Nader: "Democrats are chronic whiners"

[Jackson4Gore]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031109/ap_on_el_pr/people_nader_1MADISON, Wis. - Former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader (news - web sites) called Democrats "chronic whiners" for continuing to accuse him of spoiling the 2000 presidential election for Al Gore (news - web sites).



"They should realize that the retrospect on Florida concluded Gore won Florida," the consumer activist told the Wisconsin State Journal on Saturday. "It was stolen from the Democrats. And they should concentrate on the thieves and the blunderers in Florida, not on the Green Party."

A media-sponsored review of more than 175,000 disputed ballots found that Gore would have won by a small margin if there had been a complete statewide recount. President Bush (news - web sites) won Florida, and thus the White House, by 537 votes out of more than 6 million cast.

Nader, in town for a speech at the National Conference on Media Reform at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, noted that 300,000 registered Democrats in Florida voted for Bush.

"I think the Democrats can be fairly charged with chronic whining, and they ought to look at themselves first and foremost," Nader said.

[Fixated]

1. .....

Nader needs to go back into his hole. He campaigned in swing states, and he lost us more than Florida.

[flpoljunkie]

61. Lying bastard! He got over 98,000 votes in Florida after saying he would

not campaign in states that were so close they might go to Bush. He lied! The rich, santimonious, tightwad son of a bitch can go to hell!

[Bread and Circus]

73. Big whoopty do...

Nader is nothing but an over-rated consumer advocate.

[UTUSN]

93. NADIR Is a Chronic Gadfly-in-the-Ass n/t

[info being]

134. whiner

.

[La_Serpiente]

2. All I gotta say

is that I am over what happened in 2000. We just gotta move past that.

[The Zanti Regent]

96. My nephew will NEVER be over it

Thanks to Nader, he got sent to Iraq.

He came back with a severed spine below the neck, a quadraplegic for the rest of his life. He's 23, his life is ruined.

TELL HIM TO GET OVER IT!

[bobbieinok]

99. email this to Nader

,,,,

[info being]

135. Sorry, but you are scapegoating

.

[Skittles]

3. um

Nader can f*** himself.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Jackson4Gore]

6. My thought exactly!

[Padraig18]

16. Careful!

Someone will suggest that you are advocating that RN be raped, and lecture you sternly and soberly about political violence. :P

[bearfartinthewoods]

110. well since the remark has been pulled i can finally say what i have been

wanting to say for months.

people who make off handed comments about rape as a tool of revenge give me the creeps. i struggled for a word other than creeps because its use may seem to trivialize the issue. regrettably, it's the best word to sum up how i feel about people willing to say or write such invectives. where does that come from, i wonder? what kind of mind zooms onto a wish for an opponant that includes rape.

this may get pulled. i hope not since the post to which i am referring has been purged so the identity of the guilty has been protected. i just had to say that if i heard someone i knew say
something that could even be contrued as wishing rape on someone else i would avoid that person like the plague.

[carrowsboy]

5. hypocrite

A whiner whining about whiners.

[jeter]

8. That will be his line in 2004

When/if he runs. And the GOP will use it at their convention.

Dems are "whiners about the economy."

Dems are "whiners about Iraq."

Thanks Ralph for making retard President. Twice.

I have no idea how Nader supporters can defend this guy.

[RapidCreek]

63. Did Nader make 300,000 registered Democrats in Florida

vote for Bush? Tell me who is responsible for that....then you can whine about Nader, OK?

Democratic whiners need to take a look into the fucking mirror before they start pointing fingers.

You guys are hilarious....you advocate aping neocon policy to attract the middle and expect the left to go your way out of some sort of blind loyalty. Those who you sought to attract with your rightward arabesque voted for a neocon who calls himself one...just as the left told you they would do. Now you whine because the Greens didn't help you inspite of being disenfranchised and derided. Tell you what....seek to appeal to the Neocon again and you'll lose again...and again...and again. Blame it on whomever you like...but you'll still lose.

When you go to the party, you dance with who brung ya. When you decide to dance with the captain of the football team cause it'll increase your popularity...don't be surprised when he dumps your sorry ass and goes home with the captain of the cheer leading squad...and don't whine when the fella who brung ya, dumps you and takes home the lady who gave him her attention.

Or am I not understanding that I should be flattered by the opportunity to take a girl to the dance that is popular enough to score a dance with the big man on campus and leaves me sittin in the stag line, while she bestows upon me that honor?

Sorry, fickle whining bitches....I got no time for. They can thumb their asses home.

RC

[Gman]

65. You must be a Greenie. Greens are the enemy of all working people

in this country.

[RapidCreek]

66. Wow that was really deep

Thanks for sharing with me, your staggering intellect. :puffpiece:

RC

[Bread and Circus]

70. Nader's platform: no difference between tweedledee and...

tweedledum. So basically he lied or was ignorant
in 2000.

One phrase:

ban on late term abortion

----

and there's so much more.

I really dis-respect Nader and have since he weaseled
away after helping get Bush elected.

He's pathetic.

[bowens43]

91. Facts are facts

if Nader hadn't been on the ballot in Florida , Gore would be President, 9/11/2001 would have been just another boring day, our troops wouldn't be waging war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the surplus would be paying down the deficit etc etc.

Sounds like to me like you're feeling a bit guilty. Are you a florida green?

[Terwilliger]

95. The only guilt is the DLC Democrats who EVEN TODAY are shilling for Pukes

stop blaming Greens for your problems

stop blaming Nader for raising the alarm

[RapidCreek]

157. Actually I'm a South Dakota Independent

Who voted for Gore. Facts are facts, if over 300,000 Florida Democrats hadn't voted for George Bush, and the votes of those who didn't had been counted, Al Gore would be President. It's pretty cowardly and irresponsible to blaim Greens for your own failure. Not a quality I care to be associated with. Perhaps it is one you admire?

Sounds to me like you're feeling a bit guilty. Are you a Florida Democrat who voted for Bush? Or maybe a Florida Democrat who thought Gore was such a "good sport" when he shook Bush's hand and congratulated him....for violating the sanctity of the American electoral process?

Why is it you whine more about Greens who voted their conscience than Democrats who voted for Bush? Would you explain that? Really I'd love to hear it. Why do Greens owe Gore their vote any more than Democrats? Particularly when the Democratic nominee didn't even have the balls to debate their candidate, in fact, actually sought to prevent him from participating in debates, thereby disenfranchising and marginalizing the Green parties constituency?

The more I hear Democratic whiners whine, the more I believe Nader was right. Like I said in the post above, you dance with who brung ya. That post is a real simple description of what has happened and why it has happened....I find it odd that you didn't address it. If you court assholes they will entertain it....but they won't go home with you.....and neither will the folks who find your courting of assholes a rather repugnant sort of behavior. They certainly won't when you cry and whine that your getting jilted is their fault. Keep being fickle whiners and keep losing. I'm sure the Republicans will love you for it.

RC

[info being]

136. And you're a whiner, whining about a whiner, whining about...

whiners.

[wryter2000]

7. This man is a disgrace

Why don't you just back Bush, for pity's sake, Nadir?

[morgan2]

9. look at you all crying about nader still

fairly pathetic. You have to realize his goals are not yours, live with it. He didn't cost Gore the election any more than Pat Buchanan did. Stop displacing your anger for the crimes that you have no hope of prosecuting that occured in Florida onto Nader.

[Fixated]

13. ....

What are you talking about? He was one of the reasons we lost Florida (And other states, and many local offices). His goals aren't mine, but neither are the Republicans'. That has nothing to do with it.

[Cheswick2.0]

15. he cost plenty

he lied to supporters to get on the ballot. He campaigned exclusively against Gore (in swing states where he promised not to campaign)and he is an asshole. If he dropped dead today I wouldn't shed a single tear. The man is a pathetic egomaniac and many of his followers are incapable of original thought. All they do is parrot his stupid rationalizations.

I think he is slightly insane...maybe more tahn slightly.

[dansolo]

36. Nader's goal is the destruction of the Democratic Party

So why shouldn't we be pissed at him. His actions are contrary to the stated purpose of this web site:

"We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals."

[morgan2]

46. lies

his goals are non partisan. He does not care whether its a green or a democrat by name, the ideas are what matters. If the democrats will not be close enough to his ideas, why would he support them? why would anyone?

[BiggJawn]

69. Very true. He's not for one or the other.

He's "All About RALPH". And just wants to bring the whole thing down. Matters not if it's Dem or ReTHUG, he just wants to crash it so he can say "Told ya so!"

He is starting to remind me of a naive teen-ager who thinks Anarchy would "just be so fuckin' KEWL, Man!"

He could redeem himself if he's quit politics and rag on SUV's like he did the Beetle and the Corvair.

[sangh0]

141. Nader is VERY PARTISAN

as the following quotes show:

"Regarding Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Paul Wellstone (D-MN), Nader said that he is willing to sacrifice them because "that's the price they're going to have to bear for letting their party go astray."
In an interview with In the Times, 10-30-2000"

"On a different occasion, Nader offered reserved support for Feingold. Feingold has even remarked that Nader is pushing for issues that more Democrats should be talking about. The mutual admiration, however, only goes so far. Nader rejects the idea of backing a Feingold run for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination. "I'll say a lot of good things about him, but we're not trying to build the same party," he says. -- Common Dreams 2-25-2002"

"Nader was quoted in Mother Jones magazine as saying that "(Rush) Holt deserves to lose." July 2001, Mother Jones magazine.
Holt, however, has a 100% voting record rating from Americans for Democratic Action, and many other liberal organizations."

