Is Nader on an ego trip destined to help Bush again?

[OKHRANA]

Nader just announced his formal decision will be announced shortly, and strongly hinted he would run. It's coming folks.

And I hate to say it, but I think he is on one big ego trip, and he doesn't care what his candidacy will mean to this country. Let me just explain what my theory is, and I welcome your input.

It's all an ego trip. He needs attention so much that he will rationalize the need for his candidacy so he can run, and so he can be chased around for quotes and be in debates, and be a factor in making the history of this country. If we see it as the wrong type of history, he will later deny it and ridicule such criticisms, and write books about them.

That's all it is, it's part of an urge to feel like he was important to his country (and in many ways he has been, but he wants much more). He could just work through the Democratic party if it wasn't an ego trip, and he knows he has no chance of really being elected.

He will insist on stupid things like "both parties are the same" (Democratic and Republican) or "Gore lost because of Gore" and come up with some minor issues that Democrats are not now supporting (because of the realities of having to be electable in November) and present it as indispensable for why he himself as a non-compromisor has to run, and other such excuses to run. But it's all about him.

He knows his values are pure Democrat but his thirst for the respect and adulation of the nation is too irresistible for him to resist it. It's become a sickness.

And for us it's not as simple as just saying "we'll ignore him this time". The problem is he has some charisma and can be very persuasive, and many young people especially will hear him and again be persuaded, not too many, maybe less than last time, but just enough to let Bush in for another 4 years (if he decides not to run, few will care about his opinions).

Again, I hate to say all this, but I think it's the way it is, and I have a sinking feeling there's nothing we can do about it because nobody changes Nader's mind, forget it.

[cprise]

1. OK

I'll forget it.

[ClintonTyree]

2. You are correct.............

On his website he recently asked if he should run again fro the Presidency in 2004. Overwhelmingly, people voted NO!
Ralph's ego won't allow him not to. He sees himself slipping from the limelight and that won't do. If Ralph's not the center of attention he'll throw a little hissy fit and once again enable Bush to win? the upcoming election.
I'm beginning to loathe the man. He did so much good years ago, now his gargantuan ego is set to reverse all of that, again.

[OKHRANA]

5. thanks you said it better than I did...

I'm beginning to loathe him too, because anything he says, even if he is right, or especially if he is right, only hurts us because somebody out there is supporting him because of it.

[Old and In the Way]

8. Maybe he got a letter encouraging him to run......with a

little packet of Anthrax. That would explain the motivation.

Actually, it will be quite interesting to see the media coverage of Ralph's campaign. I'm betting that their going to really promote Ralph as the "alternative", the candidate that's "different" from Republicans and Democrats. I imagine that he'll get considerably more focus and excitement....meaning less on Bush (good for Bush) and less on the Democrats (good for Bush). Let's see if Ralph plans to focus on the close states, again.

I wonder if Ralph is still popular with Grover and Phylis?

[OKHRANA]

14. I bet that Bush will insist on including Nader in the debates...

that will put Nader on the most watched shows in the fall, competing on the best liberal response against Bush.

Bush wins that because Nader does know how to talk when the pressure is on, and he will mostly appeal to liberals anyway.

[RapidCreek]

26. Nah I doubt it...he hasn't got the Balls for that.

Bush is a stupid coward. He knows it and he knows Nader knows it. He won't expose his ass to anymore kicking than he has too. He never will.

RC

[OKHRANA]

27. Bush may be stupid but he's not really a coward...

one thing I have to give him is he's got a "good chin" which he proves when he exposes his ass to a lot of kicking every day and I hate to say it but he doesn't lose his marbles at the first sign of pain like Dean did.

If Bush thinks inviting Nader to the debates might help him win the election, he might just do it this time, and Nader will be happy to oblige.

And I could figure that out despite my limited intellect.

[RapidCreek]

34. Bush doesn't have a good chin....he's an AWOL pussy..

he never exposes his ass to kicking. Every press conference he gives is scripted. Every question he is asked by the press is pre-approved. He is completely shielded from the public by his keepers....more so than any other president in history.

