"Nader's desire to punish the Democrats and elect George W. Bush"

[checks-n-balances]

THE REAL RALPH
Quotations from Ralph Nader and others
about Nader's desire to punish the Democrats
and elect George W. Bush, 2000 - 2004

(This may not be much news for lots of you, but there's some excellent educational material here to pass on to friends or anyone else needing to read it. And if this is a dupe, I apologize in advance.)

Here's something from just one of the sources:

--Jonathan Chait, The American Prospect, November 4, 2002
While Nader's attacks on Clinton and Gore might seem, on the surface, to mirror the criticisms liberal Democrats make of centrist and conservative Democrats, it reflects, in fact, something altogether different. Nader does not confine his objection to the party's rightward turn under Clinton; his sense of grievance with the party encompasses even its most liberal elements. In his book, he denounces not just Democratic moderates but also the party's labor allies and its Progressive Caucus, some of whose members he has vowed to unseat. He has endorsed the Minnesota Green Party's campaign to unseat Sen. Paul Wellstone, the closest thing to a real-world ally Nader could hope for....

If the purpose of Nader's candidacy really was to build a viable third party, as he stated, he should have been concerned only with maximizing his own vote total. Indeed, if this was his goal, he would have had a clear long-term interest in Gore winning: If Bush carried the election, many Green voters would probably return to the Democratic fold in 2004. Yet Nader chose to help Bush and hurt Gore, even when doing so came at his own expense.... {When others) proposed that Nader supporters in swing states swap their votes with Gore supporters in safe states -- thus maximizing the Nader vote while simultaneously helping Gore -- Nader denounced the idea.

<snip>

Throughout the campaign, Nader brushed aside concerns that he might help elect Bush by employing one of several blithe quips. If asked about being a spoiler, he'd invariably reply, "You can't spoil a system that's spoiled to the core." If asked about helping defeat Gore, he'd answer, "Only Al Gore can defeat Al Gore." Another Nader favorite was, "Would I be running if I were concerned about taking votes from Al Gore? Isn't that what candidates try to do to one another -- take votes?" Not since Steve Forbes has a presidential candidate turned aside unwanted queries so robotically. Nader's one-liners were pure, made-for-television non sequiturs, all refusing to engage on any substantive level the fact that his candidacy might prove a decisive factor in Bush's election....

To listen to Nader explain himself on these questions, then, is to stumble into a funhouse world of illogic and trickery. His systematic dissembling was necessary to hide something he could not, for political reasons, admit: Helping elect George W. Bush was not an unintended consequence but the primary goal of his presidential campaign.

Much more at:
http://www.soc.qc.edu/Staff/levine/THE-REAL-RALPH.html

[mzmolly]

1. Oh man is this ever true!

To listen to Nader explain himself on these questions, then, is to stumble into a funhouse world of illogic and trickery.

This is an excellent compilation of this fools remarks. Thanks for posting!

[mzmolly]

2. THIS IS A *MUST* READ!

:kick:

And, one for the bookmarks.

Nader said this shit so often, he's even got Democrats making similar statements:

"You can't spoil a system that's spoiled to the core." If asked about helping defeat Gore, he'd answer, "Only Al Gore can defeat Al Gore." :eyes:

[oasis]

3. Ralph "You must destroy the village in order to save it" Nader.

:puke:

[LimpingLib]

4. People just dont think.

Realize that Nader was running at 7%-8% in polls in the fall and he wanted in the debates. Jessy Ventura was at the same number if not slightly lower then he made the debates and it was really a spark that attracted a record amount of new voters. Nader really had a chance but many progressives never bothered giving him the chance he deserved due to fear of "taking votes from Gore" . Polls showed as many as 30% agreed with Nader more than Bush or Gore.People were just so shortsighted they could just take a chance and vote for Nader as if 4 years was just so bad.Well they all voted Gore and we still got 4 years of Bush.And a sad 51% turnout.


