Fuck Nader and his supporters...

[SidDithers]

And by "Nader and his supporters", I mean Nader and his supporters.

Sid

[Comrade Grumpy]

1. What year is this? n/t

[quinnox]

2. Oh, how original

[Tarheel_Dem]

3. Please let me add a great big ol' KKKKK & RRRRRR!!!!

[roguevalley]

71. me too. FDR dem here and liberal. also, old research grouper here

who wouldn't have joined, worked or paid if I had known he was such an asshole. He needs to disclose his stock portfolio. Corporation investments keep him from completely running for prez because he's a hypocrite. He has never disclosed but he insists everyone else must.

[Tarheel_Dem]

73. He fooled, and continues to fool a handful of true believers. The rest know better, but whatever...

they can contribute to tearing apart the Democratic Party is their primary agenda. Never forget:



"Pass It On: Divide & Conquer -- Ralph Nader for President in ..."

http://www.votenader.org/blog/pass-it-on/2008/10/15/pass-it-on-divide-and-conquer/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium

^^^^^This is the kind of shit his enablers support.^^^^^^

[DisgustipatedinCA]

4. Fuck Thomas Dewey!

I've been waiting a long time to get that off my chest.

[dawg]

5. Well Nader's not my type. But some of his supporters might be cute.

I'd have to get to know them pretty well first, though. I'm old-fashioned like that.

[onehandle]

6. LEAVE NADER ALONE!!!

[IMG][/IMG]

[LWolf]

7. Fuck those

so corrupt that they can't back their neo-liberal choices when they fail. Who can't be accountable for their own choices, but have to lash out in desperation to assign blame outside themselves.

[FSogol]

8. K & R. n/t

[William769]

9. Kick and highly recommended!

[riqster]

10. Kick and Rec.

And by that I mean, "Size 13 Kick and turned-up-to-eleven Rec"!

[G_j]

11. fuck people who post

"Fuck Nader and his supporters..."

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Fuck shit stirring divisive bullshit.

And by shit stirring divisive bullshit I mean your op.

[geek tragedy]

42. whereas your bashing of the anti-Nader people as the "pom pom" crowd

is the height of building unity

If one doesn't wish to take it, don't dish it out.

[Warren Stupidity]

46. Really? Did I "call out" all the anti-nader people here

and start and OP titled "Fuck all the anti-nader people here"?

I did that?

[geek tragedy]

49. asdf

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025174577

Yes, because the only reason people bash Nader is that they're really closet rightwing authoritarians.

[Warren Stupidity]

53. Really? Where exactly did I say that?

You:

Yes, because the only reason people bash Nader is that they're really closet rightwing authoritarians.

Me

The Treason of Nader

This meme is about avoiding the unpleasant recollection of the fact that the Democratic Party lead by people like that fucknut Lieberman, agreed to the installation of Bush, agreed to the ruinous tax cuts, agreed to the Patriot Act(s), agreed to the Iraq War, agreed to the appointments of the theocratic radical asswipes nominated by Bush. So they invent a narrative: "the treason of Nader", to help us forget "the collaboration of the Democratic Party leadership".

They want us to forget the Pom-pom brigade.

Where did I say "fuck you" to you or anyone, geek tragedy? Huh? Where did I call *you" a "closet rightwing authoritarian"? Huh?

[Vattel]

58. You are right. I mean, like, "Holy false equivalency Batman"

[hrmjustin]

86. It might be vulgar and I know many Nader supporters that I love but Nader deserves criticism.

[winter is coming]

14. You have a typo. n/t

[corkhead]

15. I am more apt to blame Gore for picking Lieberman and the voters for being stupid enough to make it

close enough to steal.

[Rex]

16. Did you mean Nader and his supporters?

Or just "Nader and his supporters"...this is for a grade!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

35. Who are the supporters? Who does he represent?

[Rex]

67. I don't know, in 2000 it was the Green party.

Have no idea about now.

[dhill926]

17. this is so yesterday….

[Electric Monk]

34. ...so LoZoccolo...

[Warren Stupidity]

48. ...so graham4anything

[beerandjesus]

18. Fuck people who post naked flamebait.

[Orrex]

51. What about people who post flamebait naked?

[beerandjesus]

60. It's a step in the right direction for sure!

[AgingAmerican]

98. Lot of drama

...continually from a very tiny group.

