Naderites can have distorted notions about the political process, as shown in this letter.

[LoZoccolo]

Look at this crazy mash which appeared in the Concord Monitor, which tries to excuse why Nader is not picking a candidate in the Democratic Primary:

Political party primaries are phony, and any candidates who show even a hint of independence are viciously attacked by their own party officialdom. Remember what happened to Howard Dean in the last election or John McCain in 2000? So what would be the use of endorsing Ron Paul or Mike Gravel?

First let me bring up the aside that this person is even talking about an endorsement of Ron Paul, which is way counter to any left-wing agenda.

Also, this person cannot seem to grasp that it is voters who voted down these candidates. How can that be "phony"?

But after all that, they say this.

Your hatchet-job editorial is very motivating to this former Nader campaigner. I relish reading negative editorials about Ralph Nader. Every hatchet piece is an affirmation, evidence of the political bigotry and cowardice of the "chattering classes" or "the commentariat" or whatever you people are called these days.

So political primaries are phony, but a Quixotic presidential run is not? That does not make sense.

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070721/REPOSITORY/707210333/1029/OPINION03

[LoZoccolo]

1. I don't know how I missed this: here's an admission that they intend to spoil.

I am ready to do my best and spoil the phony, rigged, hopelessly corrupt 2008 elections. Sharpen your fangs - you'll need 'em.

There it is, right on your screen. It's about messing things up for the rest of us.

[grasswire]

3. some of them are right here on DU

...with more than 1000 posts. They are sowing their seeds of interference every day.

[billyoc]

17. Make no mistake, the spoiler mentality is stronger than ever.

I have heard quite a few "scorched earth" strategies for ruining the Democratic party's chances in '08,
ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous.

[Vanje]

2. Naders few remaining faithful followers

Naders loyalists are sounding exactly like Lyndon LaRoush's

[sellitman]

10. Bingo!

You nailed it.

[ShortnFiery]

4. It's sad and perhaps he is a spoiler, but in a still, somewhat relatively FREE Country ...

Nader will most likely run in 2008. All the crying and blowing snot will not change reality.

Thank-God we don't have thugs who can muscle him out. I have NOT ever voted for Nader albeit I was sorely tempted in 1996, but relented to my husband's logic that even a moderate republican like "big dawg" would be better than a right wing republican.

Therefore, I won't vote for Nader. Haven't before - and will not in the future. However, his RIGHT to run for President should he snag the appropriate signatures and support, is part of why this country is still - somewhat free.

If anything, we need more parties as it seems that The Democratic and Republican parties are BOTH becoming increasingly subservient of large-corporate lobbyists.

No matter how many threads you posts and the numerous "F**k Nader" sentiments - he's most likely (80-90% odds) running.

Perhaps it's time to stop "preaching to the choir" because we're all less than thrilled? It just may be time to make peace with yourself because that fact is NOT going to change despite seemingly endless protestations on your part? :-)

[LoZoccolo]

5. "All the crying and blowing snot will not change reality."

That might not, but fierce attacks might.

And in a free country, we call that free speech. :patriot:

Perhaps it's time to stop "preaching to the choir" because we're all less than thrilled? It just may be time to make peace with yourself because that fact is NOT going to change despite seemingly endless protestations on your part? :-)

I don't do this thinking that I will stop Nader from running.

[ShortnFiery]

6. Then by all means, knock yourself out! However, I regret that hyperbole will not be

a successful tactic.

Again, if he has the signatures, he will run. The only things that will stop him from running are CLEARLY illegal. :scared:

IMO, the best way is NOT to disrespect those who gravitate to Nader, but to "reach out" with more liberal viewpoints by our democratic candidates.

Momma was right when she told me that you get more by exuding HONEY than VINEGAR.

BUT hey, you are exactly right: It's still a free country. Just don't be too disappointed when all this disrespect and vitriol does not succeed at getting those on the political left to RUSH INTO the democratic nominee's camp. :crazy: :shrug:

[LoZoccolo]

7. "However, I regret that hyperbole will not be a successful tactic."

Are you talking about the hyperbole inherent in the idea that there is little difference between the two major political parties?

[ShortnFiery]

8. You are alienating many people - that's not a "big tent" philosophy.

Instead of attacking Nader, why not put your efforts into encouraging the Democratic Candidates to adopt some of the more amenable liberal values he purports?

Instead of encouraging "hate" for those who gravitate to his message, why not spend that energy to "bring them into" OUR DEMOCRATIC TENT?

[LoZoccolo]

9. Because the problem with Naderism is bigger than the issues.

I sincerely believe it's a pathological tendency to try to show onesself as better or different than, say, 97% of the population or more. Or just a way of trying to manipulate people. It is clear from the arguments that the Naderites give that they cannot be taken at face value, because they do not make logical sense, and I'm trying to expose that so we can get back to real politics rather than dealing with peoples' issues.

If you don't believe me that adopting Green or Nader positions won't help anything, take a look at the Connecticut election for Senate where the Greens ran a candidate against Lamont. It's not about issues to any of these people; it's about trying to look like they are cool or something. I won't engage them in a game that I know they are not really playing. I will instead expose the one that they are playing.

