The most basic arguments against Nader

[jpgray]

First off, for a leftist hero that's different from those pandering Democrats, he's quite the hypocrite. He railed against Gore and others for investing in not-so great companies, yet invests in such corporate monsters as Wal-Mart, GAP, the Limited, and HALLIBURTON himself. These all part of a Fidelity mutual fund that his own "Nader's Raiders" denounced, companies that are reviled by the WTO protestors--people Nader supports in word. He casts himself as a proponent of labor, yet denies his workers the right to unionize. He talks up his consumer advocate history, but at the same time uses funds from his advocacy groups for stock market adventures.

Second, the premise for his run is a false one. He declares there is too little difference between the parties (there are plenty of life-and-death differences for people to vote on), and further states the reason half the people don't vote is because the two party system doesn't speak for them, tries to encourage apathy, etc. Well, he's run a few times now, and I haven't seen the other half of the country start voting again. It's not that they don't care about Republicans and Democrats, apparently Nader doesn't blow their skirts up either. And if it's the media's or the public's fault, how does Nader expect to fix those problems when it's in the interest of the intrenched parties to maintain the status quo? Run again?

Finally, anyone who says he wants to "heighten the contradictions", or prefers Republicans be in charge for that reason, should be thrown out on his ass. Ends justifies the means rhetoric doesn't EVER fly with me and it certainly shouldn't with you. For those who rightly criticize the argument that the IWR Dems were "giving W enough rope to hang himself with", I hope you NEVER try to justify Nader's statements that have the same basic and flawed idea. Putting Republicans in power so that their atrocities galvanize the populace is a sick way of using widespread suffering for political gain, and I want no part of it.

[Blayde Starrfyre]

1. Remember that the Democrats voted for those atrocities too

You seem to be in an absolute rage against Republican atrocities, presumably referring to the IWR and the Patriot Act. Well, just remember that a large majority of Democrats voted for those too. Seems to give support to Nader's position.

[jpgray]

4. Nader invests in them! His Fidelity fund had 777,080 shares in Raytheon

And look at these quotes, and compare them to his portfolio:

"I'm quite aware of how the arms race is driven by corporate demands for contracts, whether it's General Dynamics or Lockheed Martin," Nader told the Progressive in April. "They drive it through Congress. They drive it by hiring Pentagon officials in the Washington military industrial complex, as Eisenhower phrased it."

The Fidelity Magellan fund owns 2,041,800 shares of General Dynamics.

"Both parties are terrible on antitrust," Nader told CNN in August. "Look, we have Boeing now, one aircraft company, manufacturer after the McDonnell Douglas merger." In a June press release, Nader expressed disappointment in the Clinton administration's Justice Department to challenge the merger of British Petroleum with Amoco, or Exxon's merger with Mobil.

The Fidelity Magellan fund owns 2,908,600 shares of Boeing, 24,753,870 shares of British Petroleum-Amoco and 28,751,268 shares of Exxon-Mobil. The fund also owns stock in Shell, Sunoco, Texaco and Chevron -- on whose board Bush advisor Condoleezza Rice serves.


Nader runs on being BETTER on these issues than the Democrats, not being equally bad.

[mzmolly]

5. True enough, but looking at the many issues that face our nation

one will find a clear difference between the two Parties and how they vote on the issues.

[Terwilliger]

15. which besides the hot button issues?

please elaborate

[mzmolly]

28. *Hot Button Issues?* Please elaborate yourself T...

Here are my issues, Hot Button or not they matter to ME. If they don't matter to YOU dont worry about it. ;)

Poverty *Increases under R leadership
Crime *Increases under R leadership
Education *Decreases under R leadership
Choice *So called Partial Birth Abortion Ban?*
Civil Rights *Gay unions/Pat Act-revised or not?*

and then some...

Health Care
Workers Rights
Environment
Social Security
International Affairs

etc..

Now, if anyone looks at the voting record of Dems vs. Thugs in the past several years, one will see a vast difference on the issues that effect the afore mentioned items.

And once again in the words of the late Paul Wellstone "The differences make a difference in the lives of ordinary Americans."

I will not try to change your mind on this Terwilliger, I am merely stating MY position.

Please tell me what issues are most important to you?

[papau]

6. the last 3 years put the "lie" to Naders "too little difference" GOPvs DEM

Indeed folks need jobs - not the right wing mantra of punish us by putting us in power by running as a 3rd party so that we will have enough rope to hang ourselves.