More words of wisdom from Nader at: http://www.damnedbigdifference.org/quotes

"Let's see what really happens. Ashcroft is going to be a prisoner of bureaucracy." -- Common Dreams 4-03-2001"

"Nader said that a Gore presidency "wouldn't have been any different in terms of military and foreign policy, soft on corporate crime. It wouldn't have been any different in ignoring the need to transfer our country to renewable energy and organic agriculture and protecting the small farmer. And it wouldn't have been any different on GATT and NAFTA and the increasing trade deficits and exporting American jobs." -- Green Party USA 1-14/02"

In a recent Time magazine interview, when asked if he felt any regret about the 2000 election, Nader responded, "No, because it could have been worse. You could have had a Republican Congress with Gore and Lieberman." -- Time magazine, 8-05-02

Nader on Bush* stealing the election:

"I'm just amazed that people think I should be concerned about this stuff. It's absolutely amazing. Not a minute's sleep do I lose, about something like this - because I feel sorry for them. It's just so foolish, the way they have been behaving. Why should I worry?" -- Common Dreams 4-03-2001

[snoochie]

54. Thank you.

For that small bit of calm, reasonable thinking.

[Aidoneus]

10. time for the Two Minutes' Hate already?

well, ok...

TRAITOR! TRAITOR! ARGH! SPIT! HISS! BOO! BOO! TRAITOR! TRAITOR! BOO!

whew, that was refreshing..

[Room101]

39. LOL - The two minute hate

:)

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[bicentennial_baby]

17. That's disgusting

and very far from funny. :puke:

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[slaveplanet]

12. don't be fooled again

Darth Nader: Ralph Nader’s Politics of Hypocrisy (Two 30-minute segments.)
1.            In this most closely decided election, the small percentage of the vote garnered by Green Party candidate Ralph Nader did, as some critics had warned it would, prove to have decisive impact. A vote for Nader was indeed a vote for Bush, particularly in Florida. (Nader got more than 90,000 votes in Florida.)
2.            This program illuminates some aspects of Nader’s financial and professional history that have escaped popular attention. The broadcast begins with an article by Martin Kilian, a charter member of the Green Party in Germany. Kilian penned a critical analysis of the Nader candidacy that was posted on the Consortium’s web site. (consortiumnews.com; 11/1/2000.)
3.            The Consortium is an association of alternative journalists. Kilian warned against the political immaturity of the Nader candidacy, failing to take into account both the nature of the American electoral system and the social and environmental consequences of a Bush presidency. (Idem.)
4.            The balance of the first side of the broadcast features an article about the hypocritical investment policy that Ralph Nader has executed. (“How Nader Profits While He Preaches” by Jeff McMahon; bushwatch.net/nader.htm; 10/27/2000.)
5.            Nader owns up to $250,000 worth of shares of Fidelity Magellan Fund, a firm that is heavily invested in many of the corporations that Nader has been most vocal in criticizing. (Idem.)
6.            Among those firms that Fidelity invests in are Halliburton oil, headed by Dick Cheney up until recently. Fidelity also invests in Occidental Petroleum, a firm that has been criticized by environmentalists. Al Gore’s mother’s trust owns a significant block of Occidental stock. Gore’s populist credentials have been impugned Nader Vice-Presidential candidate Winona La Duke because of that stock. (Idem.)
7.            The second side highlights disturbing aspects of Nader’s anti-labor activities, and his avoidance of social issues. (“1.75 Cheers for Ralph” by Doug Henwood; Left Business Observer; 10/1996 <#74>.)
8.            Next, the program turns to the effect a Bush administration will have on issues that are at the core of the Green/Nader campaign. (“The Last Green Mile” by Thomas L. Friedman; New York Times; 12/ 8/2000; p. A31.)
9.            The federal appointments that Bush will make are going to have an immensely negative impact on the interpretation of Federal regulations on the environment, in particular. (Idem.)
10.       The broadcast concludes with discussion of a federal appeals court decision that dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutional legitimacy of a Bush/Cheney ticket. (“Cheney Ruled a Resident of Wyoming” AP; Los Angeles Times; 12/8/2000; 12/8/2000.)
11.       Three of the four judges were appointed by President Bush, the other by Reagan. (Idem.)
12.       Program Highlights Include: Nader’s role in undermining airline and trucking workers in the 1970’s (“1.75 Cheers for Ralph” by Doug Henwood; Left Business Observer; 10/1996 <#74>.)
13.       Nader’s fight to prevent unionization in a publication he founded (Idem.).
14.       Nader’s alleged refusal to prevent publication of CIA/corporate collusion in his Multinational Monitor (Idem.).
15.       Nader’s role in effectively neutralizing a bigger union drive at Public Citizen (Idem.).
16.       Nader’s excessive secrecy about his own financial affairs (“How Nader Profits While He Preaches” by Jeff McMahon; bushwatch.net/nader.htm; 10/27/2000.).
17.       A detailed list of the various corporations Nader invest in and (hypocritically) criticizes at the same time. (Recorded on 12/10/2000.)
 
http://archive.wfmu.org:5555/archive/DX/ #264 a&b

[virtualobserver]

14. nader is right

The Republicans stole the election because Democrats were timid and cowardly.

[burrowowl]

19. Yup!

Al Gore is showing spine today on C-Span. Go Gore! Will this be seen other than on C-Span?
Why are Dems not raising hell about voting and trickery in Florida?
Why are DUers not more concerned about BBV?
Why can't many on DU not tell the difference between liberal and neo-liberalism, socialism and facism, free trade and fair trade, etc., etc.?
Why are more Duers for Dean who parallels Teddy Roosevelt, who proposed some reforms because the Capitalists were scared shitless, than for Kucinich who parallels FDR, who promoted REAL change?
Just asking.

[snoochie]

55. Excellent questions! n/t

[Terwilliger]

90. I'd love to see your line of questioning in its own thread

factually enough, there are some around here that can't answer your questions

They can certainly hate on Nader for bringing these things up, but they can't (or won't) address them :shrug:

[aquart]

198. And Ralphie split the ticket.

So that purists had somewhere to run when they believed the Rupublican/Green lies about Gore.

My favorite from a Green? "It doesn't matter who's president of the United States. The Democrats and Republicans are the same." The guy who said that I never spoke to again.

Me, I see a difference.

[Padraig18]

18. When RN becomes a Democrat, I *may* give a rip what he says/thinks.

:eyes:

[Room101]

20. This thread is proof Dems are "chronic whiners"

You guys get mad at Nader for calling you chronic whiners by Whining?
I think this thread should be put on the Onion web site. :silly:

[RichM]

22. He's exactly right. Democrats exhibit their babyishness & detachment

from reality, by refusing to acknowledge this elementary truth.

[Cheswick2.0]

59. not true at all Rich

sorry

[info being]

137. I totally agree with him

The whiney tendency of Dems makes me embarrassed to support them.

[JNelson6563]

23. Nader is a chronic whiner

with an ego that would rival Henry VIII.

He's outlived his usefulness. He should go somewhere and deal with his current realities.

Julie

[Terwilliger]

79. weak!

:shrug:

[Kahuna]

24. Up yerz Ralphie. Thousands dead to pacify your ego.

:puke:

[opihimoimoi]

26. Nader is a fucking asshole. a pox on his ass!!! would do fine

[Cooley Hurd]

25. Hey Nader...

...my Corvair almost killed me. Stick to what you know!

[sendero]

88. he didn't even know that....

He's a fraud from day one...

http://www.corvaircorsa.com/handling01.html

[qwertyMike]

27. I WOULD AGREE

but i think al has thawed out a bit


DON'T YOU???

[in_cog_ni_to]

28. Democrat:

"Nader is a fucking asshole!" :mad:

[Scott Lee]

29. Nader was right....evidence, check out all the antiDean moaning

Don't hate Nader for being right. Strive to prove him wrong in the future.

[info being]

138. This entire thread proves him right

Hillarious.

[Khephra]

30. It amazes me how similar Nader and Zell Miller are starting to

sound.

(notice that's not a whine, but an observation. ;-) )

[Terwilliger]

80. REALLY!?!?! DID RALPH NADER ENDORSE GEORGE W. BUSH???

khephra, I'm becoming disappointed

Democrats are actually closet Republicans (Lieberman, Miller, Breax, Bayh, etc.) and you say Nader sounds like them? Nader points out the problem and you shoot the messenger. Brilliant.

[Scott Lee]

162. Kerry and Gephardt stood by President War's side

Have you all forgotten this?

If this is an example of their "judgement", neither men should still be in Congress, let alone stumping for the Presidency.

[kodi]

31. so funny, so full of shit.

.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

32. Nader is Clinton's penis for Democrats

Just like the Republicans blame anything and everything on Clinton's penis, so the Democrats blame everything on Nader.

The man just said - you won Florida, you got 537 more votes than Bush, so why are you bitching about me?

Good question?

[ajacobson]

42. Folks, lets

stop fighting the last war. * pisses himself laughing when Dems and Greens fight.

Let's keep our eyes on the prize! * out in 04.

[RapidCreek]

56. No only some democrats

Mostly the ones who are whiners. The ones who can't take responsibility for the Florida Democrats that voted for Bush.

RC

[Cheswick2.0]

60. bullshit

clinton's penis never tried to ruin the country to prove a self indulgent point of view.

[Terwilliger]

190. so what was that whole lying thing

and having sex with someone not his wife in the fucking White House....NATIONAL SACRIFICE?

[fshrink]

33. There's a, probably carefully weighed, difference

between the substance of what he says, which is true and helpful (i.e. Gore dropped the ball), and how he says it, which is typical freeper rhetoric (e.g. bleeding heart). This single aspect could be seen as summing up his strategy as well: create a third party similar to the "center" so often seen in Europe, rather than an ecological alternative per se.

[sujan]

34. true

[populistmom]

35. While I have respect for much of the historical work of Nadar

I will not forget his line regarding "no difference". There is a difference and we are suffering right now because of that difference. Al Gore brilliantly illustrated that difference this afternoon.

[JackRiddler]

37. This thread is pure freeperville.

I see lots of "fuck-Nader" and points that are in no way pertinent to what he said. Reads like the "two minutes' hate" from 1984.

Nader said:

Gore won Florida and the Bushes stole it. So if the Democrats have anyone to blame it should be Bush first. When they instead turn on the vastly smaller Greens, this is indeed scapegoating and whining.

Why doesn't anyone answer that? Well, maybe because he's right.

So it's easier to yell, Fuck Nader.

When Democrats fight, they may actually find that they win. Otherwise, goodnight - even with ten endorsements and mea culpas from Ralph.