RC

[blondeatlast]

41. Bush is stupid, but Rove and Cheney know that having Nader in the debates

will help their cause.

[La_Serpiente]

3. That's true

Nobody changes Nader's mind. He is a very independent person and doesn't take crap from no one.

The last election, we won the popular vote and the lost the electoral vote by a couple hundred votes down in Florida. We can do it this time; it's just going to be harder because we will be campaigning against both Nader and Bush.

And because he is a candidate, he is subject to the same rules and tactics Democrats employ against Republicans.

[RapidCreek]

4. You've convinced me!

I'll forget it too. Since this sort of thing has been bantered about here over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.....you might care to check the archives for answers to your question. Something in GD smells like Roves undershorts.

RC

[jfxgillis]

6. I'm not concerned. And BELIEVE ME

There was nobody more fervently engaged in trying to persuade people away from Nader last time.

I opposed vote trading, voting for Nader in any state, even in those where the outcome was assured, signing the ballot provisions, a slot in the debates, the whole nine yards.

The thing is, Third parties only really gain traction in very specific circumstances, one (not applicable on the Left) is if there's a highly resonant and popular issue which neither party will address. Since the War and Job Creation are destined, in all probability, to be the Dems defining issues, that's EXTREMELY unlikely. On the Right, however, there IS such an issue: Immigration.

The other circumstance (again, not applicable to the Left) is that the party in power is always more likely to sprout a subversive offshoot because elements of the ruling coalition get infuriated when they have not had their grievances addressed or when they are impatient because the progress they sought has only been incrementally advanced if at all. Again, the Right is vulnerable.

Nader ran in '96 and got .5% of the vote. He ran in 2000 and got 3%. This time, it's back to his old .5%. He'll announce, people will yawn. Story will be dead.

On the other hand, if/when the Right-oriented Third party springs up, it might well catch a wave--2, 3, maybe 4%.

[OKHRANA]

10. you make some good points, but...

I think Bush is different, if any right-wing third party ran for president, his people would, let's just say, "dissuade" them from continuing.

But as for Nader, he's smart enough to know which specific issues the Democrats are weak on, that he could exploit, and thus create a split between the Democratic coalition.

For instance, he could favor protections for gay marriage and denounce the Democratic Party for not endorsing that (because we have to worry about overall electability in November at this stage), from a civil rights point of view, and he would pull a lot of support away.

Nader could easily find a lot of issues that would work in the same way, and I'm thinking he's planning to do just that.

[jfxgillis]

20. Hmmmm. You make good points, too ...

... but I think you're wrong about Nader finding splits.

For instance, why would the gay community abandon their fate to Bush's Constitutional Amendment by deserting to Nader over a bullshit squabble over who's MORE for gay marriage? It's non-self-protective. Nader would win exactly ONE vote if he did that: Andrew Sullivan, who would then bore us to tears for months on his stupid blog tearfully explaining why he did it. Trade could work, I guess, but I'd have to see evidence first. I think Bush is more hurt by the trade issue now.

Now, you have a MUCH better point on Bush. The guy who could SLAUGHTER Bush is Congressman Tom Tancredo, R, CO, and you can just tell he's itching to go for it; the grass-roots conservatives are begging for Tancredo. But, without buying into this BFEE stuff, all Administrations in power have ways to rein in recalitrant party members.

Best bet for a third-party-right is for one of the tiny vehicles (Howard Phillips party, or the leftover Buchananites in the Reform Party rump or even the remaining George Wallace parties) to catch a medium-big name and catch fire. Blindside Bush 'long about midsummer.

[OKHRANA]

62. Nader could still pry away sympathy votes..

like on the issue of Gay marriage, Nader would not necessarily get the Gay vote, but could just get a small segment of principled Democrats that don't just rely on this issue, but on a group of them including this one.

The Repukes show more discipline, in 2000 Pat Buchanan was a third party candidate and he won very few votes, I forgot the exact percent but it was way lower than Nader. Buchanan is one of the only ones from the Right Wing who has the guts or ability to mount any bid and this year he is staying out, and nobody from that side is making any noises.

