Face it, Nader and his little finkies hate the Democratic Party

[Beloved Citizen]

So much so that they have actually gotten into bed with quasi-fascist Bush front organizations in hopes of destroying us.

You do know that in pre-Nazi Germany there were those on the left who actually welcomed Hitler's seizure of power, right? The theory went that the combination of the destruction of the "bourgeoise parties," coupled with what they hoped would be massive revulsion to Nazi rule, would quickly turn the masses away from any past political attractions and lead to their rising to power.

It turned out to be a little bit of a miscalculation, however.

[Jerseygirltoo]

1. I think that's a myth

My father grew up in Germany. There was fighting in the streets between the Nazis and the Communist party, before Hitler rose to power. They fought him tooth and nail. No way did the 'left' welcome Hitler, unless you are talking about 3 Trotskyites having a meeting in a basement somewhere.
As far as Nader goes, I don't think he wants Bush to win, it's just that he considers himself so pure, he doesn't want to compromise any of his positions to vote for Kerry. He doesn't seem to understand that politics is the art of compromise. I'm not happy with Nader either, but I think we should focus on the real problem, which is the Bush administration

[Forkboy]

2. Great points

Welcome to DU :hi:

[Suzi Creamcheese]

3. Right on target. It seem some feel that attacking

Nader is more important than attacking Bush.

[BillZBubb]

5. You are WRONG! Attacking Nader IS attacking Bush*

Nader and Bush* are working towards the same goal: getting Bush* elected.

[Suzi Creamcheese]

33. Don't those opposed to the war in Iraq deserve the chance to vote

for someone who didn't support the war?

[Bunny]

34. Well, if you want four more years with the one who actually STARTED

the war, then go ahead and vote for Nader. Your choice.

[Suzi Creamcheese]

35. Instead of a ticket that voted to start the war

It's a tough choice I agree

[Bunny]

37. I cannot imagine what is so tough about distinguishing the two.

But that's just me, I guess. Nevertheless, it's still your choice. Just remember that not just you, but ALL of us, will live with the misery of a second Bush term. Are you willing to put ALL of us through that, just so you can vote your conscience?

[TeacherCreature]

28. What does Nader do

He thinks that attacking Gore/Kerry/Democratic party is more important that attacking bush. What is the difference?

[Warren DeMontague]

29. No, because there's no chance of Bush Dropping out of the race.

And the people who are going to vote for Bush presumably are either hard-core GOP supporters, religious kooks, unmitigated greedheads, or have suffered a recent head trauma.

Your average Nader voter, on the other hand, (unlike the thousands of republicans who signed, in Michigan, to get Nader on the ballot) presumably has many of the same desires for this country as most democrats. If I were a Nader supporter, I'd be pissed at the GOP for cynically trying to use my vote to advance four more years of a hard-core right wing agenda.

Unfortunately, most Nader people that I know do seem to be so blinded by hatred, or at least contempt, of Democratic party "sellouts" that they have no problem cutting off their nose to spite all of our faces. They remind me of wannabe radicals who are constantly trying to prove who is keeping it "the most real". Give me a break. You can have incrimental change in a positive direction, represented by the Democratic ticket, or you can have four more years of this slash-and-burn disaster. Those are the only realistic choices. Throw your vote away, but remember that the real corporate criminals and right wing goons are going to be snickering at you all the way back to DC. And they're not Democrats.

[Suzi Creamcheese]

32. Everyone is entitled to their opinion

Your sectarian bashing rant would hardly make anyone who admires Nader want to vote Democratic. I think the "real corporate criminals and right wing goons" are probably laughing as they watch the Democrats running around spending their energy and money trying to keep a left wing reformer off the ballot in this country.

They love it when the left fights itself. Note who is doing the attacking in this thread.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. My "Sectarian Bashing Rant":

Hmmm. I looked for it in that post, and all I could find was this:

"most Nader people that I know do seem to be so blinded by hatred, or at least contempt, of Democratic party "sellouts" that they have no problem cutting off their nose to spite all of our faces. They remind me of wannabe radicals who are constantly trying to prove who is keeping it "the most real".

That's a "bashing rant?" No, it isn't. Hardly. That's a cogent analysis of the situation, and certainly warranted considering that every single poll shows a significant problem for Kerry (or, if you will, a much more likely victory for Bush) when Nader is included as a choice. If I wanted to "attack" Nader or his people, it would sound a helluva lot stronger.

