Some thoughts for the Nader-haders

[Dover]

About Nader's Influence and accusations that he ruined the 2000 election:

First of all, Florida was stolen (not won). And we don't know yet how deep the E-voting corruption goes, but the voting "anomolies" in the 2000 and 2002 elections that have been turning up suggest it is extensive. Nader had much less to do with the outcome than is commonly thought.

Second, how can Nader be a threat if the Democratic Party is doing it's job? Or is it?

The interests and policy issues that Greens support should have been incorporated into the Democratic platform if they wanted to change the outcome they think was a result of Nader's involvement in 2000. But did they attempt to stem this divide? No they continued to move further to the Right and become less and less distinguishable from the GOP. In fact many current registered Democratic voters are also supportive of Green issues and also feel they have not had adequate representation from the Democratic Party...which has caused an internal split (New Dems and Progressives) as well.

So who's fault is this really? And why have the E-Voting and other voting fraud issues that arose in Florida not yet been addressed so as to prevent that from reoccurring as well?

In short, what have the Dems done to create the kind of change they suggest they want?

[PinkTiger]

1. What E-Voting?

I thought it was hanging chads, not e-voting. Explain, please.

[Dover]

2. hanging chads and other problems in florida, e-voting in other

states. For more info visit Bev Harris's Black Box Voting web site.

[SaddenedDem]

4. -16,000 votes for Al Gore in Volusia county, Nov. 2000

Electronic votes on the Diebold computers.

Those e-votes.

[Taeger]

10. Don't forget ...

Don't forget that the allegedly "faulty" card was "lost". We couldn't even examine the silicon to see if it was flawed. We only have assurances from Diebold officials.

This is why a sense of locality needs to be returned to politics. Soft money has turned both Republicans AND Democrats into top-down organizations. The folks at the top of BOTH parties have a HEAVY influence on who gets elected at the local level.

The cake is upside down. The issues most important to the people are being neglected by corporate interests that exert TREMENDOUS influence on BOTH parties.

A truly local party would have NEVER allowed this e-voting fiasco. They would have never allowed the power to review votes to be taken OUT of their hands and placed IN the hands of a corporation.

[SaddenedDem]

3. Nothing, absolutely nothing

The bottom line is simple. When Howard Dean dared to try, he was sent into oblivion.

I do not know why anyone asks this question any more. It is clear that the Democratic party wants absolutely nothing to do with the "Democratic wing."

And, recognizing that, no one should whine and complain when we liberals take them at their word.

They told us to get lost. That's exactly what we intend to do. Lost from the Democratic party and their assumption of owning our vote.

[420montana]

5. Sorry you feel that way but

hopefully your abb doesnt include Nader. He is partially to blame for * , no doubt, he was a spoiler.

[Djinn]

69. Nader had bugger all to do with it

Greg Palast amongst others have conclusively shown that the "victory" of the bushites had nothing to do with hanging or pregnant chads and nothing to do with Nader - it had to do with people beingf scrubbed off the voting lists by a woman in the Bush campaign.

[aquart]

8. Well, you vote for Nader. That'll show us.

Do you get that no agenda is going to happen? That we are broke and OUR LIVES are in danger if Bush is not stopped?

Just STOPPING what he's done will take the next four years. Rolling it back? Who knows how much we'll be able to do.

We have been robbed naked.

Now instead of playing games with the presidency, why don't you think about who's going to be in Congress?

[SaddenedDem]

13. Never said I was going to

But I do fully intend to write in Howard Dean for President in 2004.

And your fear campaign sounds more like the Bushies every day. I don't fall for their fear bullshit and I don't fall for yours either.

[LeahMira]

63. So what's next?

The bottom line is simple. When Howard Dean dared to try, he was sent into oblivion.

A lot of voters saw Howard Dean as someone who said one thing one day and something a bit different on the next. But be that as it may...

Looks as if either Kerry or Edwards is going to get the nomination, so what will progressives do in states that have not already held their primaries?

