Ralph Nader is Simply Up to No Good.

[David Zephyr]

For over three years I held my tongue when others attacked Ralph Nader, his motives in the 2000 election and his motives in the upcoming 2004 election. That day is done.

In spite of his long career of fighting against corporate criminals and for consumers, Ralph Nader appears dedicated to facilitating another four years of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney at the helm of our country.

Overlooking the many signals that Nader has sent of his intentions to undermine the Democrats in November over the last two years, one merely needs to glance at Nader’s recent activities in the news stories I have linked below to clearly see that this former consumer advocate is motivated to hurt any chance of the Democrats reclaiming the White House this year.

I am a life-long pacifist and socialist who is pragmatic enough to realize that our nation, and yes, the planet, can not afford another four years of this administration in power. The election of John Kerry and John Edwards should be the priority of everyone on the Left. We can always give these guys hell once elected…at least we will have our Civil Liberties.

I’m no longer going to be silent on this issue any more. Ralph Nader is out to hurt John Kerry and he should be shamed publicly by all of us on the Left until he backs off.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125092,00.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001972172_nader05.html

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040704_591.html

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/06/29/nader/print.html

[olddem43]

1. You are right -

He needs to get the hell out of the pres. race and support Kerry. He will not because his ego is now too big. I too, once had respect for him but no longer. We should all write him off for good.

[SW FL Dem]

41. Ralph Nader inspired me to go to law school

I wanted to fight for the little guy. I lost alot of respect for Ralph in 2000. Today, I was cheering for Howard Dean in the debate. Ralph's time has come and gone. He has an axe to grind. His actions are completely contrary to his words. If he truly wanted to advance his ideals, he would use his influence to help third party candidates that have a chance of getting elected. Ralph gripes that that Dems take contributions from corporations, yet he has NO problem with accepting help from Republicans and extreme right wing groups to further his own presidential bid (not to help the progressives who actually have a chance.)

[Rowdyboy]

2. Jack Anderson and Nader both were heros of mine as

a teenager in the '60's and '70's. However, that's not exactly the word I'd use to describe my opinion of Nader today. He has shamed himself.

[amber dog democrat]

3. Not a value-add

Nader only acts as a liability..

one has to assuem he has no idea or care regarding the harm he does.

[BridgeTheGap]

4. Is it Nader's intention to

see Bush in the WhiteHouse for 4 more years to drive the country into the ground and in the process spur people to action? If so, it's a very wrong headed approach.

[calico1]

8. I think that is exactly his intention

Very twisted.

[zoeyfong]

49. Whine, whine... cry, cry.

The intention of both major parties is to run America into the ground, and then leave the country with the profits. Open your eyes, people; there's hardly a single honest, principled politician from sea to shining sea, least of all among the major parties. And you blame nader for getting fed up and going it on his own? Someone has to take the first step to turn this country around, and the democrats aren't doing it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. Careful, David..you will get your liberal credentials pulled

and be accused of being a DLC apologist if you DARE point out the undermining, contradictory, absolutely mutinious hypocrasy of Saint Ralph.

I mean what has Kerry done since Iran/Contra and BCCI...nevermind that St Ralphie's last ACTUAL accomplishment legislatively was long before these events.

Surely you must be a centrist troll who only pretended to be a leftist...everyone now knows you are void of any real principles.

(that was sarcasm for the sarcasm impaired....except for the first paragraph...that was well placed venom at the IDIOTS that can't recognize the fucking mutinous acts of this egotistic, slimy bastard)

[David Zephyr]

10. Maybe It's Ralph's Liberal Credentials That Should Be Pulled.

Last week Nader attacked Michael Moore because he was not invited to a screening of his film. Did he attack Moore's politics? No, he criticized Moore's weight.

Of course, your sarcasm is always appreciated by me, NSMA.

And, yes, I'd have to agree with your choice of wording that Nader's acts are "mutinous".

They are indeed mutinous. Make no mistake about it.

Mutinous to women who will lose the right to choose should Bush squeeze back into another four years to appoint Supreme Court Judges.

Mutinous to children who are increasingly falling into poverty and health care black holes due to lack of federal support.

Mutinous to our soldiers who are sent into harm's way into wars that only benefit Bush's oil buddies and the Saudis.

Mutinous to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters who are being made into a permanent political whipping class by the GOP...gay Americans who Nader dismisses as people with "gonadal politics".

Mutinous to our teachers and the entire, fragile public education system which is being financially starved and bureaucratically challenged.