Left wing reformer? Please explain to me how the cause of "left wing reform" is aided by throwing the election to Bush? But the bottom line is, Nader people and Nader apologists don't want any criticism of Nader's idiotic and egotistical refusal to concede that his presence on the ballot Hurt Gore in 2000, and there is no way in hell it won't hurt Kerry in 2004. So, we who presumably want Bush out of the white house are supposed to play nice and say what a swell guy Ralphie is, and kiss his ass, and say, yes, we as democrats are sellouts who don't espouse the kind of real reform embodied by Nader, please, please we're just so happy to have him reminding us what we ought to be standing for (which is... what, again, exactly?)... At which point, the self-righteous Nader voters will vote for Nader anyway.

[Suzi Creamcheese]

39. I'm sorry to upset you

Nader vs Kerry fights are counterproductive and just seem to make some people very unhappy. Please accept my apologies if I somehow made you feel inadequate.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. LOL. Nice try.

"Please accept my apologies if I somehow made you feel inadequate."

I always find it funny when people who can't debate their way out of a paper bag, apparently, resort to this kind of idiotic doofery.

Next time, read my post, ok?

[Suzi Creamcheese]

49. I did read your post

3 paragraphs of defensiveness and hurt feelings

Remember, the thread was started to bash Nader supporters. If the Nader supporters bash Democrats I think that is counterproductive as well. We should be working together, not getting upset with each other. But everyone has a right to look at it in their own way, so don't feel too badly about it.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. Once again, you are incapable of responding to my points...

instead, you try to write them off as "defensiveness and hurt feelings". My feelings haven't been hurt.. I'm not sure where you get that from my post. Of course, I see no use in continually challenging your assertions with facts and points, only to have you come back with psychobabble gibberish. If you think that Ralph Nader being on the ballot, thanks to republicans, is a good thing, please, do tell and back it up. Frankly, from where I sit, he's a destructive idiot, and yeah, I'm appalled that some of his "progressive" supporters don't seem to have any problem with ol' Ralph shilling at, quote, "Tractor Pulls" to get laughing conservatives to sign petitions to get him on the ballot--- all with the stated intention of re-electing Bush. Are my "feelings hurt"? No. But four more years of Bush because Ralph Nader can't get his damn ego out of the way is going to hurt a lot more than just my feelings.

If Ralph Nader or his supporters want to "work together", he can drop out of the race. Skimming 3-6% off of Kerry's numbers in battleground states is not "working together".

[saracat]

51. Since when are Nader people working with Democrats?

I verified the Nader signatures in Arizona and the only valid signatures he had were from Republicans .There were scores of petitions signed by Republican Precinct Committee persons in an organized effort.Now why would that be so, if Nader was to be of benefit to Kerry in a swing state?
Thank God those were the only valid signatures.75% of his signatures were phony, but pristine principled Ralphie and his repug friends didn't care .He filed them anyway because all that was important was that he be on the ballot, even if he couldn't get enough support to be there. Fits well with his lying about withdrawing and throwing his support to Gore if 2000 was close, doesn't it? You have such a problem with the war vote that it never occurs to you that if Ralphie had kept his word, we wouldn't have gone to war! In fact it matters so little to you, that not only can you forgive Ralpie for putting a fruitloop in the Wh that he KNEW would start a war, that you are willing to let him do it again.It might be counter productive to you, but the Naderites are almost as evil as the repugs, probably more so because they KNOW what they are doing and hide behind a liberal facade, in order to destroy this country.

[sendero]

82. There's quite ...

... a difference between "hurt feelings" and rage against idiots. One that is apparently beyond your ken.

Good luck on Democratic Underground.

[RichM]

7. Excuse me. Trotsky was second to no one in his opposition to Hitler.

He was way ahead of almost everyone in perceiving the danger that Hitler represented.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1930-ger/index.htm

[Jerseygirltoo]

13. mea culpa

I didn't know much about Trotsky. But my dad was from Hamburg so the big fight I remember him telling me about must have been the one in July 1932 in your timeline

[BillZBubb]

8. No, it's not a myth.

The communists and socialists wouldn't work together. The communists had to remain "pure". Stalin wanted it that way.

[JSJ]

15. the only thing 'pure' in your post is the bullshit- reread the history

The communists were the first and last to battle Hitler's brownshirts on the streets of Munich and Berlin.

