DEAN/NADER DEBATE -- Comments Thread (2PM ET CSPAN 3) -- THREAD #2

[Khephra]

Please continue here.

Earlier thread here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1957419&mesg_id=1957419

[mzmolly]

1. Voting my conscience is voting against BUSH, Ralph!

;)

[Ninga]

2. I love you Howard!

I miss you.

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Howard needs to be running the DNC

[Khephra]

8. I TOTALLY agree with that statement.

Freep Terry. Thank goodness Terry has already said he's leaving after this election.

[Cassandra]

58. I've been posting that for months

His willingness to fund-raise and really work at the grassroots level would make him great in that job.
As an irrelevant aside, I thought Howard's hair looked particularly nice; that bit of a bang makes him look less slicked back. The suit looked like it fit him, too. Still Howard, but spiffed up a bit. :-)

[Khephra]

4. Was that guy in the audience even listening?

Dean already answered the question about groups trying to get Nader off the ballet.

Clean out your ears, sir.

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. Here comes the safes states strategy

[ProfessorPlum]

6. I don't get the people who would vote for Ralph

even hearing him on this show.

So, you "vote your conscience". So what? Ralph still loses (obviously), and you have lost your chance to do some good in the world. What's the deal?

[Cheswick2.0]

13. my conscience would never tell me to vote for Nader

But that is the concete from the Naderites.... they think we would all be voting for Nader if we just understood who Nader really is.

[GreenPartyVoter]

It made sense in 2000 to vote outside of the Dem party,

but it does not make sense this time around.

I say get Kerry and a Blue Hill into office and work like crazy to get all kinds of progressive reforms put into place, like major overhaul of the election system.

[Cheswick2.0]

54. it didn't make any sense in 2000

Gore was the same guy in 2000 as he is now. Bush is the same guy now. Kerry is not an improvement over Gore. I can't see any reason why it made sense then if it doesn't make sense now.

[GreenArrow]

59. intimations of our mortality, perhaps?

Both as indivduals and as a nation.

[Cheswick2.0]

68. I am sure that cryptic remark makes sense to you

but I am not a mind reader. Care to explain?

[GreenArrow]

82. simply suggesting

that four years ago most people did not know that the world would be in the shape that it is in after Bush has had hold of it. (I wouldn't count myself amongst the group of people who didn't think Bush would be so bad--I thought he would be worse. And of course, Bush himself is simply a figurehead. As was Gore. As is Kerry.) Images of fingers on buttons, cities in flames, perpetual war, terraist attacks, state sponsored and otherwise, unlawful detentions, and so on, ought to bring thoughts of mortality into any reasonably reflective and sentient person's head. And since Kerry and Edwards have both reiterated support of some of the most eggregious Bush policies, I see little reason to be terribly hopeful about them. They will provide and improvement in hope and tone, if not for the most part, in direction.

It made sense for me to vote for Nader four years ago because I live in a state where Dubya won by about 10 points. Nader got about one. You do the math. If Gore had had any chance here, I'd likely have voted for him, but Nader, then and now, and as obnoxious as he can be, speaks to the issues that this country must grapple with if any concept of the idealized America that Americans love to evoke are going to come to any semblence of realization. He was then, and is now, more honest about the issues and problems facing the country. But he can't win, of course.

So, "initmations of mortality"... If Bush is reselected, it will be clear that my kind is not welcome in this country, and it will be clearer that this country is dying, unwilling to deal with any of the issues that are killing it. If Kerry is elected, there is still a slight, very slight, hope, probably unwarranted.

[GreenPartyVoter]

66. It made sense in 2000 because it seemed logical to assume

that Gore would beat * handily. I mean, * can't even speak English!

[Cheswick2.0]

67. okay

I can accept that. But I still think Gore was a better man than Nader. From that POV it still made more sense to vote for Gore.

[GreenPartyVoter]

71. Well, I disagree there. I would have chosen Nader over Gore anway

but I still felt that Gore was the better second choice and that he would have wound up in the Oval Office. (And technically did.)