[GoneFishin]

19. Fuck people who vote for their values. Fuck people shining a spotlight on corporate welfare.

Fuck people who won't be shamed and manipulated into voting for the pre-ordained winner. Fuck people who value their freedom to vote.

[beerandjesus]

20. ...and fuck people who think even a Democrat has to EARN your vote

...and isn't just entitled to it by virtue of party affiliation.


And fuck everyone who views politics as a team sport. It's about people's lives, it's not a goddamn sporting event.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

24. "It's about people's lives, it's not a goddamn sporting event."

As we saw yesterday. But Gore would have appointed Alito and Roberts too, right? Just like Bush, as Nader said.

[beerandjesus]

56. He never would have supported Alito or Roberts. And he never would have supported NAFTA.

Or Telecomm deregulation, or Don't Ask Don't Tell, outsourcing, increased H-1B quotas, or any of those other horrible things that the Republicans pushed hard for, but were stopped by Democrats who stood tough. No Democrat would have gotten behind the business-friendly policies which threatened to fuck over two generations of Americans, and the evil Republicans were stopped dead in their tracks. The Democrats and Republicans have absolutely NOTHING in common, Democrats always stand up for the little guy against the big corporate interests, and when Nader suggested otherwise, he had ABSOLUTELY NO basis for it, he was just expressing his egomaniacal narcissism. Right?

Oh, wait.


Which, of course, was precisely the point of Nader's comment about the SCOTUS being a distraction. No doubt Gore's nominees would have been better than Chucklenuts's. But here we sit, while TPP is being negotiated in secret, talking about what a bastard Nader is for shining a light on how things like TPP are negotiated in secret.

Like I said, it's not a team sport. It's about people's lives. And Democrats are not automatically entitled to our votes; they should have to earn them. I vote for Democrats, but I'll be fucked if I'm going to attack those who make it their mission to keep Democrats honest.

And by the way, am I the only one who remembers that Gore ran a god-awful campaign? Wait, that was probably Nader's fault too.

[GoneFishin]

25. Casting a vote for the lesser of two evils perpetuates a broken system. Do I have an answer? No. But

I know that as long as they are successful at baiting us along from one election to the next there will never be any change. I don't know how to get out of the hole right now.

But I am sure as hell going to stop digging.

[Jim Lane]

41. The answer is pretty simple. Primaries.

If your favored progressive candidate has enough votes to win the general election on a minor-party line, then he or she has enough votes to win the Democratic primary.

Right, sometimes the progressive will lose. There is no fix for a "broken system" if the "broken" part comes down to "not enough voters agree with me." For better or worse, that's how democracy works.

You say the primaries don't work because big money can overwhelm the progressive? That can happen in the general election, too. That's a problem with the system that sneering at the two major parties won't fix.

You say the primaries don't work because the Democratic Party bosses prevent the progressive candidate from winning? Here's a newsflash: They can't keep you out. It's not like a century ago when all the candidates were picked by an oligarchic party organization. Laws vary by state, but in general, if you can mobilize enough support, you can get on the primary ballot and win, even if the party bosses hate you.

Finally, even a losing campaign this year has a benefit for next year, by exposing more people to the progressive viewpoint.

[jeff47]

61. The progressive doesn't have to win the primary to have an effect

"Mainstream" Democrats that fear their left flank will tack to the left. Just like "mainstream" Republicans who fear their right flank tacked to the right.

Lots of teabaggers lose primaries. But they dragged the Republicans to the right anyway.

[Puzzledtraveller]

96. ^^this^^

[treestar]

90. Shining a spotlight on it is so much better

than actually electing people who might try to do something about it.

Those woman who can't get birth control at least can take comfort in other people have voted their principles. Who cares if Bush got to be POTUS? Better that they veering the slightest away from your principles.

[GoneFishin]

91. When will be a good time to stop voting for the lesser of two evils?

I assume you will have a rhetorical answer but no actual answer. Do you think there will be a time in the future when the corporate grip on our politics will be less, even if we do allow ourselves to be pulled to the right a little more each election?

You are ok with the status quo? Then use your vote to bolster it. It's your vote.

Likewise, mine is mine.

This boiled frog shit doesn't work for me. The water is getting hotter each election.