[jonnyblitz]

38. pretty pathetic isnt it...

silly DEMS. :eyes:

[JanMichael]

41. You're right. Why not invective toward the real enemy?

That would be Bush, and his Florida Cabal, that disenfranchised tens of thousands of Florida voters, mostly Black and mostly Dem.

I was pissed off at Nader and most Greens for months before I realized that I should be mad, furious, at myself for not campaigning more and for not confronting the Miami Brooks Brothers Rioters with serious aggression.

We are whiners when we spew hatred at the mouse and not the Elephant that's fucking up the World.

[Cheswick2.0]

62. exactly what I wanted to ask you all in 2000

the real enemy was bush, but nader and his voters attacked Gore. Why?

[Terwilliger]

89. Gore's not running in 2004....why?

Is there a reason? Other than "he felt like taking some time off"

The reason is that the same forces that Nader rails against were responsible for Gore's loss, and responsible for his decision not to run again.

But, hey, by all means...shoot the messenger.

[JanMichael]

113. "you all"? I'm not a Green.

I campaigned (lightly, that's the year I returned from Poland, I wasn't settled down), and voted, for Gore. So how would I know what their intentions were?

[Terwilliger]

128. you're worse

at least the Greens are capitalists :silly:

[Cheswick2.0]

58. wwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Nader is wrong and his points have been addressed here thousands of times. Just because you don't like what people have to say doesn't mean they aren't right.

Nader's an asshole. Everything that is wrong with Nader running this year was also wrong in 2000. If you think his campaigning against Gore did help cause bush to be president you are deluding yourself.
Freepers? No dear, we are democrats and Nader is the opposition.

[Terwilliger]

81. Democrats endorsed George Bush

in fact, Cheswick, I've seen no successful counter-argument to the claims he made in 2000. In fact, nearly the entire Dem field this year has complained about candidates who would be "Republican-lite"...did you think they got that line from Terry McAuliffe?

I'm surprised at you Cheswick...Nader is against the same forces in the Democratic party that immasculated Gore, and you're still bitching about it :shrug:

[Bread and Circus]

71. Nader's just wriggling off the hook...

It's genuine anger and contempt for someone who
could have been helpful to the left, instead he
has just been destructive. He is too arrogant to admit
it. Instead, he just pokes his finger in our eye.

[dusty64]

40. And nader is a chronic

asshole. Go away already ralph.

[CWebster]

43. He is right

of course.

[Cocoa]

44. Gore has moved on

he gave an excellent speech today about America, not a word about Nader.

[Woodstock]

45. Frankly Nader, I don't give a damn.

The man has no shame to have said these things. I'm not even going to bother to respond after this. He is low, low, low.

[MoonAndSun]

49. I think Ralph likes to see his name in lights........

and this the only way he can do that, is to bash Gore and the Dems at every opportunity. If he didn't, no one would ever care what he had to say ever again.

[demgrrrll]

50. If you don't start nothing, won't be nothing, Ralph started the invective

by accusing the Democrats of being whiners, which is hardly
a compliment. I think Ralph should clean out his own closet
before he starts talking about the Democrats. The thing that I
remember most is that John Conyers called him and asked him to
please back off and he said don't worry John you'll be chairman
of the judiciary commitee! Hardly a guy with a real firm grip
on reality. That being said I think he is a real nonentity at
this point. He isn't even a Green for gawds sake, why are Green'
s defending him? Let it go and let him fade into a well deserved obscurity.

[MoonAndSun]

53. I agree completely with you, demgrrrll........

please, Ralph, go away and fade into obscurity where you belong.

[Terwilliger]

83. you have no argument

just whining

Factually speaking, Ralph was right, and Dems can't stand to be shown up.

[jobycom]

51. He didn't cost Gore the election, but he sure tried to

THAT's why Democrats blame him. HE calls US whiners? Geeze. That's about as honest as him blaming Democrats for taking corporate money when he has lobbied Congress to prevent corporate disclosure of contributions, and when most of his millions come from corporate investments, some from corporations he was investigating. Uh-huh. Shakedown, Nader style.

Greens are great, Nader is a fraud. And a whiner. And just because he failed to cost Gore the election doesn't clear him of trying. If your best friend tries to seduce your wife, it doesn't make him better if she says no.

[Clark Can WIN]

52. Oh good Gawd

That means so much, coming from Nader...........

So now he's pro-Gore? The who me? Whoops look over there! Approach.

Does he really believe your average walking around Dem gives a rats ass about Ralph Nader? Get over yourself man.

[Dr Fate]

57. Nader is still talking about 2000? Not Gore or DEMS...

...DEMS seem to be more concerned w/ 2004, rather than 2000...Gore recently spoke about Bush's encroachment on civil liberties, and always talks about the issues of the day- Gore never really even brings up the 2000 election...To say that DEMS have been whining about 2000 reminds me of that "Sore Loserman" crap the republicans (greens?)orchestrated ...

...when Nader is done walking down memory lane perhaps he can help us defeat Bush in 2004...

[Terwilliger]

84. YOU MUST BE KIDDING!

Especially you, Fate! You people have been bitching and moaning since the day I arrived at DU...you guys can speak of NOTHING ELSE but 2000 and the stolen election and Ralph Nader

Give me a BREAK!

[lovedems]

64. I guess I'm guilty of being a "Nader Hader"

or Nater Hater? MY PRESIDENT isn't sitting in the WH right now and I don't care if it was intentional or not on Nader's part, I am pissed. My life would be a hellava lot better if Bush were back in Texas where he belongs. Then he would just be screwing up his state instead of our country.

[neverforget]

67. Nader is an attention whore. He needs to stick to the consumer

advocacy that made him. But, when I think of the "no difference", my blood boils! Would Gore appoint right wingers to the court? Would he invade Iraq? Would he sign the Abortion Bill? Would he cut taxes to the rich so they only benefit a few? Would he cut programs to help poor people? Would he cut student aid? Well would he??!!!! NO fucking difference my ass!! FUCK YOU RALPH AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON FOR YOUR HELP IN ELECTING GEORGE W BUSH, THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER!
:grr: :argh: :grr: :argh: :grr: :argh: :grr: :argh:

[Terwilliger]

85. I guess that makes Al Gore an attention whore

since he offered nothing yesterday but his opinion

[LibertyorDeath]

68. Nader is a chronic whiner speaking of chronic it was a good year : )

[IranianDemocrat]

72. Good old St. Ralph.

NOT

[jpgray]

74. I agree with almost everything but the "chronic whiners" :-)

The problem with the Democrats is the visible leadership is very timid, and the fringe people who DO fight for this sort of thing are ignored and shunned by the media--we're not homogenized enough to be broadly generalized. So it's just too broad a brush to say "all Democrats are whiners"--but it's a nifty soundbite. :)

[RapidCreek]

174. Their own party ignores and shuns them...why shouldn't the media?

Nader didn't say "all Democrats are whiners" you said he said that. He said Democrats who blaim him for Gores loss are whiners. All Democrats don't blaim him for Gores loss.

RC

[Q]

75. Seems some party introspection is in order...

...and as I read through this thread there are few who want to address the fact that over 300,000 (registered) DEMOCRATS voted for far right wing Bush*.

- it's amazing that no one 'round here seems to wonder WHY over a quarter of a million Democrats...just in Florida...decided to not only vote Republican...but vote for one of the most RWing candidates in recent memory.

- And then we have the Bushies...who pulled every dirty trick in the book and manipulated an election to turn it to their favor. They illegally disenfranchised thousands of Dem / Black voters and 'fixed' hundreds of absentee / military ballots.

- Seems to me that thousands of Democrats voting for Bush* and thousands more kept from voting at all is much more important to consider than votes pulled in by third parties.

- The Democratic party is too busy blaming others to take a real close look at their own politics and strategies. Dems are leaving the party in droves, voting for the opposition and have their votes thrown in the garbage...and the discussion is about Nader.

[Terwilliger]

86. and remember folks...Q is a big-time Nader hater

but he recognizes (at least) that the problems that everyone here hates Nader for bringing up, are the same problems you all ignore by ripping on Nader when he speaks

[Q]

92. You're right...Nader is an egocentric grandstander...

...but continuing to blame him for the state of the Democratic party is like blaming God for cancer.

- Let's examine what WE'RE doing wrong and go from there.

[Terwilliger]

94. see? I told ya!

dont get into it with me, Q...I've been proven right over and over again. You can call Nader what you want, but I call him a better Democrat than most Democrats.

[Q]

98. Nader is trying to shake up the Democratic party...

...and for that he deserves our thanks. But I still believe that he's not a very good role model for leadership.

- I agree with him on this particular issue: Democrats would rather whine and play the 'blame game' than actually DO SOMETHING about Bush*.

[Terwilliger]

108. who *IS* a good role model?

Gore? He dropped out

Clinton? He's not someone most want to look to for leadership

Kerry? Deep into his 04 campaign, he's just fired his campaign manager

Dean? He keeps stepping in dog-poop and tries to wipe his shoes on other candidates

Gephardt? He fucked over Tom Daschle and appeared with Bush in the Rose Garden

Kucinich? Moseley-Braun? Sharpton? I'm reminded ceaselessly that they don't stand a chance in hell of being the nominees, much less be true influences on the party

I'm not endorsing Ralph Nader as a good president (though I think he'd do better than MANY others) but I'm looking for some Democrat to put a real face on liberality and true liberal values...stick to their guns...and move everyone forward. I still haen't seen that from Democrats yet (except Kucinich) and I worry greatly for what happens next year.

[mac56]

76. 14:57, 14:58, 14:59.....

Aren't his fifteen minutes about up yet?

[regnaD kciN]

77. Pot, meet Kettle...

:crazy:

[Terwilliger]

78. I said all this LONG before this story

he's absolutely right, and every Dem apologist on this board knows it

[bluestateguy]

82. Grrrrr..

I'm keeping my mouth shut here, because what I feel like actually saying could get me barred from DU.

[Terwilliger]

87. you don't need to

you should do like Carlos and Rick did, and get yourself a copy-and-paste together, for "Easy-Access Stock Answer Reply" (TM)

[Hep]

97. Ralph Nader is irrelevant

The 3% he got in 2000 is the best he'll ever do.