[Beloved Citizen]

17. A cite that proves you horribly wrong.

From Ian Kershaw's "Hitler: 1889-1936 / Hubris" (pg 336)

"But (Hitler) could still be grossly underrated. The revolutionary writer Erich Muhsam, a veteran of the Munich Raterpublick, saw Hitler's victory as a 'true blessing' for the working class. All that was needed was to give the Nazis some ministerial responsiblity, and their true reactionary colours would alienate workers more rapidly than the Social Democrats in power had done. The real danger, in Muhsam's crass misjudgement, was the leadership of the DNVP, especially Hugenberg, 'the true leader of the fascist movement in Germany.'"

[Jerseygirltoo]

19. So he misunderestimated Hitler

He theorized that the German people would see how horrible Hitler was and turn on him. But in all his ACTIONS Muhsam opposed Hitler. Just like we theorize (and hope) that Bush's reign will turn the entire country to the left, against the Republicans. They were horribly wrong. I hope we are not.

[Beloved Citizen]

20. You're not quite there yet.

Sure. And in all his actions Nader claims to oppose Bush. But that doesn't stop him from dividing the anti-Bush vote and possibly giving this horrible individual an additonal 4 years to wreck the country and cause untold damage to the world an its people.

Sometimes consequences do outweigh any other considerations, you know.

History is filled with well-meaning fools. Their hearts could very well have been in the right place, but their actions caused untold harm. Nader could very well go down in history as one of the great all-time fools, you know. Right next to dear old Erich Muhsam. Then again, Muhsam only scribbled his nonsense, while the far more destructive Nader stood up and took direct action against the popular conception of reality.

So if you vote for Nader in hopes that Bush will be allowed a further opportunity to prove to the congenitally clueless how awful he and those who control him are, therefore somehow making the nation more friendly towards positions and politics you hold near and dear, then in 2008 we can look forward to a Nader presidency?

But what if 8 years of Bush isn't enough to turn the country to Mr. Nader? What if it takes 12 years? Or 16? or 32? I mean, how often will you take your principled stand against the Republican Party and return Bush to power? Forever?

Here's an interesting article you might wish to read. It is called "In Defense of Tactical Voting (Sometimes)." In it you can find the following statement: "Overreaching sometimes gets its comeuppance, but sometimes leads to disaster--as discovered by the German Communist Party with its slogan of 'after Hitler, us.' "

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=33&ItemID=5737

[Luminous Animal]

22. And if...

What if if 8 years isn't enough turn the country to the abolitionists? What if it takes 12 years? or 16? or 32?

What if if 8 years isn't enough turn the country to the suffragists? What if it takes 12 years? or 16? or 32?

What if if 8 years isn't enough turn the country to the labor unionists? What if it takes 12 years? or 16? or 32?

What if if 8 years isn't enough turn the country to the civil rights activists? What if it takes 12 years? or 16? or 32?

[Beloved Citizen]

23. Let me get this straight - You're equating support of John Kerry...

...to the opposition of such things as equal rights, civil rights, the labor movement, and anti-slavery?

Please tell me I've misunderstood the intent of your seemingly bizarre statement.

[Luminous Animal]

24. Sure!

Show me when Kerry has supported civil rights and I will show you the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act. which wiped out the Fourth Amendment. That is right, Kerry. et.al., illegally voted to rescind the 4th Amendment. Kerry and practicaly every other democrat destroyed the collective power of labor with NAFTA. They supported the WTO which renders any labor organization or movement impotent against the power of capital. And have you ever heard Kerry speak against slave labor that supply goods to U.S. companies?

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Jerseygirltoo]

26. You don't have to convince me

I agree with the article,and I believe in strategic voting. I plan to vote for Kerry, but I don't think we should waste any energy attacking Nader. He has a right to run too, and I don't believe 3rd party candidates should be excluded from debates. They raise issues that both major parties ignore.

[pschoeb]

59. Erich Muhsam - you mean the guy put in prison by the SPD govt.

from 1919-1924* for his role in the Bavarian Republic set up by the Independant Socialists(USPD)? The SPD controlled govt. that used Freicorps and had orders to shoot anyone with a gun? The split in the left happened in 1919, when the SPD essentially formed a govt. with the German Army commander dictatorship, to change Germany's Military Dictatorship into a sham democracy covering over Germany's Military Dictatorship.

During the 1920 right wing Kapp Putsch it was the workers who got rid of the Putsch, because the SPD could do nothing else, as the Military said they were uninterested in helping. If it wasn't for the workers strikes I'm sure Germany would have been a Fascist state in 1920, as the Kapp group was similar to what happened in Italy just 1 year later.