Dennis Kucinich is still in the race. So is Al Sharpton. A significant vote for either gentleman would probably not make much difference in the final outcome, but it would send a strong message to the Democratic leadership that business as usual is not what is wanted. If Democratic leaders don't want Democratic voters to jump ship and vote for Nader, maybe we who are progressives and still haven't had primaries need to send them that message.

Everybody sort of naturally wants to vote for a winner, I suppose, but this is not a horse race, so let's not be worried. A vote for someone who probably will not eventually win doesn't have to make anyone feel like a loser. In this case, it might be the smartest thing to do. The future direction of our nation depends on what happens this year.

[sadiesworld]

6. By all means, vote Nader in "04...

and we can continue the discussion about whose fault Bush is for another 4 years.

[Deja Q]

24. That's not his point.

So who are you going to vote for? The nominated candidate or the candidate you want, even though he dropped out of the race, as a write-in (keeping in mind that, by doing that, people who do write-in votes are happily helping Bush as well)?

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Taeger]

7. Focus of 3rd parties

3rd parties should focus on local and regional elections. That way, they can capture what that locality REALLY wants without having to water it down with a national agenda. In this way, you can take over state rep and congressional races from vulnerable candidates.

The presidential race is just WAY to important to trust a 3rd party contender with. The stakes are WAY too high. You must accept the lesser of two evils.

With enough representation, a third party can effectively influence WHICH candidates are offered for president.

Beyond this, the notion of a third party presidency is pretty impractical. Such a president would be crippled without a congressional delegation. The two major parties would legislate the guy to death just out of spite. He would effectively be a prisoner in the White House.

I hope that the Greens concentrate on local and House elections in California, Oregon and Washington. Keep a VERY tight agenda that will be succesfull in targeted localities. Stay OUT of the Midwest!!!! You cannot be successfull here without watering down your message.

My dream is a series of third parties based on localization. They would focus on the issues that would result in wins in those localities. They would band together and form ALLIANCES on a national level. They WOULD NOT form national parties since that would weaken their position in their strongholds.

The far left and far right has dominated the agenda but pushing wedges BETWEEN the middle 80% of the population. In most cases, this has resulted in rule by the far left or far right. I believe that this formula can be changed by ELIMINTATING the far left and far right from the equation.

Do the people's business first. Push out the economic and social agenda that is most important to the MIDDLE 80%, not the 10% on the edges. In this way, the middle cannot be disempowered by breaking it up into separate parties. It is the far left and far right that needs to be disempowered.

[ikojo]

52. Nader has said he will run as an INDEPENDENT and

not as a Green. This does not make Greens happy because many states require them to solicit signatures of registered voters in order to gain ballot status (that is if the party did not attain ballot status in a previous election). Without Nader's name recognition that will be an even more difficult task in 2004.

I just wonder how Ralph Nader intends to get on the ballot in, say, Missouri. In order to get on the statewide ballot in Missouri 10,000 valid signatures of registered voters are required. That means that an organization will need to collect at least 15,000 signatures in order to account for errors and those signatures that will not be counted by the sec. of state for one reason or another (the state is not required to state why a signature is not counted as valid).

This should not be a Greens bashing thread. I also don't agree with bashing Nader. Everyone has a right to run for president if they so choose. Just as everyone has the right to vote for whomever they choose. No one owns another person's vote and the fact that this must even be argued on a DEMOCRATIC board is ironic.

Instead of bashing Nader people should concentrate on wrestling corporate control of the Democratic party from the corporadoes. Perhaps then those who don't bother voting (many of them working class and poor people) because they don't believe the party cares about them will get off the couch and away from the computer and vote for a Dem candidate.

[capriccio]

9. The Vain leading the Vain

From a strategic point of view, wouldn't it make the most sense for prospective Nader voters to get busy on their own website to boost their candidate? I mean, what's to be gained hanging out here with all us useless, clueless sell-outs to the military/industrial complex?.

