoiler" as every 3rd party candidate is in a close race. He accepted financing from the Republicans - the "enemy" so to speak. His ego trumped all! He saw himself as the crusader for the ideal while knowing that the ideal didn't have a chance of realizing that goal as a result of his candidacy. He just wanted his media time to get his message out there and the country be damned.

He changed the course of our history and ushered in two wars and the death and maiming of hundreds of thousands of people, a destroyed economy, the fall of the middle class, and the rise of the tea party.

I don't know he sleeps at night.

[MADem]

321. He is no progressive--he made sure the "winners" of the elections where he fouled the waters were

the ones who would increase his wealth. His stock portfolio was GOP all the way.

He played a con game, and a lot of dewy-eyed idealists bought it.

[PDittie]

157. False.

Theresa LePore was a Democrat. Emphasis on 'was'.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/09/us/2000-elections-palm-beach-ballot-florida-democrats-say-ballot-s-design-hurt-gore.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_LePore

She may have also been a progressive (or not).

That Nader cost Gore the election, however, is a false premise. An urban legend. It rests upon a foundation of sand: that people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore had Nader not been on the ballot. You might know a few Greens who will quickly disavow you of the notion that they will vote Democrat with no Green option. They will not.

[hfojvt]

180. as my link points out

just a fraction of Nader voters in NEW HAMPSHIRE swtiching to Gore would have averted disaster.

This is a solid answer to the Nader defender's claim "It wasn't Nader's fault, Florida was stolen."

If you look at New Hampshire, then all that rigamarole about Bush v. Gore and the theft of Florida becomes a moot point, because if Gore takes New Hampshire, disaster is averted irregardless of what happens or doesn't happen in Florida. Then too, if another 20,000 idiots in Iowa, Oregon, Wisconsin and New Mexico vote for Nader disaster is caused, again irregardless of Florida. Florida simply was not the only place the election was decided, even if the media did decide to fixate on it (for pretty good reasons).

[TheWraith]

97. Yes it was the deciding factor. 95,000 votes versus 500.

One tenth of the people who voted for Nader, believing his total bullshit about Gore and Bush being the same, would have sealed the election for Gore. Everything else is excuse-making for Nader's deliberate sabotage.

[morningfog]

176. I'll ask again, do you think Bush v. Gore was decided correctly?

Simple question.

[hfojvt]

178. you apparently didn't read my link

If 8,000 of the 22,000 Nader voters in New Hampshire, had instead voted for Gore, then Florida would be a moot point.

Also, Nader came within a hair of costing Gore - New Mexico, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Iowa.

[sabrina 1]

394. 300, 000 Democrats who voted for Bush. That's a hell a lot more than 95,000

who voted for Nader, many of whom would not have voted at all, or might have voted for Bush, had Nader not been in the race.

You are making excuses for the SC felons who stole an election that GORE WON. Why are you doing that?

[Itchinjim]

8. STFU Ralphie.

STFU and go away.

[limpyhobbler]

139. Posts like this are why I don't want to be called a Democrat.

Wouldn't want to be associated with that kind of remark.

Not just this post, not singling it out. It's all over the place.

The Democrats were pretty good when I was a kid. Now they are gop-lite.

And if you point it out, they tell you to stfu and get out, instead of acknowledging the problem.

[emilyg]

166. I feel the same

way. My sig line says it.

[MADem]

286. "They?" Could your brush be any broader?

You tell me why anyone should listen to a corporate stooge like Ralph, with his blatantly hypocritical Halliburton, Big Oil, Raytheon, General Dynamics, WalMart, McDonalds, CISCO, etc., etc., stock portfolio?

He gets up on the stage and whines about these VERY corporate interests, while raking in the cash from them, and then putting the money in "HIS" personally set-up public-interest agencies to dodge taxes while he enjoys the use of the money.

Ask yourself the question, cui bono? The answer to that question is not you, not me, not any progressive. The one who benefits is One-Percent-Ralph.

[limpyhobbler]

303. Thank you.

Last edited Sun Jul 8, 2012, 05:06 PM - Edit history (1)

By "they" I mean statements that say Nader should STFU and if you point out problems with the party they tell you to STFU and get out.

Nader is just one guy. Beat up on him if you want.

But I agree with his political positions. I feel he should not have to shut up.

Yelling at people you disagree with to just STFU is childish.

The Dems will face politcal challenges from the left because they are, each cycle, abandoning the left and moving closer to the Republican positions.

How will the Dems meet that challenge? Will they meet it with personal attacks and tell it to STFU?

Or will they solve it by reforming the politcal system to allow for run-off voting or something, so people can vote Green or whatever without fear of throwing the election to the GoP?

Or better yet, the Democrats should adopt some pieces of the Green/Left agenda to win those voters. That platform is quite popular with the American people, and it would help to win elections. That was the point of the OP right? To stand up for principles?

I think some people focus too much on Nader personally. He isn't even running for office. Jill Stein is the Green Party candidate this year. Maybe you should start digging through her trash can looking for dirt to post on the internet.


======
(Edited once)

[bvar22]

305. Will YOU make the same charge against President Obama and Citizens United?

Thought not.

Hypocrisy Abounds.

[MADem]

318. I am not taking your point.

Obama speaks in opposition to Citizens United. If you're suggesting the ruling "benefits" him, you're dreaming. He will never keep up with the Big Money GOP PACS. Their pockets are too deep. They, after all, are the One Percent. Obama would be in a much better position if that ruling were reversed. Obama is able to get real people to support him. The Republicans have to rely on a few mendacious billionaires with dreams of acquiring even more lucre.

Ralph speaks in opposition to Democrats while enjoying profits from a Republican's-Dream Stock Portfolio. Ralph is a cheery member of the One Percent, and he earns his money by dissing Dems to the benefit of the GOP.

It's not hypocrisy that abounds in this conversation, it's a level of profound obtuseness that you can remain so sanctimonious and not see his game. The blinders are on good and tight, I guess.

[bvar22]

367. President Obama speaks in opposition to Citizens United,

...but takes money from SuperPacs.

President Obama speaks in opposition to the excesses of Wall Street,
yet takes their money.

Precisely HOW is this different from Nader speaking out against Corporations,
yet investing in them?

This IS America.

You said:

[font color=red]"It's not hypocrisy that abounds in this conversation, it's a level of profound obtuseness that you can remain so sanctimonious and not see his game. The blinders are on good and tight, I guess. "

[/font]

At this point, backing you into an airtight corner is easy and amusing.
People who STAND for Values and Principles rarely have to resort to double standard contortions laced with venom.
Partisan Hacks lack that moral compass,
and wind up tying themselves in futile knots trying to justify something for one person,
yet condemning another for the same reason.
[font size=4]QED[/font]

My, my.
For someone who insists the Nader is "irrelevant",
you sure waste a lot of time and passion on an irrelevant cause.

We GET IT!
You harbor and nurture an irrational HATE for Ralph Nader and those who believe that the Democratic Party should return to its Working Class roots.
We got it after your 2nd post.

Just WHAT do you think you have gained by sitting on this thread all day?
Do you believe your adolescent rants, political ignorance, demands for purity and allegiance, condemnations of the democratic process, and pathetic personal attacks have changed anyone's mind?

LOL

I have better things to do than to keep poking you with sharp sticks.
Cheers!

[MADem]

373. President Obama is not an idiot. He has voiced his objection and acknowledges he has to play in the

sewer because he just won't be able to compete if he doesn't. He doesn't HIDE the fact that he does this. He also doesn't hide the fact that it would be a joyful day if CU was overturned. Of course, you are ignoring these FACTS because they interfere with your lockstep, blinders-on agenda. You have no ability to see nuance in anything. Ralph is good because someone told you, once, that he was. Obama is bad in your lockstep, small-minded view because he is a pragmatist and admits that quite readily--he hides nothing.

Your arguments are massive fails, because they aren't arguments--they are attempts to play a lame "two wrongs" game that the facts do not support.

Ralph, as you continue to vigorously ignore, has investments that read like a GOP portfolio, yet he fakes out his acolyte bowing/scraping followers by railing on all the things from which he profits. He plays the role of a simple poor man on a mission, when he is rich as Roosevelt and makes his money from Cheneyesque investments. He was not transparent, he played the po'boy, but acquired millions and millions. He's a hypocrite.

Then, he "gave away" a whole bunch of his money--to HIMSELF, where he still controls what happens to it and how it is spent. His RMoney's Mini-Me. A One Percenter, playing you and those like you for all its worth.

Obama is not a hypocrite. He told the truth about his feelings re: CU and why he had to stick with PAC support anyway.


And you're seriously playing the "Ewwww, what's the difference?" game as if anyone with reasoning skills might buy it.

Please. Your "sticks" aren't sharp, they're buffoon-like stupid sticks. And you're poking them in your own damn eye with your pathetic attempt at "reasoning." And as for adolescent conduct, you're the one flinging the petty little chidish insults, and who remains woefully shy on anything resembling either fact or rebuttal.

When you have to resort to "Why are you discussing this topic on a discussion board?" as your retort, you've lost that bubble completely. Big Time, as Ralph's little pal Dickie C. would say. But hey, Dick would be proud. You're carrying Ralphie's water two pails at a time!

By your words we have come to know you--better than you planned, I suspect.

Just keep that in mind, big shot!



right back atcha.

[sabrina 1]

411. What a total misinterpretation of Bvar's post. Your rage is becoming disturbing, frankly.

[MADem]

429. Well, Sabrina--that was both a rude and loaded comment.

How DARE I support Democrats on a Democratic site.

As for "rage," I would ask that you not mistake my firmly held views for the emotions that you may be feeling. Projection never does any conversation any good.

[bvar22]

435. You aren't "supporting Dermocrats" in THIS thread.

You are attacking loyal Democrats who stand for traditional Working Class Values,
and insisting that they support your Centrist values and shallow political philosophy
which has brought us nothing but a steady march to the Conservative Right.
I can understand if you support moving in that direction.
I acknowledge that there are Reagan Democrats who are quite happy with the steady march to the Right.

Raging at Democrats who STILL stand for the Traditional Democratic Party Working Class Values of FDR and LBJ aren't really happy with that,
and no matter how much of a tantrum you throw in this thread,
you won't change any minds with your childish outbursts, Blaming Nader, or personal attacks on loyal Democrats.

[MADem]

439. I am challenging anyone who believes that Ralph Nader, Right Wing Tool, represents "working class,

progressive values," and I've provided documentation in support of my claim. My rebuttals have not consisted of childish invective--which is all I've gotten in rebuttal for my efforts, and most of it has come from you.

See? You just cannot stop, you cannot help yourself. There you go yet again, avoiding the issues, and instead, characterizing ME--calling me a "centrist" (like you know me or my history of social justice work that might even predate your existence on this earth, judging by your conduct here) and like that is an insult (ah, the irony--you falsely claim I am insulting loyal Democrats, then you make fun of the Democrats who actually show up at the polls who can be COUNTED ON to vote for Democrats!). Then you're saying I have a "shallow political philosophy" (while you sit there, insulting your fellow Democrats) solely because I don't agree that Saint Ralph (who the GREEN Party is sick to death of, and who is NOT a Democrat) is anything but a right wing, GOP tool.

Then you falsely infer that I am a "Reagan Democrat" marching towards the light, again (whatever the hell THAT means--did your verbosity get away from you?) --yet another insult, and an immature one, too, and again, solely because I don't agree that Saint Ralph is anything but a con artist who has sold people like you a steaming load of shit and a few uninformed unfortunates have eaten it up like ice cream.

I'm going to memorialize your intentionally rude and uncivil post, because it's a very good example of how not to converse with people. You talk about "childish outbursts"--well, youngster, you might want to take a hard, long look in your mirror.

bvar22
435. You aren't "supporting Dermocrats" in THIS thread.

You are attacking loyal Democrats who stand for traditional Working Class Values,
and insisting that they support your Centrist values and shallow political philosophy
which has brought us nothing but a steady march to the Conservative Right.
I can understand if you support moving in that direction.
I acknowledge that there are Reagan Democrats who are quite happy with the steady march to the Right.

Raging at Democrats who STILL stand for the Traditional Democratic Party Working Class Values of FDR and LBJ aren't really happy with that,
and no matter how much of a tantrum you throw in this thread,
you won't change any minds with your childish outbursts, Blaming Nader, or personal attacks on loyal Democrats.

[bvar22]

457. WOW.

Hey everybody!!!
Someone is going to "memorialize" my post ,
and I ain't even dead yet.

Wait, let me check my pulse.
Yep! Still purring like a kitten.
.
.
.
.
Aw shucks.
It was nothing really.
Just little ole me doing my part for Working Class Values and the Party of FDR and LBJ.
I'll try to stay humble and remember the little people who helped me become "memorialized",
but these things can go to one's head.

When is the tribute party?
Can we have it at your house?

[bvar22]

418. See?

THIS is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post:

You said:

[font color=red]"Obama is bad in your lockstep, small-minded view"[/font]

I didn't say Obama was bad.
I didn't say that politicians who take money are bad.
YOU did.
But somehow in your contorted partisan psyche, that ONLY applies to politicians that YOU don't like.
It is perfectly OK for the ones you DO like.

I ONLY said that this is our system here in America,
and Ralph played by the rules.


I am not the one calling for "lockstep".
YOU are.
You are furious that other people voted their conscience and NOT he way YOU think they should vote. (...and YOU call ME "small minded")

I ONLY said that is our system of democracy in America,
and Ralph played by the rules.

Nader didn't STEAL any votes that belonged to Gore.
The Gore Campaign made a conscience decision to throw those votes away.
If Gore had looked Left and said,
"YES. I can hear your voices.
NAFTA and deregulation might not be good for the Working Class.
I promise I will look into that."
He wouldn't have had to actually DO anything,
just promise to look into it (as Obama did in Campaign 2008).
...IF he had ONE TIME, looked Left and said the above, I believe Gore would have been president.
Al Gore said as much himself in an interview with Jon Stewart.

Look, I'm tired ot stoking your rage.
Let me give you some clues:

That election was in 2000...12 years ago.
Anger and Denial are the first stages of Grief and Loss,
but it is not healthy or productive to stay stuck there.
Externalizing the loss (Blaming), and nurturing the anger only damages YOU.
Absolutely NOTHING can be done if you stay stuck in Step One.

Most healthy Human Beings move on to Step Two,
Taking Responsibility.
YOU have NO CONTROL over Nader or the people who vote for Nader,
and there will ALWAYS be what you call "stupid voters".
Your tantrums and spewing of 12 year old venom certainly won't be effective.
In fact. THAT course WILL have the opposite effect,
and you can sit in you irrational rage for the rest of your life.

So HOW can you take control of this situation
and empower yourself ?

Obama himself showed you HOW to do this during Campaign 2008
when he promised to "renegotiate NAFTA" and include ALL sides in his White House.

See?

Vacuums are filled.
Its called Physics.
Nader stepped into a vacuum created by the Centrist Anti-LABOR Clinton administration.
If not Nader, it would have been someone else.
Nader wasn't the problem.
The problem WAS The Vacuum.

Once you SEE this,
the irrational rage disappears,
and a clear mind can take responsibility, make positive changes, and plot a successful course for the future.
You will be able to spend your energy doing productive things
instead of wasting that passion in blaming someone else for your self-centered misconceptions.
That is called "Growing Up."

[MADem]

430. One more time--I am just not taking your point.

That diatribe reads like a bad poem, frankly.

All I can see is that you don't like my POV, and that's fine. Where you turn into a scold is when you get into the territory where anyone who doesn't agree with YOU doesn't have a "clear mind." They also have "tantrums," and "spewing of venom" and all sorts of little "internet discussion board catch-phrases" that are designed to put people down. "Hmmmph!!! I told THEM!" In this case, you're aiming that crap at me. Boo, hoo. I'm crushed. No--not really. I just think you're being youthfully dramatic.

Ralph would not have gotten any traction without GOP funding. His stupid little supporters didn't pay his freight--the Republican Party did. His campaigns had nothing to do with Democracy--they had to do with GOP deep pockets. Too bad if you don't like that.

You can vote for whoever the hell you want. But this is DU, not the Huffington Post. I don't come here to listen to uninformed toutings on behalf of a tool of the right wing wrapped in faux progressive's clothing. I come here to spend time with like-minded people who are Democrats and other Progressives, and who support Barack Obama for re-election. I happen to agree with the provisions of the TOS--we're here to elect Democrats.

So one more time, Fuck Ralph Nader, and his millions, and his union-busting, and his mistreatment of his employees, and his stock market speculating with non-profit monies, and his tax evasion, and his insider trading, and his authoritarian, paranoid, bullshit, and most of all, his collusion with the Republican Party to the detriment of Al Gore. If you don't like that, fine--turn on your heel and go have a chat with someone who agrees with you.

If anyone's self-centered, there, pal, it ain't me. And if anyone has a case of "irrational rage," it ain't me either. I'm happy as a clam--my days are full of joy, generally speaking, and even my occasional bad days are pretty good. So I would suggest that you not project your feelings on me just because I like a spirited argument on the internet on occasion--it's not PERSONAL, you know--so you really should not go out of your way with hyperbolic and very personal "grow up" and "self-centered" language to make it so.

[bvar22]

437. Oh YES!!!

Your "happiness" is apparent to everyone who reads this thread.

Like I said above,
the first step is Denial and Blame.

[MADem]

438. Just because I have strong feelings about an issue does not mean I am unhappy.

It would behoove a person to be Spiderman in order to make that leap

I'd say it is you who might want to re-think your analyses of issues, because your "read" of people is more than a bit off the mark.

You're apparently confusing--or unintentionally cribbing from-- your long-ago reading of a "Stages of Grief" tome.

You have a nice day. You're getting ruder with every interaction, and it's just not at all thrilling to me.

[Tarheel_Dem]

556. +1. That's gonna leave a mark.