[Aidoneus]

100. quite obviously irrelevant

that's why Democratic Party loyalist troopers have to vent so many vile epitaphs at him so frequently..

[Hep]

107. Icing on the cake

Nader deserves everything he gets. He was a terrible candidate. And now apparently he's a liar.

[Terwilliger]

109. NOW he's a liar??

He was a terrible candidate...hmmmmm, ok :shrug:

WHy is he a liar now? Because you don't see the Dems who are still whining about him?

[Hep]

112. Liar may be too harsh

Maybe he's just not smart enough to realize the role he played in 2000. I'll grant him that.

The word whine is inflammatory from the get go. Nader continues to take on the role of the D party's enemy. He shows nothing but scorn for us. Whatever. Like I said, he's irrelevant in 2004.

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

[Terwilliger]

125. same old tired shit

Ralph Nader has been directly involved in American politics probably since the mid-1950's and he doesn't realize the role he played? Is that what you need to tell yourself, or...?

He shows scorn for the same failed policies that leave the Democratic party in such a horrendously weak position as they face today. GET A CLUE!

[Hep]

129. Speaking of same old shit

why is it that "same old shit" is all I ever hear? As if that's some kind of argument. If you readily dismiss any information that doesn't play your way, I'd love to know HOW and WHY, but just these blase "SOS" posts. You want me to get a clue, why not GIVE ME ONE?

[Zuni]

101. Nader needs a good smack in the face

I am ready and willing to give it to him. He is really obnoxious. Go back to writing books on automobile safety, you bastard.

[Aidoneus]

105. more Democratic loyalists threaten violence

Perfect way to prove his points wrong, champ.

[ShaneGR]

126. ATTENTION: Only Pie-Faces allowed at Nader events

No violence, just pie. Lots and lots of pie.

[RichM]

117. This high-minded remark, from a poster who cites Jonah Goldberg

as a source of respectable opinion. :silly:

[mmonk]

102. Nader should be anathema to Democrats

whether you like his views or not, power to him is a gaurantee for right wing rule.

[Forkboy]

103. Exhibit A

this thread.

[Ficus]

104. We'll lose again

and again and again if we just blame the greens and refuse to look at ourselves and our policies. I can name at least 5 other reasons Gore lost besides Nader.

1. Voter list purging of minorities in florida.
2. Jim Baker organizing sometimes violent protests with Republican staffers of Trent Lott and Tom Delay's office to shut down recounts until the recounters were scared to continue.
3. Supreme Court 5-4
4. The butterfly ballot - Jews for Buchanan
5. Gore was embarassed of Bill Clinton, and thus his own administration's record couldn't be shown to be a better agenda than Bush.

That said - nader is a f*ing arrogant jacka$$, and I don't know why someone would vote for him over any of our guys in 2004 (except lieberman)

[Q]

106. The hatred shown on this thread...

...stinks of desperation and fear. It reminds one of the kind of blind hatred RWingers felt and still feel towards Clinton.

- The party is floundering and doesn't know why. Take a look at yourselves for the answer.

[Hep]

114. Desperation and fear?

That's rich!

I'm desperately afraid of Bush winning again. I'm desperately afraid that liberals will be duped into voting Green again. Damn right. Nothing wrong with it either.

Nader wanted Bush over Gore. He got what he wanted. Will the masses be fooled again?

[Q]

116. Funny...but RWingers say Blacks are 'duped' into voting Dem...

...and now you suggest that anyone who votes third party must be 'duped'. Could it be that THEY might feel otherwise? The reality is that many people vote third party because they feel the Democratic party doesn't represent their best interests. So what do YOU do about it? You call them dupes instead of giving them a reason to vote how YOU think they should vote.

[Hep]

118. Not MUST BE duped

There were lots of people who voted green that I don't thikn were duped. And those people were also people who wanted to tear down the D party. Simple as that. If your goal isn't to tear down the party, you were duped into voting for Nader. If that WAS your goal, you weren't duped. Glad we could clear that up.

The reality is that many people vote third party because they feel the Democratic party doesn't represent their best interests. So what do YOU do about it? You call them dupes instead of giving them a reason to vote how YOU think they should vote.

No one ASKED me how I think they should vote, so stop being rude about it. But since you opened the door, I'll say this. You vote either for progress or regress.Voting G in 2000 was voting for negative change. Gore would have been better, and in retrospect, any Green who says otherwise is lying to themselves.

No Nader wasn't the only reason, no he wasn't the biggest reason. I'll put that into every post in this thread so that you don't claim I'm only blaming Nader for Bush's being president. If you'd like more elaboration on how I think you should vote, feel free to ask.

[Woodstock]

220. It's not hatred, it's a complete and total lack of respect

for one Ralph Nader.

Call it what you like, that's what it is.

[Isome]

207. I'm not over the election...

I'm aggravated at Nader for splitting the vote. I railed (past tense) at Greens who didn't have the foresight to think of what that vote splitting would mean. I consider Gore the legitimately elected president.... but you make valid points that we (those still angry about Election 2000) have to consider before lashing out at the most convenient target.

Let's face it, Nader was/is entitled to run for any office he chooses. He's not a member of the party and therefore isn't obligated to show any party loyalty by refraining from public criticism or splitting the vote.

We could benefit from some introspection on this issue.

[burr]

111. Ralph Nader is right...

If Democrats do not begin to address certain issues in this campaign, progressive voters will defect to Green Party candidates who shall address those issues. The Green Party supported abolishing the Electoral College before 2000, the Democrats still do not. The Green Party has embraced national healthcare in its party platform, the Democrats cut this principle..backed since Truman out in the mid-90's. The Green Party advocates a national primary, and IRV...Democrats are in the process of scrapping many of their primaries and putting the money men in charge of picking our candidates!

The whining must end, and we need to see some action within our own party before we know Democrats are the ones who deserve to beat shrub. Complaining about the Greens, and then cancelling primary after primary doesn't cut it with me! If I have no say in who the nominee is, then I must not be a Democrat.

[mmonk]

115. Agree

compromising principles by itself can be or seem a weakness. But sometimes, it can be tactical.

[burr]

120. it might make sense, if it won votes...

but compromising these principles would not only lose votes, but undermine the foundations of democracy. No exactly a tactical game plan for the party trying to win back power!

[MadHound]

119. And this thread should be exhibit 1 in proving Nader's point

I love how all of the Nader haters here claim that the Greens are week and ineffective, while claiming at the same time that Nader and the Greens threw the election to Bush. Which is it, because it certainly can't be both. And for those of you who are still scapegoating the Greens for the '00 election, let me point out a few facts for you concerning the FL race.

1. Close to 600,000 registered Dems and self described liberals were so pissed off at Gore(mainly over offshore drilling and other enviromental issues) that they decided to double screw him by voting for Bush. Gee, you think if Gore had addressed their concerns a little more, they might have voted for him? Nah, it must be those damn Greens again.

2. Gore recieved information concerning the ongoing voter scam during the recount process from author Greg Palast. He was handed evidence that pointed the finger at Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, ChoicePoint and other 'Pub operatives. If the Gore campaign would have acted on this information, they could have insured that no Bush would ever reach high office again. In addition, investigating and exposing this kind of corruption was Gore's sworn duty as vice president(remember that part about upholding the Constitution). Do you think Gore should have felt some sort of compunction to investigate this massive fraud? Nah, he must have been talked out of doing his sworn duty by those mean Greens again.

3. Gore's campaign had numerous options for selecting the votes to recount, up to and including a recount of the entire state(which has been shown to have given him the majority). But the campaign picked the least favorable method of recounting, cherry picking districts here and precincts there. Oh my, it must have been those darn old Green advisors infiltrating the Gore camp again.

4. And finally the whole mess went to Supreme Court, where the felonius five decided, in a non-precedent-decision, to give the election to Bush. Oh, that's right, there was also a mean Green advisor whipering in each justice's ear on how to vote in the matter, wasn't there.

Honestly folks, give up the Green bashing. It has no basis in the realities of what happened in Florida, it burns up time and energy that could be better used in other ways, it alienates a whole group of people whose vote you are going to need in '04 and quite frankly it makes all of you Nader haters look like pathetic whiners. Just face the fact that it wasn't the Greens who betrayed the Democratic Party in Florida, it was the Felonius Five and the Democrats themselves.

[Hep]

121. Sorry Ralph, not everyone has to like you

You've done some good work, but you know what? You don't have to be the most popular guy in school.

[MadHound]

122. Yeah Hep, I suppose you're right

Speaking truth to power isn't likely to make you the most popular guy in school. But the truth has to be spoken, if for nothing else than the betterment of society, if they will listen to that truth. Are you willing to listen and learn?

[Hep]

127. That's the thing

Nader fancies himself a Great Educator. I'm willing to listen when he's willing to speak from a more appropriate platform.

Nader isn't selling betterment of society. Not if he's saying "Vote for me" in the process.

[Redleg]

123. Nader is engaging in psychological projection.

Sure the Dems whine about third party candidates "taking" their votes. Nader has done his own share of whining about the Dems. I guess he can dish it out but not take it.

[RichM]

139. You're right, but Dem loyalists don't have the intellectual integrity to

see it. They just can't do any better; one should almost feel pity for them. They'll accept with open arms a candidate who voted for Bush I, Reagan & Nixon, & might even be a war criminal; most of their "1st tier" candidates voted for the IWR. Meanwhile, they hate with self-righteous fury a lifelong progressive like Nader.

Democratic Party loyalists are political retards, unable to face the truth about themselves & their party. Expecting rationality from them is itself not rational.

[Scott Lee]

161. You're right, and be glad!

For this kind of self excoriation will be good for us in the end. It will help undo the rancid statism and establishment conservatism in the Democratic Party that has turned it into an impotent force against fascism and corpo-control in the USA.

Ya gotta get sick and sweat with a fever before you get better!

[Terwilliger]

173. *GASP* That's what Ralph said!

You must be the OPPOSITION! :eyes:

[Hep]

178. He was wrong too

Sorry, we don't have to hit rock bottom in order to improve things. Nader might say that James Watt did a good thing as secretary of the interior, but we're still trying to heal from it. How many live will have to be ruined for Nader to realize that his "can't clean a mess without making a mess" philosophy is flawed?

