Ralph Nader

[Sukie1941]

Nothing lately about Ralph Nader and what he could be up to for this 2008 election.

Anyone have info or predictions?

[saltpoint]

1. I'd like to see Ralph Nader take a post in academia and influence a

new generation of young people to become better critical thinkers.

If he runs as an independent in 2008 for the White House, I will ignore him heart & mind.

[Kelly Rupert]

24. Yes, we need more of the clear, rational thought he displayed in 2000.

Maybe we can train an entire generation to hand the White House to Republicans.

[saltpoint]

38. Nader's run did not "take" votes from Al Gore. Al Gore's campaign made

several mistakes and dropped the ball all by itself.

The Gore campaign simply surrendered Ohio to Bush. They gave up, pronounced the truncated effort there the best they could hope for, and closed up shop. In the end they only lost Ohio by 3.4%. They should have stayed and fought.

Gore lost his home state.

Nader is not to blame for Gore's poor judgment. Gore is wildly improved as a candidate/public figure/whatever he is these days. Wildly improved.

But in 2000 his campaign was rusty and wobbly and the stairs creaked.

Bush cheated him in Florida, IMO, but Gore cheated himself in Ohio.

Ralph Nader would make an excelletn teacher.

[penguin7]

40. Gore did poorly in the debates

But Ralph was spreading disinformation which hurt Gore.

[saltpoint]

81. I liked Gore in the debates fairly well. He was a bit sanctimonious, but

I swiftly forgive him for that, as he was in the strange position of debating a monkey.

In politics, disinformation is spread by more than one party. Gore can play hardball when he wants to.

[paulk]

43. of course Nader's campaign took votes from Gore

notwithstanding Gore's shortcomings as a campaigner, which weren't helped by the lies the media (and Ralph Nader) spread about him, surely enough of those voters who voted for him would have voted for Gore - enough to give him the election.

And don't forget that Nader campaigned in swing states (after promising not to) in what can only be seen as a targeted attempt to take votes away from the Democratic candidate. Don't rewrite history to protect Nader. He deserves every piece of shit thrown at him.

[Uncle Joe]

53. The corporate media propped up Nader as a viable candidate,

and kept his name front and center regardless of his standing in the polls. CNN's front homepage at the time only listed Democratic, Republican and the Green Party, you had to dig deeper to find the others. I suspect Buchanan wasn't listed front and center because they believed he would pull votes from Bush.

The same corporate media turned a 180 over night and over ruled them selves and their focus groups as to who won the debates.

The fix was in, but I hold the corporate media more responsible for that, than any other entity.

I also believe the corporate media's primary motivation for trashing and slandering Al Gore while simultaneously camouflaging Bush mistakes, lies and short comings was because Gore empowered the American People by championing the Internet, this threatened the media's monopoly on information. Information = power, money and influence and they didn't want the Internet's primary political champion in power. They were angry with Al Gore in the same way Zeus became angry with Prometheus for stealing fire from heaven and giving it to human kind. The loss of power was the motivator.

[The Wielding Truth]

76. I agree with you. Nader and voter fraud did him in.

[saltpoint]

82. The argument can just as easily be made that Gore lost votes in the

swing states. He GAVE Bush Ohio. He just folded up and left, and GAVE it to Bush. He lost by 3.4%, a VERY contestable percentage, but his own shortcomings as a strategist -- I'm talking year 2000 here, not 2007 -- lost him Ohio.

Ohio would have won him the electoral college, whether or not Ralph Nader was on any ballot in any of the 50 states.

[Romulox]

88. Votes are not *owned* by Democrats and Republicans

Nader didn't "take" votes from anybody. People cast votes for him of their own free will.

It's called democracy.

[paulk]

94. of course

and their "free will" helped put George Bush in the White House.

That's called stupidity.

[CreekDog]

65. Gore's lost votes were on the US Supreme Court

Please don't criticize Gore for getting the most votes in 2000.

That don't fly here and it's not honest.

[saltpoint]

83. Gore's mistakes during the campaign were considerable and he is the

bearer of the blame for them. The SCOTUS stole the election after everyone had voted -- that is, almost everyone - and the mistakes in the Gore campaign were already under the bridge.

It wasn't a very good campaign strategy in many respects. If Lieberman helped him in Florida, Lieberman hurt him in other places. Gore's veep pick that year was very questionable, despite specific advantages in Gore's own percpetions of a "new" ticket, free of Lewinsky-tainted Bill Clinton. It was Lieberman's early moralistic blather against "immoral Hollywood" that established him as a voice for Gore's strategy of "purifying" a ticket for voters. His insider polls correctly showed that many Christian fundamentalists would be in agreement with Lieberman and reasonably comfortable with Al Gore, a Baptist -- enough anyway, that they could prefer the seasoned Baptist and moralist conservative ticket to the pseudo cowboy and oil baron Republican ticket.

To this day the Gores and the Clintons are not pals. The tension is real and the tension did NOT help the Democratic ticket in 2000.