[aquart]

314. Well, why don't you make some nice tea for Ralph?

Personally, I don't like to be beaten up without making a comment.

[limpyhobbler]

319. Not sure what ya mean

But anyways for me everything that's being said on the board is in the spirit of friendly converstation, even if sometimes a little heated and with some disagreements. Cheers to you.

[sabrina 1]

410. Well said. The only thing that keeps me in the Dem Party right now, are the people I know

in RL. If my only experiences with Dems were what I have seen online, there is no way I would want to be associated with them. And I think a lot of young people stumbling on these boards are totally turned off both parties. The only hope that they will vote for Dems, is NOT boards like this anymore, but Jon Stewart. How sad is that?

I sometimes wonder if these boards have not been infiltrated to turn people off the Dem Party.

The sheer hate I am seeing in this thread, eg, against Nader, I never see directed at Republicans. Makes you wonder, sometimes.

[limpyhobbler]

419. I just think the anger against Nader is really misplaced.

He ran for President. That's it. That's what he did.

I think maybe the hatred is rooted in Democratic Party loyalists saying:

"NOBODY IS TO CHALLENGE US FROM THE LEFT !!! BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO HANDLE IT! "

We should find a way to incorporate Green/Left ideas into the political debtate in a constructive way. Instead of telling it to shut up and get lost. Nader's views are not extreme at all. They are very mainstream, but they present a challenge to corporate power. I think it's pretty telling that the Democratic Party is not able to digest that viewpoint.

I've been a Democrat at some times but right now I would rather call myself independent because the Dems keep getting dragged further to the corporate right, and they exclude the Greens, Labor, and the left-wing viewpoints from their debates and in the way they govern.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

503. Agreed. The vitriol expressed towards Nader seems to be unmatched by the same posters re Republicans

And why are they trying to squelch any discussion, or even the metion of his name, by such hatred.

Some of the same posters appear to be ones who engage in name calling and call others on this board "purists" when all we ask for is an adherence to traditional Democratic values and for high-level Democratic politicans to do what they said that they would do when campaigning.

Please excuse my skepticsm, but I don't think that all those who post on this board are Democrats.

[sabrina 1]

514. I don't think you are the only one who feels that way

As for purist, that was a talking point that was invented around 2004 and launched by the 'Third Wayers' against the actual Democrats who were the base of the party. They had a whole set of those kind of words to use, such as 'single issue voters' which was code for 'women's rights' and 'gay rights'. This coming from the LEFT supposedly.

They studied Rove, I remember watching a conversation a few years ago where some of those 'third wayers' were praising Rove's strategy and suggesting that it should be used by them. I was shocked, frankly. A ruthless criminal should be our model? But apparently they meant it and calling actual Progressive Democrats, Gays, Women, 'single issue' voters, or as one of them once did, 'the women's studies set' which he said, he didn't want to hear from. This was a so-called Liberal Blogger, who we know now used to be a Republican.

So yes, I do wonder about some of those claiming to be Democrats and so do a lot of other people.

As for 'purist', I am a proud Purist, always was and hope I always will be. I don't care for situational ethics'. Principles when adhered to, tend to be pretty powerful vote getters. So you have to wonder why some are willing to ignore principles.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

450. Then why are you on DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND? If you're not a Democrat, then leave!

[limpyhobbler]

451. It's open to independents who vote for Dems.

right?

[Brigid]

9. Ralph Nader just needs to STFU.

He's irrelevant, and has been for a long time.

[Motown_Johnny]

10. Maybe if extremest fuckwads weren't constantly dividing our party we would

"be landsliding" the Republicans.


Nader does not seem to understand that nearly half the country will vote for the (R) no matter how bad they are.



This guy needs to just stop crying out for attention and quietly fade away.

[MADem]

294. Precisely. It's not like he needs the money, he's a one percenter and a hypocrite about the source

of his wealth, too.

Annoying old shit. He's a walking talking example of the third choice in "Lead, Follow, or Get The Hell Out of the Way!"

[ProSense]

12. Cheer up Ralph

You're still an irrelevant fuckwad!

[GarroHorus]

13. Fuck Ralph Nader.

[tawadi]

396. +4

[Dalai_1]

14. Thank you for posting this! n/t

[Lochloosa]

17. Fuck Ralph Nader

[AnotherMcIntosh]

18. Nader's own post shows that he wants Republicans, not Democrats, to be defeated

While criticizing Republicans, he wrote at his web site from which the above excerpt was taken:

One would think that politicians who side with big corporations would be politically vulnerable for endangering both America and the American people. These corrupt politicians promote corporate tax loopholes and side with insurance and drug companies on costly health care proposals. They defend the corporate polluters on their unsafe workplaces, dirty air, water and contaminated food, push for more deficit spending in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, neglect Main Street based public works-repair-America-jobs programs, support high-interest student loans, cover for oil industry greed at the pump, and are hell-bent on taking the federal cops off the corporate crime beats.

Instead, Democrats let Boehner and Cantor peddle their unrebutted torrents of falsehoods to the voters in their districts. I’ll bet their constituents would not like their representatives regularly kowtowing to harmful fat cat lobbyists.

The Democrats should be landsliding the worst Republican Party in history. Talk about extremists. There are virtually no moderate or liberal Republicans left in Congress after being driven out by their own party hard-liners. So this Republican Party, united over their extremism, should be very easy to challenge.

It is not happening. Though rolling in promotional capability, the Democrats still have not come up with a clear list of the hundreds of Republican disastrous proposals – passed in the House or proposed. These wrongful Republican initiatives should be boiled down to their vicious essence for public diffusion. Instead, the blue dog Democrats are constantly, and with impunity, giving Republicans cover –recently 17 Democrats supported a rash political move by Representatives Boehner, Cantor and Issa in citing Attorney General Eric Holder for contempt of Congress.

http://nader.org/2012/07/05/jolting-the-democratic-party-from-its-stupor/

If Nader is wrong, let's all join in the trash talk and the ad hominem attacks. If so, that will be so much more sensible than trying to actually win the upcoming election.

[upi402]

19. Nader acknowledges that corporatists have taken the Democratic party too

and that fact still pisses off many DUers in denial here.

[woo me with science]

257. Of course this is the truth,

and all the desperate spin in the world does not change the obvious.

[whatchamacallit]

21. Reflexive Shit Talk is easier

Reason and nuance are headaches.

[GarroHorus]

26. Nader is talking out of the side of his mouth.

The fucker says one thing, then runs off and helps Republicans get elected.

Fuck the asshole.

[TreasonousBastard]

31. There he goes with the Holder vote again...

a sure sign of idiocy or teabagger trolling.

The Holder vote meant absolutely nothing and was a gimme for Dems in tight races in red districts.

But, so many on "our" side are using it to trash alleged blue dogs that I can't help wondering what their real point is.

[Ikonoklast]

36. I always ask, would you rather have the Blue Dogs and a Speaker Pelosi right now,

or the Teabaggers that defeated them and the current Congress?


I'll take an 80% voting with me than a 0% any day of the week.

[SidDithers]

44. That's a pretty simple concept that too many of the puritopians fail to grasp...nt

Sid

[sabrina 1]

105. Did you know that the old 'puritan' talking point went out with

the last decade in this country? Lol it's funny though to see it being dredged up again.

Guess you never saw the destruction of that talking point which came straight from the old Third Wayers and like everything else they have come up with, failed miserably.

Some great purists, btw:

Thomas Jefferson
James Maddison
John Adams (now that was a real purist for you)
Ben Franklin
et al.

I just wish we has some more purists today in the Dem Party so we could wipe the floor with the 'non-purists' who are tearing down this country.

I'd find another 'insult' if I were you, being a purist in the US today is a compliment.

[Ken Burch]

507. None of the Blue Dogs HAD an "80% voting with me" record.

They were against us on all the issues that really mattered. The 80% figure you talk about comes from counting meaningless procedural votes, like approving the daily calendar and shit like that. They insisted on diluting the ACA. They were all against "card-check" on union organization. They backed the anti-worker "free trade" deals every time.

We never needed right-wing prima donnas who acted like they were doing the party a favor by associating themselves with it. Progressive ideas simply weren't ever THAT unpopular. Assuming that we're in the ideological minority and that all we can get is tinkering around the edges is the same thing as giving up.

A party that really wants to win has to fight TO win...and that means fighting to win the argument on the issues. We've got to stop campaigning like the GOP did under Everett Dirkson and Gerald Ford in the Sixties. It just doesn't work to try to win by default or by being "safe". Safety is surrender.

[zeemike]

59. Well the real point is.

That they assisted the GOP in creating a shit storm out of nothing at all....if 17 GOPers had done that they would be out of the party...but we never learn do we?....keep playing the same rigged game and expecting a different outcome.

[jeff47]

495. That depends - do you trust his words or his actions.

His words say he wants Republicans to lose.

His actions say he wants Democrats to lose.

Personally, I go with actions over words.

[shcrane71]

22. Was in Wisconsin when I voted for Nader in 2000.

I have never walked out of a voting booth feeling so good.

Then I watched in horror as the Republicans stole the 2000 election, and the media was in cahoots with the thieves. It wasn't Ralph's fault that Dubya's brother, Jeb, delivered Florida to Dubya.

The only Dems, that I've ever met, who hate Ralph Nader are the career Dems. Voting Democrats that make their money outside of the beltway love Nader.

[ProSense]

23. No

"The only Dems, that I've ever met, who hate Ralph Nader are the career Dems. Voting Democrats that make their money outside of the beltway love Nader. "

That's not accurate. Here's why I feel good and proud that I never considered Nader.

Ralph Nader was pushing Americans Elect (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002364725

The death of a dubious idea
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002688367

[shcrane71]

263. umm... yeah. It is my experience; therefore it is accurate.

I've never met you IRL. Registered Democrats, the ones who are working in jobs in the Heartland, raising kids, taking care of aging parents, paying bills, and getting by, everything Nader says resonates with us.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

264. Absolutely.

[sabrina 1]

412. You are correct. The only Dems I've ever met who hate Nader are political

operatives, because to them, it's all a game. To ordinary Dems in the Real World, Nader is loved, because they understand what he is talking about.

The absolute hatred in this thread, the sheer rage, is frightening. I would not show this to anyone I know in RL.

[Wilms]

24. Just say "Nader" and the Vichy-Dems go nuts.

Thanks for posting. Hope you had your flak jacket on.

[DevonRex]

27. You're saying we exterminate Jews, gays, gypsies

and intellectuals?

Fuck Ralph Nader

[Wilms]

30. Not at all.

And either you don't know that or you do, neither being a commendable circumstance.

[DevonRex]

33. And either you know how insulting Vichy Dems is or you don't,

neither being a commendable circumstance.

[Wilms]

46. Believe me I'm aware how insulting Vichy-Dems are.

We've been living it for quite some time.

[DevonRex]

86. Aww. Bless your heart. You can't help it.

You just don't know any better.

[dionysus]

64. hey, it's Christmas in July.. doddering 'ol ralph has provided a day's worth of fun for the resident

anti-dem DUers... let us all rejoice...

[DevonRex]

83. The guy Godwined his own post!

So I'm doin the Snoopy Dance!!!

[dionysus]

96. how is the estate these days? wadsworth is spending a fortune keeping the grounds green lately.

[DevonRex]

104. We have a vole who's eating all the snow in summer.

And a rabbit who lounges in the yard like cleopatra and seems to have a crush on our cat. He follows her around and they share the shade of a tree together. Weird. She ignores him.

[MADem]

238. What a despicable comparison. You should be ashamed of yourself. nt

[Wilms]

249. I'm crushed.

[MADem]

272. I think shame would be the more appropriate reaction.

You'd benefit from a history class, perhaps.

[Wilms]

290. You've said as much.

And I'm accusing the ThirdWayers of being collaborators who, by muting REAL Democrats, have aided the Republicans in their mission to enrich the 15% at the expense of the 85%, fight point-less wars, ship our jobs overseas--WTO/NAFTA/Bain style, and wrap the nation in fear while wrapping themselves in American flags.

And they blame it on Nader.

[MADem]

297. You're defending a 1 percenter who's all about himself, and using an offensive reference to do so.

Nader is the guy who whines about missles, and invests in General Dynamics. Nader is the guy who complains about the loss of small business, yet owns WalMart stock. Nader is the guy who shakes his fist at "the government" about war, yet is invested in Halliburton. Nader is the guy who decries US energy policy, yet has holdings in as many as a half dozen oil companies. Nader is the guy who gripes about lousy school lunches, and has stock in McDonald's.

So do pardon me if I find your defense of that shit-stirring hypocrite, using insensitive imagery that is an insult to any progressive, as a bit curious.

[Wilms]

306. You've mistaken me for someone defending him.

The point of the OP is what I'm talking about.

Stay on-topic.

Thanks

[MADem]

312. The OP is all about Ralph conning the sheep-masses. I suggest you take your own advice.

The first time Ralph started dissing the Dems, we ended up with W and War. The second time Ralph started dissing the Dems, we ended up with W and MORE war.

And Ralph ended up with huge One Percenter profits from his War-Footing Stock Portfolio (Halliburton, Raytheon, Big Oil, General Dynamics, etc.).

Do follow the money.

Thanks.

[Wilms]

316. Not my read on it.

He's calling out DINOs. That's a perfectly good use of the First Amendment.

[MADem]

320. It's not about his First Amendment Rights.

He has a "right" to be as big an asshole-GOP-tool as he'd like. I have a right to make note of it.

He isn't "calling out DINOs." He's conning people like you and you're buying it, hook, line...and STINKER.


Follow the money. You'll find, at the end of it, Ralph in bed with the GOP and the Corporate War Machine.

It's like cheering on your own hangman because he speaks sympathetically to you.

[Wilms]

324. I find your argument as compelling as your link-less assertions.

Your last two sentences, in particular, represent a projection. Try it on. I'm supposed to complain to my R-neighbors about Bain when it was Clinton/Gore who pushed the infrastructure on which Rmoney profited. And look what Obama is doing in the Pacific--in secret--as he did consulting the insurance industry before rolling out a national health (sic) plan.

That's ought to be the source of your ire. Not me. Or Nader calling them ALL out.

Point your gun elsewhere.

[MADem]

326. Unlike you, apparently, I have read the entire thread.

I have provided plenty of links throughout this discussion.

Try getting off the dime and putting your eyes on the screen and reading all the comments and responses and the links that "go with." Or don't.

Nader "called them all out" so the GOP would win, and he could keep making money.

You were USED by Saint Ralph. Now you're mad at me for mentioning it. Whatever.

[Wilms]

334. Gee.

I admit not dragging a hundred "FUCK YOU NADER" posts over my eyes.

And I saw your Fidelity link. Apparently he's got $100K in it. What percentage of that is with the bad guys? Having said that...he should never have invested a penny in it. I'm pretty sure there are ways to avoid that and he should have...long ago.

Lemme ask you. Have you looked at the financial of any of the DINOs let alone, say (let AT&T off the hook) Pelosi? Not to single her out but you get the picture.

Now, given Nader's overall portfolio, how he spends it on himself, and how much he donates, what do you think the chances of him being influenced by the MIC? And how does it detract from his charge...you know...the point of the OP?

That's the main issue here. Not the embarrassingly adolescent FUNader.

[MADem]

341. That was before the war made it worth millions.

You really need to just stop playing the false equivalency game.

Nancy Pelosi or "Name Your Poison(D)" isn't going around spouting the kind of shit that Nader is. Nancy Pelosi doesn't run around fucking Democrats and helping Republicans get elected. Ralph does.

Nader's goal was to suppress the vote, to peel away Dem votes, to spread disaffection and chaos. He did his job beautifully, and he made millions from it, too. He did it twice, because he discovered he LIKED the cash.

The FUNader is an outgrowth of Nader's disloyalty to progressive ideals while USING those very same ideals to become wealthy. He is a liar and a hypocrite. He is a war profiteer and a corporate toady. A Big Oil investor while playing the radical environmentalist card. A complete and total bullshit artist. If bullshit were electricity, he'd be a powerhouse.

He deserves to be told to go fuck himself...and those who continue to support that lying sack of runny crap because they "like his message" are fools. He's USING people, trying, once again, to suppress the Democratic vote.

You do realize he "donates" his money to himself? To his own little "non-profits?" He's REAL charitable so long as he can continue to exercise authority over the money. That way he can write off his "expenses" as a board member of the non-profits that he controls with a Stalinesque fist. It's a tax dodge.

And people who don't get it, don't see the full agenda of war profiteering, support for abrogation of workers' rights, elimination of any protections against China's job-busting imports--all of which Nader supports with his own investments-- because they like the pretty, meaningless words, continue to carry his fetid water.

They might as well just skip the middleman and vote for RMoney, because that's the net result.

So, once more, con brio--Fuck Ralph Nader.

[Wilms]

348. I'm pretty much done with your off-topic-ness.

Unless I'm confusing you with another poster, I'm reminded of a frequent bullying nature in your posts. I don't need it.

I think the point of the OP is so clear, and so difficult for you to accept that you resort to a "moving the cheese" approach. Which is not an approach. It's a retreat. Like the foul-mouthed retorts. Classy.

I do not support DINOs. And you've got a problem with that. I got it.

Here. The DINOs are at it, once again picking up with the Republicans left off. You think your not being played while resorting to attempting to play with every Democratic principle loving poster on this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002917652

[MADem]

351. Keep supporting Ralph. By so doing, you are supporting a GOP candidate and making Ralph rich.

You plainly don't "get" anything I've said, and you are playing the "huffy" card and the "naughty words" card and snidely suggesting I've interacted with you before in an unkind way as a justification for your backing out of this conversation.

I've made you uncomfortable.

Good. You should be. You know what Ralph is about now, you can't pretend you don't, yet you're going to whine about DINOs, when the topic is Ralph. The OP isn't about DINOS. It's about Ralph.

Ralph Nader is a GOP enabler, an anti-worker and pro-corporation investor, and a war profiteer who carries GOP water every time he opens his mouth. That's the bottom line, here. Not "Waah, I hate DINOs."