[aquart]

12. Nader voters might want to think about some congressional backup.

Oh, wait. This is a symbolic protest. It doesn't need a congress to vote its programs.

And let's all remember how well a vote for Nader worked the last time.

[Dover]

14. Your accusation is baseless. I'm a registered Dem. and I'm NOT alone.

Go figure. Your attitude is exactly why someone like Nader continues to run in opposition to the Dems.

[americanstranger]

25. So if we stop telling him not to run, then he won't run?

That makes perfect sense.

Question: the man has no visible means of support, no
So why's he running?

-as

[CBHagman]

55. Since Nader has drawn the wrath of various progressives...

...I'd say you are in the minority, rather than a large voting bloc.

When people like Winona LaDuke and others wonder at the wisdom of running a third-party candidate, you can tell that they're thinking of strategy, unintended consequences, and the simple math of the situation.

"Go figure. Your attitude is exactly why someone like Nader continues to run in opposition to the Dems."

No, it's because Nader would rather prance around telling everyone how idealistic and pure and righteous he is than actually MAKE POLICY. Two percent of the vote and three dollars will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. It will not win you the programs and budgets you seek.

Nader, whatever his motivations are, is not setting out to achieve a progressive agenda. That's the sad, ugly truth. Oh, he may protest that there's no difference between the parties (and that's just one instance where he's lying), and he may opine that Gore would have invaded Iraq (Based on what, Ralph?). But he's kidding himself. He can't decide whether he wants to be an activist or a politician, and thus he is neither.

He's also hurting the progressive cause, thanks to his little vanity campaigns. Donations to groups associated with him have dropped off.

[Robin Hood]

22. lol...no shit.

nt

[Dover]

11. Interesting that no one wants to address the two issues I mentioned

Voting fraud and embracing Green issues into the platform.

No one answering the question as to why these haven't been actively addressed by the Dems prior to this election year if they are as worried about Nader as you are.

[SaddenedDem]

15. I tried to Dover

But that's not the discussion they want to have here.

They want to bully, brow beat and terrify you into voting for their candidate.

You see, if they discuss the issues, it will become abundantly clear that they have no intention of changing anything.

on edit:
They've had 3 years to come to a consensus to stop the division, but they simply widened the gap.

[Dover]

23. Apparently so. I too am a saddened Dem..eom

.

[Robin Hood]

19. Ummm Helllloooo!!

Gore would have been the first truly green President that this country would have ever had, He is a true environmentalist. But you chose to throw your vote for Bush.

[mandyky]

20. Typical Nader hysterics

that remind me of freeperish behavior.

I voted for Nader in 2000, but I live in a Red state (KY). I will not vote Nader this year and wrote him asking him not to run.

Personally I am sick of the two party strangle hold, and I do think Dems, especially the DLC wing are way to close to being like GOP than the Democratic wing. I am a Democrat, but an independent one, and I think Nader running can be a positive. Do you all honestly think the GOP is backing Nader and he comes out and calls for shrub to be impeached? **shaking my head**

[aquart]

29. This is NOT about the Green Party. Nader is NOT a Green.

In case you forgot, they're not running him.

As for embracing Green issues, why? Are there Green congressmen? Green senators? Green councilmen?

Just running a presidential candidate every four years is pretty useless.

When Greens start gaining power in LOCAL elections, THEN the Democrats will look at their issues. Until then, practically speaking, there's no point.

It ain't up to the Dems. It's up to the Greens. Maybe there are only enough of you to ruin the country, not help it.

[bvar22]

36. These are taboo. Actual issues.

I beleieve that Al Gore would be president today had he looked to the LEFT just once and said something like:
I hear your voices. Maybe NAFTA in its current incarnation is not a good thing for American working families. Maybe Media Consolidation is not the best way to use the public airways. Maybe privitization and corporatization of certain public necessities is not serving the public. I promise to open a dialog on these issues, to give you a forum in this party to air your opinions.