[Scott Lee]

211. Oh THAT's it.....this is all Nader's fault!

Thanks for setting me straight on that one, dude.

For a minute there I thought this was Bush's fault!

[Hep]

212. That's not necessary

I'm on record for my belief that Nader was not among the biggest reasons Gore lost.

[Hep]

176. Yeah, but

you don't have to wait to treat yourself until you're almost dead.

[Terwilliger]

184. how were we 'treating' it before? ineffectual Democrats?

OH yeah...more of the same is called for :eyes:

[Hep]

186. LOL

Yeah, we'd be just as bad off had Gore won.

Insert childish rolly eyes icon here solely for inflammatory purposes.

[Iverson]

124. So much on this thread sets such a bad example.

From threats of violence to incoherent screams of "fuck," the ritualistic demonizing of Nader and the Greens proceeds with an enthusiasm that I never see matched when applied to the fascistic Bush administration. This for someone who recognizes that Gore won Florida.

I'm sure that those swing voters I hear so much about will find all this cogent and persuasive.

Have a bipartisan day.

:eyes:

[Terwilliger]

131. It's like the Freeper/Clinton thing..the man is a push-button for hysteria

What really kills me is how easy it is for some of these folks to characterize all their problems as springing from Nader. I mean...he ran in 96!! Dems weren't mad at him then! Why is that?

[PVnRT]

130. ...and he's right

And the posts on this thread bear that out... :eyes:

[Hep]

132. Is it irony

that if someone posted a link here to a right wing republican claiming the D's are whiners, it would be locked?

Or that if someone had posted the same thing about Greens during Election 2000, that the replies would be the same from Greens?

Can someone tell me why Nader would phrase this in such a manner as to gear up for a fight in 2004? Why is Nader taunting Dems NOW of all times?

[PVnRT]

133. Ummm, maybe because Nader is on the left?

And that therefore this is a legitimate criticism of the Democratic Party?

Tell me, do you think Gore won Florida? If so, why hate Nader so much? If you think Gore lost Florida, what about all those registered Dems that voted for Bush? Why not let loose on them every once in a while?

[mmonk]

140. How come

this has to be framed around Forida. Point is, we don't know how close the election will or where it will be decided. I would vote for Nader or another green over Bush. However, I'm realistic this election won't be a green party candidate victory over Bush. Every vote that isn't optimized against Bush makes him harder to defeat.

[PVnRT]

143. In the article, Nader mentions Florida

In addition, the flame wars involving the Greens and Nader-haters around here usually center around "Nader cost Gore Florida!"

[Hep]

146. And rightly so

At best Nader didn't care who won, and at worst he wanted Bush.

[mmonk]

149. I see

haven't read all the posts (sorry).

[sangh0]

147. It's framed around Florida because

the only argument the Green's have to defend Nader with is "Nader didn't lose Fla for Gore". They use Fla so they don't have to defend some of the more ridiculous lies Nader has told such as:

Concerning Bush*'s theft of the elction, Nader said:

"I'm just amazed that people think I should be concerned about this stuff. It's absolutely amazing. Not a minute's sleep do I lose, about something like this - because I feel sorry for them. It's just so foolish, the way they have been behaving. Why should I worry?" -- Common Dreams 4-03-2001

and

"Let's see what really happens. Ashcroft is going to be a prisoner of bureaucracy." -- Common Dreams 4-03-2001

and

Nader contended that Bush would not damage the Earth and generally remain popular, but he has pushed arctic drilling and other anti-environment policies. "If they continue to pursue a scorched-earth policy, they’ll be defeated in the next election, and the environmental rules will come out stronger as a result. There’s no way they’re going to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)."

and

In a recent Time magazine interview, when asked if he felt any regret about the 2000 election, Nader responded, "No, because it could have been worse. You could have had a Republican Congress with Gore and Lieberman." -- Time magazine, 8-05-02

http://www.damnedbigdifference.org/quotes

[Hep]

145. Legitimate criticism?

Calling people "chronic whiners" is NOT criticism. It's an insult. It's a challenge. He offers such "criticism" with the same smugness that the Right Wing says "Get over it" about Florida.

Tell me, do you think Gore won Florida?

I think Gore WOULD HAVE won Florida.

If so, why hate Nader so much?

First, I already said I don't hate him, so please give up the hyperbolic bullshit. Second, had 5% of Nader voters cast their vote for Gore, it never would have come to a recount. And all this for what? 3%? Please.

Nader said that he would have preferred the provocateur (Bush) over the anesthitizer (Gore). I keep hearing, "Oh same old shit again" when I never heard the ORIGINAL rebuttal to things like this: http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm and this: http://slate.msn.com/?id=1006380 .

If you think Gore lost Florida, what about all those registered Dems that voted for Bush?

I don't think that's all that different from dems who voted Nader. Both groups voted against their best interests. The dems who bought into Bush were duped into thinking, "It won't be THAT bad", or they weren't really dems to begin with, like a lot of dems in the south. Dems who voted for Nader were either duped into thinking "Bush and Gore will be just the same" or have it in for the dem party like Nader does.

Why not let loose on them every once in a while?

You think I don't? YOu think I can't call Greens out for sacrificing their ideals while at the same time calling out D's who voted for Bush as idiots or enemies? You underestimate my ability to kill half a day on the internet.

[MadHound]

142. He's not taunting, he's trying to point out a fact

And this thread bears out that fact, whineWhineWHINE. Few people want to face the fact that the Dems sold us out in '00, that Gore dropped the ball in '00, and that the Dems will sell us out again in '04 like the corporate whores that they are. Several of us have posted the facts about the '00 election, and all we get are curses and attacks. You people need to learn from that debacle and act on it, not just keep blaming the Greens and Nader for something that wasn't their fault.

How do you think this looks to those oh so precious swing voters? How about those members of the ever fading group, the progressive Dem base, how do you think this looks to those Greens whose vote you are going to need in '04? Tell you what it looks like to this disgruntled Dem gone Green; it looks like if Kucinich, Sharpton, or Mosely Braun doesn't get the nod, I'll be going Green again. What does the Democratic Party have to offer me anymore? A bunch of corporate whores, a leadership that cares for nothing but corporate money and what they have to do to get it, and a bunch of whiners who are scapegoating people rather than taking an honest look at their own problems. WAKE UP PEOPLE!! It is not the Greens who are selling you down the river, it is your very own party. The sooner you realize that, the better off you and the rest of us will be.

[Hep]

150. I'll bet

I could change a few words and send your post directly to Rush for reading when he comes back.

Nader had a choice to phrase his position in a proactive, inspiring way, and he CHOSE to be an insulting ass. You might get off on that kind of talk, but I consider it inflammatory and detrimental to discourse.

You ask me, Nader is going to run and basically end up jeapardizing TWO liberal movements at the same time. Do you really think what Nader is doing now is BEST for the left?

[sangh0]

152. The same could be said of Dean

Nader had a choice to phrase his position in a proactive, inspiring way, and he CHOSE to be an insulting ass. You might get off on that kind of talk, but I consider it inflammatory and detrimental to discourse.

[MadHound]

156. So, once again, with a dirth of facts available to you,

You resort to ad hominem attacks. How precious , how telling.

You have not responded to any arguements that have been made regarding the '00 election, you haven't countered any of the facts I've presented, all you can do is hurl insults in the vague hope it will drive me off the thread. Hah!

You moan about how Nader is being insulting. Well, first off, that is your PERCEPTION. Don't you think that for a Nader hater like yourself, your perceptions might be a little skewed? Secondly, even if he is being insulting, how the hell else do you expect him to respond! The man has been dragged through hell and back, scapegoated for everything wrong in this world except killing Christ, and here you are expecting him to play nice. Sheesh, that might be the tried and true method for all these DLC Dems running, but if nothing else, Ralph's a fighter, and will go down swinging. Don't like it, too bad, get used to it, for that is the sound of a party full of fighters. I know the Dems haven't heard such fighting words coming out of the mouths of their candidates for a long while(though at one time it was common), but the Greens are full of fighters, so perhaps you should get used to the language

And by the by, as I've outlined before, the only party that is jeopardizing any liberal movement is the Democratic Party. By selling their souls for that corporate lucre, they've essentially strangled any movement or group that is left of center in the party. Don't worry though, the Greens will pick up the torch and keep the liberal light alive for the next generation.

[Hep]

159. No wonder you like Nader!

They way you talk to people is just like him! Real conducive to debate.

You resort to ad hominem attacks. How precious , how telling.

You have not responded to any arguements that have been made regarding the '00 election, you haven't countered any of the facts I've presented, all you can do is hurl insults in the vague hope it will drive me off the thread. Hah!

What facts? What arguments? Make one! Your facts aren't all that factual, and the G response to MY questions never changes: "SOS" never anything else.

1 in 20. 5%. You have your facts and I have mine.

You moan about how Nader is being insulting. Well, first off, that is your PERCEPTION. Don't you think that for a Nader hater like yourself, your perceptions might be a little skewed?

Probably the best indication of who here is getting it wrong is for one to look through the thread where I have repeatedly made clear that I don't hate Nader. Look at the people who continue to tell me that I do if you want to find the people who still can't get it right.

You can't remember things written in this thread, how can you remember clearly the events of three years ago? Anyway, I've never seen anyone call someone else a "whiner" much less a "chronic whiner" and not mean it as an insult. But then, I'm not the one burdened with defending someone like Nader, so I can understand the stress you're under.

Secondly, even if he is being insulting, how the hell else do you expect him to respond! The man has been dragged through hell and back, scapegoated for everything wrong in this world except killing Christ, and here you are expecting him to play nice.

You know, if Howard Dean engaged in this kind of hyperbole, Kerry would have a field day with it! Dragged through hell and back? You trot him out like he's some mythological hero. Jesus. He didn't go through half of what Gore went through, and Nader actually SAID this is what he wants to have happen. From a link that I often post, which no one ever refutes:

Please read this and tell me your thoughts:

"When <the Democrats> lose, they say it's because they are not appealing to the Republican voters," Nader told an audience in Madison, Wis., a few months ago, according to a story in The Nation. "We want them to say they lost because a progressive movement took away votes."