[Jim Lane]

99. Here's the answer to your question.

A good time to vote for the Green Party candidate or some other minor-party candidate will be: the first election in which that candidate has a realistic chance of winning and, among the candidates with a realistic chance of winning, would be the best person to fill the office.

By this criterion, there will be an occasional School Board election or City Council seat where, because of the circumstances of that particular race, voting for the minor-party candidate makes sense. Very rarely will it be time to vote Green for Congress, the U.S. Senate, or the Presidency.

The criterion isn't perfect in either direction. Exceptional cases may arise where one should vote for a no-hoper Green candidate or should vote against one who might actually win. As generalizations go, however, it's a good one, being accurate almost all the time.

[GoneFishin]

105. I understand your pragmatic approach. THEY also understand that most people will obey this "logical"

approach. It's make people extremely predictable and hence easy to manipulate. It is the foundation of their "we don't have to give our base much, just a few crumbs more than the other side gives them" scam.

Like I said, I don't have the answer. But I know that isn't it.

But your vote is yours, and mine is mine. I am done voting for corporatists.

[winter is coming]

106. Here's the hazard to that "logical" approach:

"The other guy is worse!" will work for a lot of people, for a long time. But as a party moves further away from the values and concerns of its traditional supporters, those supporters will gradually realize that neither party supports the things they care about.

Every step towards "the other guy" is a step away from your base, a step towards "evil", so to speak. IMO, it's possible to reach a point where "the other guy is evil!" won't be a sufficient motivation because you've gone so far into "evil" yourself that your traditional supporters will no longer identify you as "non-evil" or "part of my tribe" or whatever. And then you lose your traditional supporters to other parties or to apathy, and unless you've picked up enough new supporters, your party loses.

My best guest is that eventually, what we now call the Democratic Party will cover the positions now largely held by the ever-shrinking not-totally-insane part of the Republican Party, the Republican Party will become the Tea Party (in policy if not in name), and a third party will arise that is populist and socially liberal. Instead of a political landscape dominated by two parties, one liberal and one conservative on social issues but both depressingly pro-corporation, we'll have a landscape where the main divide is populist vs. corporatist but both socially liberal.

[Jim Lane]

107. Why do you think that the rise of a new party is more likely than the takeover of an existing party?

I keep coming back to one obvious fact: If your populist, socially liberal candidate has enough votes to win the general election on a new party's ballot line, then he or she has enough votes to win the Democratic Party nomination.

The reason the third-party approach is such a loser is that it doesn't work the other way. There are scores of millions of people who aren't strongly ideological, who don't read DU or Free Republic, but who have a longtime allegiance to one of the existing major parties. They don't always vote for that party, but voting that way is their course of least resistance, and they do it a high percentage of the time.

Your scenario envisions that the populists will disdain the existing Democratic Party. They will create a new party from scratch (or use the Green Party, which is nearly the same thing); fight the fights for ballot access in 50 states; deal with the numerous obstacles imposed by laws that assume a two-party system (public financing for the Democratic and Republican candidates, election boards composed of equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans and no one else, etc.); and deal with numerous other obstacles that aren't imposed by law but are quite real (media focus on the two major parties and, probably the most important one, the existing party loyalties of scores of millions of people, as per the previous paragraph).

Having taken on all these unnecessary burdens, your Populist Party then spends a long time building up its strength. There wouldn't be an overnight transition to the condition you describe in your final paragraph. The Populist Party would start small, having no effect. As it grows, it becomes a spoiler, taking votes that otherwise would have gone to the Democrat, with the result that a Tea Party type wins with a plurality but less than a majority of the votes. As it continues to grow (a prospect I consider unlikely), the roles are reversed; the Populist Party doesn't supplant the Democratic Party all at once, so there's a long period when the Democratic Party is shrinking but is still strong enough to be a spoiler for the Populist Party, allowing more Tea Party plurality victories.

Why on Earth is this a better strategy than taking over the Democratic Party by running in and winning Democratic primaries?

[winter is coming]

108. I never claimed it was a better strategy.

I think the rise of a third party is more likely than a takeover of the Dem party because the corporatists have a stranglehold on our party now. Unless we do something more effective to get money out of politics, I doubt our party will abandon its rightward track.

[Jim Lane]

109. I understand the problem about money but you have to be consistent in your analysis.

With the current role of money in politics, it is hard for progressives to win the primary, but it's even harder for minor-party candidates to win the general election. The stranglehold you point to works just as well there, and is augmented by the established party loyalties of most voters.