[ShortnFiery]

12. OK, fair enough. But there are people who can be reached ...

though discussions and our candidates "returning home" on IMO, Democratic Values.

The only true reason that I engage you here is to encourage you to also "have patience" with the disenchanted Americans on the left? What it comes down to with many on the left, is that they are frustrated with the Corporate Stranglehold that has gripped both of our political parties.

My contribution is to do my best to re-instill some of those "for the common good" values in my fellow democrats. At the same time, I want to bring in Kucinich Primary Voters and potential Nader voters.

Sincere best wishes on what I see as an insurmountable task.

I guess we each have our own way of contributing to the political process. :shrug: :hi:

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. I am not a Nader fan, but the DLC does not speak for me

Instead of criticizing Nader and his supporters, we need to be drawing them back into our party. We need their votes.

We also need a multi-party system in this country. The Republocrats don't represent a lot of Americans.

[Frances]

13. I think that there is a far greater probability

of converting fundamentalists than of converting Naderites. Anyone still supporting Nader is incapable of thinking logically whereas fundamentalists voted for Republicans because they thought Republicans were moral and Democrats weren't moral. Now that Republicans are being exposed for hypocrisy, there is a possibility that they will decide that neither party has a lock on the family values issue. If fundamentalists then vote their economic interests, they will vote Dem.

[ShortnFiery]

14. OMG, I'd much rather have Greens come into our Democratic Tent - than welcome the Fundies!?!

Holy Cow! Here come the Fundies!! Run for your RIGHTS!!!

[MuseRider]

16. Ooooo

I love your Holy Cow.

[defendandprotect]

19. Not likely; unless you want the Democrats to go "pro-life"?

[depakid]

25. Many people would have NO PROBLEM with that at all

They'll sell out every single issue to the far right in pursuit of a corporatist agenda.

[Frances]

30. I don't understand your post at all

Where did you get the idea that fundamentalists are corporatists?

Most fundamentalists I know are blue collar workers who have had a lot of personal problems, such as drug/alcohol abuse, job loss, divorces. They turned to fundamentalist churches because they were looking for some stability in their lives.

The leaders of the fundamentalist churches may behave like CEOs, but the members need social security, medicare, medicaid, college loans, and higher minimum wages, all things that the Dems are for and the Repubs are against.

My point is that it's possible that these people can learn that the Dems are better for them than the Repubs.

Naderites don't care if the FDR programs are destroyed. In fact, they seem to take pleasure in seeing our country go down. The worse things get, the purer they feel. I don't think you can reason with people like that.

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. There are a ton of Greens in the anti-war movement

and every single one I have ever talked to has admitted to once being a Dem. We lost them. Another interesting thing I have found is the vast majority didn't vote for Nader. They get it and they will probably vote for a Dem in 2008. But we need to quit pushing them away. If you are a progressive, you probably agree with the Green platform all the way down the line. I know I do. But I am also too concerned about the Supreme Court to vote for anyone but the Dem candidate in 2008.

The Democratic party absolutely must do more to bring the Greens into our party. They are a rather significant voting block and we are going to need all the votes we can get in 16 months.

[depakid]

24. That's the ticket! Pander to the fundies!

Yep- that'll work like a charm- just as it has in the past.

[MuseRider]

15. Good.

:applause: Well said my friend. :hi:

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. Why thank you

my friend! :hi:

[defendandprotect]

18. Agree -- that's what you should be trying to do . . . however. . .

not many Democrats seem to want to acknowlege the need for a "multi-party system" in this country . . . WITH IRV VOTING . . .

And I'm not sure that the Democrats really understand what the Green Party platform was and how different from the Democratic Platform which has been "GOP'ed" --

Also, I'm not sure that Democrats understand the blocking of third parties by Democrats . . . . and the co-option of the Green Party by Democrats????

It is better if those who understand the LIMITATIONS of the two-party system and those who favor it -- in this case DEMOCRATS -- could speak more tolerantly with one another.

After all, are we really saying that if the Democratic Party fails that the only answer is the Democratic Party -- ???? No PLAN B -- ????

[defendandprotect]

20. Geting rid of the DLC -- and getting IRV voting should be major issues for all Democrats --

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. I agree

:)

[Alexander]

26. If the Democratic Party adheres to LIBERAL principles, Nader will disappear.

If the DLC-centrist-triangulation wing takes control, we can look forward to seeing more of Nader and his supporters.

[LoZoccolo]

27. Nope.

Lamont ran in Connecticut and the Greens still ran a candidate. The least the splinterists could do is outline what exactly would make them not splinter, and they won't do that. I don't think we can trust people who base their movement on the big green lie to begin with.

[Odin2005]

28. The Naderites remind me of some Marxists I know at my university.

They want to make everything as bad as possible because they think that people will come to them and appoint them saviors.

[LoZoccolo]

29. I think you've made a good match.

As a matter of fact, Stalin encouraged German communists not to form an alliance with liberals against Hitler in the 1932 elections using this same type of argument. As a result, Hitler was elected to power.

But hey, the communists eventually got their way as East Germany was formed 17 years later, right? So what's the matter?*

_{*NOTE: This part is sarcastic.}