Mutinous to our environment both domestically and globally and to the ever-threatened wildlife.

Mutinous to African-Americans and their congressional representatives who Nader now apparently feels superior enough to lecture them about Civil Rights!

Yeah, mutinous to all of us in a leaking boat in the midst of a very threatening storm who are doing our very best to keep it from going under as we watch Ralph Nader wag his nasty, little self-rightous finger at all of us and pompously tell us that we aren't doing a good enough job.

Well, it's time that we all pitch Nader out of the boat once and for all...and yes, take away his "liberal credentials" just before we heave him into the water.

[cprise]

17. Here, have a nice Clinton-break

I'd get a pic of him handing over the Fourth Estate to international/military conglomerates (just prior to his media lynching) but I fear that was done in the dark without clothes on.

[Zomby Woof]

20. nice distortion

That media takeover you speak of began under Reagan. They were corporate tools long before Clinton was in the White House. GE took over NBC then under Reagan. Westinghouse took over CBS, etc... Clinton came in a little late for that party.

Meanwhile, you attack Clinton because you can't refute the utter truth of both NSMA and DavidZ's words.

However flawed Clinton was or may be, Telecommunications Act or no, he takes the backseat to RalphMalph The Nadir.

As liberal_veteran so aptly put it, Veruca Salt, indeed.

ISE.

[cprise]

21. Refute what?

Mutinous!
Mutinous!!
Mutinous!!!

"cluck cluck cluck"

[Zomby Woof]

22. people can post whatever they want

I enjoy the chance to smackdown ISE's. I would be the last one on DU to make a plea for mobthink or like-minded fellowship.

But stupid is stupid, and I calls it like I sees it.

Now, do you want to address what David said about Nader, or can I expect more obtuse replies?

[cprise]

23. Sorry

I guess the original post wasn't sharp enough.

Am I to take it as proof of ideological impurity?

[sangh0]

32. Maybe the next time, you could try to actually defend Nadir

instead of attacking Clinton. Even if you proved that Clinton was the anti-Christ, it wouldn't make Nadir any less of a traitor.

[cprise]

36. You think anyone who doesn't agree with you is on "Nader's side"

I'm not defending him, although I think his campaign is very interesting.

As for him being a traitor, I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Nlighten1]

6. I think I agree with you.

I support Ralph's position on how fucked up our government is and the two party system but...I think he is dead wrong running this time.

[tridim]

7. He made his point in 2000

There's no need to make it again. IMO he's just an asshole.

[zoeyfong]

50. Apparently not. Hell, last time dems only picked Lieberman

for VP; this time they tried to go all out and get a republican on the ticket. Actually, you could say that Ralph Nader's campaign is a direct result of democratic malfeasance and incompetance. But true to repug criticisms, the democratic party has a problem with personal responsibility, and they can only blame nader for their own failings.

[flpoljunkie]

9. CNN: Rupert Murdock's Regan Books is publishing Nader's new book

Can we be the least bit surprised?

[gulliver]

11. Imagine Nader's finger on "the button." n/t

[bushwakker]

12. Well said

Nader is a Bush Republican - what other conclusion is there?

[Beetwasher]

13. After His Recent Actions, I Can't Help But Agree

He lied. He said he'd be on the campaign trail campaigning against Bush and to help Kerry. He's done everything BUT that. So far I've seen him attack Michael Moore, Howard Dean, The Democratic party in general, but I've yet to see him go after Bush with any of the same vigor he has for Dems/Progressives who don't support him...He knows damn well most of his support is coming from the Republicans and yet he accepts it without question. It's sad and quite frankly deplorable...

[cprise]

18. That makes Clinton

...nothing but a corporate whore, which is a far-Right servant in its own way.

As for Nader's conservative benefactors, I'd say they're delusional enough about their own inherent superiority that the idea of funding the message of their ideological opponent doesn't worry them.

That looks like a window of opportunity to me.

[Beetwasher]

24. Uhh, What Does

That have anything to do with what I posted? That's a non-sequitor. Do you have a point? I don't have a clue what you're talking about.

[cprise]

26. Nader accepting money from conservative orgs...

If you think that makes him their lackey, then Clinton was nothing but a whore for all the corporate money he could get.

[Beetwasher]

27. We're Not Discussing Clinton

We're discussing Nader. Notice the subject of the Post? As I said, total nonsensical non-sequitor.

Do you have some sort of Clinton obsession?