It just doesn't make sense to say, "If I run in the Democratic primary, the corporatists who have a stranglehold on our party will use their money to defeat me, but if run as a Green Party or Populist Party candidate in the general election, they somehow won't be able to use their money against me."

As a side note, but one at least somewhat related to this thread, the Nader experience contradicts your prediction about what's more likely. Between 2000 and 2004, more than 80% of Nader's voters abandoned him. Since the fiasco of 2000, no minor-party candidate, including Nader, has come anywhere close to Nader's total. In the months after the 2004 election, there were plenty of comments of the type now being reiterated on DU (Harris and butterfly and SCOTUS and Lieberman's a douche and Gore lost Tennessee and blah blah blah and therefore nothing is Nader's fault). Most people didn't buy it. Nader's support evaporated because about two million of his voters concluded that they'd made a mistake.

[winter is coming]

110. I haven't claimed the Democratic Party wouldn't use its money against a third party candidate.

Of course it would. The same party that would use its funding to crowd out progressive candidates in primaries would use its money in the general election to go after all opponents. It would be a long hard slog for a third party to progress from a few local wins to national prominence, but if we keep sidling to the right, it's likely to happen. It strains belief that we can keep shifting to the right indefinitely without losing supporters from the left. At least some of those people will shift their allegiance to a new party. And really, whether they go to a third party or stay home, we've lost those votes, probably for good.

As for Nader... the majority of his supporters were independents, not disaffected Democrats. I have no idea where his supporters went after 2000, or why, and I doubt you do, either. Unless of course you've interviewed millions of people?

[Jim Lane]

111. I don't need to interview millions of people.

In the 2000 election, Nader received 2,882,955 votes. In the 2004 election, he received 465,151 votes. OK, some of his supporters died, but I feel confident in asserting that at least two million people who voted for him in 2000 could have voted for him in 2004 but chose not to. The Green Party candidate in 2004, David Cobb, received 119,859 votes, so it's not as if those missing Nader voters stuck with the Greens even when Nader switched to running as an independent.

Where did those voters go? Most of them went to the Democratic Party. Why? Because the result of the 2000 election convinced them that the traditional argument against third parties -- the "spoiler" issue -- was correct. People who like a minor party's policies may nevertheless refuse to support it because they fear that it will cause the election of the less favored major party.

There are some people on DU who wax indignant about any criticism of Nader's decision to run, and especially about the contention that his candidacy was one cause of the Bush presidency. While we argue about it, though, the people have voted with their feet.

You're quite correct that I haven't interviewed millions of voters. I do know that Nader's running mate in 2000, Winona LaDuke, endorsed Kerry against Nader in 2004, and endorsed Obama against Nader in 2008. Of course, she's only one Nader voter. If someone wanted to contend that more than two million people stayed home in 2004 because they were told by their astrologers that the 2004 election was not a propitious time for voting, I wouldn't be able to produce any hard data to refute the assertion. Nevertheless, I'm comfortable with my inference.

As to where we go from here, I don't share your pessimistic view that progressives will do nothing but leave the Democratic Party. Many will stay and keep fighting to move the party to the left. We won't win every battle, but we'll win some.

[joshcryer]

112. The Progressive Caucus is the largest in Congress.

And it will remain that way. The question shouldn't be, as long as we have plurality voting, whether we vote for a party. The question should be whether we vote for someone who will caucus with the progressives.

That will happen in increasing speed as American demographics move left. There's nothing that can stop it. Hiccups, yes, but the American population is trending toward progressiveness.

[lpbk2713]

21. And the hell with Goldwater and his supporters too.

[Bobbie Jo]

22. Enthusiastic K&R

[Rebubula]

23. wow......

....straight crazy anger.....

Very nice

[MADem]

26. That deserves a kick and a rec!

And I don't care what year it is! That little whiner deserves the big eff you at any time down the years, so long as he shall live!

And double eff him for every dollar he took from Koch turds and other GOP Big Money groups. I do hope that his place in history is the smallest of footnotes, in superscript. He doesn't deserve more, the jerk. He gave us close to a decade of hell, and he's got blood on his hands for it, too.

[SidDithers]

28. ...

buh bye.

Come back soon, again.