What really amazes me the most about Nader bashers is that (not just their short sightedness and inability to see past 4 years)they seem to act as if the whole country votes . Actualy only about 50% do in the most active of years.Its obvious to me that had we have given Nader a real chance in 2000 then voters (non voters actualy) would realize there is more than just 2 partys and turnout would go up to at least Minnesota levels and perhaps reach levels similar to Canada or Europe.BTW Canada just saw conservatives get only 29% of the vote despite it being a very favorable year for them. Id like to see the GOP fall to that level here.And the 2 left wing partys got 15.7% and 4.3% despite voters being told they were "spoliers" .

Take away the 20% of the vote progressive partys got in Canada and then Canada is down to USA turnout levels (well not THAT bad).

I never cared to check but since exit polls showed that Nader took 47% from Gore and 21% from Bush and 32% of voters who wouldnt have voted for either (or vote at all)then I must wonder if the Libertarians and Buchannon took as much from Bush or more? Subtract the 21% of Bush supporting Nader voters from the 47% and thats 26% of 2.7% or 0.7% .

Buchannon and the Libertarians got more than 0.7% .

What real significant is all th potential voters that got turned off from voting all together due to Nader being dismissed so easily. The irony is that all the new voters who would have registered and voted Nader might have stayed as voters and would likly be mostly on our side (though further irony is that they would be screamed at by the small minded looking at vote totals as "taking votes from Gore" and damned )in future elections including this one.

Whats even more is that we arent even talking about the policy changes in our nation this would have brought or would bring. These Nader bash fests are about the most disjointed thing I have ever seen.

[David Dunham]

5. Nader is only getting help this time from Republicans!!

[LimpingLib]

7. We have thrown our nation into a fish bowl.

True now that Nader (and ultimatly 3rd partys and none GOP/DEM canidates) has been made out to be "a looser" via endless underminding that we are stuck with the same 50% as voted in 2000.

Still we need 3rd party canidates and as many as possible. At least people know who Nader is unlike any other none Dem/GOP nominee.

Its a big world out there though and this fish bowl situation all the Nader bashers have created will be tough to crack. And even whn you let a fish out it does nothing more than swim in close containment as if its still in the bowl.

Ive said before but nobody believes me that there are many social conservatives who are against foreign entanglements like Iraq or economical liberal that might vote for Nader
(and would never vote for Kerry). Thats just 1 example.

Not everybody sees Bush as all bad and Kerry as a savior. Infact of you take the 50% that dont vote and add them to those who do vote (that dont see Kerry as anything they would want to support)then many here would be shocked at the high number. People really dont like the 2 partys and especially their most establishment like members (who happen to be represented respectivly in significant portion by the nominess of both respective partys).

I dont want to use the "Pepsi vs. Coke " argument as people will think Im saying Bush and Kerry are identicle so Ill say that not everybody likes to be forced between say chocolate and vanilla . To think that voters must choose between Kerry and Bush is like asking ALL AMERICANS to get all excited about choosing show they like better with the 2 "big choices" being Redskins or Cowboys. Even consider they might not like football to begin with? "Decision of the century " to us might not even be worth many peoples time unless they get more choices.

[cprise]

19. It's not Pepsi and Coke

...although they're not identical either.

Today's Republicans and Democrats function as proxies for an Inner Party and Outer Party, respectively.

When the Outer Party begins to generate real leaders (JFK, MLK, RFK, etc.) then the Inner Party will go to extremes and assasinate them. The O.P. does not want that trauma again so it keeps it economic policy aligned with the I.P. and expunges non-aligned leaders like Ralph Nader.

PS- 'Bipartisanship' is a byword for single-party rule in this country. You will hear it all over the news if Kerry wins.

[JHBowden]

23. Right on! Besides health care, social security, education,

the environment, taxation, gun control, trade, capital punishment, energy, abortion, war and peace, and affirmative action, what's the difference?

:dunce:

[cprise]

25. The difference

...is mainly words.

Especially where the other 95% of the world's population is concerned.

[mzmolly]

6. Ventura is not a success story I would mention.

As A Minnesotan I can say that. Further, Ventura won for one reason. He was a former pro-wrestler, and college kids thought that was "cool." :eyes:

Now, back to the subject.