Lieberman helped a bit in Florida -- making it as close as it was before the SCOTUS stole the election by halting the votes. Bear in mind, though, that it WAS close, and IF Gore/Lieberman carried Florida (I believe they did), it wasn't by much. The narrowest of wins.

The decision to surrender Ohio to the Republicans was not a wise one. By 2000 standards, Gore had all kinds of money and more of it should have been spent fighting for Ohio instead of HANDING it to the Bush campaign. Even THEN, the Republicans only won Ohio by 3.4%, and with it, the electoral difference Gore/Lieberman needed to win the White House.

[DutchLiberal]

100. Supreme Court handed WH to Republicans. You're quite the 'liberal' to blame other liberals.

Makes me sick. Nader-bashing is ridiculous. Go blame the people who are responsible.

Also, Democrats themselves drove people away and into Nader's arms. Gore took DLC-positions and Lieberman as running mate. If Democrats don't appeal to voters and drive them away, it's their own fault!

[ludwigb]

47. I agree

I wonder why Nader has never taught at any law school. It would be wonderful if he could train a whole new generation of law students in finding ways to practice law in ways consistent with their morals and ideals. Public-sector oriented law. I understand even Bernadine Dohrn has a job teaching law nowadays--if she isn't too radical to get a job then Nader surely isn't either.

[saltpoint]

80. Yes. He would make an inspiring teacher.

[ulysses]

2. bubble, bubble, toil and trouble...

[davidwparker]

3. He was on Real Time friday and Hartmann today. I always like listening to

him.

[philosophie_en_rose]

4. If you see Ralph Nader, 1-2-3

Here's a fresh new way that's trouble free.
It's got Paul Anka's guarantee.
Guarantee void in Tennessee.

Just don't look.

[onehandle]

5. My crystal ball sees him running a t-shirt stand in DC.

The t-shirts read, "I helped install a pro-corporate, conservative court that will stand for the next thirty years and all I got was this lousy t-shirt."

[Kelly Rupert]

28. See, I'm picturing a shirt,

where the right half is bright-red, and the left half is bright-blue. In white text on the front, "Not a dime's worth of difference between these colors."

It'll be a charity fundraiser for him, and everyone else who is absolutely oblivious to the world around them.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. If The Dems Nominate A Republican, I Think Ralph Will Run

We need a president from, as Dean says, "The Democratic wing of the Democratic Party".

[MonkeyFunk]

8. fortunately

No republicans are running for the democratic nomination.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. I Beg To Differ. Certainly, They're FAR To The Right Of Eisenhower

Who was, of course, a Republican: http://blueworksbetter.com/EisenhowerFlamingLiberal

Two of our three presidential frontrunners helped start a war with a country that was not a threat, and cheerled job-obliterating permanent "free" trade status for China. If these are Democrats, then God help us.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. And according to

this comprehensive ranking of Senators on a wide range of issues, Clinton is more progressive than Russ Feingold:

http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?member=HI1&search=selectScore&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=49&y=9


edited to fix link.

There are other issues in the world.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. What Is That Link Supposed To Point To?

It doesn't seem to be what you thought it was.

In any case, Clinton votes hard right on the few really important bills, left on everything else. This way she can tell Democrats that she has a 90+% record on voting for lefty causes, but still appease her patrons in the Predator Class.

[MonkeyFunk]

14. so sorry

I failed to copy it and that was something I posted elsewhere. I'll fix it in my post.

http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?member=HI1&search=selectScore&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=49&y=9

[MannyGoldstein]

17. This Is A Perfect Example Of Her Tactic (nt)

Those few votes that she voted the wrong way on were the big, big votes.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. Then vote for Nader

and see how that works out for you.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. Then vote for Nader

I'm sick of the idiocy that Dems = Republicans that got us President Bush in the first place.

[MannyGoldstein]

18. First I'll Work to Get Democrats Nominated

If that doesn't work, I'll have some thinking to do.

[ProudDad]

21. Wrong again monkey funk

Al Gore and the DLC gave us bush...

[Kelly Rupert]

26. No, you see, Al Gore was running against Bush,

while Nader was running against Al Gore. It's strange, the logic of the Naderites.

"Yes, our candidate took votes from Al Gore, and yes, had that not happened, Bush would not have become president. But it's still Gore's fault. He should have won enough votes to cover our irresponsibility."

[ProudDad]

35. In what country? In what election?

I voted for Nader in 2000 because he was running against both of the corporate candidates...

[Kelly Rupert]

41. Do you believe that Al Gore would have invaded Iraq?

If yes, you're frankly insane. If no, then that's a pretty big difference, don't you think?

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

23. I'm sick of Dem=Republican candidates-how about not nominating Hillary?

The Dems aren't entitled to the votes of the left. If they want us to back them, then they shouldn't take us for granted.
Giving Carville control of the party again is not the way to go.
When a significant bloc of us vote for Ralph (id Hillary is the nominee) or have trouble mustering the passion to get involved in the campaign, don't be surprised

[Kelly Rupert]

27. You guys want to give the Republicans the White House again, fine.

Leave the party, we don't need you. Seriously. The people who vote for Ralph Nader are people who vote for ideology first and practicality second. And frankly, Ralph Nader is always going to be closer to their views than the Dem nominee will. And so they'll always vote for Nader.