Support Ralph, Support RMoney.

Ralph is a one-trick pony, doing the GOP's bidding for the third time in 12 years.

[Wilms]

353. It's about DINOs.

They/you are the GOP enablers. Own it. It fits you.

[MADem]

366. Repeatedly bellowing a falsehood does not make it true. Check the OP.

It's about Ralph "Corporate Pig" Nader, friend of the GOP, Bush enabler, and enemy of progressive causes.

It's not about DINOs--no matter how many times you try to move the goalposts and change the subject from, dare I say, an Inconvenient Truth.

DINOs--if they even exist--aren't the liars, here. Their stances and portfolios are in accord.

Ralphie is the one telling you how free trade and Walmart are bad while he makes money off it. Ralphie's the one telling you that the food supply sucks while he owns stock in McDonald's. Ralphie is the one crabbing about war and getting wealthy off his weapon and military logistics stocks. Ralphie's the anti-worker, pro-war Bush toadie. That's what his money and his investments tell us.

It's just logical that a guy who is heavily invested in the war machine would want the war president to win. That's why he spent all his time (using GOP money) in battleground states. That's why he belittled Democrats and suppressed the vote.

Your pal, your stinking rich, One Percenter buddy, with his portfolio chock-full of "unprogressive" stocks and his personal fiefdom "non-profits" stuffed with his "donations" to beat the tax man, worked very hard for Dubya and his hard work was rewarded--he became even more wealthy under the Bush regime.

So you go on and "own" that. And stop insisting it's about DINOS when it is all about Ralphie. Start your own thread if you want to whine about DINOs.

[Wilms]

368. .

[MADem]

401. .? What does that mean? Here's some light reading for you re: Progressive Ralph...

Saint Ralphie--by a guy who used to work for him: http://timshorrock.blogspot.com/2006/06/boss-nader-or-how-i-was-fired-by-ralph.html

This is the best account of how I was fired in 1984 by Ralph Nader for, among other things, organizing a union in one of his shops. I still stand behind what I told the Left Business Observer during the 1996 election, when Nader began his foolish runs for the presidency that, in 2000, helped elect Bush and Cheney. "First, Nader's campaign against me was incredibly vicious. His top aides spread all kinds of rumors about me in Washington and managed to get me pretty well blacklisted from the public interest crowd (which actually was a good thing). They even tried to convince people I was a communist (!!!) out to subvert Nader's organizations. Ralph Nader may look like a democrat, smell like a populist, and sound like a socialist - but deep down he's a frightened, petit bourgeois moralizer without a political compass, more concerned with his image than the movement he claims to lead: in short, an opportunist, a liberal hack. And a scab."

[Ikonoklast]

34. Anti-Union Ralph Nader fools the gullible sooo easily. They keep his little family-run empire in

the millions.

FUCK RALPH NADER, who can never seem to find a Republican worth attacking...because he carries water for them, and takes their money.

[Wilms]

47. Actually, in the OP Nader IS attacking republicans and their policies.

Not sure if you read it or merely reacted to the "N-word" in the thread title.

[MADem]

239. And on the other hand, he's whining at CISCO because his stock has fallen in value; he wants a

dividend and he'll foot-stomp until he gets one.

He's a tool of the right, and he keeps his ugly mug on TV by being a scold of the left.

[Le Taz Hot]

38. +1

Last edited Sat Jul 7, 2012, 02:39 PM - Edit history (1)

'Course Nader is completely right but this is a place where Nader gets all the blame for the 2000 theft of the presidency. To do that, of course, one has to strain to completely forget voter purges, last-minute precinct removal/relocation, butterfly ballots, the Supreme Court and Tammy Faye Harris. I suppose every cause must have it's scapegoats and Nader is the dog whistle for "Third Wayers."

[arely staircase]

48. nader is the one who aided the fascists, making him the vichey progressive

project much?

[Wilms]

98. Really? I thought it was Clinton/Gore pushing WTO/NAFTA.

And here we are with Rmoney/Bain.

[arely staircase]

109. no it was nader taking money from the gop to defeat the democrats

THAT is vichey behavior.

[Wilms]

115. Are you saying offshoring is OK if your a DINO?

I'm saying offshoring is a given, given the DINOs.

[arely staircase]

130. no im saying ralph nader deserves much of the credit for the dystopia that was the cheney years

we all paid the price for his ego trip. that's what im saying.

[Wilms]

143. Well, you're not alone. I'll give you that.

And I largely disagree given ALL of the facts surrounding that election.

And of course we'd have been better off with Gore, but I doubt anywhere near as many believe.

[arely staircase]

144. gore would not have invaded iraq nt

[Wilms]

147. I hope he wouldn't have.

But given the Clinton/Albright treatment Iraqi children received it's not at all clear to me.

Now we have a Nobel Prize winning Democratic President who sends his AG to defend Bush, et. al., ups the surveillance society, etc.

My expectations haven't been dashed, they've been outright trashed.

[MADem]

300. Well, Ralph had stock in Halliburton, General Dynamics, and Raytheon, for starters.

Can't say he wasn't all geared up to make a sweet profit off a GOP war....!

[msongs]

28. In one or 2 sentences, please state the democrats vision/agenda for America. thank you :-) nt

[arely staircase]

55. here you go

Democrats believe that we're greater together than we are on our own—that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules. Our party, led by President Obama, is focused on building an economy that lasts—an economy that lifts up all Americans.

http://www.democrats.org/about/our_party

then you have these people:

Today’s Democratic Party views the tax code as a tool for social engineering. They use it to control our behavior, steer our choices, and change the way we live our lives. The Republican Party will put a stop to both social engineering and corporate handouts by simplifying tax policy, eliminating special deals, and putting those saved dollars back into the taxpayers’ pockets.

http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Economy.htm

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

80. "Not as bad" and "The Lesser of Two Evils"

[MADem]

327. Health care/social safety net/equality. GOP? Rich get richer, fuck you poor folks. NT

[kentuck]

29. The worst thing that Nader did...

was that he caused more Democrats to vote for Bush in Florida than voted for him... If he hadn't persuaded those Democrats to go for Bush, then he would have been irrelevant.

[Lizzie Poppet]

35. Gee, Ralph...maybe you should enter the race.

And make sure the Republicans win.

Again.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. But..but..caving to the Repugs is "smart politics".

"History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians.  Now, to go and stick one at the very head of government couldn’t be wise." Mark Twain

[NashvilleLefty]

39. Nuck Fader. How many elections has he won?

Yet he's giving advice on how to win elections. When the best he has done is act as a spoiler.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

40. Let me add my

Fuck Ralph Nader.

[Douglas Carpenter]

41. I like Ralph Nader

But I would never vote for any candidate that might throw an election to the Republicans.

[Odin2005]

42. FUCK NADER!!!

[SidDithers]

43. Fuck Ralph Nader...nt

Sid

[treestar]

52. +1

[arely staircase]

45. what a sad little man nader has become

nader was once one of my heroes. unfortunately all of the good things he accomplished will always be overshadowed by the part he played in making cheney president. and the evil cheney did more than outweighed any good nader did previously. now his desperate attempts to remain relevant are simply cringe worthy. i kinda feel sorry for him. but then i think of the damage he caused and the feeling passes.

[MADem]

210. Think about the millions he has in union-busting CISCO stock--that'll tamp down those pangs, too. nt

[otherone]

50. We should landslide in Nov..

I really think that Obama is gonna have some long coat-tails, imho

[Kyad06]

56. Sure hope so...

The alternative would be the final nail in the coffin of Democracy

[aikoaiko]

51. Fuck Ralph Nader!

[Gman]

53. This is all your fault, Nader

so STFU already and go away.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

68. The Democrats are caving to the Repugs to please Nader??

Do tell.

[Gman]

195. No, we would have few if any of the problems we have now

Had that ass fuck stayed out of the 2000 election. Thousands of American kids amd tens of thousands of others would be alive and we would never have gone to war.

Don't act like you don't know. You've been around plenty long enough..

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

196. Nader ran as a Green. Not a Democrat.

Shouldn't you be talking to the Democrats who didn't vote for him? Or, to Gore for not winning over the Nader voters?

[Le Taz Hot]

389. Or to Tennessee, his own state,

who went for Bush? (Sorry, I just had to throw that in there.) Carry on.

[demosincebirth]

61. I hate to say anything good about that loser, but many of the things he says about us democrats,

elected or not are very true. Especially democrats in congress.

[Orrex]

65. Does he still exist? Who knew?

[Progressive dog]

66. Hey Ralph, what do you care?

Do you really believe that any democrat cares what you think?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

67. He is correct on this

But I still don't like him.

[patrice]

69. I think he suffers from an inflated-ego, but HE'S RIGHT about this. They have nothing to lose.

[bvar22]

302. Show me a politician who does NOT have an inflated ego with narcissistic tendencies.

Those are required for anyone considering that field.

For that matter,
show me a Consumer Activist who does not suffer from the same.

[patrice]

531. Yep. This is why we NEED public campaign finance and instant-run-off-voting. nt

[patrice]

532. If Bernie Sanders has them, he controls them pretty well. nt

[lastlib]

70. STFU, Nader!

You gave us George W. Bush in 2000 (for which I will never forgive you!)--you're NOT going to saddle us with W. M. Romney!

GO AWAY!!

[DinahMoeHum]

72. Re Nader: "I don't think I've ever met a bigger asshole"

- Bob Weir (Grateful Dead)

from the October 14 (#959) issue of Rolling Stone (2004) (sorry, cannot get a viable link here)
(snip)
"...Ralph Nader is the most arrogant and narcissistic guy I've ever met. I had a meeting with him in the early Nineties. I was jazzed going into the meeting, and I was disgusted leaving. I don't think I've ever met a bigger asshole. If he hadn't run in the last election, we wouldn't be in Iraq and thousands of people wouldn't have died needlessly. And still he's well pleased to go in and be the spoiler again..."
(snip)

[MADem]

335. I have a link that will do. Ralph Nader was a war profiteer, steering votes to the war candidate.

The election of Bush made Ralph Nader even wealthier than he was before, because Ralph Nader was invested in the war machine.

Here's the full clip:


Bob Weir
THE DEAD
Ralph Nader is the most arrogant and narcissistic guy I've ever met. I had a meeting with him in the early Nineties. I was jazzed going into the meeting, and I was disgusted leaving. I don't think I've ever met a bigger asshole. If he hadn't run in the last election, we wouldn't be in Iraq and thousands of people wouldn't have died needlessly. And still he's well pleased to go in and be the spoiler again!

Harry Truman said that the one crime more heinous than treason is war profiteering, and yet we have the company that our vice president is still on retainer to - which is illegal - making a huge fortune. Every time the terrorists blow up another pipeline over there, Halliburton makes millions of dollars pasting it back together. They don't even have to be pumping oil to be making money. This is who owns our government now.

Though I've never really endorsed a political candidate before, I'm going to have to this time. I liked the look in Kerry's eye when I met him. He looks like an aware human being and a guy with a sense of humor. So we're just going to have to hope and pray that the debates go well.


http://www.blog.hr/print/id/70358/voices-for-change.html

[Tarheel_Dem]

340. +1

[Skidmore]

73. Nader, horsefly

tracking Republican crap around the universe for them.

[on point]

74. He's RIGHT!! Continued backbone failure and triangulation will lead to defeat

[Aerows]

434. You want a backbone?

Here's one: Ignore all the stupid things that Nader says, because he is not genuine and does the Democratic party ZERO good.

Wave the Statue of Liberty lamp and the United States flag in somebody else's face beside mine. I already love my nation, and I don't need that to prove it.

[MADem]

441. +1 nt

[white_wolf]

75. Ahh I love seeing the Nader bashers.

Face it, the SCOTUS are the only ones to blame for Bush gaining the Oval Office. They stole it for him. Besides, if Gore had ran a better campaign he might not have lost any votes to Nader. Of course, it doesn't matter, because Gore won anyway. He beat Bush, Nader did not cost him the election. Seriously, blame the SCOTUS for stealing it and blame Gore for running a bad campaign.

[DJ13]

82. +1

Unfortunately Nader's name has become a conditioned response to a large number of Dems that allows them to ignore the points he makes.

Its our version of the cons and their conditioned response to Gore.

[ProSense]

91. What's that

"They stole it for him. Besides, if Gore had ran a better campaign he might not have lost any votes to Nader. Of course, it doesn't matter, because Gore won anyway."

...saying: "close enough to steal"

Fuck Nader!

[libinnyandia]

94. Ralph Nader lied in 2000. He made possible the theft of the election.

[girl gone mad]

315. Q: Why was the 'lie' so easy to believe?

A: Watch the Bush/Gore debates again.

[libinnyandia]

357. Gore did not equal Bush. That was a lie. And can you tell me why Nader ran again in 2004 and

2008, after the evil Bush and Cheney did? Nader hates the Democratic Party. What would he have ever accomplished without the Democrats? He did not accomplish what he did by decree. The Democrat and even a few Republicans made the changes possible. Nader lost all credibility after what he did in 2000, 2004 and 2008. That's why they don't listen to him now.

[sabrina 1]

106. Gore won the election, so it's funny to see anyone who is a Democrat

refusing to admit that.

Nader of course had nothing to do with the theft of the 2000 election.

The Supreme Court's criminal decision was what took that victory from Gore.

I keep wondering why some people seem determined to ignore that crime and find a scapegoat to point at, and away from them.

Nader has zero to do with that election being stolen.

[lordsummerisle]

159. +1 n/t

[jeff47]

496. Nader had plenty to do with the theft

He helped make the election close enough to steal.

10% of Nader's voters in FL voting for Gore would have made a large enough lead that it couldn't have been stolen.

Nader talks a nice game. His actions do not match his words.

[sabrina 1]

515. No, he didn't. Not one serious analysis of what happened in 2000 ever

credited Nader with playing any role in the theft of that election.

Buchanan's Gore votes, the hundreds of thousands of Democrats who voted for Bush, all of these played a much, much bigger role than anything Nader did. We KNOW those votes were meant for Gore. For you to assume that people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore, is merely a supposition. It is very likely that few of those votes would ever have gone to Gore.

However the Buchanan votes were meant for Gore and of course the real criminals in all of this, the five Supremes who stopped the counting, stole more votes from Gore by doing so.

Nader had nothing to do with the theft of the 2000 election no matter how many times anyone says so.

[jeff47]

517. You are only assigning the literal votes for Nader as the effect.

How many of those "Bush Democrats" voted that way "because there's no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans"? We don't know.

Oh, and 10% of Nader voters is about double the votes Buchanan got, so that 10% is a much bigger deal than mistaken votes for Buchanan.

For you to assume that people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore, is merely a supposition. It is very likely that few of those votes would ever have gone to Gore.

Based on your wishful thinking?

So....if there's no Nader in the race, those left-leaning people will decide to vote for....who exactly? Nader vastly outperformed Greens in previous elections, so it's dumb to pretend they'd all vote green.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, 10% qualifies for most people as "few".

Nader had nothing to do with the theft of the 2000 election no matter how many times anyone says so.

I realize you really want to believe this.

But no Nader = Gore in the White House. He was not the primary cause of the theft, but he made the margin small enough to cause the theft. Just like leaving a door unlocked doesn't cause a theft, but it enables it.

But much more importantly, he only talks like a liberal. He does not follow that talk up with action. Usually, we call such people "frauds". That's kinda the main point.

[sabrina 1]

519. Most of what you just said is merely supposition.

Otoh, there have been many expert analysis of that election, with facts and figures, not to mention the main reason for what happened, a fact you totally ignored for some reason. The SUPREME COURT!

Had the counting been allowed to continue, Gore would have won, period.

He WON the election, so to say Nader caused him to lose it, is to ignore the FACTS.

Why are you ignoring the theft of that election, a crime that should have been prosecuted?

And exactly what does this mean?

I realize you really want to believe this.

Explain it please. I do not know you. I don't recall interacting with you much, if at all. Do you know me? You speak as if you think you do. And if the rest of your 'analysis' is as accurate as that false statement, then there isn't much else to say.

For your information, I MET Gore during that election, I worked for him and have the records, the photos, the co-workers to prove it. I, like so many others was devastated by what happened and outraged that the USSC interfered in an election that Gore WON and handed it to the moron who nearly destroyed this country.

How dare you make such false assumptions about someone you know nothing about.

I will not remain silent when people attempt to cover up for the criminals on the SC no matter how many times they try to do it.

A crime was committed, that led to many other crimes, and it is egregious for anyone to try to cover it up by using the ridiculous, and initially right wing distraction that another legal candidate had anything at all to do with that crime.

Nader had nothing to do with the theft of the 2000 election. Gore won that election, the USSC stole it for Bush. Period.

[jeff47]

522. Why the hell do I bother?

You always seem to stop paying attention to a post after about the first 3 sentences.

a fact you totally ignored for some reason. The SUPREME COURT!

You are lying. Go actually read the post this time. I mentioned it explicitly.

Had the counting been allowed to continue, Gore would have won, period.

And the counting was stopped because of the case. A case that would not have occurred with a larger margin of victory. That small margin was due, in part, to Nader.

Why are you ignoring the theft of that election, a crime that should have been prosecuted?

I'm not. You are lying.

Explain it please. I do not know you. I don't recall interacting with you much, if at all.

I'm not surprised. You've replied to many of my posts, usually without bothering to read them. Much like here.

I mean you are all over this thread shouting down anyone who claims Nader had any part in the theft. You are utterly unwilling to consider that Nader enabled the theft, even when other explicitly say it's not all his fault. He helped, like leaving a door unlocked helps thieves.

But that's not good enough for you, according to your posts. Nader must be declared utterly blameless, or you will come charging in.

How dare you make such false assumptions about someone you know nothing about.

So far you've lied about me two times in one post. Get off your high horse.