Nothing happened to General Erich Ludendorff, who would later be involved in Hitler's 1923 Putsch and the first Nazi in the Reichstag, despite his major role as part of the Kapp Putsch. Ludendorf also ran as the Nazi's first Presidential candidate. It was Ludendorff that got Thyssen interested in Hilter and the NSDAP. Two Putsch's, one a very major one, no jail time, it's crap like this that allowed the Nazi's rise to power.

Nothing happened to the members of the Erhardt Brigade, one of the Kapp Putsch main fighting groups who wore swastikas as their symbol. Members from this group formed Organisation Consul, which perpetrated many assasinations of left wingers in the 1920's. The truth of the Weimar Republic, was that you could attempt multiple right wing coups, and get mere slaps on the wrists at worst.

On wonders why he didn't much care for the SPD or the DNVP(nationalist party), and why he put more faith in worker action.


*his imprisonment was protested strongly, which is why he was finally released, his sentence was for much longer. Muhsam was a minor player in the Bavarian Republic, yet was sentenced to a very long prison stay. Hitler in 1923 after being the HEAD of a Putsch to take over Bavaria, recieved 9 months.

[Beloved Citizen]

61. Good point, but...

Muhsam probably didn't have much love for the SPD, just like Nader types don't particularly care for Democrats. But it still doesn't explain his odd belief that a Nazi govt would lead to a leftwing renaissance in Germany.

Strikes me as being almost as wacky as Nader types saying that Bush being president will make the country appreciate their point of view. A notion that begs the question: Then why is it that after 4 years of Bush rule Nader has yet to show any appreciable rise in support?


"After Hitler, us." The German Communist Party shortly before they were boxed up and shipped off to concentration camps.

[pschoeb]

66. You can't compare the SPD to the Democrats

or Germany's Reichstag to US Govt, that's your problem. The Weimar was a sham democracy, The German Military was the Elephant that everyone ignores. The Riechstag only served at the German Military's whim, the Reichstag was needed to keep the West appeased so Germany could restrengthen itself. By the 1930's it was obvious the West no longer cared if Germany got rid of it's sham Reichstag. Well over half (63%)the people of Germany were against democracy, and for military dictatorship/monarchism of some kind during 1932. The German Military commanders policies had been the same as the Nazis(sans as overt anti-semitism) since 1918, yet the SPD had no problem giving them a nice front all those years.

The Nazi Party was not a major party in Germany until 1932, unlike the Republicans who are a longstanding party. The Kapp Putsch, was taken out by workers strikes in four days, and what followed was a more leftist policy, and rising worker agititation, because the Military command knew it was still to weak from the ravages of WWI.

The KPD(communist party) was not some minor third party(like Nader) in 1932, it was almost as popular as the SPD, with growing membership, unlike the SPD's dwindling membership. The KPD still got 81 Reichstag seats in march 1933, despite the Riechstag fire propoganda and the mass arrest of KPD leaders. Finally the SPD still had more control of unions than the KPD, but never called for workers strikes in 1933 when the KPD was abolished and imprisoned and the Enabling act was passed. The KPD called for strikes.

In 1932 General von Schleicher(right wing military authoritarian), was trying to form non-parliamentary, authoritarian but semi-participatory regime, with a coalition of SPD, Strassor's portion of the NSDAP and Catholic labor unions. He failed to have success, but all these groups participated in negotiations, obviously the SPD cared little for even the veneer of parliamentary proceadures by participating in this sham.

With 63% percent popular support for Dictatorship(since about 1928), the only hope was worker strikes and overt opposition, yet the SPD leadership did not support this, despite many of SPD grassroots supporting it.

Muhsam by the way, was not in the KPD, nor was he a communist. He felt that the fascists(both NSDAP and DNVP) needed to be confronted head on, because there was already majority support for military dictatorship of some kind. The grassroots labor people wanted to go all out, but were often restrained by both the SPD leadership and to a lesser extant the KPD leadership. He was arrested a few hours after the Reichstag fire.

If 63% of Americans actually wholeheratedly supported an end to democracy, I think worring about elections as opposed to more overt confrontation would be stupid.

[Beloved Citizen]

83. Right.

As informative as the information you've posted here is, it still doesn't in any way explain or excuse Muhsam's belief that a Nazi seizure of power in Germany would help the leftwing cause. A political miscalculation of historic proportions, and one that has made his otherwise illustrious name synonymous with idiocy.