Those are quotes. Tell me how your messiah can have it both ways, please.

Yeah, greens are real fighters. WHo exactly were you fighting in 2000? It wasn't Bush.

[MadHound]

165. LOL!! Oh this is getting too precious, stop before you hurt yourself

"What facts? What arguments? Make one! Your facts aren't all that factual, and the G response to MY questions never changes: "SOS" never anything else.

1 in 20. 5%. You have your facts and I have mine. "

Do you read what you've written before you hit the "post message" button? You ask me what facts I've posted, then immediately argue that my facts aren't that factual! How am I failing to post facts if, by your arguement, you find my facts less than factual? Do you get the logical conundrum here? But all that aside, if you think my "facts aren't all that factual", take it up with award winning journalist and author Greg Palast, or world recognized populist Jim Hightower. That's where I got these particular facts. Oh, and in case you didn't notice, I posted those facts in the first post I made to this thread. But the rest of your sentence here is gibberish. Start writing in whole words, much less whole sentences. You will get your point(whatever that might be) across better. What is a "G response"? "SOS" are you in distress somehow? "1 in 20.5%" is a meaningless and illogical stat, especially without some context to put it into.

And you think I talk like Nader eh?(some kind of insult I suppose). Well, if you mean that I speak truth to power, well, yes I do, have done so all of my life. If you think I'm being insulting towards you, well too bad, it is how I respond to people who provide no facts or real arguements, whose only purpose is to spew insults and ad hominem attacks. If you wish to legitly debate, fine, I won't come down so hard on you. But continue to be insulting, well, I'll continue my tone. Accusing somebody of speaking like Rush isn't the best way to endear yourself to people. But hey, its your life, you can do as you wish. Just don't whine when you get called on it bub.

And you say you don't hate Nader, but looking back on your posts on this thread and others, it is clear you don't like him. You mistakenly blame Nader for the Florida debacle, in the face of overwhelming evidence that he had no blame in that game, you are always on the attack when his name or actions come up in a thread. You think that his supporters and the Greens are scum of the earth and attack them. And yet here you are, saying you don't hate Nader. Riiiiight. Keep saying that, you just might convince yourself.



"When <the Democrats> lose, they say it's because they are not appealing to the Republican voters," Nader told an audience in Madison, Wis., a few
months ago, according to a story in The Nation. "We want them to say they lost because a progressive movement took away votes."

You want my thoughts on that quote, well I find nothing wrong with it. How else do you expect a progressive movement to gain votes? By taking conservative ones!? Puhleeze dude, you're wrapping yourself into a logical pretzel. The Greens ARE a progressive, LIBERAL party. They recieve votes from progressive, liberal people. These are, in many instances, the same progressive liberal people(their base) that the Dems have kicked to the curb. All Nader is saying is that he wants the Dems to be honest with themselves, that they've swung right and are thus losing progressive liberal votes to the Greens. Honesty, that's all he is calling for in that quote. But apparently that is a quality in short supply these days, eh Hep?

[Hep]

167. I might be the only one

Do you read what you've written before you hit the "post message" button? You ask me what facts I've posted, then immediately argue that my facts aren't that factual! How am I failing to post facts if, by your arguement, you find my facts less than factual? Do you get the logical conundrum here?

It's called nuance. While you're not wrong with general points, none of your facts change mine. Our facts do not contradict each other. But either of our facts one their own do not give a clear picture of what happened. It's called nuance. You'll like it if you try it.

1 in 20 is not clear to you? You've not heard this before? 1 in 20 green voters cast for Gore, there would have been no controversy. SOS is clearly explained about. It means "same old shit", which is all you ever here from Nader apologists when their King is challenged. Never a rebuttal, just "same old shit".

And you say you don't hate Nader, but looking back on your posts on this thread and others, it is clear you don't like him.

Assuming you've actually read my posts in this thread and others, you'd know EXACTLY how I feel about him. You certainly wouldn't make silly claims like I hate him. You would see me say that despite the good things he has done for all of us, I resent him for his role in 2000. I feel like he sacrificed his ideals for his ideaology and sold liberalism down the river. I'm angry, but I don' thate him.

Yet time and again, the Nader apologists cast me as a hater.

You mistakenly blame Nader for the Florida debacle, in the face of overwhelming evidence that he had no blame in that game, you are always on the attack when his name or actions come up in a thread. You think that his supporters and the Greens are scum of the earth and attack them. And yet here you are, saying you don't hate Nader. Riiiiight. Keep saying that, you just might convince yourself.

See, this is just the type of stuff that proves you haven't read my posts in this thread or any other. If you had, your intellectual integrity wouldn't allow you to spew the kinds of lies I'm reading.

But maybe you can explain something to me. To say Nader had NO blame in the FL debacle, you would have to admit that Nader had absolutely no influence over liberal democrats or greens. You would have to argue that Nader had absolutely no role in that many people voting for Nader. And if that's the case, then how can you support him at all? Someone who can't inspire D's to vote Green? What's so great about him? Anyway...

You want my thoughts on that quote, well I find nothing wrong with it.

Interesting. So let's get it all in line. You have no problem with the quote, but agree with him that D's are "chronic whiners" for blaming him? Nader's cynicism and smugness only serve to illustrate that he does not have MY ideals in mind.


How else do you expect a progressive movement to gain votes? By taking conservative ones!?

They gain votes by running credible candidates in local elections. A good Green mayor can become a state legislator, then maybe a member of the US congress. That's how the green party advances. Not by running Nader cycle after cycle. It's worked in MY town. But, back to this odd logic we;re seeing, you don't think Nader CAN gain votes, do you? I mean, he didn't convince anyone to vote for him in Florida.

All Nader is saying is that he wants the Dems to be honest with themselves, that they've swung right and are thus losing progressive liberal votes to the Greens. Honesty, that's all he is calling for in that quote. But apparently that is a quality in short supply these days, eh Hep?

So it would seem. We have all sorts of people talking out of boths ides of their mouths here. Odd that it's such a foreign idea to a green that maybe the party has gone to the center because that's how the individuals who comprise the party have changed as well. FGod forbid! Obviously the D party is brainwashed or stupid!

Nader will never do well enough in an election to matter. You blame the D party for that, I suppose, while bashing Gore's run to the center, as if your guy ever had a chance. Whatever makes you happy and politically active.

If you're looking for honesty, understand that not even Lieberman is the same as Bush, despite what Nader wants you to believe.

[MadHound]

209. You obviously were never on a debate team now were you?

"It's called nuance."

No, its called contradictory logic, where you argue for one thing, and then in the next breath argue against it. Sorta like saying that I have no facts, and then saying that I have facts(though they're not that factual). With arguements like this, it is a wonder your head doesn't spin off

As far as you not being a Nader hater, well, I'll just let your previous and current posts in this thread speak for themselves, they can make my point much better than I can.

And no, I haven't heard the 1 in 20 stat before. But here is another stat for you. Gore pissed off 398,000 registered Dems, and 197,000 self described liberals(mostly over the enviroment, off shore drilling and such). In fact, he pissed them off so much that they voted for Bush just to screw Gore. Don't you think that if he had acted a little more like a Democratic presidential candidate and listened and acted on their concerns, rather than like the corporate whore for BP-Amaco, he might have gotten, oh say, one percent, at least, of those votes? Gee, then all the Greens, and all the 'Pugs in Florida wouldn't have mattered and Gore would have won. What a novel concept, personal responsibility for a candidate. Oh, and before you get that "but. . . but" out of your mouth, yes, those were real registered Dems. All of the Dixiecrats and Reagan Dems switched over to 'Pugs long ago. But I would think that is obvious, since concern over the enviroment is a hallmark trait of Dems/progressives/Greens.

"But maybe you can explain something to me. To say Nader had NO blame in the FL debacle, you would have to admit that Nader had absolutely no influence over liberal democrats or greens. You would have to argue that Nader had absolutely no role in that many people voting for Nader. And if that's the case, then how can you support him at all? Someone who can't inspire D's to vote Green? What's so great about him? Anyway..."

Ooo Ooo, circular logic with a straw man thrown in, you're trying to be tricky now, aren't you.

No, the reasons that I can say that Nader had no blame in the Florida debacle are numerous. I just gave one, Gore pissing off Dems, earlier in this particular post. In an earlier post on this thread I innummberated the facts that: A. Gore didn't do a damn thing about the votescam scandal that Greg Palast handed to him on a platter during the recount. B. The Gore campaign muffed a sure win on the recount by trying the cherry picking method of recounts, least favorable method to his campaign, rather than go for oh, say a complete statewide recount. C. The Supreme Court, now, honestly tell me, how did those mean Greens influence the selection process? I'll even add in a bonus reason for there being no fault to the Greens(and please do remember that the Greens attracted a large percentage of voters who wouldn't have voted, D or R, otherwise). The reason is that GORE ACTUALLY WON FLORIDA!! This stunning fact was only brought out after the selection, in a media recount, but true none the less. Gore got the most votes in Florida, but his inept bungling of the recount is what cost him the election.

And no, I have no problems with Naders statement concerning Dems being chronic whiners. I look for the truth whereever it might come from, and it is obvious, even from the limited statistical sample on this thread, that Dems, when it comes to the '00 election are whiners. They've whine and moan about Nader and the Greens costing Gore the election, while rarely, if ever, placing the blame where it truly belongs, ie with the Bushco votescam shinnanigans, the Supreme Court selection, and the Gore campaign's bungling. Do you deny any of that happened?

So you want Greens to start small on their party building. Well, there are a couple of problems with that. The first is name recognition. You can run Greens locally, but to really build a party you have to have national name recognition. The only way to get that is via running running a national candidate, ie President. Second, money. Since unlike the Dems and the 'Pugs the Greens don't whore themselves out for corporate cash, that federal matching grant is quite important. While I realize that the Greens didn't achieve the needed five percent last time, it is still needed for them to grow. So yes, you can probably expect a Green to run for President in '04.