I will not remain silent when people attempt to cover up for the criminals on the SC no matter how many times they try to do it.

You're lying. Again. That's 3 times you've lied about me now.

A crime was committed, that led to many other crimes, and it is egregious for anyone to try to cover it up by using the ridiculous, and initially right wing distraction that another legal candidate had anything at all to do with that crime.

4 lies now.

Nader had nothing to do with the theft of the 2000 election. Gore won that election, the USSC stole it for Bush. Period.

I realize you really want to believe this. But it's not true.

Nader left the door unlocked. The guy who stole the TV through the unlocked door committed the crime. But he wouldn't have been able to reach the TV if the door was locked.

But much more importantly, he only talks like a liberal. He does not follow that talk up with action. Usually, we call such people "frauds". That's kinda the main point.

I eagerly await your indignant reply where you attack me again for things I did not say. Perhaps this time you can make it a tad more entertaining by replying in rhyme.

[treestar]

112. You're blaming Gore

whatever a "better campaign" is, he wouldn't have needed it.

[shcrane71]

265. Well said. When someone tells you not to listen to Nader,

always listen to Nader. Then make up your own mind.

[jeff47]

497. I find it's much more important to watch Nader than listen to him

Because his actions do not match his rhetoric.

[MADem]

298. I love seeing the clueless defenders of that Hypocritical One Percenter/GOP Corporate Tool. nt

[RevStPatrick]

76. I have to agree with everyone else... FUCK Ralph Nader!!!

Even in situations like this, where he is 100% correct!
ESPECIALLY when he is 100% correct.

Right?

[Fumesucker]

78. Fuck Ralph Nader, Democrats should cower even *more* abjectly..

Hey, it's a winning strategy for opossums..

Well, most of the time anyway.

[libodem]

90. You know the drill

Fuck Nader.

[Trajan]

93. I used to love Nader ... Now I despise him .... but HE IS RIGHT !

Love him ... Hate him .... Doesn't really matter ...

What DOES matter ? .... The Democrats ARE cowering, unable to articulate a decent defense of Liberalism ...

For decades, this is true ....

So don't let your hatred/love of Ralph Nader obscure this reality: The Democratic Party is unable to justify their own philosophy, and fear being publicly condemned by conservatives ....

They aren't up to the fight, and haven't been for a very long time ...

[Teamster Jeff]

103. I agree except that

I don't think the Democratic Party even has a philosophy to justify anymore

[onenote]

99. I'm sorry, but what's Nader's winning percentage in elections?

[sadbear]

102. More attacking the messenger, huh?

If Howard Dean said the same thing, would he get the same reaction from DU?

[pnwmom]

202. Why? Because Dean is trying to help. What's Nader doing to help fight the Rethugs?

He'd rather criticize the Dems for not being pure enough.

[sadbear]

248. Criticizing Dems for not being pure enough

is an accepted practice here on DU. I still don't understand the venom. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Ralph was a DU poster who has criticized me for advocating putting forth candidates who could win (and not necessarily those who are 100% "pure&quot .

[Kolesar]

108. "Glowering" Nader faces obscurity

The age spotted attention hound that he is

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

110. "Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for George Bush" -San Francisco Chronicle

[jeff47]

498. Ok, and how many of those did so because "there's no difference between Bush and Gore"?

The guy did everything he could to get in the way as much as possible. That made the election closer, and probably made it close enough to steal.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

505. So, maybe Gore should have set out to prove enough of difference and captured the Left.

Instead of going after the "moderate" Democrats who voted for Dubya. It was his call to ignore the Left, not Nader's.

[jeff47]

516. And it was Nader's call to go after the left

Thus stripping votes from Gore. His "they're exactly the same" shtick also cost Gore votes in the center.

Nader did not single-handedly cause the FL fiasco. But he did a hell of a lot to help it along.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

524. Why would it have been Nader's job to help his opponent win?

Nader offered a left alternative to the establishment parties and convinced a number of voters to vote for him. Those votes were available to Gore but he didn't seek them.

Whose fault is that?

[jeff47]

578. By your logic, it's Nader's fault. (nt)

[AnOhioan]

111. Hate on Nader if you will, but he is right.

[orpupilofnature57]

113. Thanks for facillitating ShrubCo you dweebie fuck

Eat shit and die ,egghead!

[limpyhobbler]

114. If Dems are so afraid of challenges from the left...

Why not remove the threat by

1) Supporting election reforms like run-off voting or ranked choice that would allow people to express their opinions without fear of "spoiling" the election or throwing it to the gop...

2) Adopting some of the Green/Left agenda on the key issues where they express the most concern. Those include for example some environment and trade issues.

?.

These would be adult responses to a political challenge from the left, as opposed to calling names like a bunch of fricken babies. Grow up whiners. Find a way to incorporate the Green/left agenda into the political debate in a constructive way.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

117. Naw. They'd rather blame the voters than appeal to them.

If politicians want votes they have to appeal to the voters. Obviously, Gore didn't want the votes of the left so he moved to the "center"... who voted for Bush anyway.

[DevonRex]

119. HaHahaHA. Because grumpy old Nader appeals to SO many!!

OMG. whee! This is fun!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

146. Well, grumpy old Nader wrecked the election according to some.

And, the same people who trash him endow him with almost mystical powers to wreck the country.

[sabrina 1]

313. Well, make up your mind. He is either the most powerful man in America

who singlehandedly stole an election, or he was so insignificant he had nothing to do with it.

I'm going with the second option. He had zero to do with the crime committed by the SC.

Gore won, so I guess the most powerful man in the world, Nader, helped him win? Wait, I'm confused. Gore won, and it was Nader who interfered with the counting of votes? Nope, that didn't happen either.

Can you explain how he is responsible while hundreds of thousands of Democrats who voted for Bush, Katherine Harris, Karl Rove, The Felonious Five had nothing to do with stealing what was a WIN for Gore?

I mean if Gore won, which he did, how does Nader fit into this picture?

[NYC Liberal]

135. Nader would STILL have run and used the same right-wing talking points,

with GOP funding, no matter what platform the Democrats ran on. Anyone who said there was no difference between Bush and Gore is a delusional liar who is simply not credible.

[limpyhobbler]

142. Anybody should be allowed to run. The point is he would not have had any support.

Without support from Greens/Left-wing voters, he would have no impact. Many people don't want to vote for a party than excludes their issues on trade/labor/environment/human rights/etc.

It does make a difference what positions the Democrats take, for people in this voting group. My sister is a good example. She is working her butt off for Green Party candidate Jill Stein in Ohio and keeps blabbering on about how we need a "Green New Deal" or some nonsense. I think if the Dems would have just paid a little more attention and taken on some of that Green/Left Agenda, we could have kept my sister's vote. She was an Obama supporter in '08.

Do you want only Democrats and Republicans to be allowed on the ballot?

I'm sorry some people think the lesson from 2000 is that Greens and left-wingers need to be insulted until they shut up.
The correct lesson is find a way to be successful with a challenge from the left. Either by run-off voting or adopting some key pieces of the Green/Left agenda. Because I guarantee you people are not going to shut up and watch the Democratic party get dragged further to right every election and just go along quietly.

PS. Nader uses left-wing talking points, not right-wing talking points, so what you mean?

[NYC Liberal]

152. It has nothing to do with being "allowed" to run.

Yes, we all know anyone who wants to run can run. That doesn't mean that if you have an agenda in mind you should consider the effects of your candidacy and actually consider a strategy. Nader claimed there was no difference between Bush and Gore. That was as demonstrably false then as it is now. Many people knew full well it was bullshit.

Gore "lost" Florida by 500 votes. If a fraction, a tiny fraction, of Nader voters had instead voted for Gore, he would have won easily. If Nader hadn't run, some would have stayed home for sure, and some would have voted for Bush. But enough people would have compromised and voted for Gore as a "second-best" alternative to Nader.

Does that mean Nader had no right to run. No. But when you remember things like "GOP Group To Air Pro-Nader TV Ads", you realize who was helping who. It had nothing to do with principles and everything to do with ego. Thus the Democrats could take any position and do anything, and there would still be a Ralph Nader.

People will always be suckered in by candidates like Nader who they can use as an outlet for their anger or frustration without considering the strategical, long-term implications. Consider this man from 2000:

"I ask you to think how you would feel when you wake up Nov. 8 and Bush has carried Oregon," Lieberman told a voter he met in Portland. The voter, Mike Manning, said later that he was unconvinced.

"I understand the ramifications if Bush gets in," Manning said. "It's a matter of conscience."

http://amarillo.com/stories/102800/usn_gopairs.shtml

[limpyhobbler]

168. We learned very different lessons from the 2000 election I guess.

Instead of bashing Nader or his voters we should focus on reforming the election system so that people can vote Green or whatever without fear of spoiling the election. Democratic party loyalists never even mention that. I guess it's more fun to bash the base? Or maybe they like being able to hold people hostage and forcing them to vote for Dems so they don't spoil it and throw it to Republicans? They use the threat of the GOP to force left-wingers to vote Dem. Some people don't appreciate being blackmailed like that. Reform the system so it is no longer an issue.

Or Democrats could mitigate the threat of a challenge from the left by taking on some of the Green/Left agenda, which is also a very popular platform with the American people, and it would help to win. That's the point of the OP after all.

If President Obama will say on TV we should repeal the Taft-Hartley Act, stop fracking for natural gas until it is proven safe, and stop TPP negotiations, then I will promise to vote for Dems for the rest of my life.

If you want to talk about who gets money from right-wing interests, don't worry Democrats take plenty of money from big banks, oil companies, mining companies, bomb builders, gun makers, and the like. And it influences their policies.

I asked my sister why she is voting for Jill Stein. She said "I support the Green Party because they support me".

Wrong answer, but I understand where it comes from. Abandon the left wing and some will split. They have no other way of expressing themselves in the political system because the Democratic Party excludes them. I would like to see that change.

[Bluerthanblue]

116. "defeat" is something he is an expert in.

He's great at pointing out what everyone else coulda woulda shoulda done, but not very effective in doing anything of much value himself.

I find him a difficult person to have much respect for.

[bvar22]

121. Nader is a copy cat.

Harry Truman said the same thing:

[font size=4]
"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."
---President Harry Truman

QED:2010[/font]


[font size=4]Leadership! "The Buck Stops HERE!" NO Excuses![/font]


As much as some here would like you to believe it,
Nader is NOT a Superman who single-handedly knocked the wheels off the entire Democratic party.
He WAS and IS a geeky little Consumer Activist who stepped into
a HUGE VACUUM created by the "Centrist" Democrats under Bill Clinton.

Ask yourself, "Was Nader really THAT strong"?
or "was the Democratic Party that weak after it abandoned its Working Class Base under Clinton?"

If the Democratic Party had NOT moved to the Anti-LABOR, deregulating RIGHT,
there would have been no Nader.

Thats a fact, Jack.

The really bad news is that the Party has moved even further to the Anti-LABOR/Pro-CEO RIGHT under the current administration, especially with the new "Free Trade" deals.

You simply can't neglect and ridicule a spouse,
and then expect them to stay home and cook for the boss forever.

Blaming "the stupid voters", while it might feel good,
has never produced an effective results.
No one is going to change the voters,
so Blaming them only sets up MORE failure.

If Leadership is willing to account for its policy shortcomings,
the problem CAN be fixed,
but it takes some integrity to do these examinations,
and a potential loss of donations from the CEO class.

So lets keep blaming Nader or The Voters for a Failure of Leadership.
It is so much easier and doesn't require any courage or critical thinking.



[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[AnotherMcIntosh]

175. Oh great. Now you're running the risk that they are going to trash Truman and Wellstone.

[MADem]

398. He is a wealthy, secretive, lawbreaking liar who gambles with his non-profit money and doesn't pay

his taxes. He's no Paul Wellstone. Not even close. Paul Wellstone didn't engage in insider trading or become a target of the IRS.

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

One reason he may hide his ample cash reserves -- besides the fact that people may not want to give him more money -- is that he is fond of playing the stock market with that green. (He also uses surpluses from his most flush organizations, usually the tax deductible ones, to give grants to his other groups.) Some of these transactions appear reckless for a nonprofit, "public interest" group; others skirt the edges of insider trading and conflict of interest. Mostly, it seems that all this money was a toy that Nader enjoyed playing with, especially as his winnings increased his power, fame and influence.

For example, the Nader is the president and treasurer of the Public Safety Research Institute. In 1970 alone, PSRI traded on the stock market 67 times, buying and selling $750,000 worth of stock, though the organization only had $150,000 worth of assets. These trades included a number of short sales, high risk and tricky transactions. Some worked, some lost money. In later years, PSRI traded less, for a good reason -- the IRS audited them after 1970 and charged the organization with "churning", excessive stock trades whose risk threatens the charitable purposes of the organization. It paid a fine and did not contest the charge. Thereafter, PSRI continued to play the market with fewer, generally long positions. Likewise, the Safety Systems Foundation (SSF) -- run by Nader's sister, and entirely funded by him personally -- engaged in a number of stock and bond transactions in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was also fined by the IRS and paid without contest.

Several of these trades were poised to take advantage of Nader's activities, by selling short the stock of companies Nader's groups attacked, or buying stock of their competitors. In 1973, PSRI bought stock in Allied Chemical, the primary manufacturer of airbags, on the very day before GM announced they would offer optional airbags on 1974 models. PSRI made a 12.5% profit in 3 and a half months. In 1976, PSRI and the SSF bought stock in Goodyear just as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- then run by former top Nader aide Joan Claybrook -- announced an investigation of the Firestone 500 series of steel-belted radials. The 2 organizations held onto the stock for 2 years until there was a recall, and Firestone -- Goodyear's major competitor -- suffered.

In 1970, IT&T attempted to merge with the Hartford Fire Insurance Company. Nader filed a 50 page brief attacking the merger, then SSF sold IT&T stock short. It made almost 10% on its money in 6 DAYS, then closed its position two days before the merger was approved. When pressed by a reporter, Nader said the timing was "mere coincidence" and said he had no control over the investment. However, his sister Laura Nader Millerson was the sole trustee of SSF throughout its existence, and Nader was the sole contributor.

[Vincardog]

122. Bingo RN got it in one, If the Democratic candidates would campaign on a Progressive Populous

agenda the GOP would be history. As long as they introduced the policies they campaigned on.

[Kolesar]

124. Renewable energy is enough for me

And my Democratic governor campaigned on it and *accomplished* a renewable energy portfolio standard.
Any questions?

[Auggie]

123. I'm still waiting for the definitive Democratic Party branding campaign ...

We should have had a high-profile "Morning in America" or "New Deal" type of campaign running for weeks by now, with the goal to lift the President and all Democratic candidates alike.

Instead ... nothing.

[gateley]

125. I disagree with the "cowering" but I don't think we're doing enough. :( nt

[AtomicKitten]

126. Punxsutawney Ralph.

Last edited Sat Jul 7, 2012, 10:12 PM - Edit history (2)

[gordianot]

128. Nader needs to stay under his rock he only comes out to bite.

Torture daily or just every few months like Nader HE is the Republican tool and enabler.

[stlsaxman]

131. Another GOP Hack (Nader) Quoted In A GOP Rag (Politico)...

[still_one]

132. What Nader fails to recognize is a large demographic in this country are made up of racist right

Wing loonies, and his actions in 2000 gave an opening for them that we may never recover from

[limpyhobbler]

136. Why blame nader instead of the people who voted for him?

He provided an option on the ballot, and some voters chose that option.

Nader is just one guy. He wouldn't have been a problem except for the voters who chose that option.

[still_one]

173. I blame Nader, I also blame Gore, the supreme court, and the ballots the confused many people

Nader knew what he was doing. He believed that there was no difference between the parties. He is a purist, and in that sense he is very similar to the tea party elements. No middle road

He wanted to cause the havoc that happened, believing that people would turn to the most progressive side

What he failed to recognize was the Nixon southern strategy which was in full blossom waiting to take over

It was close and he knew it, and a lot of people are suffering because he couldn't compromise

Not only did he destroy it for the Democrats and the country, his actions allowed the extreme right to take over

Now social security, Medicare, and civil rights are in danger

and all the good efforts he had previously done, are forgotten with how he screwed up the elections for the Democrats

[MrSlayer]

133. He's right. BE the fucking Democratic party again.

Hate Nader all you want, he's fucking dead right. The problem is that there probably isn't any way to go back to being the party of old. Any true progressive will never get the corporate funding necessary to compete. When the DLC assholes took over the party and sold us down the river it was a forever move. They're never going back. This party has become the Republican party of twenty years ago. The Republican party has gone insane and in any reality based society would be thrown to the winds. Where is the people's party? There isn't one and there probably will never be one again.

[BlueToTheBone]

134. Fuck scum Nadir. n/t

[NYC Liberal]

137. Good to see Ralph sticking up for the Republicans

by shifting blame for Republican obstructionism onto Democrats. Just look at the right-wing framing:

Republicans = dominating, strong, powerful
Democrats = fear, defeatism, cowering

Republicans aren't "strong" at all. They have to resort to crimes and/or sleazy, unethical dirty tricks to win. They have to steal elections and purge voter rolls to get into office. It took a corrupt Supreme Court with 5 Republican justices to get Bush into office in 2000.

Here's the Republican election record for the last few cycles:

1996 - Lost seats in House, lost presidential
1998 - Lost seats in House, no change in Senate
2000 - Lost seats in House and Senate, lost presidential
2002 - Gained seats
2004 - Gained seats, won presidential
2006 - Lost seats in House and Senate (lost majorities in both)
2008 - Lost seats in House and Senate, lost presidential
2010 - Gained seats

[spanone]

138. wasn't he on 'happy days' ?