Nor, for that matter, does any of what you've said here explain how dividing the anti-Bush vote helps the progressive cause in America.

But I have enjoyed reading what you have to say.

[pschoeb]

79. Would you happen to know what Ian Kershaw lists as the primary source

for this thought? I don't have Hubris so if you could help me with the cite, I would really appreciate it. The reason I ask is that Hitler's victory came in January 1933 when he is named Chancellor, but Muhsam is arrested in Febuary. I'm not sure he would have had time to write anything that would have survived about how he felt about Hilters victory. I wonder if Ian Kershaw is not taking things out of context?

[TeacherCreature]

27. I am postive Nader wants bush to win

He has said that democrats have to loose a few more elections since they didn't get the message the first time (to paraphrase).

[mondo joe]

41. But not too pure to take anti-gay $

"As far as Nader goes, I don't think he wants Bush to win, it's just that he considers himself so pure, he doesn't want to compromise any of his positions to vote for Kerry."

Maybe he considers himself pure enough to burn off the taint of GOP support and anti gay $.

[mzmolly]

44. The left vote was split in Nazi-Germany, thus the Nazi's elected Hitler

with only 17% of the vote. The mantra on the left at that time in Germany was "it has to get worse, before it gets better."

Sound familiar?

Yeah, it got WORSE alright.

[Beloved Citizen]

47. The Nader Fallacy: By Hurting The Left We Make It Stronger.

And if anyone questions the assertion, deny it.

[mzmolly]

48. Ain't it interesting though?

*sigh*

[pschoeb]

69. Nazi's had 33% of the vote

And the combined left, KDP and SPD had less than 37%. The rest was held by other right wing parties like NDVP, who were actual foes of democracy.

Hitler wasn't elected, he recieved the overly powerfull position of Chancellor as part of a coalition government, and then was given emergency powers by President Hindenburg, because of the crappy way the sham Weimar constitution was written. The KDP and SDP could have never formed a majority govt., and none of the other parties would join in a coalition, if the KDP was involved. So you had a three way split

33% Nazi

30% Right Wing Military Dictatorship parties

37% SPD and KPD

The SPD was about 15% of the above, even if they had formed a coalition with the 30% right wing non-nazi, they were short a majority and these groups would never form a coalition that involved the KPD, and really weren't that keen on the SPD anyway.

[Luminous Animal]

4. No shit!

And they hate the republican party too.. By the way, Kerry's campaign has accepted over a million dollars of campaign contributions from the same folks who have contributed 40 times as much to the rebublicans.

To be clear: Nader, $25,000 from repulican donors; Kerry $1,000,000.00.

[BillZBubb]

6. And exactly why are you on the "Democratic" underground?

Apparently you feel like apologizing for a Repug stooge and attacking Kerry help the Democratic cause?

[Luminous Animal]

9. Forgive me

I thought that "Democrat" was an ideology not a cult of personality.

[Forkboy]

10. small "d"

and why dont you refute it? :shrug: What's more important,the truth or agreement?

[depakid]

11. You might address the issue

rather than calling the poster an apologist. Really, it's not that hard to do....

[JSJ]

16. good point for the Nader-baiters to remember n/t

[TeacherCreature]

30. Kerry is not taking those donations to elect bush, but nader is.

That is the difference.

[mondo joe]

43. Big difference

There's a big difference between corporations donating to both major candidates and far-right groups donating to a spoiler.

[mzmolly]

46. Exactly!

:hi:

[mzmolly]

45. Got the hard cold numbers on this?

I don't consider all corporations "Republican minded."

Also, isn't the point of Nader's run to offer an alternative to the underhanded bullshit in Washington?

[SayitAintSo]

12. Just heard on CNN that the Pukes were a little worried @ Nader

The thought here is that mad Pukes may vote Nader as a protest vote - especially with all the help the pukes are now public ally giving him - I would love it if this backfires on them big-time :bounce:

[Warren DeMontague]

31. I think there ought to be a law

that if you sign to get someone on the ballot, you have to vote for him or her.

[SayitAintSo]

36. Good point ! Hard to enforce tho' n/t

[noiretextatique]

70. what a f'ng concept: nader may take votes from bush

:think:

[Proud2BAmurkin]

14. Nader finkies are bedwetting college students

n/t

[WindRavenX]

21. This college student does NOT support Nader

Nor does this college student wet her bed :P
A vote for Nader is a vote for W. Nader is an enabler of Bush.