And in any event, it's not quite the same thing. Repubs are also getting signatures to get him on the ballot. Nader is being used by Republicans, and allowing himself to be used, to assure a Bush victory, and he and you damn well know it. If you claim otherwise, you're delusional.

Get a clue.

[cprise]

28. Of course not

But comparing him with Nader illustrates a point about accepting donations.

Nader is using the Republicans as much as they are using him. It's a dangerous game, and one the conservatives will probably lose if Ralph withdraws just before election day.

[Beetwasher]

29. Again, It's not JUST Donations

That's the point. He's also slamming Dems and progressives who don't support him and NOT going after Bush, like he said he would. It's disengenous for him and you to pretend that this doesn't increase Bush's chances of being elected. He's not helping Kerry in any way shape or form or hurting Bush. He's doing the opposite of what he claimed he would do.

He's also using Repubs to get him on the ballot.

You're point only stands IF he drops out, which I doubt he will and even then, it may be too late if he's on the ballots...

[cprise]

31. You have a short memory

...if you can't remember any significant anti-Bush activity from Ralph.

I'd say he has his hands full at the moment with some of the more under-handed assaults from Democrats.

BTW- The movie Fahrenheit 9-11 does open with a rebuke of the Democratic party, not Ralph Nader. As much as Moore doesn't want Nader to run this time, there was simply no way he could pin the blame for 2000 on Nader and remain credible.

Its up to Ralph to run a campaign on the left. The more he attacks Kerry (and the more the press sensationalizes the drama), the more Nader takes away the press' ability to frame centrists as 'radicals' and 'far left' and the more appeal Kerry has to swing voters.

[sangh0]

33. Why don't you try defending Nadir

instead of attacking Clinton?

Or is defending Nadir the Impossible Dream?

[cprise]

37. Sure I'll defend him

...his right to run and to free speech.

The kind of political game he's playing though might only be defendable after the election. We'll see. Until then, there are many ways in which the Dems try to characterize him that are just plain wrong, and pointing them out can be more fun than hypnotizing a freeper with a rubber chicken.

:evilgrin:

[Beetwasher]

54. What A Load Of Crap!

Wow! You are completely delusional.

So it's ok that Ralph attacks Kerry and NOT Bush in your view?

You're fucking nuts...It's up to Ralph to be an egotistical idiot and I guess it's up to his supporters to continue defending the indefensible, no matter how bizzarre their twisted logic gets...Nice job at completely changing the subject, which was;

Ralph Nader so far has pretty muuch ONLY attacked Dems and progressives who don't support him and NOT Bush...That's fucked up and it's indefensible...But keep trying, maybe you'll hit a nonsequitor that makes sense...

[mzmolly]

43. What conservative organizations supported/funded Clintons campaign?

:shrug:

[mzmolly]

42. You NAILED IT! Nader has NOT attacked Bush like he has the Dems.

Yet he claims to be assisting in sending Bush back to Crawford.

I do hope he runs and is totally marginalized after this election.

At today's debate he plugged his new book. Makes ya wonder. :(

[zoeyfong]

51. *I* haven't attacked Bush like i've attacked Dems, and i'll tell

you why - I expect a whole lot more from Dems than i do from Bush. I *expect* Repugs to screw the working people, bankrupt america, get us into unnecessary wars, etc., but I expect Democrats to *fight back* against the repugs and stand up for *me!* When you get screwed by somebody you thought was your friend, it always hurts more than when you get screwed by somebody you knew was your enemy.

[mzmolly]

56. I guess this explains how I feel about Nader.

When you get screwed by somebody you thought was your friend, it always hurts more than when you get screwed by somebody you knew was your enemy.

[HarveyBriggs]

14. Rhymes with traitor.

Smells like one, too.

The corporations have gotten to him. Sure he talks tough, but they way the Republicans are working for him, you know he's been paid off.

He delivered the White House to Bush once, and he'll do it again. He may protest the war, but deep down he gets his jollies knowing Americans are dieing because of how he influenced the 2000 election.

Nader=Dead Soldiers in an illegal war.

Harvey Briggs

[cprise]

15. You call yourself a socialist?

Interesting.

Real socialists in Canada just put the Liberal Party in their place. (They started making all the DLC noises. But sorry, no hacking away at healthcare this time!)

And here's the problem: Our system is "differently-abled" than most other developed countries. The Greens have made their first priority the promotion of democratic reforms like IRV to allow the Dems to rule with or without a 3rd party present. The Democratic Party has completely ignored this, because as we all know Dems never borrow ideas from anyone except the Republicans.