[onecitizen]

7. Nader appears to hate Dems more.........

than bush. So sad! I think he has a severe mental illness that's getting worse every day. Of all times for him to have a flair-up, why is it this year?!

[Zynx]

78. As I have said before, I think he has syphilis.

I'm serious too. His madness is difficult to explain.

[Endangered Specie]

9. "Rome wasnt built in a day"- Nader...

watch out Nader... you may help start another Rome... and it will only take a day (2 November)

[ProfessorPlum]

10. Of course he says he won't drop out of states which are close

. . . as Grover Norquist smiles his evil smile.

Duh Ralph. A vote for you helps Bush.

[Khephra]

11. We've now reached the halfway point

45 minutes left.

[Endangered Specie]

17. time flies

[mzmolly]

12. "The reason I ran was partly about corporate interest, but mostly about

HUMAN BEINGS." Howard Dean

[ProfessorPlum]

14. Dean spells out the difference

"People I care about are better served by a John Kerry presidency."

Dean is all class.

[mzmolly]

15. "We can't let the perfect become the enemy of the good."

GO Dean! :toast:

[cjbuchanan]

16. The whole reason I ran was because of human beings

This is not a debate on philosophy, this is a debate about human beings.

[Cheswick2.0]

20. This is why he gained my respect

While Nader would kill people to cure them, Dean is a doctor and is all about caring for people.

[ProfessorPlum]

25. You've hit the nail right on the head

Nader would kill us to cure us.

[GreenArrow]

23. unless they are "right wingers

they might not be."

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. Has Kerry spoken out in favor of election reform yet??

[Khephra]

21. Not sure...but I'm about 90% sure that Kerry has come out against

the draft. I'm sure someone who knows Kerry better than I can correct or confirm, but I'm pretty sure Nader was wrong on that statement.

[mzmolly]

30. Yes he has.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&client=REAL-tb&q=john+kerry+and+election+reform

http://www.votewithavengeance.com/kerry.html

He cosponsored original versions of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Bill to ban "soft money" (unlimited donations from corporations, unions, and individuals) and sham attack ads. He teamed up with Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota to present a Clean Money bill that would give candidates the option of financing their political campaigns with grant expenditures from a public campaign trust fund. Kerry has joined a bipartisan effort for meaningful election reform, by cosponsoring Kentucky senator Mitch McConnell's Bipartisan Federal Election Reform Act of 2001. The bill establishes a Blue Ribbon Study Panel appointed bilaterally by leaders of both major parties in Congress. This panel will supervise federal elections to assist registered voters, oversee accurate counting of ballots, and curb abuses in polling places. Furthermore, an administrative commission will jointly be designated to carry out recommendations and hold hearings based on the findings of the Blue Ribbon Study Panel.

[GreenPartyVoter]

44. But is he open to doing much, much more??

[mzmolly]

53. I know his first priority is health care for every American. I'd check

the website and look for his specific position.

We do need strong campaign finance reform, but the big money isn't gonna let go easily.

Kerry has taken less PAC money then anyone in the senate, and he is an example of what can be done without taking corporate mula, so that's a step in the right direction. :)

As we both know Dean/Trippi also set a precedent that will be remarkably powerful in reforming campaign finance laws in the future.

[Cheswick2.0]

55. MzMolly, not to be argumentative, but

Kerry has taken more special interest money than anyone in the senate democrat or republican. That would be over the last 15 years I believe.

[ProfessorPlum]

61. that statement is totally false

and comes right out of the GOP talking points.

Are you talking about a sum total? Or an average over 15 years? Even as a sum total I don't believe that is true.

[Cheswick2.0]

69. it is true

Can't argue with figures.

[sangh0]

75. We can't argue with figures because

you haven't posted any.

Quelle surprise!

[welshTerrier2]

80. it is NOT true ... here's some real information !!