[blondeatlast]

43. What he will do is focus attention on the smaller, but heated, issues.

He won't talk about jobs and the economy, he'll talk about the environment (important, yes, but not crucial to most Americans). He'll not talk about the erosion of civil rights, but he will focus in on the Protection of Marriage act; he won't talk about an exit strategy for Iraq, but he will talk about us becoming involved in the UN again.

These are important issues, but they are the small picture. He will manage to get a lot of voters who can't see past their pet issues.

And Bush will be re-elected since the Dem leadership knows they will have to mount their attacks on two sides, rather than focusing on one.

Nader is a jerk; he doesn't give a crap about you or me; only himself.

Loser; and he's gonna end up losing it for the Democrats, through no fault of the Dems.

[OKHRANA]

63. that is exactly my point

Nader needs to see the jerk in history he will be seen as. Since that affects his ego self-image, that is the only hope to penetrate that thick skull of his.

[Printer70]

7. I will back Nader if the assault on Dean continues

...and the DLC wing including Begala, Carville, Shields, etc. don't ask forgiveness for their campaign of slander.

[OKHRANA]

11. Nader will exploit Dean followers who are angry if Dean is ignored

And if Dean does end up being shoved aside, as is normally the case when someone else gets the nomination, many of his loyal supporters will be received with open arms by Nader.

It sickens me to even think of this, but I've heard lot's of Dean supporters say stuff like this.

[Tinoire]

16. Nader will capture Progressives

who are sick of watching the Democratic party shift rightward in their suicidal desire to capture a few right-wing swing voters who can't decide if the sun sets on Nixon, Reagan or Clinton.

[blondeatlast]

45. And I will happily show you the door from DU after the Convention.

Read the rules.

[Printer70]

55. Wow, you must be proud of your threats

"I will excommunicate you, mwahahaha."

[OKHRANA]

64. why wait until after the Convention?

I think all these Nader lovers are breaking the rules now.

[Forkboy]

82. Waaaah

[Dover]

9. Are Dems on a path of self-destruction by ignoring the issues

upheld by those who endorse Nader or the Greens?

Was that lesson of 2000 learned or ignored? Who's the arrogant one here?

Seems to me they have refused to address that gap...and instead continue to move further to the Right. That just invites other third party or independent candidates to step into that widening crevasse...

[FDRrocks]

13. I agrew n/t

[FDRrocks]

12. His values may be 'pure democrat'

but they are not current Democrat. If he was a Democrat he would be even more marginalized than Dennis Kucinich.

It's not an ego trip. Running a liberal cAndidacy is about getting nationwide representation of the left. The center and the right have very little place to bitch.

[Tinoire]

15. Well sheesh. Maybe the Democratic Party wouldn't have to worry

about Nader if it care a weeeeee bit more about catering to its base and a weeeee bit less about pandering to the ever so elusive swing voter.

You reap what you sow.

Stand for something DNC and you won't have squat to worry about. Take the wimpy stand of just standing against things and tremble in fear over Nader and his increasing 3% who stand for something.

Not one ounce of sympathy here. We Dems had 4 years to get our act together... and yet... not much... Just a slight improvement but nothing quite as radical as concepts like "living wage" except for Kucinich but he's unelectable right?

Dems better start talking real quick about domestic concerns suvh as the living wage before that 3% (now much more) remind the DLC & DNC of who the real swing voters are.

[Dover]

17. The Dem Progressives ARE attempting to hold the line which

the current Dem leadership continues to slide to the Right. And by so doing....they are causing a split in the party that will be difficult to close. Nader is not the only threat to the status quo Dem leadership. Their problems are now internal...just as there is a split occurring in the Republican party between traditional fiscal conservatives and Neocons.

I think the Neocons and the right side of the Dem party have more in common regarding their ultimate goals of world wide hegemony and American dominance. And they likely feed from the same corporate trough.

[tinanator]

57. hear hear

absolutely right! Who IS your friend?

[OKHRANA]

18. so you are saying "tough luck", have 4 more years of Bush?

I can't believe you could think that getting our act together can be accomplished better under Bush than under any Democrat.