Remember that: In the world according to Tom Daschale and Al From, the conservatives are the smart ones.


PS: It was DU that showed me how awful the Democratic Party and Al Gore were in (not) defending voting rights in 2000... and it doesn't get more basic than that. This Gore supporter is reluctant to lend support again.

[David Zephyr]

30. Socialist, Homosexual and Admirer of Michael Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin

and a registered Democrat who can look himself squarely in the mirror every morning with pride of a life time of activism which is known to many here at the DU.

I doubt that any poster here the DU has railed against Al From and the DLC more than I have. Take a stroll down memory lane via the DU's wonderful archival search engine and see my postings on the DLC and From for over three years here.

I don't believe in punishing the good for love of the perfect when it comes to social/economic justice. Sorry. If that's compromising, then so be it.

Emma Goldman, who had been sent by Johann Most to speak to workers during the late 1800's, spoke of lecturing an assembled group of overworked, underpaid men and women while she was still a teenager. In her youthful revolutionary zeal, she criticized the Eight Hour Workday movement as a diversion from the "real" revolutionary cause. After she spoke, a very old man in her audience spoke politely to her saying that he, too, wanted that larger revolution that she spoke of, but that he was old and tired and the promise of being able to have an extra hour or two for sleep or to be with his family after his grinding labor, especially at his late age in life, would be a good thing, too.

Goldman, in her autobiography, then relates that she learned more that moment from that tired, old worker about social justice than she had from her mentor, Johann Most. Ideological purity can sometimes be little more than a cop-out for doing nothing at all.

Anyone who believes that, as Ralph Nader claimed, had Al Gore been President of the United States today rather than George Bush that there would have been "no difference" is simply stroking himself.

As one of John Kerry's toughest critics during the Primaries here at the DU, I have no reservations or qualms whatsoever in giving my time and money and energy to help him become President and to end the Bush Presidency.

[mzmolly]

47. Here here!

:toast:

[cprise]

59. Newsbulletin for David:

The 8-hr-day movement /was/ a diversion. Its a desirable standard that carries no weight today in the US. Now compare our situation with countries that have "real" socialists anchoring the Left.

Al Gore used to be a neo-liberal and no doubt would still be that way now if he became president. As far as the rest of the world and its day-to-day economic life is concerned, there isn't much difference with Bush. Are Gore/Kerry and Bush the same? Is the posterior of an animal the same as its face? No, but they both have the same interests. Kerry is pushing faith-based crap and the 'free-trade' agreement du jour already; as a beseiged Outer Party member begging for "bi-partisanship" (single-party rule) those are likely to be his only accomplishments.

At least the world knows better now. The walkout at Cancun was more significant than the formation of our "coalition of the willing" and the return of a Clintonite to the whitehouse will not change that. The global Left knows it has no suitable counterparts in the U.S., even as they grow in strength.

No one wants another Iraq. But with Kerry in power we will almost certainly have more Haitis and Venezuelas and Argentinas to our credit. It will be easy for the other 95% of humanity to point out the similarities with Bush.

[Hippo_Tron]

35. How do you expect to ever pass something like IRV?

The dems ignore it because it would simply be a waste of time. It would require a constitutional ammendment and there is simply not enough support for that at the moment. Kerry can't run around saying that we need runoff voting so that Greens can have their voice heard without ruining the democrats' chances of getting elected, because people simply don't give a shit. They care about the fact that they don't have decent jobs, that they can't find decent childcare, that healthcare costs are ridiculous (if they can even afford healthcare), and that their idiot in chief has cracked into their social security funds to kill innocent Iraqis for oil. John Kerry is the ONLY candidate who can beat Bush and frankly I think that he's pleanty liberal. Sure, he did vote for the the IWR, which would've passed with or without Tom Daschle's support, and he won't tell Ariel Sharon to go fuck himself but those are political realities I can live with when he's up against hundreds of millions of dollars in Republican money, Diebold voting machines, and a country that the right has scared shitless into thinking that if they don't re-elect Bush, that the "terraists" will ruin the American way of life. BTW, you rag on Clinton a lot, but did you ever stop to consider what he would have accomplished if Newt and the Republicans hadn't stopped him?

[mzmolly]

46. Ralph Nader is NOT a member of the Green Party, so what's yer point?

David Cobb is the Green Party Candidate for President. He realizes that we need to rid the country of Bush.

[Lugnut]

16. Personally speaking...

I think he's Chenyin' gone off the deep end.

[Crewleader]

19. You are correct David Zephyr...

and I can always count on YOU for knowing the facts friend!
Nader is not what the American people need, Nader is for Nader!