Sid

[Rex]

29. Wow...if you made a troll that mad Sid

you are doing something right! Pizza time!

[SidDithers]

32. And they scuttle back under their bridge...

wiping the spittle off their chin, as they madly start typing to sign up for another DU account.

Fucking clowns.



Sid

[Scurrilous]

44. I've seen that 'maple syrup slurping' line hurled at you before...

...definitely a zombie that one.

[Rex]

66. LOL!

Good thing you got a big fly swatter! Stupid anti-Canadian trolls!

[MohRokTah]

31. That was FAST!

I alerted and BOOM, he was gone. Somebody got there before me but overall it took almpst no time at all to frag the troll.

[CreekDog]

33. it's funny they posted an anti Canada rant using a screen name "Terence and Philip"

everyone knows those two are Canadian (well, a Canadian stereotype)...

[SidDithers]

36. T&P did the best song in the South Park movie, tho...

I'm tempted to post it, but it's probably wiser not to.



Sid

[CreekDog]

40. it was the best song in the movie, by far

i'm pretty sure it inspired one of the best songs in The Book of Mormon musical, which they wrote as well.

my favorite parody of Canadian stereotypes is still Bob and Doug, which they created to mock the Canadian content requirements.

[Rhiannon12866]

39. Yikes!

[Archae]

30. Ralph Nader is a victim of his own "success."

Liar, hypocrite and fascist.

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

[freshwest]

100. K & R for link

[Jamaal510]

113. More like SUCKcess. nt

[m-lekktor]

37. I am indifferent to Nader, voted for Gore in 2000, but don't blame Nader for that mess. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

38. I know Toronto is in a different time zone, but this is ridiculous.

Did your subscription to the papers expire a decade ago?

[whatchamacallit]

43. Lol!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. Fuck the Third Way, New Democrats, DLC, and their supporters.

[betterdemsonly]

65. Yup

Nader would never have been an issue if it weren't for selling out labor in favor of reactionary wallstreet. Does anyone seriously think they are going to fight corporate personhood. That is a joke.

[Generic Other]

47. Tippicanoe and Tyler too!

[JI7]

50. Nader claimed the warnings about SC and Women's reproductive rights were "scare tactics" by dems

<Threats to overturn Roe are “scare tactics”

Nader said he did not think there would be much difference between the justices Gore would choose and those Bush would appoint. After all, Democrats had helped confirm Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, hadn’t they? Besides, “You can’t really predict how Supreme Court justices will behave.” And he called the possibility that a court packed with Republican appointees could overturn Roe v. Wade a “scare tactic.” Nader said that even if Roe v. Wade was overturned, the issue “would just revert to the states.“ Just?

”Here’s what happened on that,“ he said wearily. ”The scare tactic is that would end choice in America and I just said that’s not true, but I should have been astute enough not to mention that.“ He said he did not in any case believe for a moment that Bush would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. ”The first back alley death, and the Republican Party is in deep trouble and they know it,“ he said. He described the party’s opposition to abortion as just for show, ”just for Pat Robertson.“ >

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

52. Yup

The Nader lovers ignore all of this.

[JI7]

55. and they use the bs about some Dems voting to confirm the justices

ignoring that the President will always be the one to decide the nominee. the best we could hope for with a republican pres is someone like Kennedy and look at how he has been voting. we got lucky with Souter but that's not something the republicans will allow again.

and using their bs logic about dems voting to confirm i have brought up how there were some republicans who also vote to confirm dem nominees. does that make people like lindsey graham liberals ? well i guess according to teabaggers. and it is the teabagger way of thinking.

[SomethingFishy]

54. What did he do now?

Or are we still talking about 14 years ago?

[morningfog]

57. What do you mean by his "supporters?"

[betterdemsonly]

63. They don't want their votes

and don't give a shit about their issues. That is what they mean. It is idiotic, because the voters they do want don't like abortion and stuff like that. That sort of jihad centrist is what is killing the party. It just is.

[G_j]

72. I believe the OP

poster does not vote in this country anyway. I'm not impressed with their continually divisive attitude.
Nobody can argue this isn't pure flame bait.

[JI7]

75. it's Nader who doesn't care for abortion rights, which is one reason for the OP

Nader dismissed concerns about SC and abortion rights by claiming dems were just scaring people. that republicans would not allow these rights to be taken away.