Kerry raised more money from lobbyists over the past 15 years ... HOWEVER, the total raised averages just barely over $40,000 per year ... just so you understand, that's chicken feed in the Senate business !!

the far more important point is that Kerry raised a big ZERO from PAC's ... many of these PAC's are nothing but vehicles used to receive lobbyist money ... when Kerry refused to accept PAC money, contributions were given to him directly by lobbyists ... this skewed Kerry's contributions more heavily to direct contributions (instead of PAC money) ... that's why he was higher in this area than other senators ...

BUT, the far more important statistic, which you badly misstated, was that Kerry ranks 92nd among current senators when you look at total contributions from special interests ... special interest contributions are comprised of direct contributions from lobbyists combined with contributions received from PAC's ...

Kerry is among the least likely to be "purchased" with special interest money ... your errant information failed to disclose this important point ...

read these links:

http://bushcampaignlies.blogspot.com/2004/02/bush-campaign-lie-2-john-kerry-has.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=143

[mzmolly]

62. Unions are special interests and so are Universities ect...

I don't have a problem with countering fascist special interest, with special interest in the "interest" of people.

Untill the R's stop taking special interest money, we can't ourselves, which is why we need reform.

[Cheswick2.0]

70. so what percentage of his special interest money came from unions

and universities?
It still stands that he gets more than most people. When some corporate interest gives you money over and over again, they don't do it because they have gotten no return on their investment.

[mzmolly]

72. Actually according to open secrets Kerry got very little money from

special interests in this campaign.

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00000245

Regarding special interest groups, keep in mind groups like NARAL, and the NEA are "special interest groups."

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=Q15

All one has to do is look at *who* gives to *whom* to gather an idea of party differences.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/index.asp

I support Dean because I want special interest money out of Washington, but we can't do that unless we eliminate it on the R side as well.

The professor was correct to say that this is a FALSE Republican talking point:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/19/opinion/main601234.shtml

"But the Post figure is misleading because it ignores the fact that Kerry has largely eschewed money from political action committees (PACs), a major source of funds for most of his colleagues. When you combine money from paid lobbyists and PACs -- which makes sense, since they're both conduits for "special interests" -- Kerry actually ranks ninety-second out of 100 U.S. senators. That doesn't make him pure, but it makes him purer than most serious candidates for the White House. And it puts him on a different planet from President Bush, who accepted more money from lobbyists last year alone than Kerry has in the last 15."

http://bushcampaignlies.blogspot.com/2004/02/bush-campaign-lie-2-john-kerry-has.html

"Second, the Post article itself is suspect. The first sentence of the article ends ". . . raised more money from paid lobbyists than any other senator over the past 15 years, federal records show." That may be true, but Kerry has been in the Senate for 19 years. By limiting the discussion to the past 15 years, it seems that the Post is cherry-picking its data in order to get a bigger headline. Also, the total amount of lobbyist money cited ($640,000) is a cumulative total for those 15 years. Most senators haven't collected that much because they haven't been in the senate that long."

Internet attack ad says Kerry got most “special interest money” of any senator. He didn't. And Bush got lots more. February 13, 2004

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=143

I think we can put this to rest guys?

[GreenPartyVoter]

65. Let's hope that Kerry will finally read my letter to him. *lol*

[mzmolly]

73. I think you'll feel a bit better if you read post 72.

:)

Or even just this article.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=143

[mzmolly]

19. OMG Nader trumpeting unions now!? The GALL!

:puke:

[mandyky]

22. Nader is his own worst enemy

I agree with many of his issues and I voted for him in 2000. All the bashing here at DU about Nader voters couldn't make me sorry I voted for Nader, but today Nader himself is being so stubborn and arrogant that I am extremely sorry I voted for Nader in 2000.

[GreenArrow]

38. I find myself agreeing with nader on virtually every point

but his attitude is as you described--extremely off-putting, and condescending.

[Cheswick2.0]

57. this is what some of us saw in Nader in 2000 also

which is why he gets "bashed".