[Kahuna]

18. Absolutely. How much more proof do we need?

:shrug: With "friends" like them who needs enemies?

[jmags]

42. Anyone who will still vote Nader is

to put it in the simplest terms possible - a fucking idiot.

While I didn't vote for Nader in 2000, I understood why there were those that did (especially in non-swing states). But after all that has come out with Nader's GOP ties, and all that the Bush camp has done to our country over the past 4 years, how you could possibly take the chance of voting for a GOP stooge when so much is at stake?

And how is Nader "pure", when he is backed by so many hardcore GOPers?

There's nothing pure about it. He's a stooge. Anyone still dumb enough to follow him deserve what they get. But the rest of us don't.

[LarryBaker]

52. Yeah, that certainly furthers the discourse,

calling more or less like-minded people "fucking idiots". I've been lurking around this board for a while, and one thing that gets me is the opposition to third parties and specifically Nader. Nader's VP-candidate said this a while ago:

"Much of what we see in America, what most people feel has been progress and good things, have been brought about by the existence of third parties. And it's been always a battle to try and open up the electoral system. Think about this, the Democrats voted for the Patriot Act, only one senator voted against it. They voted a resolution of unequivocal support for George Bush in the war with Iraq when Bush gave his 2003 and his 2004 State of Union address they gave him repeated standing ovations. A little less in 2004 and they still gave him 18 standing ovations. We don't agree with George Bush and I think millions and millions of Americans don't agree with George Bush, tens of millions. And the fact that we run, many people will say since we don't have free elections here, we don't have a runoff, even though I want to vote for the Greens, I'm going to vote Democrat. We understand that. We are not angry at them. We understand what leads them to that. But there are hundreds of thousands of young people, especially in America, our vote is heavily weighed towards younger people, who will say: "You know what, I'm fed up with all of this. If the Democrats can't even come out for free elections, I'm not going to vote for them ever again." And those people have the right to cast their ballot, that's the great thing about elections. It's a chance for citizens to tell the world, tell the rest of the nation, tell the other citizens, where they stand. And those who decide to vote for a third party are sending a very powerful message. Therefore, it's not a wasted vote at all."

This makes perfect sense to me. The Democrats are in large part just "repubs-light". I'm sick of the two-party system, and I'm sick of Democrats and Republicans screwing the little guy over, making deals behind closed doors. To vote for something I don't believe in, that would REALLY be throwing away my vote. And if enough people dared take this step, then there really WOULD be change.

(And before you all begin spewing your hatred over this fucking-idiot-Naderite, let me just tell you I will probably not vote for Nader, but for David Cobb.)

[NoPasaran]

53. Vote for Nader, vote for Cobb, vote for Bozo the Clown

The only vote that does anything to remove the Bush tyranny is a vote for Kerry. ANd anyone who doesn't see that is a fucking idiot.

[LarryBaker]

58. Well...

I don't see much sense in arguing with anyone who calls me a fucking idiot, but anyhow... Talk about a destructive movement, this ABB thing. What happened to fighting for things you believe in? I saw some posts in another thread that really made me shake my head. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=691612)

"Perhaps he's marginally better on domestic issues -- we in the belly of the monster will be more comfortable. But not to worry. He'll be as ruthless an emperor as Boy Bush. For me the pivotal, moral issue of our time is IRAQ -- and if he can't find the right side of that divide, he's not worth it. I was precinct walking for this man -- but I don't think I can anymore. I have compromised all I can and still have a spec of integrity left. I was willing to sell myself for the ABB, but the price just got too, too high!!"

"He is probably the most disappointing democratic candidate of my lifetime. And most of the people in my Democratic Club agree -- we have to hold our noses to work for him. I have been working for him, giving money to him and raising lots of money to get out the vote where I live. But I grow sick at heart -- everyday there is some fresh assault from the Kerry campaign."

"By the way, just who in the Democratic party does Kerry represent, I mean he leaves the progressives in the party high and dry -- and he's even too hawkish and Bush like for the moderate dems in my local club -- so just who or what faction is he speaking to?? Does he really think he's going to win over Repuke votes??"

"I will vote for Kerry, but I have to hold my nose to do so at this point. People are calling in to my local radio show saying many of the same things...'Kerry is too vague'. Kerry said he would never send men and women into war for no good reason and only as a last resort. He keeps changing his tone. Edwards is more on the ball but he seems to be upstaging Kerry more and more which is unusual."

