Nader is wrong. There is a difference between ...

[GeorgeGist]

Republicans and Democrats.

Republican leaders are successful hypocrites, and Democrats leaders are not.

[Totally Committed]

1. Not hypocrites, or not successful hypocrites?

Just wondering.

TC

[Chico Man]

2. Do you mean that they are unsuccessful hypocrites?

Or successful non-hypocrites?
Or unsuccessful non-hypocrites?

[wyldwolf]

3. but you'll vote "D" anyway

[elocs]

5. You're damned right I will! I am a Democrat and like my family, my party is not perfect.

It has some black sheep, some screw-ups, and some who let me down and they don't always do things the way I like or when I like it or jump through my hoops. But like my family I don't turn tail and walk away when the going gets tough. Perhaps those who give up and are not committed to making the Democratic Party a better place should find somewhere else to go, but good luck in finding the perfect party with the perfect people who do everything you like. When you do, you won't be in Kansas anymore.

[SteelPenguin]

4. Nader has lost alot of ground with me over the past 7 years

Now though I honestly think there is something wrong with him. I can understand people in 2000 believing the whole Tweedledum Tweedledee crap. It was utterly wrong, but I could understand people thinking that. Now though, anyone who thinks things would be just the fucking same if we were in year 7 of a Gore presidency....

Sorry, you're an idiot if you think that.

[jobycom]

6. You should have stopped after the third word.

Nader is wrong. Nader is just as bloody as BushCo because he actively sought Bush's election, knowing (even though his supporters may have been ridiculously naive) that Bush was surrounding himself with PNAC hawks who had been calling for an invasion of Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan for several years. Nader knew Bush would get us into war, even if his followers didn't. Yet he actively campaigned for BushCo, anyway, hoping that Bush would break things so badly that Nader would have a chance.

The blood on his hands is just as thick as that on Bush's, and I despise that filthy dog just as much. More, probably, because I once thought of him as a hero.

[PurityOfEssence]

7. Exactly

In a way, he's even worse because he either doesn't understand politics while selling himself as someone who does, or he thinks the whole thing has to crash and burn before it'll get any better.

The very idea that there's no difference between the parties just reeks; Gore would NEVER have attacked Iraq, period.

Nader has the blood of hundreds of thousands of people on his hands, and it needs to be repeated endlessly.

[greenissexy]

8. Nader is absolutely correct...

when you look at what is done rather than said. There isn't nearly enough of a difference between the parties. When you have many Party members voting for the war and absolutely *zero* that have voted for impeachment, there is a serious problem. Nader is correct that there really isn't a difference between the Party and them when it comes down to results. The Party may talk about ending the war and impeaching Bush, but it has not happend yet and probably will never happen. I want results.

[Frances]

9. I am losing patience with Nader defenders

We wouldn't be in this war if it weren't for Nader. NO WAY Gore would have invaded Iraq. And those people who say differently must have addled eggs for brains.

[chaska]

10. Oh, I'm sorry. Maybe if the party had learned their lesson in '00 and started...

governing as democrats we wouldn't have to have a repeat performance.

People have a right to vote as they please, for whatever reason, and it's not your place to say otherwise.

The message in a Nader vote is punishment (fix it or else) and it is an effective one. Nader voters aren't stupid. They demand representation and they have every right to have it. They do not have it with this Democratic party.

[Enthusiast]

12. Oh brother.................

"The message in a Nader vote is punishment (fix it or else) and it is an effective one. Nader voters aren't stupid. They demand representation and they have every right to have it. They do not have it with this Democratic party."

Look what voting for Nader has wrought. Nader had no chance of being elected. All Nader voters did was hand the country to the fascists. I would favor a viable third party candidate but all Nader did was siphon off votes that otherwise would have gone to Gore.

[Telly Savalas]

14. If the Nader vote is an effective punishment,

can you point to some specific examples of how Nader's 3 presidential bids have corrected the behavior of the Democratic Party?

[pnwmom]

13. Nader is a narcissistic jerk. We wouldn't be in Iraq AT ALL if Gore had been

elected in 2000.

Iraq is Bush's baby. The Dems are stuck now trying to extricate the country, but Bush lied us into this war, and Nader -- with his lies about "Tweedledee and Tweedledum"-- helped throw the election to Bush.

And he did it on purpose, in order to "punish" the Democrats:

http://soc.qc.cuny.edu/Staff/levine/Ralph-Nader-As-Suicide-Bomber.html


In the year 2000, Ralph Nader strapped political dynamite onto himself and walked into one of the closest elections in American history hoping to blow it up. He wanted to punish the Clinton-Gore Democrats for having betrayed him and the causes he believes in. His primary campaign mission was defeating Al Gore, but Nader concealed this from his supporters, even as he went after votes in swing states like Florida. On the day after election day, when everyone else was grim, and many Democrats were furious at him, Ralph Nader was a happy man.

The following essay presents evidence for this large claim and describes how I first learned this in the fall of 2000. Since the election, political discussions about Nader's campaign have often focused on its electoral effect. Did Nader's 97,000 votes in Florida defeat Al Gore making George W. Bush president? Most observers seem to agree that they did, but others insist that many factors defeated Gore. However, independent of the effect of the Nader campaign on the election results, one can ask about what Nader wanted to have happen. Now that he has decided to run again, in what promises to be another very close election, it is worth examining what Ralph Nader intended the last time.

SNIP

Nader also said many things that I did not think were true. He returned again and again to how Al Gore and George W. Bush were like "Tweedledee and Tweedledum," Lewis Carroll's obnoxious twins. They look and act the same, so it doesn't matter which one you get. Despite all the indications that this was to be a very close election, Nader also said that he couldn't possibly take the election from Gore -- "only Gore can do that." In effect Nader told people to ignore concerns about the handful of swing states where Nader voters might shift the electoral votes to Bush. Because there had been little media coverage of Nader's message at this stage, (especially in New York newspapers) one had to get close to the campaign to hear these things.

That night I received an email from an old friend, Ira Glasser, who had dealt with Nader occasionally over the years. Ira distrusted Nader and offered his educated guess that Nader would not withdraw anywhere because he "wants to punish the Democrats."

SNIP

[Enthusiast]

11. Democratic lawmakers are far less

Democratic law makers are far less likely to enact laws that blur the distinction between church and state. They were less likely until recently, unless this has changed. Some Democrats are actually pandering to fundamentalist Christian causes so this may have changed somewhat.

Democratic lawmakers are more in favor of law that actually protects the environment unlike the Republican Party that gives lip service to environmental causes but strive to enact laws to reward and protect the polluters.

Democratic lawmakers, at least until very recently, have been in favor of holding pharmaceutical companies responsible for both unfair drug prices and unsafe drugs. Now, with all the palm greasing going on I hope I am still right to believe this.

The Democratic party, in general, is an advocate of strong worker health and safety laws. The Republicans have a dismal record in this area.

The Democrats favor the right to organize collective bargaining. Of course we know the Republican position on organized labor. To Republicans, organized labor equals Stalinism.

I could go on and on but the suggestion that Democrat equals Republican is simply ridiculous.