It's been hard over the last 3+ years to do anything, after having to constantly be responding to the Bush agenda.

choosing Nader is choosing Bush.

[Dover]

19. I think there are Progressive Democrats that fullfill many of the

things that Nader represents. So if there is a Dem candidate of that ilk available to vote for, I think that would satisfy many of the potential Nader voters. Of course the Dem leadership and the media have done their damnedest to suppress and marginalize those progressive voices.

Why don't you answer MY questions about the Dem leadership's responsibilities to address and embrace the issues important to Greens?

[OKHRANA]

22. Oh, your questions?

sorry, I was so worried about mine that I didn't answer yours. "about the Dem leadership's responsibilities to address and embrace the issues important to Greens?"

I'm all for that, and I'm surprised to learn it hasn't been done to your satisfaction. True, the Greens can't have everything, that is, 100% of what they want, otherwise the Democratic Party would be the Green Party. However, the Green Party gets more results by working within the Democratic Party, and that should be obvious to it.

There is one other but solid explanation to explain the lack of progress, and that is caused by dirty politics, that is, who controls the DNC and what their motivations are. Of course I refer to the Clintons, who wish the Democratic Party to lose the Presidency in 2004, so that Hillary Clinton can run in 2008 and not against an incumbent Democrat.

Success in 2008 also is influenced by maintaining control of the DNC, and if Dean had won the nomination, for instance, Dean would have re-staffed the DNC (Clark and Kerry would keep the Clintons connected).

Losing in 2004 is also helped by having a third party candidacy, and so Nader may even be helping Hillary for 2008.

Does it make sense to you that Nader would help Hillary?

[RapidCreek]

25. Nope...it doesn't...then again nothing much else you have said

does either. Transparent.....very transparent.

RC

[tinanator]

58. does any of that make sense?

Personal power trumps social responsibility? Dean like Clark would maintain the Pro-Israel international strategy that ensures greater international insecurity. The Greens are, to the person, dedicated to justice, which cannot be said of centrist Democrats who suport the occupation, or posters who would suggest that Mumia is guilty, despite confessions from the actual shooter. Jesus Oy Vey fucking Christ, forgive you.

[RapidCreek]

21. Tell you what chief

Why don't you focus your efforts on the huge number of Democrats who who voted for Bush instead of stirring up shit with the
comparably minuscule number of Democrats who voted for Nader? Care to elaborate? What is the purpose of this post?

Talk about taking the bait....EEEEE gads people...wake the fuck up and smell the stench of Karl Roves Undershorts.

RC

[OKHRANA]

23. sorry I guess I'm just not as smart as you are...

this is your second reference to the stench of Karl Roves undershorts and I don't have any idea what you mean by that. I must be dumb I guess.

When you say "Why don't you focus your efforts on the huge number of Democrats who who voted for Bush"; I also don't get it, because I believe that a significantly higher percent of the people voted for Gore than are registered as Democrats.

I have no reason to think that any significant numbers of Democrats voted for anyone but Gore, except those that voted for Nader.

[RapidCreek]

24. You don't have a reason eh? Well I must wholeheartedly agree with

the title of your post, then. You'd know about the level of your intellect better than I, so I won't argue that point with you. In any case, perhaps you should do a little research on the matter, if your admittedly limited intellect allows such things....incase it doesn't...here's a hint: The state of Florida. Here is another hint: Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush.

Now if you think -really- hard about the two hints I gave you, you'll "have a reason".

RC

[Bunny]

29. Thanks RC!

Rove's undershorts, indeed. It's all so transparent, isn't it? ;)

[RapidCreek]

31. Yea it is...sort of sad that folks don't see it for what it is.

Arguing about Creationism is one thing...entertaining this sort of crap is quite another.

RC

[OKHRANA]

30. glad you agree, and

my admittedly limited intellect does not allow me to research such things, especially when it has access to smarter ones such as yours to just provide such data on request. Thanks so much.

Your research shows that with only a few hundred of the 24,000 Democrat votes Nader drew, Gore would be President today.

And you object to asking Nader to not repeat this same exercise this year...OK.