"He supports staying in Iraq, giving Israel the settlements and all of Jerusalem, and replacing Hugo Chavez with a neoliberal. His foriegn policy is the neocon foreign policy and he his advisors on foriegn policy are members of the pnac themselves."

Is THIS what you are fighting for?? Kerry and Bush are but two sides of the same coin. I would probably have voted for Kucinich, but this guy? No way. I'm giving my vote to the one who best speaks for me, and at the same time telling BOTH Kerry and Bush to go F themselves. You are obviously so blinded by this ABB-thing that the only thing you can do is calling people who don't support you fucking idiots. I can't say it makes my respect for your "cause" grow stronger.

[dumpster_baby]

54. It was NOT a miscalculation--Germany turned left after Hitler

Now Germany is a peaceful nation with such a strong welfare state that many ignorant freepers now call it "socialist", although of course it is not....

[GCP]

60. RE "It was NOT a miscalculation--Germany turned left after Hitler"

Oh, so we have to go through a world war and have 20 million people dead at the end of it so we can at last get what we want?

I sincerely hope this post of yours was offered in a spirit of irony.:wtf:

[CWebster]

55. Yet I'll bet y'all are more likely to agree with Nader on the issues

than Kerry, whose views are closer to the Bush crowd.

And people wonder how it is that the Repugs can get folks to vote against their own interests.

[DaveSZ]

56. Nader Says He'll Now Accept Signatures Collected by GOP

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0720-06.htm

Published on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 by the Associated Press
Nader Says He'll Now Accept Signatures Collected by GOP


LANSING, Mich. — In an about face, Ralph Nader decided Monday to accept thousands of petition signatures collected by Michigan Republicans if that is the only way he can qualify for the state's presidential ballot.

Last Thursday, Michigan Republican Party officials submitted 43,000 signatures -- far more than the 30,000 needed -- to ensure Nader could appear on the ballot as an independent.

Republicans began collecting signatures after it appeared that Nader might not get on the ballot as the Reform Party's candidate for president.

Nader's campaign had turned in about 5,400 signatures. But spokesman Kevin Zeese said it stopped collecting them a month ago after the national Reform Party endorsed Nader and it looked as though he could get on the ballot as its candidate.

-more

[DaveSZ]

57. "Yet I'll bet y'all are more likely to agree with Nader on the issues"

Yes, isn't our political system great?

We get to vote for a fascist, a fascism enabler, or a fascism enabler.

[MadHound]

62. And judging by the reaction to Nader by the Democratic Party

I would say that the Dems actually hate democracy and the democratic process. Listening to all of the tactics that the Dems are using to keep Nader off of the ballot, it just amazes me. Don't they realize that all of the manuevers they use now, all of the legal precedents they set now trying to keep Nader off of the ballot this year will come back to bite them in the ass in the future.

Say in the next few election cycles we have a repeat of the '92 election, wherein an independent arises who will take votes off of the Republicans. Yes the 'Pubbies, using the very same actions that the Dems are using now, manage to keep the independent off of the ballot, and thus, the Dems lose. Remember, it was Perot who split the right wing vote and enabled the Clinton win. What if Perot had not been able to get on the ballot?

Then there is the very simple matter that these type of shanigans are fundementally undemocratic at their very heart. We are a society and government that welcomes, even encourages whoever wants to to run for whatever office they wish. Trying to stifle a candidate at the courthouse rather than the ballot box is fundementally undemocratic, and should be below the Dems. Sad to say, apparently the Democratic leadership appears to only believe in democracy and democratic processes when it only benefits them.

[mzmolly]

63. Dean said these tactics are used all the time against other Democrats

to *ensure* democracy via legitimate signatures. It's nothing NEW. Nader's just playing the victim ... again.

[MadHound]

64. Puhleeze friend, here, pull my other finger

These tactics are rarely used against ANY candidate, unless they are percieved to be a threat. Going through petition sheets, bringing matters into courts, this is all too time and money consuming to be used except under circumstances that are percieved to be dire. And still and all, these type of things can very well turn around and bite the Dems in the ass in the future. Do you want that to happen?

Instead of engaging in legal tricks and petition shananigans, why not just let Ralph run, and beat him at the ballot box. Co-opt a couple of his top issues and make them part of the Democratic platform. Hell, it isn't like he's going to be getting much airtime, free or otherwise. With a small campaign budget, and both major parties conspiring to once again keep him out of the debates and out of the spotlight, Ralph is not much of a threat.