[betterdemsonly]

78. He just doesn't care about them exclusively

and democrats use them to scare people into ignoring all other issues.

[JI7]

79. yes, it is dismissing an issue when you claim concerns about Republicans taking away choice

are just scaring people. because it dismisses the issue.or people like Nader just don't think Republicans are that bad.

i mean they pretty much said BUsh wasn't so bad by saying he was like al Gore.

[betterdemsonly]

83. and you are claiming your concern about republicans taking away

choice justifies people sacrificing social security and labor rights.

[JI7]

85. no, i'm referring to those who lie about republicans and women's rights

as i said, if you don't like the Dems don't vote for them.

but it's not a scare tactic to say republicans are opposed to women's rights. it's a serious issue that matters to many .

[betterdemsonly]

87. and labor rights

and social security matter to many as well.

[JI7]

88. that isn't an excuse to lie and claim Republicans don't want to

take away rights for women.

[The Magistrate]

59. Hear Hear, Sir

[betterdemsonly]

62. And when those voters don't vote for your candidate don't

bitch!

[betterdemsonly]

64. Politics is about coalition building so you are really dumb. The middle is antichoice.

n/t

[JI7]

68. Nader is anti choice which is why he lied and said Dems bringing up Roe and SC was a Scare TActic

[betterdemsonly]

74. Nader is not antichoice

just because he pointed out you use abortion to scare us into supporting mostly right democrats.

[JI7]

77. sorry but Nader was reluctant to support Paul Wellstone, i question anyone who claims to be liberal

and did not support Wellstone .

[betterdemsonly]

80. Did he ever denounce Wellstone?

Or are you just blaming him for not being sufficiently in the press supporting him as if they would care whether he did?

[JI7]

81. Nader was on a TV show and asked about him and refused to say he supported him

[betterdemsonly]

84. ok

n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

104. Link?

Thanks.

[lunatica]

69. I'm too depressed

to fuck anybody. This century is not turning out the way I hoped it would. I'm all raged out.

[hobbit709]

70. And fuck Nader and all those who blame him for everything.

[hrmjustin]

76. I detest Nader! He lost all crediblity with me.

[WhiteTara]

82. Couldn't have said it better myself. Except that's

spelled Nadir

[treestar]

89. K&R

Yeah they sure punished those centrists! And made it another few decades before they will see any progress. But hey it's worth it to punish those evil Third Wayers.

[neverforget]

92. There's ODS and now NDS = Nader Derangement Syndrome.

Everything bad that happened under Bush is Nader's fault.

[beerandjesus]

102. Amen!

[madokie]

93. Really!

thats what you really mean, you old meanie LOL

[Cha]

94. Nader's supporters are pathetic.. playing the victim card. "It's not about

Nader.. it's about the left" bullshit. And, more than a little paranoid. As IF nader didn't have any part in getting the bush vs Gore to the SC

Leave ralphie alone

[fujiyama]

95. Nader is a liar and a fraud

and his supporters have proven to be America's greatest 21st century's useful idiots.

Some are disingenuous and most are delusional. Either way, they are in part responsible for yesterday's ruling and every 5-4 ruling since Alito and Roberts have been on the bench.

That said, this thread accomplishes nothing going forward. Nader is a has-been and hasn't accomplished anything of note in over three decades. He's not worth even talking about anymore.

[AgingAmerican]

97. You are about 14 years too late.

But thanks for playing anyway!

[MannyGoldstein]

101. More distraction from a small, noisy group

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025174800

[JNelson6563]

103. Amen brother Sid!

[NobodyHere]

114. I'm sorry I'm supported an actual liberal

Sorry y'all. I shall never support a liberal again.

[Jamaal510]

115. I think what's weird about RN and

many of those who like him have been how they're quicker to rage against the "third way" and moderates in general than against the hard-right. While the left and the middle don't agree on everything, the middle is certainly much closer to our line of thinking than the right is. It doesn't make sense to me to attack someone harder who is closer to your political ideology, and almost completely ignore the other side.

[NobodyHere]

116. I support Nader

You support DINOs

and I should apologize?

[JI7]

117. NAder defending Republicans as being pro choice

<He said he did not in any case believe for a moment that Bush would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. ”The first back alley death, and the Republican Party is in deep trouble and they know it,“ he said. He described the party’s opposition to abortion as just for show, ”just for Pat Robertson.“ >