The Greens didn't steal votes from the Democratic Party....The Party threw them away to please their corporate paymasters.

I was happy that the Party had so many voices during the Primaries. It was wonderful to hear reasoned voices pointing to these critical issues. Unfortunately, the powers that actually run the show have been able to effectively silence the voices of dissent. This election is now being framed around non-issues. This election has already been stolen. The American People will have a choice between a Pro-Corporate Democrat, and a Pro-Corporate Rebublican. There will be one winner-the continued Wal-Martization of America; and one loser-the American middle class and poor.

The Democratic Party has been informed about the fraud potential of BBV. There is ONLY ONE REASON that the Democratic Party is not publically screaming about this issue. You do the math.

[SaddenedDem]

44. AMEN!!!!!

You nailed it on the head!

And, perhaps DUers should step back and look at how many times in a single day they prove Ralph Nader right.

How many times a day will it take for them all to realize they spout the republican line in response to Ralph Nader?

You can smell the fear from this board. The terrified masses might actually have to speak to the REAL issues of American citizens and be discovered to be exactly what Nader says they are - 2 peas in the same pod - the pod of corporate ownership.

[Blue_Chill]

49. post 47

...

[Robin Hood]

16. After four years of living this night mare, you guys still spew this shit?

Four years of Bush and you say that there is no difference between the parties. How fucking deluded can you be? 97,000 votes in Florida taken by a lie that Nader and people like you have perpetrated "there is no difference between the parties". You did make it close enough for Bush to steal the election, without you there, there would not have been any doubt what so ever. You and Nader did spoil the 2000 election.

Since then, you guys have been spewing the same irresponsible bullshit that you didn't usher in the Bush era. In fact, it's Nader and his minions who sound just like the irresponsible Republicans, and I would say that there is no difference between the Republican party and Ralph Nader.

[SaddenedDem]

17. You're damned straight

and we'll continue to spew it until someone acknowledges the problem.

[Robin Hood]

27. lol..

The problem is that your a tool for the right. There is no difference between Ralph and the Republicans.

[RainDog]

18. you are ignoring reality

and the reality is that dems have to, in order to make voter fraud so obvious it is undoable, make a moderate appeal to lure cross over voters.

whether this is pretty or not, this is the reality that the dem establishment will see.

if you are so unwilling to compromise to get rid of what so many of us believe is an ABSOLUTE danger to democracy, what does that say about you???

Nader, btw, has taken the same tact as the communists in Germany when Hitler came to power. They welcomed his rule at first by saying that he was so corrupt, he was the "next step" in the inevitable fall of capitalism.

well, they were wrong, and so was Nader, and so far we still have the chance, it seems, to stop further horrors of another bush regime, by uniting.

This failure to unite was also the undoing of the liberals and communists when Hitler rose to power.

So if you want to be so pure and high and mighty, all I can say is I have no respect for that position at all.

I grow to detest Nader more and more each day. He met with Phyllis Schafley, and her ilk and they fawned over him for his third party candidacy.

Now tell me they would have done that if they think it didn't matter.

He sees what Bush has done to this nation, what Bush is doing to the world, environmentally.

That he does not unite behind someone who has a real chance of winning makes me want to vomit.

[pippin]

21. Everyone seems to have forgotten that Gore Lost

Tennessee. Tennessee is one of a few states that allow voters to begin going to the polls in advance of Election Day-- 15 days of early voting, which ended five days before Nov. 7.

Gore's campaign was so badly mismanaged they didn't jump in to get the votes till TWO days before the elections, whereas the Republicans used every singel day of the 15 days to round up the votes. Incidentally, we should remember he kept Clinton out of his campaign as he thought the charges against Clinton would tarnish him In his 24 years as a politician Gore had never lost an election, but as VP (unlike Clinton) he had lost touch with the grassroots. Had he won Tennesse, Florida wouldn't have mattered. He was the sitting vice president and should, as Tennessee's favorite son, won the state hands down.