[Autumn]

140. Good article. Nader is right

“The Democrats should be landsliding the worst Republican Party in history,” the former presidential candidate added. “Instead, Democrats let Boehner and Cantor peddle their unrebutted torrents of falsehoods to the voters in their districts.”


rec

[JoePhilly]

145. The Ground Hog sees his shadow, posts an article, then goes back to sleep.

[Honeycombe8]

148. Spoken like someone who's won a lot of elected offices. Oh, wait. He hasn't won ANY! nt

[great white snark]

154. Do you ever criticize Repubs, Ralph, or do you just silently take their money?

Fuck off.

[Fumesucker]

158. "Craven and cruel corporatist Republicans" sounds like it might possibly be a criticism...

“If the Democrats in Congress were all drinking water from the same faucet, there might be a clue to their chronic fear of the craven and cruel corporatist Republicans who dominate them,”

[richmwill]

160. F Nader

I used to be a fan. Then when I realized the size of the man's ego and the damage he has done, I promptly took all of his books I had purchased and deposited them into the trash bin. Haven't regretted it since.

[Arkana]

161. Ralph Nader can go jump in a lake.

I notice he never, ever criticizes Republicans. Ever.

And before you try and tell me "JUST LISTEN TO HIS MESSAAAAAGGEEE", his message would be much more palatable if his ire was directed towards the people who actually deserve it (admittedly a large number of Democrats, but ALL fucking Republicans).

[Fumesucker]

174. "Craven and cruel corporatist Republicans" sounds like it might possibly be a criticism...

This sentence, evidently a quote from Ralph, was in the OP..

“If the Democrats in Congress were all drinking water from the same faucet, there might be a clue to their chronic fear of the craven and cruel corporatist Republicans who dominate them,”

Then again, maybe Nader meant it as a compliment to Republicans, some of them would certainly take it that way.

[quinnox]

162. The guy has a point, in that it would be great to have a real liberal/progressive party in

this country, which should be represented by the Democrats, but isn't. The Democrats haven't exactly been heroic in their boldness or liberalism for many years, and have instead been seemingly playing a game of who can be more centrist or in some cases, conservative, between them and the republicans. When was the last time a large number of Democrats in power started endorsing and speaking highly of clearly liberal and progressive policies, its a rare or non-existent event.

Those who are concentrating on Nader are missing the point. Of course, some Democrats are centrist or conservative, and do seem to have a strong dislike for the progressive/liberal wing. Sometimes, it seems like these folks have a similar type of hatred for liberals and progressives as the right wingers do.

[stevenleser]

163. FU RN. Nt

[Skittles]

164. Mr. Nader is correct

he can fuck himself but he is still correct

[emilyg]

167. Ditto.

[madrchsod]

169. well.....he`s right

[Bonobo]

177. Perhaps one of the reasons that Nader is hated by so many here

is that they are no longer able to recognize what a real progressive look like anymore, having themselves been so warped out of shape over the years into an approximation of a Republican from 30 years ago.

Perhaps also he is a reminder to those who despise him so of what they once were or hoped to be. A cruel reminder of how they have betrayed their own idealisms in the name of political expediency.

[nashville_brook]

179. +1

shit howdy.

[Tarheel_Dem]

181. That must be it!

[Bonobo]

182. Oh thanks for reminding me --there's another possibility...

They could just be fuckwad neo-liberal redneck types who were never real democrats to begin with.

[bvar22]

453. That assessment gets my vote.

"Reagan Democrats"....

[Egalitarian Thug]

192. 100%. One of the last that changed the world for the better, and he is reviled for it.

Made a scapegoat to evade our own failure.

[joshcryer]

221. I'm pretty sure a lot of people just see him as a useful idiot for the right.

Could be wrong though.

[MADem]

343. Useful to the GOP and no idiot--his war profiteering stocks made him wealthy. nt

[MADem]

240. "Real" progressives take cash from GOP donors and own stock in Raytheon, etc? Who knew?? nt

[jeff47]

500. No, we hate him because we watch what he does, not just what he says.

His words are great.

His actions do not match those words.

There's no need to drag out bullshit psychology to explain this. The guy talks liberal, and then acts to help conservatives. Repeatedly.

[patrice]

530. I started wondering about him when he stiffed a crowd of several hundred several years ago

in Tulsa (there was a good sized group because many of us were working on Rock the Vote that year, if I remember correctly).

Anyway, he didn't show, because he was "exhausted".

No fire in the belly for the people.

[Tarheel_Dem]

183. Great! Tips from the "liberal" asshole who called my president an Uncle Tom.

Last edited Sat Jul 7, 2012, 10:37 PM - Edit history (2)

Anyone who would take political advice from Ralph Nader should be put away. Unless you count helping to elect "W", what political successes does the man have to draw on? Has he ever actually been "elected" to ANYTHING?


Other than his role as chronic pain in the ass, and playing "spoiler" every few years, the M$M could give a shit about Ralph Nader and his progressive bonafides. He's a useful tool when it comes to bashing Democrats from the left, and that's all they care about him.


NADER-WHOEVER / 2012-FOREVER!!! CORVAIRS FOR EVERYONE!!!!

[MADem]

211. Very well said! Bravo! nt

[patrice]

533. Agree. + The words "liberal" and "conservative" are practically meaningless anymore. Reclaim them???

[Tarheel_Dem]

536. Folks like Ralph Nader have perverted the term "liberal", which is why I no longer claim it.

Last edited Wed Jul 11, 2012, 05:18 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm a Democrat.

[progressivebydesign]

185. Geez is that tool still alive? n/t

[SkyDaddy7]

186. Like so many others have said...

FUCK YOU RALPH NADER! Go hide under a rock with George W. Bush!!

[SomethingFishy]

193. While cowering isn't the word I would use..

Nader is right about one thing, this should be a fucking landslide. The Republican party is a joke. What he's wrong about is it's as much the fault of the media as it is the Democratic strategy.

[JoeyT]

194. Man, the mention of the N word really sets a blaze.

Doesn't really matter what he's done or said, just the name starts a firestorm.

So if we're supposed to hate him for helping Bush take over, are we supposed to hate the Democratic senators and congresspeople that sniveled at his feet for eight straight years and dared not oppose anything he pushed, or are we supposed to just completely forget that happened?

[pnwmom]

198. Why isn't Nader sending his troops to help Dems in the fight for progressive values?

He's never happier than when the Rethugs are on top.

[MADem]

227. Because Faux won't pay him those sweet appearance fees to tout for the left side of the equation.

They love the image of a "lefty" (cough, snort) like Nader trashing the Democratic Party. They think it validates their POV.

Nader is a tool, and you're right--he is thrilled when the GOP is winning. I suppose he should be--he took enough money from them when he was running his failed little vanity campaigns.

[pnwmom]

230. Nader makes more money for his organization when the Rethugs are in power.

So he wins either way.

[MADem]

236. If we had individual post rec you'd be racking up the numbers!! nt

[sendero]

242. Nader is an ass...

..... and I will never forgive him for 2000.

However, his comments here are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT as annoying as they may be to the delusional.

The Democrats we have elected, save a few misfits like Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders and a miniscule handful of ocassional others, are giant jellyfish who will not take on the blatant lies of the right at all.

[the other one]

245. Ralph doesn't care about your hate.

I think you are all delusional .

I voted for Nader. Gore ran the douchiest campaign and didn't deserve to win. Even though he did.

A democratic may be different from a republican, but both parties are the same - vehicles for taking donations and breaking promises to their respective constituencies.

[Tarheel_Dem]

346. "A democratic may be different from a republican, but both parties are the same"

"a democratic" is not a noun.

[Democat]

247. Ralph Nader, writing the same article over and over for decades

Yet when he had a chance to make a real difference, he helped elect Bush.

[Amaril]

250. Hey, Ralph Nader knows a thing or two about...........

.....political defeat.

Is that why he keeps losing? Because he cowers?

[no_hypocrisy]

251. If this is Nader's tilt on reverse psychology,

it isn't effective at all.

[MjolnirTime]

254. Nader is irrelevant excrement.

[bvar22]

270. Not according to the majority of posters in this thread.

According to them, Ralph Nader is a SUPERMAN
who single-handedly knocked the wheels off the entire Democratic Party and caused Gore to lose the 2000 election.

To them, Nader is FAR from irrelevant.
They FEAR Nader as much as they FEAR the Truth.

[MADem]

274. Where do you get that crap? Nader is a whining spoiler who managed to fuck over progressives

because his personal hubris led him to put himself before the people he purported to lead.

The ones who are being conned are the ones who think that millionaire corporate stooge, with his Raytheon and Cisco stock, gives a shit about the "little people" and "progressive values."

Ralphie gives a shit about Ralphie. That's why he had no problem taking cash from the GOP.

Anyone who can't see Ralphie for what he is, is a con artist's very easy mark.

[bvar22]

308. The NERVE!

Standing up and saying that NAFTA, "Free Trade", and De-Regulating the Banks and TeleComs was BAD for America's Working Class!
What unmitigated GALL!!!!


The fact that YOU have jumped ALL over this thread
PROVES that Nader is FAR from irrelevant.

Normal human beings do NOT waste their time and passions on something they consider "irrelevant".

[MADem]

311. While investing in WAL MART, where he benefitted from those regulation changes!

Yeah, what unmitigated GALL, indeed. That's the way to support the "working class" -- yelling about NAFTA while INVESTING in WalMart! And let's not forget his investments included The GAP and The Limited!

Feeling a bit queasy because your hero's feet appear to be made of clay? Eat something--go grab a burger at McDonald's! Ralph owns stock in those bums, too!

When the Iraq War "magically" came along after Ralph helped W into the White House, Ralph was well rewarded--his investments in Halliburton, General Dynamics, Raytheon, and Big Oil earned him a hefty profit, that he threw into his OWN non-profits so he could have use of the cash without paying the appropriate taxes on the windfall.

And you keep lapping up the crap he's tossing out at the masses....while he laughs all the way to the bank.

This shit isn't "irrelevant" at all to Ralph. It's IMPORTANT to him...and his One Percenter's bottom line. So long as he can get people like YOU to stay away from the polls, to claim that "they are all the same," to vote for some third party nitwit like you think you are making a difference, the easier it is for Ralph to reap profits from his War Machine-Big Oil-Union Busting stock portfolio. His approach to scolding America is "Do as I say, not as I do."

Follow the money. Ralph Nader has an anti-progressive stock portfolio. The Iraq War made him richer than he was before he got into the game of playing a tethered goat on behalf of the GOP.

You need to start thinking about the wit and wisdom of Dubya--when he said "Fool me once...heh, heh...won't git fooled agin...!" he was actually giving you advice.

Ralph Nader is every bit as progressive as Dick Cheney.

[bvar22]

328. Can you name a single Democratic Politician...

...who does NOT have an investment portfolio?
You are WAY off on the wrong track trying to tar Nader with this brush.
If you yourself are NOT a "hypocrite" ,
you will have to also condemn every single Democrat in Washington.

How many Democrats held Wall Street Stocks in their 1% Portfolio
when they voted to Bail Out the investors in Wall Street Banks?

Your fury is waaaay out of proportion here.
So Ralph held some stocks and became wealthy?
This IS America, and I LIKE and SUPPORT Nader's message.
By resorting to passionate screed and Logical Fallacies in a futile attempt to marginalize his message you do yourself and DU a disservice.

[MADem]

332. You are deliberately being obtuse. Nader decried the government war machine, he pretended to be in

support of the workers, he played like he was opposed to NAFTA and other free trade initiatives.

He painted Halliburton, General Dynamics, Wal-Mart, Big Oil etc. as The Most EVIL Entities In The World, to the cheers of his followers--and all the while, he was heavily invested in them. He knew who ran Halliburton--and it wasn't Al Gore.

He knew who was determined to avenge his daddy in Iraq. That wasn't Al Gore, either.

It was in his immediate, personal and One Percenter self-interest to help to put Bush in the White House. He knows all about how the rich get richer, because he's done it.

All of his little acolytes cheered!!! Yay, Yay!! Ralph is "one of us!!" He wears old suits and Army Navy store boots...he's a poor guy, just like US!!! But he wasn't--that was all a big fat act. He's a multi-millionaire and Bush and Cheney made him richer, still.

And all of his uninformed, hectoring "Waah, you don't like Ralph so I hate you" enthusiasts didn't bother to check and see what a big fat hypocrite that one percenter was and is. They just can't admit that he conned them, and he conned them GOOD. They have to double down and continue to support a self-aggrandizing liar and a craven opportunist who helped the GOP game elections.

He THREW the election to Bush, because it benefited his bottom line.

[NNN0LHI]

255. Hey Ralph. Eat some shit and die

I won't miss you.

Don

[libinnyandia]

260. Why would Nader care? He hates the Democratic Party.

[Romulox]

261. We LOVE us some "ex" Republicans, though. Just change your letter, Ralph--those

whose idea of political discourse is "Fuck Ralph Nader" will embrace you!

[Romulox]

262. I mean, some guy posted a long OP the other day from a guy who "converted" to an "ex" Pub--in 2007!

That "ex" Republican voted for George W. Bush twice, in other words. And now that same "ex" Republican wanted to decide who gets drummed out of the Party?

Weird!

[NNN0LHI]

266. Not trying to inconvenience you but any chance do you have a link to that OP?

I need a good laugh today.

Thanks in advance if you have it handy. Or if you can remember the title I sure don't mind searching for it.



Don

[Romulox]

285. Here ya go: "Ex" (circa 2007!) Republican calls for "purity", stifling of dissent. 108 DUers agree!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=888011

[bvar22]

452. Now THAT is a classic!

To some people, Issues and Policy are meaningless.

So what if the Democratic Party has lurched so far to the Right that former Republicans are now perfectly happy in the New Democrat Centrist Party?
It is only those "Fringe Leftists" like Nader and THAT ilk that are causing trouble,
constantly whining about Issues and Policy and all that boring stuff.

---bvar22
a mainstream-Center FDR/LBJ loyal Working Class Democrat,
NOW relegated to the "Fringe Left" in today's New Democrat Centrist Party.
I haven't changed.

[patrice]

534. You know, some people do see that as prioritizing a dynamic process, not stifling, because some

people do more than one thing at a time, so it's not an either/or choice, it's more of an and/or.

Not everyone, granted, maybe it's perceived as stifling to a "big" majority, but it's just not necessarily 100% stifling. Do individual differences matter or not?

[JHB]

267. Ralphie Boy! Long time no see! How come you only visit every four years?

I mean, you're a man who knows how to work up some buzz, and you've had plenty of time to consider your tactics after that business in 2000. So how come you don't call to touch base more often? Working to undercut the Republicans and arm-twist the Democrats into bolder positions is a regular gig, man, you can't just wander in every blue moon and glad-hand people.

If you really want what you say should be done, figure out how to get it done and do it. Or shut up and go away.

[woo me with science]

276. Never mistake collusion for cowering.

Corporate money is the problem...in both parties.

Until you acknowledge a problem, you cannot fix it.

[limpyhobbler]

361. This is right

The Dem party becomes more corporate every year.

[Cary]

277. I respected Ralph Nader about 20 years ago.

He gave us George W. Bush and I will never forgive him for doing that.

Never.

[matmar]

281. He's absolutely correct.

[Romulox]

287. One thing so sad about 2000 is that Al Gore seems to have learned so little from it. He still

doesn't seem to accept any blame for his own failures, and continues (through surrogates) to point the finger at Nader for daring to be more progressive than Al.

[MADem]

304. Daring to be "more progressive?" Not by his stock portfolio, he wasn't!!!!

Ralph was nicely positioned for a GOP victory, with investments in Big Oil, Halliburton, General Dynamics and Raytheon. For starters. We won't even go into his union-busting, job crushing, wage depressing investments in Wal-Mart, McDonald's, The Gap, and CISCO.

So tell me...who was the progressive, again? Who?

George Bush's war made One Percenter Ralph even WEALTHIER.

What was it Mark Felt said?

Follow The Money.

Don't listen to what they say to whip up the unthinking masses....take a hard look at what they DO.

Ralph didn't live those "progressive" values you seem to still believe he possessed. He conned people like you to do the GOP's bidding. Then he took the money all the way to the bank.

[girl gone mad]

317. Al Gore's portforlio was/is no more progressive.

I find this to be a specious argument.

[MADem]

325. Al Gore wasn't playing the scold. Nader was scolding the Dems while holding a GOP stock portfolio.

Nader herded the innocent idealists away from the one ticket that could improve the situation, so the ticket of War Without End, Amen--the ticket of Halliburton, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Big Oil--in which Ralph was heavily invested--could prevail.

Ralph got even wealthier as a consequence of that GOP victory.

That's not "specious" to me. That's, forgive the expression, right on the MONEY.

[Romulox]

413. Al Gore is worth $100 million, a good deal of which was made via gov't connections. nt

[MADem]

432. Yes, and Al never pretended to be a po'boy, living in a rooming house with a bathroom down the hall,

while actually living in a high end luxury home that was put in his brother's name to conceal his actual lifestyle while he played the starving, thrifty passionate "true believer" who eschewed comfort in all its forms and only took a five thousand dollar a year salary.

We knew who Al Gore was--hell, he spent his childhood living in a HOTEL on Embassy Row in DC, attending a tony private boy's school, and when he graduated he went to little old Harvard. His Daddy was a politician. He came from a political family. We KNEW who he was, we KNEW he was rich. We knew he was wired into "the system." This was not a shock. Now, you can disagree with the propriety of that (I don't like it, either) but we can't say that we didn't know that about Al.

But Nader? He played poor, even though he grew up in a beautiful home in Connecticut with intelligent parents to include an activist mother. He never starved. He never had to starve, either. It was all lies, and the purpose of the lies was to keep people thinking that Ralph was a "true believer" and they'd keep giving money to him to support his "Nader's Raiders." Who would give money to a guy living in a luxury home in a great DC neighborhood? He cultivated a phony image in order to get money. Then he took the money and gambled it on the stock market--no, I am not joking. Then he fired and threatened his underpaid, overworked employees when they tried to unionize.