Nader's stated goal is to punish the demcrats, whilst selling his new book. I don't support either agenda.

[LimpingLib]

8. Yea the burning issue of the day is Naders book.

A lifetime of unprecidented and tireless work just to sell a book and beef up his ego too I suppose.

Man the other nations in our world sure as hell better know how lucky they are to be able to focous on issues and not have to endlessly justify 3rd partys over rediculous accusations.

[mzmolly]

9. Seems Nader thinks his book is awfully important. He mentions

it every chance he gets.

What's ridiculous is calling Nader progressive. Now that's ridiculous.

Nader's positions on free trade and the economy put him closer to Pat Buchanan than any other Presidential candidate, and Nader has even explicitly called his platform a conservative one.

http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id439/pg1/

G'night.

[LimpingLib]

10. OMG lol

That would be because aside from Nader Buchanan was the most pominent (in vote totals)nominee since Perot who opposed PNTR for China which Kerry and Edwards supported.Buchanan was also vocaly oposed to NAFTA , GATT/WTO , FTAA , Fast Track an so on.

I dont know much what Buchanans stance is beyond building a wall around our nation but Nader knows that the solution to fast economic growth is to force corperations the world over to respect workers plus many other solutions.

China has grown to an average per capita income of $500 in 1985 to about $900 today but workers are abused and underpaid. If they had labor rights then their national income could blossom fast and the people could eventualy overthrow their government once they are out of severe poverty. PNTR sealed their fate sadly.All the massive economic activity in China (which could be even greater with citizens getting higher ages to by things)isnt going to the people and never will thanks to the 85-13 Senate vote (the House voted 237-197). All China's economic activity is doing is causing world oil prices to skyrocket and enabling corperations to have a safe haven where workers can be abused more so than ever before.

[mzmolly]

14. So he want's *corporations* to respect workers, unless HE owns said

corporation. It all makes sense now thanks. :eyes:

Nader can serve his shit upon toast.

Kerry's views on labor rights.

KERRY: I have been fighting to have labor and environment standards in trade agreements. I worked to make sure we had it in the Jordan agreement and in the Vietnam side agreement. You didn't need it in Chile is because they have high standards and they enforce them. The important thing is, I would not support the Free Trade of the Americas Act or the Central American Free Trade Act until they have stronger standards in them. If they sent them to my desk, I'd veto them.

...

We can negotiate a raising of the standards of labor and environment. The US could be the marketer of sustainable development practices, and still open markets for us.

We need to export our capitalism and our democracy. They go hand in hand. But we need a president who is prepared to negotiate the tough trade agreements that protect people. ~ John Kerry

[Seven]

12. ha

If "free trade" through NAFTA is considered progressive, then I don't want to be one.

[mzmolly]

13. But Union busting IS progressive?

Riiiight.

[Seven]

15. Where did I say Union Busting was progressive?

Perhaps you'd like to build a better strawman next time.

The claim was made that Nader wasn't progressive because he isn't in favor of "free trade" as it is defined by the WTO, NAFTA, etc.

The fact is MOST progressives aren't in favor of those treaties and agreements.

It was a ridiculous argument and one built around the basis that "Pat Buchanan" had similar views, regardless of the fact that Pat's reasons for his views are totally different.

But the propaganda arm of the "Nader is Satan" coalition can't be bothered with things like facts or understanding why someone has an opinon.

I'm not voting for Nader...and I don't appreciate his views on unions in regards to non-profit work and what not. But that has nothing to do with the claim made in the post I responded to.

I did vote for Nader in 00 and don't regret it (I lived in SC at the time for one thing), but I'm not going to the polls for Ralph or the Greens this time.

[mzmolly]

16. The "conversation" you infiltrated was about "workers rights."

I suggest union busting is not worker friendly. It's not a straw man, it's the same subject (workers rights).

You claimed that NAFTA and the WTO were'nt progressive enough for you. I replied that Nader busted unions thus the pot should watch calling the kettle black. (see how that's related) I do.