The 2000 elections brought out the largest voting block in Tenessee-- 750,000 of them, nearly a quarter of the state's 3.1 million registered voters – went to the voting booths during the 15 days preeding November 7. But the Gore campaign was so lackadaisical it failed to take advantage of this. So, once and for all, let's stop blaming Nader. He was a mere gad fly in comparison to what winning his own state could had done for Gore.

[Deja Q]

26. Excellent point, thank you!

The Dem party cannot continue using Nader as the one and only judas goat. There were real issues at the time, and there are just as many now - significant issues, not just the paltry piss-ant 2% that make up the Greens in any given state. Jeez, the votes Florida that were Green were something like 1.5%... (90,000)

[americanstranger]

30. Tennessee is a conservative state.

Gore wasn't a Tennesseean for years before running. It was hardly his 'home state' at that point.

If his campaign was so badly mis-managed, how in the world did he get more votes than any other presidential candidate besides Ronnie Raygun?

It doesn't add up.

Although I fully agree with you as regards Clinton. Gore should have embraced him in the campaign, and then he would have had four years to establish himself as 'his own man' - and do it from the White House.

If Clinton was out on the hustings for Gore, maybe the margin of victory would have been tamper-proof.

-as

[aquart]

31. Maybe you want to re-examine Tennessee.

We had people on the ground there, on the day, who saw massive fraud.

Bush, being the spiteful sweetie he is, made damned sure Gore was humiliated at home.

But saying Gore "lost" Tennessee is pretty much buying the Republican line. Preventing Democrats from voting is usually a good guarantee of a Republican win.

I will agree that the Democrats did not defend their strongholds well enough. But Gore's "loss" in Tennessee was orchestrated, not voted.

[SaddenedDem]

39. So where were the lawsuits?

If you had this supposed evidence of fraud, why was there no legal action taken to remedy it?

It just amazes me how people concoct stories 4 years after the fact!!!!

[RainDog]

58. TN is also fundie central

I'm from Tennessee, Nashville, to be exact, and it's also the home of the Southern Baptist Convention.

You have suburbanites in that city who actually went to college, but apparently didn't have to think while they were there if it contradicted their literal Bible interpretation, who think that creationism is a valid topic for science, for instance...

...who believe in all the end times crap, who vote Republican, and would never vote democratic, unless someone could prove that Bush was the antichrist.

how does a party which believes in equality, extending to gays, to poor people, to women, to blacks, get the votes of people who believe that our very positions are against their religious beliefs?

these are the children and grandchildren of the same people who fled the democratic party after the 60s.

if you have churches preaching against democrats, I don't see how you can expect to win the votes of their congregations...but I could be wrong.

however, dems do need to work to get out the vote by making sure they engage in heavy voter registration drives for those disaffected by both parties' lack of attention to people who aren't religious fanatics or corporations.

[Robin Hood]

34. Gore lost Tenessee because of discrimination.

A lot of Southerners would never vote for a Jew on the ticket. Gore took a brave stand, trying to move up minorities and got screwed in his own state for it.

[SaddenedDem]

40. It's HIS fault

Mommy, mommy....this man is being mean so I made up a complete lie to defend myself.

I hope you all realize how much like Bush you are beginning to sound.

Never take responsibility for anything. Blame the other guy. Pretend you make no mistakes.

But in the meantime, scare everyone into voting for your guy.

[Robin Hood]

42. Running with Lieberman was his fault.

Though putting a minority on his ticket was a brave thing to do. But it is not what lost him the election, Florida lost him the election.

[SuffragetteSal]

57. to sadDem

sounds like you scare pretty easy anyway...

[SaddenedDem]

62. Read much? ROFL! n/t

[wellstone_democrat]

28. I guess my experience in NH in 2000 is imaginary

Nader had a devastating effect in NH and campaigned there at the bitter end despite our pleas to stay out---remember, he wasn't going to be a spoiler in the close states?