Nader's ego is as large as a Bush ego

[wryter2000]

9. Exactly

Saying there's no difference between the Dems and the Repugs is a flat-out lie. I'm sick of having a liar in the White House.

Nader's ego is as large as a Bush ego

For sure. It makes as much sense to say there's no difference between Bush and Nader as to say there's no difference between Bush and the Dem candidate. Which is to say, no sense at all.

[Terwilliger]

21. Which Democrat wants to legalize gay marriage?

Which Democrat wants a total overhaul of the campaign finance system?

Which Democrat would do anything he/she could to keep us from going into unjust wars?

Which Democrat wants to re-direct the Drug War into treatment and rehabilitation?

Fact is, outside Kucinich, no "mainstream" candidate has ANY of these positions or anything even CLOSE.

Not are Bush and Nader NOT alike...Bush and Democrats are closer in ideology.

[jpgray]

30. You answered your own question :-)

DK fits nicely for all your points.

But to answer you, I would say the Democrats have a better record on all these things. However they are NOT significantly superior to Republicans on these issues.

Bush and Democrats are closer in ideology than Bush and Nader, but as far as hypocrisy and flawed strategy goes, they're all pretty close.

[TerWillie]

39. You mean Nader, Democrats, and Republicans

right?

[mzmolly]

32. What is Naders position on the issues you noted?

Just curious ...

Also, Dennis Kucinich is a *Democrat* so please refrain from lumping the Democrats into one boat won't you?

He deserves better than that from his supporters. :)

[TerWillie]

38. Those are his positions

Kucinich will not be the party nominee. You as a Dean person should know that. Dean won't be either, and these same forces allayed against Dean are the people who claim that Nader is so wrong that he's just egomaniacal.

[Terwilliger]

17. and together, 1/10 the size of Clinton's ego

[still_one]

7. Nader is irrelevent

Anyone who supports him this time wouldn't vote for the Democratic candidate anyone.

[Terwilliger]

2. If you "want no part" of any of that...

maybe you could find a Democrat who inspires enough people to win outright on his own

[jpgray]

8. Why vote for one hypocrite over another? (nt)

[Terwilliger]

10. you're right

is there anyone who isn't a hypocrite?


No?

I'll take the least of the evils, thanks.

[jpgray]

13. Of course there is someone who isn't. His name is Dennis Kucinich. (nt)

[Terwilliger]

18. yeah yeah jp

and what chance does he have to even have a seat at the table? zero? less?

Don't argue DK to me...your argument is weak.

[jpgray]

22. And Nader has a chance to have a seat at the table?

One of my main points above (which have so far been ignored) makes it clear that Nader's failure to garner any significant percentage of votes is often blamed on the media or the public. Since both intrenched politicians have a vested interest in keeping third parties out, how does Nader plan to fix these things? By running for president over and over?

Dennis got great numbers in Maine, and in Washinton. It's one thing to say the right things, it's quite another to live by what you say.

[Terwilliger]

25. nice sidestep

you didn't mention that Kucinich has no chance to be the party nominee

OHHHH...but keep blaming some guy who can't get any significant portion of the vote....THAT'll explain why the Dems continue to lose! :eyes:

[jpgray]

27. I don't blame Nader for Dem losses--I label him a shameless hypocrite (nt)

[corporatewhore]

14. why not vote for david cobb the green nominee

[Terwilliger]

26. why vote for him?

why not vote for the Libertarian candidate?

[bluestateguy]

3. He also got himself a nice Bush tax cut

with Bush out of the White House he'd have to give it back. Hmmmmm....

[Terwilliger]

11. yeah, because no Democrats are rich

especially the ones that voted WITH BUSH to give the tax cut...they're all dirt poor and thought it would help the economy :eyes:

[corporatewhore]

12. Do you even Care That it is David Cobb not nader who isgreen?

[jpgray]

16. Who said anything about Greens? (nt)

[corporatewhore]

20. sorry thought ou were mad at greens in general alot of people think

nader is the green party

[jpgray]

24. Third party candidates don't bother me. Nader does

When he displays the same brand of hypocrisy as the Democrats he rails against, he deserves to be taken to task for it.

