The Rage at Nader Is A Distraction....

[ludwigb]

as is getting angry at DUers who say they won't vote for Hillary. It may not seem so now, but in the long run we are on the same team. It can be a mistake to confuse strategy with substance.

Abusing people who can no longer stomach voting Democrat is a convenient way to forget that the Democrats continue to fund the Iraq war and refuse to challenge the moral basis of this war. They have failed to deliver on Universal health-care. They fail to protect jobs, protect communities, and adequately fund schools.

Why do they fail? Because we don't expect enough. We don't demand enough.

Your anger and rage are the products of real, palpable events. Productively channeled, it can lead to good things. Channel that anger at the people who are ruining the promise of this nation. Some of them are Republicans, some are Democrats, some aren't involved in politics at all.

I've been there with the rage at Nader and his supporters. It consumed more hours of my life back in 2000 (both before and after the election) than I care to recall. At that time I was a regular on the Michael Moore forums--and believe me, the discussions were heated, and not many were on Gore's side. But the truth is their motives and mission (the Greens) were noble, even if their 'movement' was an illusion.

I will never vote for Nader, and I will vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination (though I don't have to like it...). But I see now that all that rage at the Greens was a waste of time, and directed at the wrong people entirely.

I beg you, channel that anger productively, DUers. The war has to end. Universal health care and comprehensive education are causes that can and will ennoble humanity. Let us focus on what we can change. And pick your enemies wisely--we can only fight so many battles at once.

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Every 10 minutes, an Iraqi citizen dies.

Every 10 hours, a US soldier dies.

You don't need to tell me where to channel my anger.

[ClassWarrior]

2. It surprises me that so many so-called Progressives practice...

...vengeance politics. Thom Hartman was lamenting yesterday the fact that the Green Party didn't encourage people in 2000 to vote Gore in swing states, and to vote Nader in safe Dem states. That way they'd get their funding AND defeat the Rape-Publican. But I can't see Greens doing that. They seem to vote the way they do to "teach the Dems a lesson" and end up cutting off their own noses in the process.

Why? Aren't Progressives bigger than that?

NGU.

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. I voted for Nader in 2000 in a safe state. Some of us did try the vote

trading and other strategies. But people forget that there were other things going on too. Like survival of our smaller parties. WE have to get a certain percentage of the vote in order to maintain party status. To ask us to vote for another party is to to ask us to sign the death warrant for our own party. :(

It's a heckuva choice and I am sure many people would love to get in the WayBack machine and un rig the machines and recast their votes for Gore. If my state had gone red I know I would have felt terrible.

But a lot of people back in 2000 had no idea what Cheney had in store for us, and for those people who had a way-forward machine and who honestly knew things would turn out like this they should have said something to swing voters.

[ClassWarrior]

9. You didn't answer the question.

I appreciate the fact that you can't predict the future. Hell, you'd be the highest paid political consultant in the world if you could.

But the Green Party thing is just one of numerous examples of the underlying issue. Why do so many otherwise thoroughly Progressive people give in to this reptilian, Rape-Publican tendancy toward vengeance - especially when it's so obviously self-defeating?

NGU.

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. Well who in specific do you see as acting that way. I can maybe second guess a specific person

better then a generic somebody. But I'll take a stab at the generalization as well.

I suppose there are Catholics who would like to know why Protestants don't fold into the them, and vice versa. Why? I don't know. There must be something about each group that the members find appealing enough to not want to be a member of the other. And yet we saw horrific battles between the two in years past, and not so long ago.

In the end, it comes down I guess, to feeling that your group is the right one.

Clearly Dems feel they are the right one. Greens and socialists and other small parties feel _they_ are the right one. Dems have one checkmark in their favor and that is sheer numbers. But that's all I see what really is better than the socialists or Greens. So then the argument is: Why not vote for the ones likely to be elected?

And the answer is: Why vote for the ones who get elected but then do nothing?

And it always comes back to that. "Vote for us, we'll do something THIS time." But for some of us, we're not seeing the results we want.

[Judge_Mental]

3. Agreed, I've always considered blaming Nader a waste

of my time, and a oh too convenient cop out for poorly run democratic campaigns. I love Al Gore like a brother, :) but him and John Kerry both should have smoked W at the polls.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[ludwigb]

5. Sorry

Not really a DU regular. Like I said, at that time I frequented the MM boards.

[ClassWarrior]

6. Calling out post count is a violation of the rules.

I guess tenure doesn't make a whit of difference when it comes to being civil, does it?

NGU.

[election_2004]

8. Here's my philosophy....

I don't give a fuck about what Ralph Nader is eating for breakfast (let alone whether he wants to run another vanity campaign), and the Hillaristas who intend to try to bully/guilt people into voting for (or worshipping) their candidate can kiss my ass for the next nine years.