I've never personally witnessed such arrogance as I did dealing with him and his crew. I never hope to again.

He was not the only problem in the 2000 election at all. But, in states like NH, he was a huge problem and, frankly, just did not care.

Hey, why should he? With his wealth the tax cuts benefitted him handsomely.

[Old and In the Way]

38. If Nader bows out of NH, good chance Gore takes it and FL

doesn't matter.

[Dover]

32. HOW CAN NADER BE A THREAT IF THE DEMS ARE DOING THEIR JOB?

HOW?

[SaddenedDem]

33. Hear, hear!

Calling for support from the Democratic party for liberal policies and issues is now equated with "being a tool for the right."

How DARE we liberals ask for a seat at the table while the corporatist DNC/DLC is busy selling our votes to the corporations like health care providers and corporate hospitals!

And if we die before they finish selling our souls, they'll sell our bodies after we're gone.

[philosophie_en_rose]

35. HOW CAN FAKE INTERNET RUMORS AND FREEPERS BE A THREAT?

It doesn't matter what Democrats do, if hypocritical liars like Ralph Nader support Bush with lies.

Next Headline on Fox News *Al Gore would have invaded Iraq*

[Old and In the Way]

41. Exactly, the same tired lies.

Nader is now "assuming" Gore invades Iraq to underpin his fundemental proposition: there's no difference between Democrats and Reoublicans. To make his case, instead of relying on the reality of Bush policy in the past 3 years, he discards that for making an unfounded case that Gore would have invaded.

He is a liar and a lackey of the Republican Party.

[Blue_Chill]

48. Read post 47

...

[BillZBubb]

51. How? You can't be serious

The Democratic party contains people with a wide spectrum of beliefs and ideals. It is not a strongly cohesive unit like the Repugs.

A candidate like Nader, who concentrates on a specific set of issues, can easily slice away a chunk of Democratic votes. The Democratic nominee cannot put as much emphasis on those issues because he must hold together the eclectic collection of groups that make up the party. In other words he has to utilize a strategy of maximizing his base.

With a fringe candidate like Nader available, a small portion of that base has to be sacrificed. To appeal too much to that faction might cost more votes elsewhere in the base. The candidate and his advisers have to make that call.

In a close election, a cherry picker like Nader can be a killer. That's why Nader is a threat. That's why the Repugs are happy today.

[Speed8098]

37. What's his point??

What is Nader hoping to prove by running? He can't win. He knows it, you know it, and we all know it.

So What's the point?

[SaddenedDem]

45. Perhaps....

his objective is to put LIBERAL issues on the table since the Democratic party tries to keep sweeping them under the rug.

Ralph intends to pick up the rug.

[Dover]

46. Being guaranteed to "win" is not why people should run. They run

in order to represent one group voice. And I'm assuming that he's in it to broker a deal with Dems, to pressure the right leaning Dems to accept a more Leftist platform. They still refuse to do that, which has caused many left leaning Dems to lose faith that their Party represents them.

[dawn]

43. He's a threat because the RW media will prop him up.

The GOP is having multiple orgasms after today's announcement.

[bvar22]

53. If the GOP is willing to spend money....

...proping up a national mouthpiece calling for the impeachment of bush*, well, that's money well spent. Nader should use every penny attacking those politicians bought by BIG MONEY!

[Blue_Chill]

47. Third parties are always a threat because they don't play to win.

Second, how can Nader be a threat if the Democratic Party is doing it's job? Or is it?

Nader has the luxary of going after only those issues that appeal to the far left. He has absolutely no concern for winning the moderate democratic vote(me), the conservative democratic vote, or the undecided middle. If you don't need to win then you can EASILY steal away votes from any subset by solely appealing to them.

So if you want to pretend that it's all the democratic parties fault, you may do so, free country right (for now). But logic says you are wrong.