Always good seeing you! :hi:

[David Zephyr]

39. Crew!

Florida is in good hands with Crewleader on our side!

:hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. The DLC is up to no good. To hell with both of them.

I'm no fan of fathead Ralph, but if the Dems want the leftist vote this time around, they should jettison the DLC and move left. Blaming Ralph is nonsense.

Kerry has moved far enough to the right that he's lost my vote.

[sangh0]

34. Breaking News!

That was David Zephyr who posted that, not the DLC. AFAIK, David has never been the DLC, but I could be wrong about that

[mzmolly]

44. Ralph Nader says "Kerry has alot of good in him" and "Go to my rally's but

vote for John Kerry, especially in swing states."

Kerry is ranked one of the most liberal senators in the senate. Sorry if that's not good enough for ya.

http://changein04.com/kerryRecord/qOnKerry.php
"Kerry vs. Bush is not Coke vs. Pepsi. It's more like Coke vs. Arsenic. The Bush/Rumsfeld/Ashcroft regime is more dangerous than the regimes of Nixon/Kissinger/Mitchell or Reagan/Weinberger/Meese. Despite dissatisfaction with some of Kerry's rhetoric and platform, progressives should mobilize to defeat Bush in '04 and stay mobilized in '05 and after to ensure that our agenda is heard and addressed by the Kerry administration that we help elect." ~ JEFF COHEN

[zoeyfong]

55. My problem with Kerry is not his 'liberalism,' or lack of it;

it's the fact that he was just plain wrong, and probably dishonest, about his war support, and overall he is such a duplicitous, double-speaking Politician that i just can't stand him. He also doesn't seem to have any grasp of the degree of the economic crisis facing average, working, blue-collar people. Corporate profits continue to rise to ever more obscene levels, while the workers who generate all those profits see their real take-home pay drop, and their cost-of-living increasing exponentially. As to the assumption that Nader supporters are 'radical liberals,' my positions on things such as guns and welfare are probably to the right of most people on this group, but i would still have voted for kerry, if he hadn't shown himself willing to literally get people killed for votes.

[zoeyfong]

52. Ditto. And it's not even moving 'right;' it's just moving wrong.

[TexasSissy]

38. Correctomundo.

[oasis]

40. Get a clue Ralph, you've been abandoned. It's time to fold up your tent

and go quietly into the night while you still have a thimble-full of self respect.

[mzmolly]

45. David, I feel your pain.

We have to stop the bleeding, and Nader is smart enough to realize what he's doing. Sad aint it?

:hi:

[zoeyfong]

48. Even *if* Nader was deliberately trying to hurt Dems,

or was an egomaniac nutball, as many here like to believe, the fact is that if he had no serious issues that were not being addressed by either of the two major parties, then no one would vote for him. The democratic strategy seems to be to bitch and whine and demand the support of potential Nader voters, while doing nothing to address the issues Nader is about. Regardless of anybody's personal opinion about Ralph Nader, that's not a very smart strategy for democrats.

[ibegurpard]

53. I agree

and I don't have a very high opinion of Ralph Nader anymore, despite his outstanding early work as a consumer advocate.

[mzmolly]

57. Lay out the specific issues you want addressed. Nader was talking

about a parliamentary government yesterday in his *vision* for a perfect world. I don't think the Dems can add that to their platform this year?

I have a quote from Gloria Steinem that NEVER gets old when it comes to Ralph Nader:

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

[zoeyfong]

58. The war, worker's rights, health care, civil rights, money in politics...

Re the war, dem support for bush's bogus war was a massive moral error that IMO damaged them across the board for years to come, because it gets to the very integrity of the party, in a way that clinton's blow job cover-up never could. But that is in the past, so dems are going to have to do some major rebuilding of their reputation now, and they could start by doing (or at least proposing) something to address the serious economic crisis faced by america's working class. I don't know what the answer to this situation is exactly, but i'm sure not hearing anything inspiring for dem leaders.
Re health care, the HMO, profit-making-middleman system is not working; universal, national health care is the only way to go, and dems should at least be proposing it and making the case for it, even if it won't pass right now. The ground must be prepared before planting the seed, and the sooner dem leaders start doing it, the better. Re civil rights, everything gay-related is being used by repugs to inflame the culture wars, and true to their wimpy, lap-dog natures, most dems succumb to the badgering and support anti-gay measures, rather than taking principle stands in favor of what they presumably know is right. etc. etc.