And yet here you are, advocating that Greens run only in local elections. Why, afraid of the competition(apparently the DNC was in '00, since it went in lockstep with the 'Pugs over the debate issue). Or are you afraid of the Dems being pointed out for the corporate hypocrites they are? If you honestly think that "Nader will never do well enough in an election to matter." then it shouldn't matter to you what the Greens and Nader do. But here you are, along with a whole passle of other Nader haters bashing away. I think its that the Green party just brings up to many painful reminders of how the Dem party used to be, you know, for the poor, the downtrodden, the working man, the defenseless. Now all the Democratic party is for is seeing how corporate and Republican-lite they can become.

You think that the Dems have become more conservative because the people in the Demcoratic Party are more conservative? That's a laugher, really now. Let's see, all the Dixiecrats and Reagan Dems have switched parties by now, the public itself is in favor of such things like universal health care, more corporate regulations, abortion, publicly financed campaigns, along with real campaign finance reform, gun control, and on and on down this liberal progressive agenda. And yet here you are saying that the rank and file of the Dems is becoming more conservative, more "centerist". Get back to me when you have some facts and stats to back that whopper up.

No, as many inside the party and out will tell you, the reason the Dems are becoming more conservative is because they are having to do what their corporate masters tell them to do. You take the money of big business and they are expecting a return on it. And Clinton really opened the door for those corporate shackles to fitted on with his quaint little invention called soft money. The Democratic party is no longer the party of the working man, it is the party of the corporate elite.

And no, Lieberman isn't the same as Bush, except for one important point. They both have to dance to the same corporate tune. And that makes all of the difference(or lack thereof) in the world.

[Hep]

210. Uh huh

As far as you not being a Nader hater, well, I'll just let your previous and current posts in this thread speak for themselves, they can make my point much better than I can.

YEah, well, I wouldn't want you actually READING any of those posts. Then you would no longer be MISTAKEN in calling me a Nader ater, you'd be lying. And we couldn't have you lying.

The thing you probably won't ever admit to is that regardless of all the accurate things you say about why Gore isn't president, not a one changes the fact that had 1 Nader voter out of 20 voted D, there wouldn't be a need for a recount. Nothing you said changes that. And I am willing to bet that 1 in 20 Nader voters of 2000 regret their choice. Bottom line.

you say NO fault. Whatever. Think what you want. I don't expect EVERY Green to see the plain truth. Just 1 in 20.

[Scott Lee]

213. No wonder you shuck and jive!

I slog through that angry post of yours and the only thing that comes through is that you are reliving November 2000 like a recurring nightmare.

You've GOT to get over it. That wasn't Nader's fault. It was the SCOTUS and the poor campaign run by Gore that was the double whammy on that dream.

Now you can learn and stop driving a wedge between the liberal factions, or you can continue the sour grapes bellyaching that will benefit the grinning chimp.

What's your choice?

[Hep]

215. I've said it before and I'll say it again

I'm well aware of all of the reasons why 2000 went wrong. And I don't give Nader much credit. But he played a role. HE PLAYED A ROLE. That's all I want people to admit.

[burr]

148. I'm not a Green, I am a Democrat..as long as I can vote for Democrats.

But the day my state's Democratic Primary disappears is the day I stop being a Democrat.

If a freeper posted something accusing Democrats of being whiners, I would just point out that the Repukes are fine ones to talk.

However, that is not what I would call an inspiring response. Wouldn't it be better for us to lead by example rather than by bitterness? :shrug:

[Hep]

153. Absolutely!

Wouldn't it be better for us to lead by example rather than by bitterness?

YEah! So why inspire bitterness? I don't think angry democrats are wrong for holding Nader partly responsible for Florida and 2000 in general. I will never claim that Nader was THE reason, or even a contender for that title. But when Nader comes out with this inflammatory BS, he shows how ignorant HE is of the fact that he played A role.

[burr]

160. maybe so...

but he is right about one thing, let's get over this!!!

Whatever happened in Florida was the direct result of our flawed system of Selecting the President. If Jesse Jackson had run as the Green we would not be blaming Nader, but would we be blaming Jesse?

To do so would also be wrong had Gore won more popular votes than Shrub. And the sad thing is that Democrats bicker about this among themselves and with the Greens, while 54% of Americans continue to believe that Shrub won more votes nationwide than Al Gore.

There will always be some bitterness in the air, and this does not have to become a sexual affair! But Nader has put some of his bitterness behind him by actively supporting a Democratic Presidential candidate in the primaries. Democrats can put some of their bitterness behind them by welcoming Greens back into our party, and by returning our party to fundamental democratic principles. We will not succeed by debasing, affronting, and deriding Nader's statements. Most if not all Greens want to return to our party, and simply by embracing most of our traditional party principles while tayloring a related agenda for the future..will make us again the party of the people.
<http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/cover_news.html>

[Hep]

164. "Let's get over this"

We wouldn't be talking about 2000 right now if Nader weren't so strongly hinting at a run in 2004. That is, at least in this thread, HE brought it up, not me!

Whatever happened in Florida was the direct result of our flawed system of Selecting the President. If Jesse Jackson had run as the Green we would not be blaming Nader, but would we be blaming Jesse?

Hard to say. Depends on if Jesse were to say the same things.

I'm all about welcoming greens into the party. In fact, that's all I ask. That G's consider voting with D's and letting us facilitate change from a better position than the one we're in now.

[burr]

166. We aren't going to do it by ripping Ralph Nader!

It would be like trying to marry someone you are madly in love with, while insulting her son's personal hygiene. You may be right about the fact that he would look super if he bathed more often...but the marriage will never happen if she thinks for one moment that you hate her son!

The point is this...diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy, especially with our political allies. Then we will have a powerful grassroots political force behind us in the fall. I see the Green Party as the religious-right of the Democratic Party, not always easy to get along with...but a powerful youth-based, grassroots force that can help us increase voter turnout and boost the odds to our favor in close elections!

[Hep]

168. I don't see greens

providing our political climate with much in the long run as long as they advocate national candidates instead of local ones. I like the ideals, but I want Bush out.

[Iverson]

172. a misperception

Greens do not field national candidates "instead of" local ones, and any rudimentary research will reveal so.

Greens have had their best successes at the local level. The erroneous notion that Greens do not field local candidates is a partisan Democratic talking point.

Further, an idea has merit or it doesn't, and a party's offering a candidate at one level or another is not a valid way to determine whether it has merit.

My apologies for not including "fuck" in all caps or other hateful expressions, but some of us are doomed to be outside the mainstream.

[Hep]

175. well

Greens do not field national candidates "instead of" local ones, and any rudimentary research will reveal so.

Well I can't name three Greens besides Nader who ran anywhere, in any kind of race. In terms of focus, a bad presidential candidate can take attention away from a good local one. I could be wrong.

Greens have had their best successes at the local level. The erroneous notion that Greens do not field local candidates is a partisan Democratic talking point.

The claim that I made that assertion is erroneous. I know Greens run in local races. And I know that GOOD greens run and often win. Yes, their best successes are at the local level, which makes one wonder if Nader has the interests of the current Green party at heart.

My apologies for not including "fuck" in all caps or other hateful expressions, but some of us are doomed to be outside the mainstream.

I'd love to know why you picked a reply to me to say that. Did you see me say fuck in all caps in the post to which you replied?

[Iverson]

179. reply

"The claim that I made that assertion is erroneous. "
That was my inference by your use of the phrase "instead of."

"I'd love to know why you picked a reply to me to say that. Did you see me say fuck in all caps in the post to which you replied?"

No, I did not. I am, however, way past my limit in accepting completely stupid and generalized abuse, and you seem to have a brain in your skull, and maybe you'd understand.

[Hep]

182. It's about focus

That was my inference by your use of the phrase "instead of."

I understand. Lack of clarity on my part. I hope Gonzales wins in SF, and Diane Catotti (a D with G endorsement) won the city council and I voted for her.

No, I did not. I am, however, way past my limit in accepting completely stupid and generalized abuse, and you seem to have a brain in your skull, and maybe you'd understand.

Half a brain. And I've been accused of Nader Hating enough in this thread alone to know exactly how you feel.

Look, I'm pissed at him. I feel betrayed. I CAN'T hate him. He's done too much. And I wish circumstance had been different in 2000 so that the D's and G's could have had meaningful dialog without the kinds of implications we saw emerge. I wish Nader would make his overall intentions clear. For a time there he was talking about running someone against Wellstone, and I remember wondering how that would have helped the liberal cause.

[Terwilliger]

181. those two damned Greens!

Well I can't name three Greens besides Nader who ran anywhere, in any kind of race.

Is that the old "my ignorance is proof" argument?

In terms of focus, a bad presidential candidate can take attention away from a good local one. I could be wrong.

Local presidential candidates? Oh, by the way, nice of you to give a shit about local Greens that you don't know any 3 of.

And I know that GOOD greens run and often win.

Isn't that nice...those GOOD little Greens *pat* *pat*

Yes, their best successes are at the local level

which of the three? ...er, two?

which makes one wonder if Nader has the interests of the current Green party at heart

There have been two GPUSA conventions...in 1996 and 2000. Ralph Nader was democratically elected to be the party's national candidate each time.

[Hep]

185. can't expect TWO greens to be nice, that's for sure.

Is that the old "my ignorance is proof" argument?

No. It's about attention. It's finite. And it's about money spent. But you tell me: is running a Way-Beyond-Longshot presidential candidate a great way to use's G party resources? Are greens just loaded with cash, able to afford promoting any and all greens who run? Just curious.

Local presidential candidates? Oh, by the way, nice of you to give a shit about local Greens that you don't know any 3 of.

Did I say I don't care about G ideals? You're so bent on blasting me for not sharing your idealistic opinion of Nader that you're not even bothering to look at what I write. Of course I give a shit. I want the green party to do well locally. I think running a presidential candidate is STUPID.

There have been two GPUSA conventions...in 1996 and 2000. Ralph Nader was democratically elected to be the party's national candidate each time.

Yeah, and Gore was chosen for the D party. But we both know that a lot of D's didn't think he was the guy.

You should calm down, lest ye be referred to as Captain Vitriol from now on.