[Terwilliger]

19. jp's on a nader-hating kick

the Greens have never really been his focus, outside of the fact that they supported him

[jpgray]

23. No hate here. Just a few arguments against voting for him

If I wanted to Nader-hate, I'd say he cost us the 2000 election, third parties are evil, and that he is a paid Bush operative. This post is just factually accurate points. It's Nader-hating to do this?

[saltpoint]

29. Nader is one hell of an intelligent guy.

I like him and respect his intelligence.

I was a Florida resident in 2000 and preferred Nader to Gore idealogically, but was told by Broward County officials that "this race is close." Ok, I responded, "But I sort of like Nader."

"No," they told me. "It's CLOSE."

It was.

I'm supporting our nominee for a Democratic win over the Bush administration. I blame Bush personally and almost everyone I know in the administration, from Cheney on down. They are slime. They debase the spirit of Jeffersonian democracy and it makes me sick. I would like to see voters turn these people out on their goddamned asses in November.

I'll volunteer, I'll stuff envelopes, I'll sleep with circus animals -- I will do anything to get rid of Bush.

For me it's not whether Nader is any good. For me it's beating Bush with a strong Democratic ticket.

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[NV1962]

33. It's more simple even: a vote for Nader = a vote for Bush

First-time voters who in November vote against Bush, but not for the Democratic nominee will probably not be hampered by the sour experience of what happened in 2000, so I'm willing to pardon their in effect noxious idealism.

I blame Nader voters in 2000 as much as the Bush voters for the past three years. For those still wielding the stupified "Gore = Bush" argument, I have an even more compelling challenge: justify your contribution to this list.

I hold Nader just as responsible as Bush.

Why? Because the consequences of indirectly supporting Bush were easily foreseen.

But you know what, let democracy do its work: this year, I'm positive that Bush will be creamed, and I sincerely hope that Nader will run again this year, so we can whack him out of public politics too.

Yes, I effing hate avocado politicians: green on the outside, brown inside.

(Edited to substitute "responsible" for an erroneously typed "accountable")

[jpgray]

34. I don't agree

A vote for a Green is not analogous to "a lost Dem vote". Some are, undoubtedly, but not all. I don't hold Nader as accountable as Bush, either.

As far as "avocado politician", I think that is more or less an apt description. But at least he's green on the outside--I suppose it's better to at least spout good ideals, even if one doesn't necessarily live by them.

And his hypcorisy makes him no worse than our guys, but since most of his rationale for running hinges on fighting that hypocrisy, I find it difficult to take what he says very seriously.

[mdmc]

35. I hope that there is a national candidate

that supports criminal justice reform (death penalty, med. marijuania, mandatory minimums, prohabition).

I want it, even if it means that it helps Bush. Sorry all, as I really hate Bush.

[NV1962]

36. What have *you* done to look up positions of Dem candidates?

I find it very hard to believe that you seriously tried to look into Dennis Kucinich's proposals - because he is the one you're looking for, judging by your "hot button" issues.

I'm not "pushing" Kucinich (I find him a very compelling candidate, but for reasons that aren't germaine here I support another, more "mainstream" one) I'm simply observing that people tend to vote more with their gut that with their brains.

Enter Bush.

[mdmc]

42. Yeah, Kucinich is god

Kerry can be good too...

[NV1962]

37. LOL!

Allow me to present your own words here to counter yourself: A vote for a Green is not analogous to "a lost Dem vote". Really? Since when is the Green Party an integral part of the Democratic Party?

Also: at least he's green on the outside Well, if appearances matter, I'd say that is the conclusive argument to vote for the most mainstream and most "popular" Democratic candidate: Kerry, because he also says he's green, and what better than to back a green winner huh!

Then, the part that makes me really wonder where you stand with regard to "our guys:" his hypcorisy makes him no worse than our guys - whoa! I mean: WHOA! My compliments, good find. What a clever form of including Nader with all Democratic candidates in a commonly poisoned well!

Finally, allow me to return your argument as an invitation to vote for the Democratic nominee in November: it's better to at least spout good ideals, even if one doesn't necessarily live by them.

Bush and Nader: out, out, out!

[jpgray]

41. I think you misinterpreted my post--I will support the nominee in the GE

But in my opinion a vote for Nader does not directly help Bush, though it does help him indirectly.

[anti-NAFTA]

40. Nader doesn't deserve to be the candidate of the alternative Left

He doesn't deserve the votes of disillusioned Democrat. I'd rather vote for the Socialist Party USA. Nader is weak and has never had much support of labor. basically a college candidate.