[fleetus]

50. One party can't do it all.

If the Democratic party started pushing the entire Green agenda, we'd probably lose more votes than we'd gain. Isn't that why the green party is a seperate party. Rather than waste time trying to push your agenda on democrats, why not work to change the way voting is done so you can vote for the candidate you like the MOST but also not worry about having your vote wasted. i.e. rank the candidates.

[Zero Gravitas]

54. We know the Election was stolen

but without 90,000+ votes for Nader in Florida it wouldn't have been possible to steal.

[Robin Hood]

56. What has nader done to denounce Bush in the last three years?

Nothing!! Absolutely nothing. Not one god damn thing. The only thing this turd of a man has done is go on Crossfire to further fuck Gore over. But he has not said anything about the war in Iraq or any of the other horrendous shit that Bush has done in three-four years.

It is soo pathetic to sit on the side lines and then come in trying to pretend that you are some knight in shining armor, when in reality you are just a piece of shit. Fuck Nader and fuck the spoiled traitors who vote for him, it appears that Bush's policies don't affect the Nader voter. it must be nice.

I can't afford four more years of unemployment and no health care. Maybe Saint Ralph and his ilk can support my ass during the next 4-6 years.

yes, ralph, you're a spolier. You spoiled and ruined my life.

And now, after all the progress our people have made to beat Bush back and gain some media voice, here comes Ralph and what the fuck is the media talking about? Ralph fucking Nader and his little pecker ego. Thanks Ralph, you piece of shit.

[bvar22]

59. Nader has been busy.

The Corporate owned media hasn't given him much coverage since he has continually attackes them. To insist that he has done "Nothing!! Absolutely nothing. Not one god damn thing." is absolutely untrue, and a vehicle to spread ignorance.

Educate yourself
Visit his website
Suscribe to his newsletter
Attend one of his MANY public appearances
Read one of his books

then, if you still hate him, come back and at least hate him from a position of TRUTH.


Don't hide your anger in ignorance and falsehoods. Ralph is a busy, busy man.

Peace

[Robin Hood]

60. Give me a break.

You actually want me to believe that Nader has been shut out by the corporate controlled media? I don't buy that one bit. He was just on meet the press, and if he had anything negative to say against Bush he could have gotten airtime if he had wanted. He is a Republican schill. His timing on his decision proves that he is a repub operative.

[SaddenedDem]

61. Hello?

Excuse me, but it was RALPH NADER I saw on C-Span trying to stop the march to war in Iraq - not the Johns.

[Blue_Chill]

64. So then because he was against the war we should outlaw abortion?

Wake up, another 4 years of Bush = changes that will outlast Nader's little hissy fit.

[SaddenedDem]

66. Your fear campaign won't work

Just like the Bush fear campaign won't.

[Blue_Chill]

67. LoL fear campaign!

This from a Nader supporter that preaches democrats are republicans. That is a fear campaign. It's a lie, it's only result is helping Bush, and it's intended to scare voters.

I'm speaking truth and you are using rhetoric. That says it all right there. You are whining about fear campaign while I talk consequence. Your rhetoric vs my cold hard reality.

[Blue_Chill]

65. Nader supporters sound like RWers to me.

- They complain about the media all the time
- They blame everything on someone else even when proof is presented to the contrary
- Consequence means absolutely nothing when compared to the "vision" they have for this country

[library_max]

68. Two things.

First, the nation is split pretty much fifty-fifty. Any national election is going to be close. So it's not a matter of the Democratic Party "not doing its job." It's a matter of the left sticking with its party the way the right does, or causing all of us to suffer the consequences.

Second, the official Bush margin in Florida was 537 votes. The vote for Nader was 88,000 votes. If ten or even five percent of those had voted for Gore instead, it'd be President Gore. All the other chicanery wouldn't have mattered a damn bit. So you can cast around for someone else to blame all you want, but if Nader hadn't run or had withdrawn and endorsed Gore, it'd be President Gore.

The Scalia five may have stolen the election, but the Florida Nader voters left the door unlocked and the keys in the ignition.