[RapidCreek]

33. Is that what it shows? You've asserted you lack the intellect

to research a subject about which you make loud, provocative, albeit inaccurate claims....it follows then, that you also lack the intellect to evaluate information gleaned from that research.

No, what my research shows is that you clearly don't know what the hell you are talking about. What your response makes clear, is your belief that transparently staged fallacy might somehow be mistaken for cleverness.

Obnoxiously challenging someone to a battle of wits while proudly proclaiming you are unarmed, seems sort of a perverse waste of time to me. Then again, if you take pleasure in denigrating yourself for my amusement, by all means, feel free to continue.

RC

[OKHRANA]

65. intellectual honesty would be appreciated...

your data about Nader votes in Florida supports my point that Nader needs to be asked not to run.

And you can't handle that, and instead you explode into a diatribe about how f"ing intelligent you are (gag) and how lacking others are.

Is it fear of facing the inevitable conclusions that threatens to crack the egg-shell reality you have created for yourself that so paralyzes you?

[RapidCreek]

79. It does?

Hmm I thought it made a pretty compelling point that Democrats need to be asked not to vote for Bush.

RC

[OneTwentyoNine]

32. 308K Dems voted for Bush in Florida? Do you have a link to this?

[RapidCreek]

35. Sure do...

http://www.commondreams.org/views/112800-108.htm
http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/psn/2000/msg01348.html
http://www.olywa.net/wip/August2001/DonNaderBlmAl.html

I'll get you a few more if you want. Keep in mind...I didn't vote for Nader...I voted for Gore...and I am not a Democrat. That aside I get real tired of this tired harangue. It serves no purpose but to divide. I'd say the numbers speak for themselves. How you interpret them I suppose depends on your respective definition of accountability.



RC

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[Old and In the Way]

68. You make a good case for selecting a moderate.

Thanks! :-)

[tinanator]

59. GD RIGHT!

Not to mention Terry McAuliffe's role in this anti-Nader/progressive propaganda strategy. 4 years of "Nader did it" never convinced anyone but the mentally infirm. And that is all the require. Democrat Bush voters in Florida 2000 were the real culprits. In which case, the agenda of this campaign is dreadfully clear. But, then again, none are so blind...

[tabasco]

53. They are like spoiled children.

If they can't have their way, they would condemn the US to four more years of a destructive cabal. We now have timbering in Alaska wilderness and other formerly protected areas because of these idiots. It appears they have not learned their lesson that there is a DAMN BIG DIFFERENCE!

[Killarney]

28. Nader should NOT run.

:mad:
Why doesn't he listen to the people he supposedly asked for opinions from? There was a resounding no, don't do it!

[Iverson]

36. Look! There goes a UFO!

Wow! And there goes a man who swallowed an elephant after removing the gnat.

:eyes:

[RapidCreek]

37. wow that's gonna hurt!

RC

[Stuckinthebush]

38. His "both parties are the same" rhetoric will ring hollow this time

We have so much evidence that the Republicans are vastly different from the Democrats, and that by having the GOP in total power has made us less safe, poorer, and less respected as a nation.

Nader will do well to get 1% of the vote this time.

[Q]

39. There's 'nothing we can do about it'...

...because this is America...and anyone is free to run for office.

- Democrats have a much more serious problem than Nader. Here they are fast approaching another election...and they STILL haven't accepted that the last one was stolen from them. Dems should be more worried about what the Bushies will do to stay in office and keep power.

- The 'sickness' is the denial going on in the Democratic party. Even this thread says nothing about the blatant election fraud and the DIRECT influence it had on the last election. It's a sad thing to see such denial on a mass scale.

[RapidCreek]

40. Ringa ding ding

We have a winner.

RC

[jonoboy]

42. I've ditched the Greens..around the world they have let right-wingers win

by running at the wrong times..any self rspecting Green knows now is the time to hold back and rid the WORLD of Bush & Co.
They are showing no loyalty to any Green beliefs by helping someone like Bush win..and people die because of it..a lot of people.

[Iverson]

46. tired, tired, tired

I've heard the same argument more times than I can count that democracy is too important to actually vote for candidates that you support.