[GreenPartyVoter]

24. Dean SO should have been on the top of the Dem ticket.

[ProfessorPlum]

28. it is bittersweet to hear him. What a guy.

Why didn't my fellow Democrats go for him more?

[mzmolly]

Fear my friend. The ol' RED ALERT.

Dean can't win, Dean can't win, Dean can't win. :scared:

[Khephra]

26. I can't believe how far Dean has come

Compared to Dean's early debates. He finally looks comfortable doing this.

[onecitizen]

27. What the heck is wrong with.......

that Moderator? Where do they get these people? I mean, really??

[ProfessorPlum]

33. She's always been a kind of goofy lightweight

if you've listened to other of these debates. Not really paying attention or giving things enough importance. Kind of like the gang on Wait, wait, don't tell me. Know what I mean?

[cjbuchanan]

29. Ok, he is for proportional representation

However, that is not how things are set up right now. Since that would require a change in the Constitution, he should work in the House of Reps. If he could help local candidates win in the house, then they would start pushing this agenda.

Nader mentioned that even if a mighty tree starts with a small seed, so why doesn't he do that with his party. I like Nader, but this is the thing that upsets me the most. He doesn't seem to really want to build a party. That takes a lot of work and I have not seen him doing it.

[Khephra]

34. a mighty tree starts with a small seed

Yeah, I thought that wasn't the wisest metaphor for Nader to use.

[nickgutierrez]

35. How is he supporting 3rd parties by running as an Independent?

Shouldn't he be backing the Green Party, if he actually gave a crap?

[GreenPartyVoter]

42. No, it shouldn't be about any one third party. We should support a true

multi-party system, which is open to unaffiliated independent candidates.

[sangh0]

76. Logical fallacy

Nader didn't say he was supporting a multi-party system. He said he was supporting THIRD PARTIES by running but not as a third party candidate.

Yeah, right. That's makes some kind of sense....NONsense

[Cheneys_former_heart]

39. It's easier to chop down a mighty tree and look like a lumberjack

than to be a lowly farmer slowly growing it. That's why Nader is full of crap, he's a vainglorious idiot.

[cjbuchanan]

56. Good analogy

I like Nader, but to me, the person on the stage who is really working to improve our democracy is Dean.

With Democracy for America he is throwing his support behind candidates, with progressive ideas, in all areas of the country. He is fighting in New York, Ohio and Texas. And he is doing it for other people. Some of them will be elected and most of them won't, but they will get the message out on a local level and that is where you start changing peoples minds.

Dean said it all along, we've got to take back out party and now he is working to make that happen. Oddly enough, Michael Moore said something similar when he suggested the liberals and progressives go to Dem meetings and overtake that party from within.

[MallRat]

31. I wish I could listen. Your commentary sounds like it's Gore-Perot redux.

And remember what happened to Perot's political career after that debate?

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[madfloridian]

32. Dean: You must speak to people's interest. Amen!

He said Ralph does that. I agree with this. I feel no one is addressing my issues. We are losing our prescription drug coverage, and no one cares.

[cal04]

37. Dean did that

that's why many including me were behind him
he started talking about what no one else had the guts to say, what many of us were feeling.

[Wind Dancer]

45. Yes, Dean had the spine that got the

Dems to start speaking up, it was groundbreaking. We owe him a huge debt and I hope he continues to do this.

[GreenPartyVoter]

36. Sorry Howard, I disagree about the nonbinding vote

but if we have preferential voting it would lessen the need for no-confidence votes.

[Cheswick2.0]

63. I agree with him

He couldn't be more right on that issue. We don't need that kind of kaos. parlementary systems might deal well with that type of voting, but we depend on an orderly transfer of power which happens at set intervals.

[Khephra]

40. Mod: we only have a few more minutes???????????

It's scheduled on CSPAN for an hour and a half. Damn, it feels like they're just getting started.