[RapidCreek]

177. Yep

sure enough.

RC

[burr]

183. The religious right began by working both locally and nationally...

They first became the dominate force in the GOP when they ran Pat Robertson as their Presidential Candidate in 1988. They would also hand stuff out locally, telling people who to vote for in both the Republican and Democratic Primaries. Now they only do this for the Repukes! I remember getting this junk in the mail from them and throwing it out. But one thing I still have in my political collection was this stupid styrofoam Pat Robertson for President hat. It seemed like all the kids in the neighborhood wanted one from those thumpers, even though they nor their parents did not really know what he stood for!

However, the Greens can have the same effect...maybe not in the south or west. But in the neo-tech community...afterall politics has changed since the religious right began, and now more people will begin to go online to make decisions on who to vote for. Most of the Green's movement is based on the Internet...making them more prepared than others for the changing nature of our "community".

[Hep]

187. It remains to be seen

I don't know a whole lot about how the religious right took over the R party. But I don't think even Nader is ruthless enough to do what it takes. Not that he isn't trying.

[Hep]

188. PLus

We don't have God on our side.

[burr]

193. you have me....

and I command you never to forget this my servant!!! O8)

[Hep]

196. Hail!

*falls to knees*

[burr]

199. That is what I call DEMOCRACY ON DEMAND!!!

nt/ :smoke:

[Hep]

201. btw

The Green Guy avatar =

[burr]

204. I'm sure they'd be flattered...

he looked a bit fascist to be Green to me.

[Hep]

205. You do know

the origin of the little green guy in your avatar, right?

[burr]

208. Sure...don't panic!!! I know he's no fascist...

And this charector is somehow connected to the answers of the long sought after questions...Why are people born, Why do they die, and why do they spend so much of the intervening time wearing digital watches???

Unfortunately instead of answering these questions, this freak just gives us more...right??

[Loonman]

144. Man, I despise Nader

Just go away, Ralph....

[Terwilliger]

158. chronic

[The Sushi Bandit]

151. A agree with Ralph

If the 2000 Dems were not so centrist - the Greens would not have gotten so many votes!

I voted for Nader!

[burr]

154. look out man....

you may get your little green ass kicked by a dumbass! :kick:

[mmonk]

155. I voted Democrat

so I'm in no way responsible for who's in power whether imagined, perceived, or real.

[burr]

163. only 271 people were responsible for the selection of shrub...

272 if you count the one Elector in D.C. who failed to vote for Gore. This means 271 Repukes and 1 DINO are to blame for appointing shrub as President.

<http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/pe2000.html>

[mmonk]

169. and members of

the supreme court?

[burr]

191. neither would have any say over who was President in a true democracy.

instituting IRV and abolishing the Electoral College are both reforms supported by the Greens, and should be supported by democrats. If put into place, neither the Supreme Court nor the Selectoral College could choose our President for us!

[samsingh]

170. even Nader agrees that Gore is President

the dirty little secret cannot remain hidden. Gore is President. Bush is a thief, sitting on a false Presidency.

[lumpy]

171. says Nader,

chronically whining.

[mmonk]

180. So

does this mean someone's vote has no real meaning or power, so you may as well vote for someone with little chance of winning nationally in a general election?

[eablair3]

189. Nader is correct and, as usual, tells the truth

>>>Nader, in town for a speech at the National Conference on Media Reform at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, noted that 300,000 registered Democrats in Florida voted for Bush.

"I think the Democrats can be fairly charged with chronic whining, and they ought to look at themselves first and foremost," Nader said. <<<<

Plus, Gore and Lieberman couldn't even win Gore's home state. But, 300,000 Dems voted for Bush?

This thread merely proves exactly what Nader was saying.

Dems need to take a long, hard look in the mirror, as many are in denial.

Kucinich is the only real Democrat, and the rest of the Dem Party and the DLC is marginalizing him, if not demonizing him as a "too leftwing," "a commie," and "not electable." They use the same fascist type strategy as the Repubs -- keep saying it often enough and it will be true. Since when is a Democarat like Kucinich who favors the little guy, the working guy, who stands up against the corporations and big businesses -- since when is he considered an "outcast" by Democrats and people like Joe Lieberman are considered "electable" and able to be on the past democratic ticket for V.P.?

Now, something's wrong with this picture. Yes, Nader is right. Many Dems need to really consider some of these things and take a good, hard, long look in the mirror.

[spunky]

192. This is all beside the point. . .

I'll start by confessing to have voted for Nader in 2000. I couldn't bring myself to vote for Gore. And regardless of the opposition, I would not vote for a man I didn't believe in.

I have done penance for my decision every day from that day to this one.

That said, b*tching over whether Nader stole the election from Gore or whether the Supreme Court stole the election from Gore is pointless. The Democrats have to win over moderates to win the '04 election, yes? Are we going to win over moderates by bickering and fighting over who screwed us harder, the Court or Nader? No. We will turn off potential voters with bickering and whining. They will vote Republican because we will appear to be too caught up in the past to lead this country into the future.

Yes, its sucks that Dubya is president. Yes, the circumstances of his election are upsetting. But Nader is right about the whining. Some Democrats throw up "He didn't really win." every chance they get. It is time to move on. Fairly or unfairly, Bush won. We've lived with it for three years, and we have less than a year to find a way to avoid four more years. I think that is far more pertinent than who stole the last election from us.

My two cents anyway.

[Hep]

195. Two things

If it is time to move on, why is Nader bringing this up now?

Also, there is no pointless discussion online! We could be talking about Nader's mother's shoes.

:)

My REAL point is that NO, Nader isn't the biggest reason for Bush being president. Nader struggles to be in the top three. Really, I just want Nader and greens to admit having A role. And the reason that's important to me is that this can't happen again. But also, what does it say about Nader that he wasn't MORE persuasive and influential? Is his message the right one if only 3% of voters agree with him in a race with pathetically low voter turnout?

[spunky]

200. Good question

"If it is time to move on, why is Nader bringing this up now?"

Heck if I know. Maybe to get his name in the discussion. Maybe to feel out how much hatred there is for him and see if he should bother running. Maybe because he wants to whine too. Maybe because he secretly blames himself for having to put up with the last three years of Dubya.

As for Nader's mother's shoes, I'm sure they were of the utmost quality.

I don't think it will happen again. If the others who voted for Nader have half the guilt I do, they'll vote for whichever Dem gets the nomination.

[Hep]

202. heh

No time for guilt! We must harvest our anger at the pResident! Turn it into gold.

[morgan2]

194. maybe democrats should endorse

IRV, but they wouldn't do that because It would destroy them in the long run.

[Hep]

197. How

exactly would it destroy us? And when you use the term "them" are you indicating that you aren't a democrat?

[morgan2]

203. not completely destroy

but it would get rid of the two party monopoly on political power. I am registered as an independant so yes I say them in reference to the Democratic party.

[Hep]

206. I have to say

It might get rid of the two party monopoly, but not in the way you think (of course, my opinion). It would result in a ONE party system with a large number of leftist minifactions nipping at heels. You'd have more candidates, but fewer contenders. Unless the right splits, too.

[Undemcided]

214. Review?

Where was the review done?

[neuvocat]

216. Ralphie Boy, you sure can

say all the right things for all the wrong reasons.

You could have pointed out how the Supreme Court stole the election and you could have protested the miscarriage of justice and gone after a crook. You had a real chance to connect with the common man and be more like a statesman and did more for the Green party members like myself.

So you decided instead to protest democrats who themselves were protesting Bush whenever he flew in somewhere instead of joining with them to protest the first dictator this country has ever had. Sad.

Michael Moore has figured it out long ago and solidly threw his support behind the democrats in the 2002 elections and is a Green who happens to think highly of Wesley Clark, a democrat.

You had the prestige of a statesman and could have used that after the election was stolen. What happened to you, Ralphie Boy? Was it the Haliburton Stock? Is it old age? Was it an "opportunity" seen only by you and no one else?

You wrote books bashing the democrats and kept wailing and whining about how the democrats are no different. Then you went on some foolhardy campaign to put Bush in the White House because you thought things had to get worse before they got better.

Remember those voting machines? That could have been your issue and yet a letter to you pleading for you to undertake it has been to my knowledge ignored. A number of us Greens have signed it. I remember that letter especially since I was the one who wrote it!

Now they might not ever get better, thanks to those voting machines out there that may steal the votes instead of having Supreme Court judges having to worry about that meddlesome chore.

You also justified it somewhat when you said the theft wouldn't have happened if democrats didn't allow Judge Thomas to be voted in as a judge. Well, if that isn't dancing around the issues and ducking responsibility then George W. Bush really isn't the big deceiver everyone says he is-after all, that was another rallying cry you had about the democrats: "At least you know what the Republicans stand for." you said.

Ralphie, for the sake of us Greens and your legacy, please step down and dissolve your candidacy. There are plenty of candidates vying for the Green Party nomination who really do care about liberals and their ideology.

The Green Party is otherwise doing well without your efforts and the exposure is really unhealthy. It would be best to just step down and let someone else take the reins once you get the hell out of everyone's way.

[West Coast Democrat]

217. 300,000 registered Dixiecrats voted for Bush

so what?

[Hep]

218. So that has nothing to do with Nader.

n/t

[noiretextatique]

219. of course it does...it has everything to do with the very

hypocritical whining he's talking about. why is it ok for 300k democrats to vote for bush, but not ok for 90k people to vote for nader? i agree with nader...the real culprits get a pass by all the whining about greens, and nader. the republicans stole the damn election...end of story. if there was as much heat generated from that FACT as there is from nader, perhaps america wouldn't be in such darkness now :grr: at least as many voters (and likely many more) were disenfranchised in the harris/bush/choicepoint voter purge FRAUD...where IS the OUTRAGE about that? it certainly doesn't reach the volume that nader and the green party does...i wonder why? :eyes:
lesson for 2004: focus on the cheater and theives who rob eligible voters of the opporunity to VOTE vs. the lawful, and democratic, participants in the process, regardless of how they choose to vote. otherwise...include republican-voting democrats, independents, socialists, natural lawers and so on...in the green/nader whining.