Unfortunately, the "around the world" hyperbole doesn't wash any better than the weak "me too" that the opposition party offers to the new fascists. But maybe I'm wrong. Let's see whether or not the Congressional Black Caucus agrees.

[Old and In the Way]

69. Classic RW strategy.

Prop up a lefter than left Party and drain the political activists and philsophical purists into a dead end.

Ssssssh, is that Pied Piper I hear warming up his picolo?

[Iverson]

73. classic RW rationalization recipe

Move right; blame the left.
(repeat 83x)
If they complain, call them purists.

Have a bipartisan day.

[GringoTex]

44. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush

I'm voting for Nader. I want to see how it feels to sit atop the high horse of my political conscience while looking down on the real, material suffering a Bush reelection will wreck on hundreds of millions.

[Iverson]

47. Wow! That's new!

Now go have a bipartisan day. Maybe you can be in charge of the plan to have rent-a-cops keep Nader out of debates.

Good grief!

[GringoTex]

48. Most people don't have the luxury to vote for Nader

Most of Nader's supporters in 2000 came from protected classes. Whether a Democrat or Republican won, their livelyhood was going to remain relatively stable. There's nobody more whatmeworried? than a Nader groupie.

[Iverson]

49. stereotyping is also old, old, old

And, if possible, it's even more inaccurate and intellectually bankrupt.

[GringoTex]

50. Educate yourself

http://wc.wustl.edu/workingpapers/Burden.pdf

In 2000, Nader voters were whiter, more male, and higher educated than Gore voters.

[Iverson]

51. Educate yourself.

Causality cannot be inferred from a correlational study.
For further opportunities to condescend, you can register for some of my classes.

[GringoTex]

52. Causality

I'm not arguing that being white, male, and higher educated causes you to vote for Nader. I'm saying it gives you the luxury to vote for Nader

[Terwilliger]

56. Why can't Democrats make people vote for them?

Why is it up to Ralph Nader to tell a few people that their quest for idealism might better serve the lesser of evil masters that are the Democrats?

Can't Dems, outside of threats, intimidation, ad hominem, or appeal to emotion, figure out a way to make people want to vote for them? ...those beautiful wonderful folks who are the guardians of light and love? Why isn't it the fault of the party? Why is it the fault of the individual, or even Nader, for the fact that people aren't swayed by Democrats?

[Old and In the Way]

71. Because Terwilliger-

We want to pre-empt the Republican Party from using Ralph to dilute our vote.

There are a lot of politically naive Democrats who will bite on the Ralph's hot air. We are trying to educate them on this issue.

A vote for Ralph is a vote for Bush. Thanks to Ralph's help last election, we now have to worry about Republican control of BBV, so it's even more important that we keep every vote in the Party, so we can deliver a large enough plurality of voters that will negate the potential of Republicans stealing this election..

[Terwilliger]

84. Why can't Democrats get people to vote for them?

Why do they blame others when people don't vote for them?

[JohnOneillsMemory]

85. Because we live in post WWI Germany, not in an abstract of principles.

The group think of Americans today matches the Nazi supporters of the 30's very closely.

The ultra-nationalistic Germans were almost winning WWI in summer of 1918 and then, in a few short months, they lost. The generals hid this from the public who were shocked to discover their loss which was revealed by the politicians. The bitterness and finger pointing led to the the search for the 'Back-stabbers' who lost the war and weakened the nation's 'resolve and integrity.'The need for scapegoats was the biggest factor that allowed Hitler to come to power.

That's where we are today in post-Vietnam America. Americans have been sold on the idea that they are SUPERMAN JESUS IN A COWBOY HAT ever since winning WWII, a master-race mentality.

Losing Vietnam and the economic hardships endured by the blue collar class while industrial jobs go overseas is sold by the Republican dominated Military Industrial Congressional complex as the fault of those 'northeastern liberal nigger-lovin' commie pinko fags and their taxes.'

The Bush/Reagan years saw the GOP working to redeify the corporate barons and military culture and demonize the underclass of minorities who benefited from the safety net provide by the New Deal of FDR and the War on Poverty of LBJ. Of course, most who benefitted from these programs were white children.