:evilfrown:

[indigo32]

41. Dean

Wow... :loveya:
he is SO right about protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Sorry... it's just the way it is.

[mzmolly]

49. Indeed. He's brilliant!

:hi:

[ProfessorPlum]

43. Jesus, the host interuppted that interesting debate

to ask that stupid question? Dean was mopping the floor with Nader on the rights of the minority and the limits of majority rule, and she stopped it for that stupid question? What a bozo.

[cal04]

47. It's over? Just when

it was getting good
Great job Dean!!!

[mzmolly]

50. Yes, she is a piece of work. Sounded like Nader was running to sell books

towards the end? :shrug:

[ProfessorPlum]

46. Oh yeah, let's end with that very wise man

PJ O'Rourke. Jeebus.

[cjbuchanan]

60. I found it funny that Nader didn't even let her get the quote in

Without responding to it.

Then she cut him off before he tried to say his favorite quote.

[GreenPartyVoter]

48. Justice talking website not working?

[Imperialism Inc.]

51. Must be bombarded with traffic.

Not working for me either.

[madfloridian]

52. Sirius radio is not getting signal at all.

Starting back a little, but breaking up. I streamed on computer, so don't know if it was on at all on NPR.

Now it is coming back up.

[Skidmore]

64. A message to Ralph....

I wouldn't vote for you no matter what ticket you headed. You demonstrated to me that, for all your peace rhetoric, you don't really care about who is harmed or dies in this world. It is unrealistic to just assume that a substantial majority of people will just suddenly adopt ALL of his positions and in such a short period. In the meantime, we have people dying, going hungry, struggling with illness and poverty, and living under the thumb of a tyrant. The whole world has been held hostage to the petulant demands of a mean spirited, little man. Now we can add another tyrant to the list. Yes, Ralph, I hold you just as responsible as * for the mess we're in, and maybe even more responsible. * is a psychotic fool. You know better so what's your excuse?

[Zynx]

79. In a race between Nader and Bush, I wouldn't vote.

The reason is that there is no way Nader would win, nor would I want him to as I think he could become an awful president, and I could never bring myself to vote for Bush.

[Cats Against Frist]

74. My Twenty Two Cents

There are basically two main positions in this debate:

1. If you think that making a statement by third party voting, and believe that there will be enough voters to actually have SOME RESULT, to protest and make significant chinks in the two parties' corporate dependency, even though there are differences (as Ralph Nader has stated) -- Vote for Ralph Nader.

2. If Right-wing crazy corpofascist Protestotalibanian shredding of the Enlightenment philosophies that led to our Constitution, if turning back the clock on all major advances in labor, civil rights, womens' rights, if the crumbling of our democracy under money thugs and near-fascist ideologue philosopy SCARES THE HOLY LIVING FUCK OUT OF YOU AND YOU WANT TO STOP IT. Vote for Kerry.

There -- I saved you the whole debate. This is what every argument on the topic that I've heard has come down to.

I pick Kerry. Because a moderate country on its worst day, is better than the right-wing blackshirt paradise on its best.

And I don't begrudge people their opinions. Unless Bush is re-elected, and he appoints judges that take away my reproductive rights -- then we're going to retroactively scrap.

[mzmolly]

77. Nicely summed up.

:hi:

[quaker bill]

81. Howard did a great job.

Nader just doesn't get that this election has always been larger than a collection of "issues" or an individual candidate. Dean has always understood this. That is part of why I supported Dean even though I disagreed with him on some "issues".

The debate did this if nothing else. One questioner asked Ralph about his plan to get to 270 electoral votes. He had no substantial response. In it's absence, this answer was the most forthcoming part of Mr. Nader's performance. Even he knows that he does not have even a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

This is why I will work for and vote for Kerry, even though I disagree with him on some "issues". The people of this country will be best served by defeating Bush. Kerry is the one candidate running who can defeat Bush.

I am not ABB. I am just AB (anti-Bush). Kerry is somewhat progressive and he can beat Bush. That is all I need to know.