The guy has a very ugly backstory, full of authoritarian conduct and real abuse of his employees and his position at his non-profits. He is not a nice person, and certainly not a progressive. If more people knew his "real deal," they'd be completely un-enthused about anything to do with "Saint Ralph."

[Romulox]

447. Al is an environmental scold who uses more energy than 10 average families. He also SELLS carbon

credits.

[MADem]

461. And this is known about him. For years. So what?

This thread isn't about "Who is better?" Even it if were, Al Gore beats that GOP tool Nader hands down.

I'll wager most of his blind followers (the few that remain) don't realize that Saint Ralph gambles on the stock market with "nonprofit" funds donated to to his causes. They don't realize that his personal stock portfolio was heavily invested in "Let's Go To War" stocks, and situated for a "win" once GWB got the White House.

I'll wager most people don't realize that Ralph is a union-buster who paid his staff minimum wage 40 hour a week salaries, worked them twice that, and who fired them for trying to unionize, or that he holds WalMart and McDonald's holdings. They don't realize Ralph is a lobbyist in non-profit's clothing, that he is a tax cheat, and he is a liar.

He's just not the Holy Man his unthinking acolytes believe he is. He's a hypocrite who enables the GOP, because it positions him to be a whining Cassandra for his own self-aggrandizement even while he consorts with the enemies of progressive causes.

Fortunately, people who pay attention just aren't buying his schtick anymore.

[Romulox]

490. It's contemptible, hypocritical behavior that completely vitiates Al's ability to scold others. nt

[MADem]

513. Al never wore sackcloth and ashes. He never played the poor boy.

Not once.

He lectures on Inconvenient Truth issues and he's not going to walk from gathering to gathering. He takes planes. He is a public figure and he is hounded if he doesn't sequester himself to some extent.

None of this is a SECRET. Al is rich and he came from money. If, after eight years in the public eye as VP of the nation, you didn't know that about him, shame on you for not keeping up with some very basic "current events" material.

Contrast this with poor boy Ralph, who lied and said he lived in a boarding house with a crapper down the hall, when in actuality he lived in a luxury home he put in his incompetent brother's name. Who played the starving monk, but grew wealthy beyond belief, and hid his wealth in non-profits that he controlled. Who used the money of the non-profits, some of which he bullied out of college students, to gamble on the stock market. Who got investigated by the IRS and fined for his behavior. Who demands five star accommodation even when he's giving a speech to poor groups. Who fired his OWN workers when they tried to unionize after enduring brutal working conditions and slave wages.

It's only hypocritical when you hide behind a charade of poverty and faux progressivism and you grow wealthy from stocks that are heavily invested in war and anti-union "fuck the worker" corporations. That's what Ralph did, and he knew what he was doing when he put the CEO of Halliburton in charge of our government--after all, he had a ton of Halliburton stock!

[Hotler]

291. LOOK everybody! A Ralph Nader post. Everybody dog pile on Ralph.

Keep blaming Ralph. Remember Obama said right after the election "Now is not the time to point fingers." When he should have, instead gave Bush/Cheney a pass. Went on Sixty Minutes and said "Wall St. committed no crimes." when he should have said the bankers a now in prison. Nancy took impeachment off the table. The House/Senate had control for two years and sat on their hands when the should have repealed the Bush tax cuts. Obama talked single payer health care before he was elected. Afterwards he rolled over like a puppy and dropped the subject like a hot potato. Ya! You all keep sitting there behind your keyboards and bitch and moan about Ralph, don't get up off your butts and get out in the streets and protest with the brave folks of OWS. It's Ralph's fault. It's Ralph's fault. It's Ralph's fault. It's Ralph's fault.

[MADem]

307. It's not a "dog pile" to call a one-percenter hypocrite for what he is.

Why would a guy like Ralph want George Bush elected, you wonder?

Because he had stock in Halliburton, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Exxon-Mobile, Shell, etc., that's why.

He was rich and the Bush War made him RICHER.

So the bigger question is--why do you support this hypocritical one percenter, still, when all this is now known?

[sabrina 1]

379. Can you name a politician who is NOT a 1%er?

Other than Dennis Kucinich and a small handful of others, most of whom meet with the same derision from the same people who hate Nader, btw.

Most of our elected officials in positions of power, are 1%ers. Those who are not, tend not to be given a voice in our government.

[MADem]

383. Ralph is the only one I know who plays poor boy while raking in the millions.

Dennis Kucinich isn't rich by a long shot, but he's not ever been secretive about his assets (or lack thereof). His wife has inherited a bit of scratch, which will help. He also gets a pension--he won't get rich off it, but he will not starve.

And Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, retires after eight terms, potentially in debt. The one-time presidential candidate owed between $315,000 and $650,000 on mortgage-related debts but is only worth between $250,000 and $516,000. He has two home-equity loans on which he owed between $50,000 and $100,000 and $15,000 and $50,000, respectively. He also owed between $250,000 and $500,000 on a refinance of his Washington home. Now that he is leaving Congress, perhaps he and his animal-advocate wife will decamp for the United Kingdom, where she inherited an apartment worth between $250,000 and $500,000 last year.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/most-departing-members-net-worth-far-above-national-median-20120614

There are a few "non-One Percenters" listed at that link. And some who are rich as Roosevelt.

It's interesting, though, that a guy like Ralph, who has never run a successful election, has managed to make himself richer than a lot of those members of the House and Senate. Someone's been giving him good advice...

[sabrina 1]

386. I have never heard him call himself 'a poor boy' nor have I ever heard him

condemn anyone for legally making money. I have seen many Politicians vote for bills that personally benefit their own portfolios though. And THAT, imo, is egregious.

Most elected officials who've been there for any length of time, are part of the 1% and THEY get to vote. Nader is a private citizen who has never voted to benefit his own portfolio.

Have you ever looked at who is funding Politicians? Many of them Democrats? I think you are on the wrong track here as it is embarrassing as hell to see who some of our own party officials are funded by and then look at how they vote. It's probably better to leave that subject alone, until after the election.

[MADem]

392. Am I the only one here who is old enough to know about the cult of Ralph?

The cheap apartment with the shoddy furniture? The Army Navy boots, he bought, what, twenty pair to last the rest of his life? The cheap suits? The "poor boy" attitude, cheap as all get out, while he's sitting on MILLIONS?

Oh, he gives his money AWAY! To non-profits! Yeah--to non-profits HE controls with an iron hand. He still controls the money, he just dodges taxes by "giving" some of it to his own agencies. And he doesn't "do" cooperative management. It's Ralph's way, or the highway.

Nader never had to VOTE to benefit his own portfolio. All he had to do was draw away votes from a Democratic ticket in battleground states, using GOP funding, to ensure a GOP win.

This is all quite simple, really. Ralph is a phony progressive who is in the pocket of the GOP. They made him rich.

This isn't about who is funding politicians. Ralph is not in a position to cast a vote to benefit those types of people, anyway. His job was to be a spoiler, and he was rewarded for doing just that.

That's fine if you take issue with that sort of thing and want to complain about it in a separate thread. This isn't the place, though. Two wrongs do not make a right and it's not appropriate to insinuate that they do.

This is about Ralph Nader, fake-progressive, who does the bidding of the GOP and who personally and pecuniarily benefits when a Republican is in the White House. It's past time people wake up and see him for the phony he has always been. He is a bitter, nasty avaricious little shit.


Ordinary, everyday people in the know, and who know Ralph, agree--Ralph is a selfish bastard: http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=4291

http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm Some real eye-opening details, here.

[sabrina 1]

397. It's very possible that he was once not a wealthy man.

Neither were many who now are. That is how things work here in the US.

As I said, I have never heard him condemn anyone for making money.

And yes, it is relevant who is and who is not beholden to Corporate America and how they vote as a result of the support they get from Corporate America.

The issue here is political. He was a politician, that is what we are talking about.

So you hate Nader, fine. But that does not make you right to claim he is responsible for the theft of the 2000 election. He simply is not and that is a fact.

Gore won the election. That makes it impossible for Nader to have caused him to lose. He did not lose. The SC stole the election, and that's all anyone should be talking about when we talk about that election. And that is all most experts on the subject talk about, not one of whom even give Nader credit for playing any significant role in that crime.

[MADem]

399. He has been wealthy since he started insider trading in the seventies--and maybe earlier.

He is not a politician--he is a scold of Democratic politicians to benefit the GOP. He is an authoritarian head of "non-profits" where he gambles on the stock market with the donations.

And he IS responsible for the theft of the election--you're one of the few that does not share this view.

Some light, and sourced, reading: http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm#money

4 years after he unquestionably tipped the 2000 Presidential election to George W. Bush, Nader refuses to admit that or take any kind of responsibility, and he's planning to run again. This time though even the Green party is getting sick of him.

For 30 years, Ralph Nader has proclaimed himself to be "Saint Ralph", the only honest man in Washington, and the only friend of the average citizen. If that doesn't make you puke already, then click on the allegation of your choice:

a HUGE hypocrite -- just another politician -- Anti-democratic authoritarian -- secret luxury house -- owned by the trial lawyers' lobby -- busted a union among his workers -- abuses workers -- amassing millions of dollars and playing the stock market with it -- secrecy and stonewalling -- vindictive toward critics -- forced "contributions" to his college PIRG groups -- hypochondriac -- Quotes -- Sources.

[sabrina 1]

403. Sorry, but the Nader hatred while interesting, still has zero to do with the theft of the

election.

You continue to ignore the fact for some reason, that Gore WON. If Nader's goal was to make him lose, he failed miserably.

Unless you are denying that Gore won.

Your link is simply another individual imbued with Nader hatred and therefore not a reliable source.

However in all the actual credible analysis of the theft of that election, Nader is barely mentioned.

You are free to hate him, I don't have an opinion of him one way or the other, but he had zero to do with the theft of the 2000 election and anyone who says otherwise, is simply allowing their hatred and emotions to guide their 'opinions' because that is all they are, opinions. The fact contradict them.

I really don't know why you are so outraged at anyone in DC enriching themselves unless you apply the same standards, to say, Diane Feinstein. Or Daschle, or anyone else who arrived in DC and managed to become millionaires while supposedly serving the people.

He is just another individual among so very many, who have gone from being ordinary people to wealthy millionaires and billionaires. The fact is he did not vote to help his portfolio, whether he would or would not have is not known. But we do know that many of them HAVE and as far as insider trading, let's not even talk about that in light of recent revelations.

Your outrage is misplaced unless it includes all the others who have benefited from 'inside' information provided to them because of their elected offices.

Nader had zero to do with the theft of the 2000 election. In your mind he may be as bad as a serial killer, fine, but he did not lose the election for Gore because Gore WON THE ELECTION.

[MADem]

404. I differ as do many others. I invite your careful attention to that sourced document I provided to

you. Every assertion in that document is sourced.

Be sure to click on the links within the paragraphs.

This isn't about "anyone in DC enriching themselves." This is about a guy who is an authoritarian union buster (do read the link) who cheated on his taxes (again, the link), who played poor boy while secretly living in a luxury mansion (again, that link) and who took non-profit monies and gambled on the stock market--gee, think he got any good stock tips? (and yes, again, read the link) --and enriched himself on the backs of his underpaid, bullied staff. Oh, and he fired his nearly all-white-male staff when they dared to try to unionize.

And you still think he's a progressive?

Ralph Nader played a role in handing the Presidency to Bush, and he was rewarded for his hard work. You can insist in all caps that Gore won the election, but who spent eight years crapping on the Presidential crapper? Not Al Gore. So, plainly, someone didn't get that word you're putting out twelve years after the fact.

If Al had garnered enough votes to "win and then some," the election would not have been stolen. Ralphie did the GOP's bidding, in FL and all the key battleground states.

It's not rocket science. Follow the money....and FWIW, "other people do it" is never a good excuse. Ever. And again, if you want to complain about "others," fire up a thread and see what kind of response you get. Last time I checked, Diane Feinstein didn't fuck over Al Gore. Neither did Tom Daschle. But Ralph Nader DID.

So, again, Fuck Ralph Nader.

[sabrina 1]

405. I have read many expert analysis of the theft of the 2000 election and Nader barely

figured in any of them. You still ignore the hundreds of thousands of Democrats who voted for Bush. Why no outrage over them who could surely have made it impossible for the Bush gang to steal that election?

Even if Nader was a stealth Republican, he still did not cause the loss of the election. You can dismiss the fact that Gore won but it is a fact regardless.

You can ignore all the other factors, many of them criminal, that lowered Gores chances of winning, yet he still won. He overcame all the dirty tricks and all the criminal activities that were taking place, and won in spite of them. Even the defection of so many Democrats still did not cause him to lose.

After all their efforts failed, the Bush crooks turned to their last resort, and the crime of the century took place, a crime that had zero to do with Ralph Nader. I don't care if he was a serial killer, he still had nothing to do with the theft of that election.

I will read your link, it will be one of many, many sources on this election that I have read. Not one of them so far, has viewed Nader as a factor in what happened in 2000.

[MADem]

407. Well, that's nice. I don't agree with your experts and I am not alone.

No one thing caused Bush to be selected. It was a series of cheats and deceits. One of those deceits was a guy named Nader, funded by Republicans to wreak havoc in battleground states.

He is not a progressive. He is an authoritarian, lying, cheating, tax-evading, gambling-with-nonprofit-funding, pay-his-employees-in-the-dark-and-work-them-to-death, union busting, war profiteering, do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do, avaricious asshole.

Had Ralphie not done his job well, the Supremes would never have gotten the opportunity to hand Bush the keys to the White House. Ralphie greased the skids. He is responsible and accountable.

[sabrina 1]

408. In the end, one thing caused the loss of what was a win for Gore, the USSC.

Without their interference, Gore would have prevailed as we know now.

[Hotler]

380. I have all those stocks in my portfolio now also. Does that make me a bad person too.??

I bought five hundred shares of halliburton the day after the SCOTU gave the election to shrub and vadar. One of the best investmants I ever made. Thousands of people owned those stocks through their managed pension funds. Let me know when you take your anger to the picket lines and I'll join you.

[MADem]

382. I take my anger to the voting booth, and I bring voters with me every election.

If you don't see a disconnect between Ralph's words and Ralph's portfolio, I can't help to open your eyes.

[bvar22]

309. I welcome ANYBODY who will STAND UP and say...

....that our Military Spending, "Free Trade", and deregulation of the banks and telecoms
is BAD for America's Working Class.

[we can do it]

310. Fuck Nadar and Ann RMoney, Too

[Aerows]

329. Yes, the Democratic party

Is full of people that are cowardly as hell. Like Max Cleland. Like Murtha. Like Tammy Duckworth. Like Kerry. They are all wilting fucking daisies that have no idea what it means to sacrifice, and serve with honor simply because they don't have the same exact ideology you do.

I'll stand beside the people that have dignity and ran a true campaign against a man that has made his entire campaign off of watching "Network".

You want to be a hero? Start endorsing heroes of the party that fights for the American people. Otherwise, stop being a distraction.

[MADem]

406. +1,000 nt

[Aerows]

433. These Nader folks

are dupes, and annoy the hell out of me. Who do they think they are fooling?

[MADem]

443. They are very young, and/or very naive. They don't know his horrible, anti-worker, anti-union

record. They don't want to know about the IRS audits, the stunt where he forced students to "direct debit" money to his non-profits, the ongoing collusion with the GOP that gave him the money to fight Democrats ONLY in battleground states, the really dangerous stock trading with non-profit money (and there's more than a little suspicion of insider trading there, unless his middle name is "Lucky"--Martha Stewart went to jail for what he got away with), the lies about his "poor Ralph" lifestyle (he rented a room in a boarding house with a crapper down the hall, and lived in a luxury home that had his brother's name on the deed) and a host of other nefarious and self-enriching actions.

When one of his own workers comes right out and tells a modern-day horror story about how he screamed at/fired people who worked an eighty hour week for slave wages, for the "crime" of trying to UNIONIZE, you know the champions of Saint Ralph are speaking from a place of emotion and investment (they wanted to believe his bullshit) and not from a place of factual analysis.

The guy is a tool. The admin admonition, Fuck Ralph Nader, is right on the mark.

[laundry_queen]

349. This thread cracks me up.

"Fuck you Ralph Nader" "He made the election close enough to steal!"
Because it's okay that elections are stolen...all we need to do is win REAL good so they can't steal it.
Meanwhile, students in other countries riot over $300 increase in tuition, but in America, it's known elections are stolen so we sit online and yell 'Fuck Ralph Nader'.
Activism at its best. That'll learn 'em.

[MADem]

355. Well, I am a practical activist.

I get up off my fat ass, get into my car or borrow someone's van, and I drive people without cars to the polls by the hundreds. I do this for local elections, state elections, and federal elections, year in, year out.

I may not be standing on a barricade telling a cop getting seventy five bucks an hour in overtime that he is a pig, like that will change the world, either, but I am doing something.

I am getting out the vote, and I am getting the vote out for Democratic candidates.

I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I can GOTV and say Fuck Ralph Nader, too.

[blue neen]

364. It's a mystery why this thread even exists.

In other news:

President Obama gave a fantastic speech in Pittsburgh on Friday...

Mittens Romney still refuses to release his latest tax returns...

Ralph Nader told the truth about Corvairs in 1965...

[limpyhobbler]

387. haha

you made me laugh just now

[blue neen]

409. Good!

I guess we both agree that Ralph has become an irrelevant joke, and that we need to pay attention to the candidates who actually count in this election!

[limpyhobbler]

420. It's just history.

we might not agree on everything but that was funny because this thread is ridiculous.

[yurbud]

372. that about sums it up. Dems in party leadership seem loathe to call bullshit on the GOP

largely because they are auditioning to be the new corporate waterboy, once the GOP formula of appealing to racists and religious nuts is demographically unsustainable.

[AJTheMan]

390. Ralph Nader is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

He may be liberal but he has no problem throwing elections for Democrats. That's all I have to say about that.