We need solidarity against the neocon/Nazi takeover of the American mind in the media and fixed electronic voting machines.

The body count has been staggering and will continue even if we kick the bums out in '04.

No more Nazis, no more Generalissimo Presidents. Back to civilian rule.

[JoblessRecovery]

54. I suspect Nader will not get much traction this time

Whether it is fair or not, after the Florida debacle of 2000, I doubt as many voters want to take that chance again.

[0007]

60. Naw, I doubt that he'll run

Nader is just shaking down the Republican party.

Trust me! This is just a shake down.

[OKHRANA]

61. shaking down the Republicans?

give me a break. They're probably sending prayer donations to Pat Robertson hoping that Nader will run.

[Old and In the Way]

72. There's no difference between Ralph and the Republicans.

Different rhetoric, same objective. Beat the Democrats.

[Iverson]

74. you mean like this?

You mean like joining hands to keep other voices silent? Like using rent-a-cops to keep a presidential candidate out of an affiar to which he had a ticket?

Oh, wait, that was Democrats and Republicans. Aren't YOU embarrassed!
:hangover:

[corporatewhore]

81. you forgot sellin out to corporations

both parties are big business' bitches both parties take big time donations and support things like NAFA/WTO

[tomorrowsashes]

67. They aren't that different

The truth is, the democrats and the GOP are similar enough that in most countries they would probably be combined into on party. The following points are why the democratic party does NOT represent me:

-While some of the democratic candidates opposed the war, the rest, except for Sharpton and Kucinich, whom I would support should the be nominated, supported sanctions on Iraq that killed tens of thousands of people. Is there really that much of a difference? Sanctions don't work. They punish the people, not the government. A government will only become more powerful under periods of scarcity because they control where the resources go. Saddam was never really negatively impacted by these sanctions, but thousands of innocent civillians were. Let's not forget that Clinton bombed Iraq too.

-Almost all of the democratic candidates support NAFTA. This is basically a means to make the rich richer, while doing vast amounts of harm to the poor, both in the US, and abroad. Instead of providing decent wages for workers, at the first sign of a strike, a company can simply pack up, and move to a sweat shop in Mexico. It doesn't help anybody but the company.

-All of the democratic candidates support border regulations. The concept of nationality is a racist one. One's right to travel and pursue happiness should not be determined by arbitrary lines drawn by imperialists hundreds of years ago. Call me a socialist, but I have this odd notion that all people are born equal, and should have a right to stay that way. Maybe the US should stop corporations from exploiting workers, and cease to support paramillitary reactionary forces instead of stopping the people effected by our international policy from escaping it.

-Most candidates support sanctions on Cuba. My reasoning for being against this is the same as sanctions on Iraq.

-Many candidates support the war on drugs, which does more harm than good.

-Many don't support raising the minimum wage.

-There is a general view among the democratic party that the prison system should be used for punishment, not rehabilitation. A criminal is somebody that the system has failed, and feels that they must abandon it to survive. It does no good to beat them down further, but they should be prepared for reintegration with society instead.

-None have expressed a desire to change the system from that of mobocracy, absolute authority of the majority, to one of community autonomy. The truth is that in this country, if you are in the minority, it doesn't matter how big it is, you have no voice whatsoever. I believe that, ultimately, the nation-state must be abolished, but in the mean time, Nader is somewhat of a compromise.

-The two party system needs to abolished as soon as possible. Choosing the lesser of two evils is not democracy.


Perhaps I speak from a more radical position than most, but I see no reason why I should vote for a democrat, if, on most issues, I disagree with them. I absolutely loathe Bush, but my feelings for almost all democratic candidates are not too much kinder. The economic growth under the Clinton administration was a fairy tale. During those years, the median income for the working class did not go up at all. Nader is not perfect, but he does make the democrats and republicans look like the same party.

[Snappy]

70. Logical

"I think the Neocons and the right side of the Dem party have more in common regarding their ultimate goals of world wide hegemony and American dominance. And they likely feed from the same corporate trough."