Besides, it really looks bad, the incredible lengths that the Democrats are going to subvert democracy.

[mzmolly]

72. So Dean lied? He said signatures are challenged all the time in

the primary process.

I believe Dean.

[MadHound]

76. Did Dean, or any other "mainstream" candidate have to endure

Every single signature being photocopied and checked by an opposition party? Did any other "mainstream" candidate have to endure court challenges? Did any "mainstream" candidate have opposition parties ganging up in order to prevent open debates? No, these tactics are only pulled out when there is some threat percieved by the two "mainstream" parties, when someone decided to challenge the status quo.

These tactics and legal precedents could come back and bite the Dems. It is also a fundementally UNdemocratic practice. Instead of trying to exclude Nader, snag a couple of his big issues and make them part of the Dem platform. Then not only will you beat Nader, but you will retain the left wing of the party by showing how responsive the party is to their needs(something that hasn't happened in decades:eyes:)

[mzmolly]

81. Poor Lil Ralphie.

*snif snif* :cry:

Sorry, I don't by it. Yes the other candidates ENDURED. Though no two candidates endure the same thing, I don't think anyone endured more then Dean himself. And, being Dean is a man of integrity who said "Ralph, your playing the vicim here, this is common practice, Democrats do it to one another all the time" I believe him. There are companies that specialize in verifying signatures for election purposes ... it didn't start with Poor lil' Ralph In fact, it's been a part of our DEMOCRACY for some time now.

Ross Perot faced similar challenges.

In fact, a quick google search turned up this story of a Repug challenging the signatures of his competetor. :wow:

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special06/articles/0624challenges24.html

Ballot challenges await courts

Robbie Sherwood
The Arizona Republic
Jun. 24, 2004 12:00 AM

Some of the state's most competitive political races could be decided in court rather than at the polls.

Senate President Ken Bennett and four other incumbent legislators will join more than a dozen candidates for the statehouse, county seats and Corporation Commission defending themselves in Superior Court against challenges to their nomination petitions.

Allegations include claims of petitions with signatures from unregistered voters and voters who live in other districts, and petitions signed by circulators who allegedly did not witness the signatures.

"It's not too much to ask that your competitor play by the rules," said Rep. John Allen, R-Phoenix, who is challenging the petitions of his incumbent competitor, Rep. Deb Gullett

Common .... place ... Ralph. :nopity:

PART of our democracy is built upon ensuring that petition signatures are LEGIT, perhaps he should study our system before attempting to educate others on it?

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/VerifSigs.htm

[pschoeb]

68. For Presidential Primaries, not all require signatures

Most states allow the Secretary of State to place people on the ballot who are “generally advocated” by news media as candidates for registered parties, also anyone advoctaed by state party chairpersons do not need signatures. There are no signatures required for these procedures. If you can't get on via Secretary of State or State Chairperson, then you need signatures, the number is based on how many registered persons of that party exist in the State. For example in Michigan you would need 9,949 as a Democrat, 7,407 as a Republican, 1,684 for Reform.

It's much easier to get on a party presidential primary via signatures, than as an independant candidate in any State, where the qualifaction is often always over 30,000 signatures. That is why crazy man Lyden LaRouche always runs for President in the Democratic primaries.

[mzmolly]

73. Perhaps crazy Nader should pull a LaRouche?

;)

[noiretextatique]

71. excellent post..."democrats against democracy."

is the phrase i've coined for this mindset...

[Forkboy]

74. D.A.D. Strikes Back!

Rated Y

[noiretextatique]

77. Y indeed

:hi: i posted a thread called "the final solution for nader voters," where i proposed a solution for pesky voters who won't vote for one of the two "legitimate" parties.
unfortunately, the moderators didn't like my sense of humor :D

[Forkboy]

78. I wish I had seen that one

I LOVE your sense of humor...it's just like mine :)

[Endangered Specie]

65. Care to wager who has given more $$$ to Naders campaign?

Reps or Dems?

[Tight_rope]

67. Fuck Nader...he's not helping the people of America...he's hurting us!

[Forkboy]

75. Face it, Nader and his little finkies hate the Democratic Party

Yeah,and the Dems are just oozing with love back at him. :eyes:

[Darranar]

80. So what? The question is whether they hate the GOP more. n/t