[MADem]

393. He's no liberal--he's an authoritarian ass who gets stock tips from his GOP pals.

More people should read this: http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm

Sample:

Unlike almost every other nonprofit organization, Nader's various groups often amass a nontaxable profit of several hundred thousand dollars per year, and have rapidly build up impressive net worth's -- which Ralph refuses to reveal in his annual reports. (His lame reply is that people who are interested can get the information by getting every year's annual report and doing the math. So much for openness.)

The book "Abuse of Trust" carefully documents the money amassed and stocks played for 6 major groups, including Public Citizen, Inc. and the Center for the Study of Responsive Law, his two largest groups. Public Citizen, Inc., in particular, amassed money so quickly that it bought an old FBI building for $1.25 million IN CASH in 1980, only its eighth year of existence.

One reason he may hide his ample cash reserves -- besides the fact that people may not want to give him more money -- is that he is fond of playing the stock market with that green. (He also uses surpluses from his most flush organizations, usually the tax deductible ones, to give grants to his other groups.) Some of these transactions appear reckless for a nonprofit, "public interest" group; others skirt the edges of insider trading and conflict of interest. Mostly, it seems that all this money was a toy that Nader enjoyed playing with, especially as his winnings increased his power, fame and influence.

For example, the Nader is the president and treasurer of the Public Safety Research Institute. In 1970 alone, PSRI traded on the stock market 67 times, buying and selling $750,000 worth of stock, though the organization only had $150,000 worth of assets. These trades included a number of short sales, high risk and tricky transactions. Some worked, some lost money. In later years, PSRI traded less, for a good reason -- the IRS audited them after 1970 and charged the organization with "churning", excessive stock trades whose risk threatens the charitable purposes of the organization. It paid a fine and did not contest the charge. Thereafter, PSRI continued to play the market with fewer, generally long positions. Likewise, the Safety Systems Foundation (SSF) -- run by Nader's sister, and entirely funded by him personally -- engaged in a number of stock and bond transactions in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was also fined by the IRS and paid without contest....

[amb123]

414. If we used one-tenth of this energy generated by the vitriol expressed here for Ralph Nader

And used it to help Democrats get elected, we'd never lose an election.

Ralph Nader is history. Let's just get together and beat the Fascist Pig Republicans.

[Romulox]

415. The vitriol is directed at *people who share Nader's beliefs*. The ones who say "Fuck Nader" are

almost uniformly "centrists" who seek to move the Party more in line with their own way of thinking. Ralph Nader is just a wedge they use to discredit the more progressive strains of thought that have traditionally framed the Democratic message.

[Tarheel_Dem]

422. Is there a possibility that the revulsion is for the "framers" as opposed to the "framing"?

Ralph Nader isn't a Democrat. He's a fuckin' Green/Indie/GOP Tool. Unlike yourself, he hasn't managed to fool us all.

[dionysus]

445. !!!!!!

[Romulox]

446. "Speak of the devil, and he will appear..." nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

448. !!!!

[Ken Burch]

508. We wouldn't have had Bush in 2000 if Gore had run an anti-corporate domination campaign.

Bush won because Gore was obsessed with not looking "liberal&quot oh, and there was the boredom factor, too).

There was simply no excuse for the party to nominate a "status quo" candidate in 2000. We needed a clean break with the Clinton stagnation. Bland centrism had run its course and, even if the liberal wing of the party HAD been to blame for the defeats of the Seventies and Eighties(clearly, it wasn't and Clinton-type candidates would also have got creamed in all those races), the liberals had been punished enough.

Why the hell did we run a "change nothing, challenge nothing" race in 2000? Why did anybody think that made sense?

A people's campaign that year would have forced Ralph out of the race and we'd have held all the votes Gore did get anyway.
The fact that Gore instantly wiped out Bush's lead when he used the "the people, not the powerful" line(and then instantly let Bush back into the lead when he made it clear he'd never talk like that again)bears me out on this.

Yes, Ralph's a jerk, but it's time to admit it wasn't all his fault...that this party itself shares blame for that result. Why refuse to admit that? Why insist on reducing the whole thing to "they should have done what we damn well told them to do"?

A party that wants to improve its standing learns from reality. Those that still reduce the meaning of 2000 to "Fuck Nader!" are refusing to learn and refusing to grow. They are actually working AGAINST the interests of this party.

[Tarheel_Dem]

525. Regurgitated "Naderisms" and his apologists have absolutely no effect on me. Sorry.

But thanks anyhoo!

[Ken Burch]

538. It's not a Naderism...it's the truth...Nader didn't invent that observation

There were a few differences between Bush and Gore(Gore was doing his best to minimize them, a tactic I'd think we ALL should be admitting needs to be abandoned by our party forever).

Why are you so afraid of changing this party for the better? Why NOT make this a party of the 99% There really isn't such a thing as a "pro-business Democratic" voter anymore, and being a "pro-business Democrat" always pretty much just meant being an Eisenhower Republican.

Centrism means defeat. Kerry found that out again in 2004, when he failed because he made the stupid decision of trying to run as a pro-Iraq War candidate at a time when the country was turning away from the war. Kerry knew, and all his supporters knew, that "we can do it better" couldn't work on that issue(anymore than "we can do it better" on Vietnam could have worked for Democrats in 1972, which is why Scoop Jackson would have lost 49 states against Nixon too.)

[Tarheel_Dem]

539. Okay. Thanks.

[Ken Burch]

541. And you're silly "waving" smilie doesn't discredit any of my points.

Democrats need to be a progressive, anti-corporate party to win. Being a "pro-business Democrat" is code for abandoning working people and the poor.

[amb123]

431. I agree. "Centrists" are gutless, political cowards

who support what is convenient, not what is right. But we must defeat the corporatists and save America from destruction, no matter how much money they raise to silence us. Our side just cannot be divided right now.

[MADem]

442. UNREC. People who say FUCK RALPH NADER know that he was and continues to be a tool of the GOP.

He didn't get those stock tips from one of his overworked, No Union Allowed "Raiders."

Follow the money. He got richER off Bush's wars.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

416. So then Nader should be building his party of progressives that have a chance to beat

the "cowering" Democrats. But does he? Nope! All he cares about is himself. It took me 8 years to reallize this, but Nader is simply a media whore and a wanna-be spoiler.

Either build a fucking party, Nader, or shut the fuck up. Better yet, just shut the fuck up!!

[MADem]

444. He has certainly amassed a personal fortune for himself and his lobbying firms.

And he controls every penny that goes into those "nonprofits." There's no board, there's Ralph. Those "nonprofits" are his personal fiefdom and operate, in essence, as a tax shelter. They're like a church, without the pesky religious stuff!

He could have built a party over the last 20 years or so if he'd had a mind--but it's not about that for him. He just uses third parties because they have nominal state-by-state structures and outreach. He doesn't want to do that work, he wants to use someone else's hierarchy, hard work, and ground game for his own personal aggrandizement. He is not a nice person.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

449. And that's why the Greens all but banished him from the party. Many of them realized that he was

only out for himself. He has not built anything in a sense of a movement or a party.

No one can convince me otherwise.

[MADem]

460. It's pretty clear that there wasn't much love there, particularly when his own VP candidate was

expressing horror to a reporter when asked about some of the sources of campaign money.

He's not a nice guy, and he's no progressive.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

421. I agree with him 100%.

Dems need to come out slugging and not stop so long as there is a single GOP nutter left anywhere near an office.

Will they? Probably not. They have long bedded the enemy (thanks, DLC!) and they're far too comfy to chance getting the boot from under the covers.

[mac56]

425. If Ralphie is so brilliant and so full of civic concern, why hasn't he run

for something besides President?

Congressman? Senator? Mayor? Even a school board?

The answer is simple. It's all about Ralphie. Doddering old fool.

[Ken Burch]

454. Given that there doesn't even seem to be a third-party presidential campaign this year

you can't really hate Ralph this much for saying this.

The more populist and courageous our party was, the stronger we'd be in the polls. Muddling and triangulating always spell defeat.

Why didn't our party learn that by now?

Democrats can only win by EARNING the victory...by running FOR things, rather than just(slightly)against.

Not rocket science.

[MADem]

462. Yes there is. The Greens just aren't having Big Mouth Ralph ruin their reputations anymore.

Maybe he could persuade Dick Morris to run with him on a separate "Pesky, Useless Assholes" ticket...but no progressive party with an ounce of self-respect wants to touch that clown with a forty foot pole.

The Greens are running a candidate and they are having their convention in Baltimore this year, this month, in fact--in a couple of days. I think it will be Jill Stein leading their ticket, I think she has the most delegates. I haven't been following them closely but even I know that much.

[Ken Burch]

464. Then we can assume that the existence of a Green ticket this year

really doesn't matter all that much, since that ticket isn't likely to garner many votes if most people haven't even heard of it as yet.

The larger point he's making on this is still valid, whatever you think of Ralph himself. We need to be a bold, left-populist party that challenges corporate control of politics and life in this country. Would you really disagree with that?

[MADem]

471. You never know.

Roseanne Barr, who doesn't have any trouble getting publicity, is the next largest delegate-getter, at least thus far.

I have no idea how those guys run their conventions. Will it end up as a Stein-Barr ticket, or will Roseanne try to steal the show by making empty promises to the other petty candidates with a delegate or ten here or there, and turn the whole exercise into another "all about me" candidacy? I don't know if the organization can survive another candidate like that. Pat Paulsen had more credibility than Nader--at least he kept people listening.

You're seriously telling me you've never heard of Jill Stein? This ain't her first rodeo, not by a long shot.

I absolutely know that the Greens will not prevail--they never do, because they have a shitty organizational structure, and they haven't 'grown' it at the state and local level. They are more interested in being on the national stage than doing the Ground Up thing, it would seem. Certainly, in some small pockets, they get local candidates elected, but they just don't have the clout or networking on a national scale and they don't get their message out at all on a grassroots levels. Plus, they'll spend a decade just getting over Ralph--he really humiliated them, IMO.

Bold is fine. Stupid isn't. Nor is "over-the-top" or "unrealistic." People forget that the Democratic Party IS a big tent. I know some people just don't like hearing that, but that is the truth. What's also the truth is that those status-quo-ers and centrists that people like to mock and be rude and dismissive about are the ones who donate to the party in large and reliable and generous numbers, and they're also the ones who vote in reliable numbers. The people who yell and cry and say "Give me what I want or else I'm leaving!!!" are a shitload of heat and very often zero light. Unreliable in the extreme, both in giving and voting. All talk and very often no walk (ask Howard Dean--he counted on those kids in the orange hats and they screwed him). And these same "take my ball and go home" types aren't going to get their way, because they aren't getting in there and trying to make their case from the inside. They have no real credibility, particularly when all they can do is point out fault and not put their shoulder to the wheel to do any of the hard work.

I mean, really--Paul Wellstone didn't love the way his caucus colleagues conducted business all the time, but he got in there and nudged. He won some, he lost some, but he kept smiling and he kept nudging. He never threw the baby out with the bathwater. Ted Kennedy was the same way. Win some, lose some--and even (gasp) compromise.

That's how it's done--incrementally. If it's too slow for some, oh, well...!

You're not going to see a major sea change, and to expect it or demand it is a fruitless exercise.

[Ken Burch]

476. Just so you know, I actually agree with your critique of the Greens on organizational matters

and think it was a mistake for them to ever nominate presidential candidates-they should have built more at the state and local level.

Wellstone and Kennedy NEVER won on anything in the Nineties, btw. They should have, but the always lost to the DLC. If they'd won on something, we'd have heard about it. The whole Dem agenda that decade was dictated from Little Rock. The poor, the workers, the powerless, the elderly, those who wanted peace...NONE of them mattered in the DLC era.

And we never needed to be that far to the right to win in '92 anyway. Clinton only took 43%. ANY Dem could have matched that. Even Harkin could have won if the party had got behind him. But we were essentially forced by our party leaders to check our dreams at the door in '92. And we got nothing at all for it.

[MADem]

486. I disagree with you re: Wellstone and Kennedy, but that is an argument for another day.

Regardless, even if your thesis was correct, they didn't give up, did they?

Harkin would have been beaten like a rented mule. Clinton did enjoy a perfect storm, but he also had charisma. I like Harkin a lot, but that folksy shit only goes so far.

[AnOhioan]

489. Just a little bit of info

Many states require a party to field a top of the ticket candidate, or Presidential, in order for that party to been recognized in that state. Without running candidates for President, there would be few, if any, State Green Parties.

[Ken Burch]

491. Good point. So, in EVERY state with a Democratic legislature and governor

We should be putting legislation through to change that.

[jeff47]

502. Only if you pretend turnout doesn't matter.

"Democrats Suck!" is the core of Nader's message.

That doesn't help get people out to vote for Democrats. Nader knows this. Nader keeps saying it every 4 years. One starts to wonder why Nader does that instead of working to increase the number of non-suck Democrats in office at all levels of government. Heck, why hasn't the guy run for Congress or governor or state legislature where he could actually bring about some of the progressive change he says he wants?

So odd that his words aren't lining up with his actions....almost like there's some sort of unstated motive.

[Ken Burch]

504. Then it's up to this party to INSPIRE turnout

You can't just demand that everybody shut up about what they have issues with...the way to neutralize the effects of Nader is to actually prove that he's wrong-to show that there IS reason to care, to think that the race matters.

Obama COULD do that-he just has to ignore the paranoid/caution-uber-alles wing of his advisors.

Simply repeating the "Nader sucks!" line isn't going to help with turnout, however.

[jeff47]

518. It would be nice if you'd bother to read a post before replying to it.

Your reply would stand a much better chance of actually being relevant.

[Ken Burch]

520. I did read the post

My post was a DIRECT response to your post. It's just that I didn't give the response YOU wanted.

No one can do anything about Ralph. Denouncing Ralph doesn't work and doesn't stop him. Therefore, the party has to work to counteract his effect by inspiring people to vote FOR us, rather than just against the Republiban.

OK?

[jeff47]

521. You read the title.

Now try the rest of the post.

The entire point of the post is the only power Nader has is the fools who like what he says and ignore what he does. So now the Democrats are supposed to fix people who ignore reality?

[Ken Burch]

523. I read the post

It's just that I don't agree with you.

You didn't make an unchallengeable case in the post.

And there's no reason why you can't agree with a particular observation made by someone without being a follower of that person. What Nader says isn't automatically discredited just because Nader is the one who says it.

The appropriate and creative response is to take what makes sense in someone else's argument and find your own use for it. It serves no purpose at all to say "anything Person X says must automatically be rejected just because Person X is the person who happens to say it".

[MADem]

511. +1,000 nt

[Ken Burch]

543. You don't build turnout by silencing dissent.

You build turnout by actually making a positive case for people to vote FOR something.

We don't have to tell the progressive wing of this party to accept being in the back seat.

And the groups you listed in your categorization of "the base" were NEVER the ones who were demanding that we nominate candidates that gloated about being anti-liberal. They weren't the ones who were insisting that we nominate an execution freak in 1992(at a time when the murder rate was plummeting except in the states that HAD the death penalty).

Stop thinking the worst of your fellow Democrats. Few, if any of them were demanding that we be an anti-progressive party, a party that privileged defense contractors and ceo's while leaving peace activists, labor and the Rainbow out in the cold, throughout the Nineties. The country simply wasn't THAT right-wing. We never had to settle for "slightly less bad".

[MADem]

544. I know the difference between "dissent" and "flinging shit at GOP command."

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I will not be fooled a third time, and if you want to follow that greedy, lying, millionaire-corporate tool, go right ahead. Just don't expect me to listen to a word that lying, craven GOP water-carrier has to say, and I will make a judgment as to your discretion if you continue to insist that Saint Asshole Ralph has anyone's best interest save his OWN at heart.

I'm the one who thinks the very best of my fellow Democrats. Just because you say otherwise does not make a falsehood the truth. You are the one who is trying to sell me on the concept that a very small and vocal fringe, many of whom are not even registered, some who may have an agenda that is not to the benefit of MY party, will matter in this election. They will not, and neither will Ralph. Get used to that.

And last time I checked, we won in 1992. If you don't feel like part of that "we," well, maybe you're in the wrong place. I know that I'm with the party I support, and if you don't feel that way, that's your issue....but it ain't mine, so stop trying to make it so.

I really don't care if you don't like my definition of "the base." To anyone save the obtuse, "the base" are the people who show up and vote, not the people who whine the loudest. Voters win elections, whiners who threaten, complain and stay home don't.

It's time to lead, follow or get out of the way. If you aren't interested in seeing POTUS reelected, perhaps it's time for you to just step aside and let those who are interested in that outcome continue our work.

[Ken Burch]

545. The people who show up the most and vote

were the ones who stayed with the party when its candidates weren't the safest and blandest. Clinton, Gore, and Kerry sent those voters the message that they not only DIDN'T matter, but that they were actually to blame-that we lost for not being contemptuous enough of, well, let's just say it... activists, gays, unions and impoverished women of color.

I respect the base...it's just that I disagree with you as to what they want. They stayed in, as I see it, because they had nowhere else to go. That doesn't mean its ok for the party(as you seem to think)to ignore the needs and interests of labor, the Rainbow, the poor, feminists and progressive activists.

And I dislike Ralph personally as much as YOU do...it's just that I reject the notion that personal dislike means you should automatically disregard what someone has to say, or the larger point that that person might make(especially since people were making the point prior to Ralph's emergence as a political figure in the Nineties.)

My bias is towards mobilization and enthusiasm-based campaigning(the kind Paul Wellstone and Russ Feingold proved to be workable). Yours, from what I can read here, is towards reassurance-and-repentance based campaigning, the idea that the mythical "swing voters" can only be won to our party by a promise that our most loyal supporters and activists will be disregarded and left out in the cold.

I'm not talking, in my posts, about people who were never going to vote(or campaign) Democratic or never had in the past. I'm talking about people who were there for us throughout the late Sixties, Seventies, and Eighties, and were then intentionally driven away by the party leadership in the late Eighties(many of whom were working hard, for example, in the Rainbow Coalition and on voter-registration drives). If we kept THOSE people believing that they mattered, we'd hardly ever lose.