I believe the above statement. There is only one reason now that I will vote for the Dem. candidate: The Supreme Court. All other reasons are not stronger than that one. Even though I believe that the USA is a Plutocracy and that Dems and Repubs by and large no longer server the American People and work for the Corporations this nation cannot afford or the Neo Fascists to control every branch of Govt.

[Forkboy]

75. The Dems deserve whatever we get at this point

a bigger group of collective babies and cowards the world has never seen.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

87. The DLC sucks. But let's not commit suicide to prove it. n/t

[Forkboy]

89. The wrists have already been slit

and we're bleeding to death.

[LeahMira]

76. It's not an "ego trip"

And for us it's not as simple as just saying "we'll ignore him this time".

I don't think you ignored him the last time either. I don't think the Democratic nominees would include people like Howard Dean or John Kerry if Ralph Nader hadn't run last time. I think Joe Lieberman would have been the "presumptive heir" to the nomination if Al Gore had decided not to run.

I also think that you aren't giving Ralph Nader credit. He is a "true believer" who is going to stand on his beliefs no matter who it helps or who it hurts just because he believes his beliefs are right. I wonder if someone can compromise or just not talk about the beliefs that are important to him or her because winning is more important, maybe there isn't something else out there that will look more important than those beliefs as time passes.

I don't think Ralph Nader would be even thinking of running if the Democrats were going to nominate Dennis Kucinich. Supposedly, though, Dennis isn't "electable." Ralph isn't "electable" for the same kinds of reasons. IMO, Dennis is the best candidate out there now, but the shame is on America if he (or just about anyone who's not Republican) isn't "electable."

[OKHRANA]

78. If Nader was a true believer...

he wouldn't do things that might get Bush re-elected.

Nader had nothing to do with Dean and Kerry running. Both these guys have been planning and preparing their run for president for many years.

Why is Dennis Kucinich the best candidate out there? Isn't one's ability to be elected part of whether one would be a good candidate or not?

[dansolo]

77. Why doesn't Kucinich ask Nader not to run?

Ralph Nader effectively endorsed Kucinich. Kucinich must know what is at stake if Nader were to run. Couldn't he make an appeal to Nader to not run?

[JohnOneillsMemory]

80. NOOOO! HOW MANY MUST DIE FOR HIS EGO?? SUCH A BODY COUNT...

[Forkboy]

83. That body count belongs to Bush

and those that voted for his Crusade.

Such a body count indeed...

[JohnOneillsMemory]

86. But the vote count must go WINNINGLY against him. Or we all lose.

I believe in principles, too.

But it is important to not be shoveled into an oven with your principles.

One must figure out how to have your conscience and your dinner
without the former being the latter.

Voting for Nader to satisfy your conscience and having Bush win is a death sentance for thousands of people, our democracy and the health of the planet.

How does that satisfy your principles?

[Forkboy]

88. Fair question

a death sentance for thousands of people, our democracy and the health of the planet.

That sentence has already been passed though.

I've been pushing aside my principles for 20 friggin years now supporting Dems.And yet I still see more homeless,more hungry,more injustice than ever before...aided by Dems who value their jobs more than any principles.

At what point will people say enough? We've been given the choice of a fast death or a slow death....how about voting for life for once?

I'll still most likely vote Dem,once again,in Nov.

It will be the last time.

[Q]

90. People without a voice can't say 'enough'...

...which is why we're in such a precarious position. Besides the very few Dems speaking out against Bush...the party itself has sold out to a sense of false patriotism.

- This leaves The People virtually without representation to protect them from the excesses of the Bush* regime. The Bushies now have their rubber stamp congress...where they've been able to pass bills/laws beneficial to the Republican party and their benefactors. At the same time...the media turns their head and insists that we can't do anything about it during a 'time of war'.

- I'm simply amazed that Democrats haven't noticed the trends:

1. Stolen election

2. No one lifting a finger to stop 9-11

3. 9-11 used as an excuse for perpetual war

- But alas...it seems the only Dem candidates who 'get' this have little chance of winning the nomination because they're considered 'too liberal' by the party bosses and the mushy middle.