I find Nader's union busting activities are a legitimate complaint for a so called progressive who claims he's left of Kerry on workers rights. Far as I know, Kerry hasn't busted ONE union.

My point in posting that statement had to do with Nader "claiming" to be a conservative.

So I'm still wondering is he conservative or liberal? Or just another "mushy moderate" like the ones he claims to be an alternative to.

[Seven]

17. I wasn't aware...

..that you were having a private conversation.

That's probably because you weren't...the accusation of "infiltration" is another scarecrow. Try again.

WTO and NAFTA aren't progressive enough for MOST progressives..not just me. If you want to dispute that feel free. Just don't make the accusation that I "infiltrated" anything, when what I merely did was respond to a post on a message board about "free trade" agreements.

Just to review this was your post:

>>it every chance he gets.

What's ridiculous is calling Nader progressive. Now that's ridiculous.

Nader's positions on free trade and the economy put him closer to Pat Buchanan than any other Presidential candidate, and Nader has even explicitly called his platform a conservative one.

http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id439/pg1 /

G'night.>>

That's what I responded to. If you'd care to show me where in that statement union busting is mentioned it would be of great help.

Otherwise you were buidling a strawman.

[mzmolly]

18. It wasn't a private conversation, it was a conversation about Ralph Nader

which you infiltrated, apparently unaware of the subject matter? Of course all views are welcome.

Note the title of the thread.

"Nader's desire to punish the Democrats and elect George W. Bush"

Also seems you also missed this key part of my reply:

What's ridiculous is calling Nader progressive.

The conversation was not limited to "trade" as you claim it was. It was about a man named Nader and his psuedo progressive credentials.

WTO and NAFTA aren't progressive enough for MOST progressives..not just me. If you want to dispute that feel free. Just don't make the accusation that I "infiltrated" anything, when what I merely did was respond to a post on a message board about "free trade" agreements.

Union Busting isn't "progressive enough for MOST progressives" either, which is why I find Nader's rants on workers rights humerous.

Nader = the subject just so your aware.

[Seven]

20. Read what I responded to..

Read my reply.

The end.

[mzmolly]

22. I have.

Ciao'

:hi:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. If The Dems And Reps Had Strict Party Discipline The Reps Would Eat Our

Lunch....

Only 18% of Americans identify themselves as liberals.


41% of Americans identify themsleves as conservative


and


40% as moderates....

[Zynx]

21. Nader never had 7-8% in the polls.

That's a filthy lie spread by Nader supporters.

[sangh0]

27. Many Nadir supporters don't think

What really amazes me the most about Nader bashers is that (not just their short sightedness and inability to see past 4 years)they seem to act as if the whole country votes . Actualy only about 50% do in the most active of years.Its obvious to me that had we have given Nader a real chance in 2000 then voters (non voters actualy) would realize there is more than just 2 partys and turnout would go up to at least Minnesota levels and perhaps reach levels similar to Canada or Europe.BTW Canada just saw conservatives get only 29% of the vote despite it being a very favorable year for them. Id like to see the GOP fall to that level here.And the 2 left wing partys got 15.7% and 4.3% despite voters being told they were "spoliers" .

And what amazes me is the constant complain that Nadir could win the votes of non-voters if only they had a chance to vote for him. Of all the people you would expect to remember that Nadir DID run in 2000, the Nadir apologists seem to have forgotten that even with Nadir in the race, the non-voters stayed home.

They had a "real chance" to vote for Nadir in 2000. They CHOSE to stay home.

[checks-n-balances]

24. Has everybody who posted here already read all the articles within

the article? Just curious.

Remember, some of these quotes/articles go back to 2000.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion - and I'm trying to keep this kicked!

[Generator]

26. Punish the Democrats sums it up beautifully!

He DESPISES us much more than anyone on the other side. Self type hate is always the worst. Look at Drudge.

And I honestly want a third party, hell I fervently wish our system was more like Englands. But no.. electing Bushscum would be Ralph's legacy and he doesn't care, because he hate hate hates the Dems!