And the true way to win swing voters isn't to distance the ticket from the base(as Rahm Emmanuel and his ilk STILL want the party to do) but to nominate people who convey a sense of leadership. That's how FDR won. That's how Truman won when it looked like we faced certain defeat in '48. That's how Harkin and Paul Simon took U.S. Senate seats from the GOP in 1984, when Reagan carried their states by double-digit margins.

The true path to victory is for the party to have a backbone...not to keep acting like we've permanently lost the argument and that all we can ever do is tinker around the edges. Contrary to the delusions of our "strategists", the U.S. is NOT "a center-right country", and it serves no purpose to campaign as if it is.

[MADem]

548. Not in my universe, and I've been at this (when I was in USA, anyway) since the Vietnam era.

Remember those orange hatted kids who promised to be there for Howard Dean? They screwed him.

Remember those "Be Clean For Gene" kids? They bailed, too.

The ones who show up are the ones that many people make fun of on this message board--the mushy middle people, the elderly, the ordinary schmucks who often aren't sufficiently liberal to suit some. But they show up, reliably and without drama, and they vote for the Dems. I know this --I take a lot of them to the polls, and I do it even for the stupid little local and state elections--not just during presidential election years.

Ralph has screwed his credibility with his conduct. If Dick Cheney said something that half-way made sense or was slightly plausible (and I'm sure he must have, occasionally) would you be touting and defending HIM so vociferously? I don't think so.

I don't know where you're getting this Truman "leadership" theme--Truman won because his opponent was lousy--a little bit TOO slick, too mean, too distant, and not a friendly guy (he wasn't even liked within his own party, so what does THAT tell you? You think the party machine busted ass for him...NOT!) -- not because people liked Truman or even thought he was a particularly good leader. Also, the GOP primary field was loaded with people who did not win that the general population liked WAY better than Dewey--McArthur was a biggie. Harold Stassen (a liberal Republican, but that was back in the day) was another. If either one of those guys had gotten the nom, the outcome may have been different.

Truman's opponents painted him as a bumpkin haberdasher over his head, who got lucky with the bomb, which was, of course, according to his detractors, FDR's idea from the grave. They didn't give him much if any credit. They were still longing for FDR; they only voted for Truman because he was familiar, not beloved--and NOBODY liked Dewey much, if at all. The reason Truman held up that newspaper and laughed like hell is because he was EXPECTED to LOSE, not because he was a great "leader."

As for FDR, he was smooth and a good speech-giver with a common touch, a gift of charm, a ton of money and even more connections. Once he got in, he put his minions in the right jobs and in effect, became President for life--helped along by flinging money (before the days of unions that would object) at a Depression and a World War. He never had any serious competition.

I just don't agree with any of your characterizations, here, or your candidate motivations, or your interpretation of history.

As for Wellstone and Harkin, all politics is local. What worked for them wouldn't work for a Dem trying to get elected in a red state, or even a blue state with a different focus. I can tell you this--no one in MA focuses on Harkin's farm issues, any more than Harkin gives a shit about Big Dig cost overruns.

The difference between Cheney and Ralph is minuscule. Ralph had a reason -- many reasons, all stock market investments--to want Bush-Cheney to win. Both Saint Ralph and Big Dick are power hungry assholes who like to accrue personal wealth, as though they believe it will prevent death. They may be able to buy a heart or two, but eventually their mendacity and the march of time will take its toll.

Ralph carries GOP water. He is a tool of the corporate, outsourcing right. He has NOTHING to say of value to Democrats. He deserves vociferous repudiation. Time spent on his, miserable, raddled. slimy and lying corporate ass is time not spent reelecting POTUS.

[Ken Burch]

550. I've never insulted or disrespected the voters you're talking about there.

nor has anybody ELSE on the Left.

All we were talking about were DLC politicians and other right-wing Dem officeholders. There's a huge difference between that and between dissing actual voters. My points have been about DEFENDING those voters, when our party's attempts at appealing to corporate leaders always ended up producing policies that hurt the types of voters you talked about. It's not like those voters WANTED unions to be weakened or were really even all that obsessed with punishing poor people for taking government assistance(they knew those people had no alternatives, in most cases).

Oh, and those voters you referenced in that post were always AGAINST all the "free trade" stuff Clinton fought for(with all the passion he NEVER displayed on the healthcare issue or anything else that actually mattered more to Democratic voters than ceo's). The overwhelming majority of U.S. voters always OPPOSED "free trade".

And that same overwhelming majority wanted single-payer, not the Byzantine corporate-rewarding shit that Clinton tried half-heartedly to get through on health care.

And again, you know perfectly well I don't LIKE Ralph...I'm just saying that what you look at is the point being made, not the person making it. Even if he's personally in league with the GOP, that doesn't mean the observation that we need to be a fighting populist party is automatically invalid simply because HE was the one making it in this case. A creative response would be to use that observation to fight AGAINST Ralph, to beat him at his own game-rather than just to call bullshit just for the sake of calling bullshit.

btw...why do you think unions would ever have objected to anything FDR did to fight the depression?. FDR never did a bank bailout, OR protected the economic royalists from the consequences of their actions.

[MADem]

552. Well, I will take you at your word, but I've seen plenty of snark--in this thread--about centrists

and third wayers and Vichy Dems--if those aren't insults, I would hate to see what passes for one in your world.

You can want, want, want, but you aren't going to get, get, get if you support the likes of Ralph Nader or give him any air to breathe at all. If you're serious, you'll find a Wellstone and back him. You'll help to grow another Harkin. You'll stand inside the tent and piss out. Cheering on Nader? You are standing outside the tent pissing IN. I don't know how many times or ways I can say that.

And the "vast majority" did not want "single payer." You can't throw stuff like that out and be credible. People have no idea what the fuck they want. There's been so much disinformation flying about that it's a miracle we have any sort of Obamacare at all. Stop making the perfect the enemy of the good. We all have to start somewhere.

I just can't give you history lesson after history lesson, here--everyone was on slave wages during the Great Depression--those that had work. We know how unions feel about about wage structures, and in this environment, that's all well and good; but I can promise you if, in these times, Obama proposed massive hirings of union-protected jobs at lower wages, he'd get his ass handed to him.

And FDR didn't have to establish a form of "bank bail out"-- Hoover did it for him, but FDR continued the program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Finance_Corporation

The Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) was an independent agency of the United States government, established and chartered by the US Congress in 1932, Act of January 22, 1932, c. 8, 47 Stat. 5, during the administration of President Herbert Hoover. It was modeled after the War Finance Corporation of World War I. The agency gave $2 billion in aid to state and local governments and made loans to banks, railroads, mortgage associations and other businesses. The loans were nearly all repaid. It was continued by the New Deal and played a major role in handling the Great Depression in the United States and setting up the relief programs that were taken over by the New Deal in 1933.[1]

so that comment wasn't really accurate either.

You need to "get over" Clinton, too--he was elected twenty years ago. He's an elder statesman.

Time to move on, eh? Like I said, lead, follow or step to the side.

Look, I'll say it one more time--fuck Ralph Nader. He's a tool of the right wing and anyone who touts him is being conned by a master.

[Ken Burch]

555. I'm not "cheering on Nader" or calling for Dems to recruit Nader.

I totally agree with you that, personally, Ralph is a dead loss.

My interest is in the former Dems who switched to Nader in 2000, started to come back in 2004(and were given no credit or respect by the party FOR doing so)and who can be made into a crucial part of a Democratic majority.

As to the RFC...that was loans made to help banks honor the deposits of ordinary, working-class account holders-NOT to protect speculators. It had NOTHING in common with the '08 bailout, which went almost solely to investment banksters).

And you can say "fuck Nader" without automatically dismissing everything the guy has to say-especially where it's possible to use some of those things to help this party(whatever Ralph's personal intent may be) or without collectively dissing everybody who once backed the guy.

And as to getting over it...everybody who is still demanding that the people who voted for Nader in 2000 make a humiliating show of announcing that was the wrong thing to do need to get over it as well. A clear distinction should be made between Ralph, on the one hand, and those who backed him once but could be brought into an alliance with us for the greater good now. That's all I'm saying. Personally, Ralph CAN "pound sand and peddle it walking&quot as your apparent role model "Mr. Benchley" would have half-drunkenly put it).

[MADem]

562. I am not "demanding" anything. I simply don't care to waste my time on a GOP corporate tool and

spoiler. Frankly, I cannot understand why anyone who wants POTUS to have another four years would, either. The guy is a loser and irrelevant. The only people taking note of him are a few eager contrarians who are calling the rest of us here centrists and vichy dems to try to roil the masses.

Forgive me if I can't get too excited about an effort to whip up enthusiasm for Cheney's Secret Pal.

We don't have to make any "clear distinctions." We don't have to do a goddamn thing about that tool Nader. Ralph has no platform. He has no party. He's pulled his whining schtick once too often. He's been outed for the asshole he is and everyone knows it save for a few clueless goaders here.

I don't have patience or time for shit stirrers.

Ignore the fuckstick and he'll go away. That's my plan and I'm betting it will work a treat.

So one more time, FRN.

[Ken Burch]

563. This isn't about validating Ralph as a person...why can't you see that?

Why do you insist on equating finding something to work with in the observation made with seeing the person who made the observation as a hero?

I DON'T see Ralph as a hero...it's just that the idea is something we can work with.

Do you not understand the distinction?

It's not as though making the party more populist is the road to certain defeat. The country is no longer deferential to corporate power...there's a massive desire in the grassroots for resetting the balance so that ordinary non-bazillionaire types and their needs matter as much as the malefactors of great wealthy. Running with that idea can only work to our advantage.

The fact that Ralph is one of the persons saying this(and he's not the only one by any measure)is besides the point.

It's the idea, not the person. The two are separate.

[MADem]

564. What this is "about" is a load of shit stirring by a GOP tool. There is no distinction to be made.

Ralph's "ideas" are to fuck with us. If you can't make THAT distinction, I can't help you see the forest for the trees. How many times do you have to be hit with a sledgehammer before you start to get that it's painful and not helpful and could maim or kill you?

Fuck Ralph Nader. He is no friend to us, he never has been, and every move he makes benefits the GOP to our detriment.

You need to try real hard to grasp that point.

[Ken Burch]

568. How would making our party more populist fuck with our chances?

It's not like we can ONLY win by kissing corporate ass.

[MADem]

569. The battle this year is RMoney against the working/middle class.

RMoney the outsourcer v. Obama the insourcer. Anyone who has followed the campaign "gets" that.

You're apparently still at sea.

Ralph is working for Romney. If you want to work for Romney, go work for Ralph. Otherwise, get behind Obama and push.

[Ken Burch]

570. Obama just ratfucked that campaign by putting Cory Booker, the Bain apologist, on the platform comm.

That, by itself, means there won't be any populism. You can't be populist AND "pro-business". You can't be a bland centrist populist.

The only way to run the kind of campaign you SAY Obama is running is to be pro-worker and left-wing on EVERY economic issue where Romney is pro-corporate and right-wing. Letting Booker help draft the platform is about making any pro-worker message in the fall campaign meaningless. It has to be fought and denounced if we're to win.

[MADem]

571. "Ratfucked?" Karl Rove, is that you?

What little "credibility" you had here, you just shredded with that use of the word.

OK, your game is now entirely clear, go stew in your own blame soup.

Just couldn't help yourself, is that it?

[Ken Burch]

572. It goes back before Rove

And you know damn well I'm not a right-wing plant.

[MADem]

573. I know only that you're interested in touting a guy who has twice been a mouthpiece for the GOP.

You keep pushing a lame argument that I have made it VERY plain I am not buying. I keep telling you Fuck Ralph Nader and you keep coming back with "but but" bullshit despite my repeated "No Sale" assertions.

Then you start up with the "ratfucking" business. Who knows what I think at this point? I am starting to wonder if you're someone who just likes to spin your wheels, or you like it when someone says Fuck Ralph Nader over and over and over again.

So, one more time: Fuck Ralph Nader.

[Ken Burch]

574. I'm not touting the guy...it isn't ABOUT the guy.

the idea is separate from the guy...and adopting a more populist stance would NOT help Romney.

I hate Ralph as a person as much as you do. So give the "touting" thing a rest.

What DOES help Romney is putting Cory "the Bain Defender" in charge of the Platform Committee. You would agree, I'd hope, at the very least, that it's unacceptable to have that corporate toady putting our platform together. It could never be progressive or Democratic to defend Booker's presence on that body.

[MADem]

575. Oh, bullshit. You can't possibly be that gullible. nt

[Ken Burch]

576. It's not gullibility simply to disagree with YOU.

You keep acting as if you possess some infallible sense of what does and does not work in electoral politics-as if nothing you state or defend can ever be open to question on such matters.

Really, you don't personally know anything more about getting people elected than anybody else here. You're just one voice among many.

[MADem]

577. Keep arguing with yourself, then, if you'd like. nt

[FrenchieCat]

470. 3 years of attacking Obama from all sides is what did it......

and Ralph Nader was and is right there.....

Now he wants to point the finger elsewhere....as usual!

[Major Hogwash]

483. Nader is like Frankenstein, they roll him out of his crypt every 4 years to try and scare everyone.

"Arrgghh. ARRRRGGGHHHH! Democrats! Arrrggghh!"

Nader has been dead for more than 12 years but his master keeps rolling him out of his crypt and jolting him back to life for several weeks every 4 years.

"Hey, Ralph, why can't you open your other eye?"

"Arrrggghh. Master not give me enough juice. Arrgghh. Permanent damage to eyelid. Arrggghh."

[MADem]

487. +1,000,000! nt

[the other one]

488. 488. Go Ralph Go!!!

[Ken Burch]

493. In electoral terms, Ralph's already gone.

He's not going to be running this year, or any other year.

[Taverner]

499. Ralph, I love ya, but STFU, OK?

[47of74]

510. Fuck you, Ralph Nader

[Rex]

528. Sit on it Ralph!!!

<^>

[Downtown Hound]

535. Hmmm...looks like it's time for Ralphie to awaken from his four year slumber

and try and pretend he's still relevant. When this election is over, he'll go back to sleep, do absolutely nothing for the next four years, and then reappear in 2016 and repeat this same bullshit charade once again.

Hey Ralph, just give it up. Do you realize how old this schtick is getting? Nah, of course you don't, if you did, you might try something different now and again, and you never do.

[markpkessinger]

537. I'm no fan of this particular messenger . . .

. . . but I believe the message is valid nonetheless. And I think we do ourselves no favors when we fail to keep that distinction in mind.

[Downtown Hound]

547. I think you'll find that most people here agree with Nader's positions either a lot or some

But we're also willing to do what's right for the country, and that means keeping the Republicans out. The last time a Republican won, (thanks due in no small part to Mr. Nader), our country barely survived. Nader doesn't seem to care about that. All he cares about is bashing Democrats and stroking his ego. He does absolutely nothing worthwhile in between presidential elections. He just disappears and then comes out again every four years, bashes the Democrats, claims to be the only real alternative, cares nothing about what the country or the planet will suffer if he draws votes away from Democrats when he has the stupidity to run, and then goes back into hibernation.

If that's the alternative to the Democrats, then that's really no alternative at all. Nader could run for Congress, he could run for Governor, he could run for Mayor, he could march with OWS. There's a whole bunch of things Nader could do to help progressives, but he doesn't. He enjoys his role as spoiler. And that makes him just as bad as any Republican.

Downtown Hound (a.k.a VERY repentant Nader 2000 voter. Worst vote I ever made, and I will NEVER make that mistake again)

[bobthedrummer]

540. As a member of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin/DPW I know those of you that solely blame Nader

for the COUP BY JUDICIAL "DECISION" that installed BUSH/CHENEY for the 1% handlers are drinking someone's koolaid with relish. Al Gore was a DLC loser, but a better human character than John Edwards.
For the record I was an independent voter/activist until I joined the Democratic Party of Wisconsin/DPW in May. I voted for Nader (I voted twice for President Clinton) and the DPW knows that TODAY many people speak of THE COUP that installed BUSH/CHENEY with no ACCOUNTABILITY.
That's a real issue in itself-ACCOUNTABILITY, isn't it???

[Cary]

551. I don't blame Nader solely but there's no question that he siphoned off votes for Gore

There is no question that but for Nader it would have been more difficult for Republicans to steal the election. And Nader himself came out and said that he didn't mind at all playing the role of spoiler.

He played the role of spoiler and was a proximate cause of bringing us George Bush. Yes Gore would have, could have, should have been a better candidate. But that doesn't relieve Nader from his role in bringing us George Bush, our worst president ever.

[bobthedrummer]

566. Welcome to DU, Cary-it was a COUP-different from November 22, 1963--friendly fascism style. n/t

[Rosco T.]

546. Ralph, I have a message for you from the great Cee Lo Green....

[MADem]

549. +1,000,000! nt

[VOX]

553. Forget Florida -- The real Nader damage occurred in New Hampshire in 2000...

Gore wouldn't have needed Florida had he carried New Hampshire and its 4 electoral votes. The breakdown occurred thus:
Bush / Cheney 273,559
Gore /Lieberman 266,348
Nader/LaDuke 22,188

If just 7,212 of the 22,188 Nader voters had used their heads and cast their ballots for Gore, he would have had the 270 electoral college votes needed, and would have won the presidency regardless of the travesty in Florida. The outrageous hell of BushCo wouldn't have happened.

But oh, those forward-thinking 22,188 New Hampshire Nader voters walked out of the polls with their proud heads held high, and didn't "soil" their principals.

[demosincebirth]

554. Why is this thread still here?

[Comrade Grumpy]

557. OMG, I can't believe a Nader thread in 2012 has 566 responses.

I don't even have to read them to know how this goes.

What a crazy waste of energy.