If you'd rather vote for Nader and complain about Presidents Bush and Thompson (while spinning up fantasy-scenarios that somehow absolve you of responsibility for your vote), that's your deal.

Y'all claimed Bush and Gore were The Exact Same, not a dime's worth of difference, republicrat, etc., etc. How'd that work out for you. Is Bush really the same as Gore would have been?

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

29. I'm not unreasonable, but Hillary is not on any progressive's side

She demonstrated that time and time again.
Don't want to deal with defections or stay-at-home dems?
then nominate an actual democrat.
I don't have to have Kucinich, but it's undeniable that she's the most pro-war, pro-corporatist of all the candidates.
The reason she keeps taking these rightwing stands is because she knows she can get away with it. She'll get the donor money and the primary votes of the Clinton zombies, then come fall, she gets the votes of the "anyone with a 'D' next to their name" types, who disregard her association with wal-mart, murdoch and morris and do as they're told.

Don't come crying to me when the Clintons alienate the grassroots to the point that they give the GOP control of Congress, the statehouses and governorship again. That's the real electoral legacy of those who belive the party elite knows best

[Kelly Rupert]

33. I wasn't aware that a 93.0% Democratic party-line record

made her against the Democratic party. Apparently I missed the memo. What's the cutoff now?

(You know how political parties deal with small groups who frequently defect to third parties? They don't. They realize that they're a pack of useless whiners, and start looking elsewhere for their support. Notice how the Democratic party shifted rightwards after Nader's sabotage? Think that's coincidence?)

[truebrit71]

79. The cutoff? How about voting for an illegal war and supporting the Patriot Act...

...Un-progressive enough for you?

It is for me...

[Kelly Rupert]

86. Her votes have not differed from those cast by Obama or Edwards in either regard. n/t

[truebrit71]

87. Obama voted for the war? He voted for the Patriot act? Really? I don't think so...

...

[CreekDog]

63. When you make ultimatums you are threatening

people, PARTY MEMBERS that if the plurality of them don't vote for the right candidate, you will take your ball and go vote for Nader or whomever.

Don't give me all this stuff about the "Establishment" or whatever. You are asking Hillary supporters like my mom for instance, or my aunt, both longtime Democrats to vote for your choice and not theirs.

Screw you. You want your choice of nominee, get that person nominated by getting them the most votes.

Otherwise you don't believe in the primary system of selecting a nominee.

[gateley]

70. Lou Dobbs encourages everyone to re-register as an Independent so the

Parties don't just take our support and votes for granted.

[CreekDog]

73. What the hell does "taking for granted mean" in this context?

This is the stupidest talk I have heard.

The parties will nominate the candidate who gets the most votes in their primaries and caucauses.

Do you have a better way of choosing candidates that doesn't rely on voting?

The idiocy!

[ProudDad]

60. According to Al Gore -- it was Gore and the DLC that gave you bush

along with Sandra Day O'Conner...

[Romulox]

89. Don't blame me; I voted for KODOS!

[riverdale]

90. Fascinating link on Eisenhower

Thanks for that!

[ProudDad]

20. Other than the "top tier", that is (n/t)

[pnwmom]

10. None of the Dems who are running are any more of a Republican

than Al Gore, whom Nader was happy to help defeat.

[ProudDad]

36. Why don't you Nader-Haters

give that old tired lie a rest, eh???

It just makes you sound ignorant to keep repeating it ad nauseum...

The FACTS:

Gore won...but thanks to Gore and the DLC (ACCORDING TO GORE) -- not by enough...

It was repuke dirty tricks and Sandra Day O'Conner who gave bush the White House.

If you keep believing your little anti-Nader fantasy, you'll let some corporate Dem do it again...

[Kelly Rupert]

42. Why don't you Naderites

just leave the Democrats alone already? This is a site for Democrats. You've handed over enough to the Republicans already.

From the Rules:

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.

[ProudDad]

45. I'm registered Democrat at present

Why don't you leave good democrats alone? You triangulating right-of-center dems have handed over enough to the republicans already...

I like how you've addressed the issues instead of attacking the messen...oh, you didn't...never mind...

This is a site for PROGRESSIVES!!!



lousy net nannies -- pain in the ass!! :puke: :eyes:




On Edit:

Why don't you just hit alert? although it probably won't result in anything but pissing off a Mod. I've had maybe 5 posts removed in the last 5 years (out of a total of about 15,000 or 20,000 (the counter doesn't click over for multiple posts in one thread) and the post that pushed you into loony-land was NOT against the rules by any stretch of your Nader-Hater fed imagination...

[Kelly Rupert]

48. I would not call anyone who does not vote for Democrats a "Good Democrat."

Rather, they are Republican enablers blinded by self-righteousness.

(This is a site for Democrats of all political stripes. It says so right in the rules.)

[ProudDad]

58. It says "Progressives" right in the rules

and I have voted for and will vote again for PROGRESSIVE Democrats (or whatever) in those rare occasions when it's possible...

I will NEVER vote for a corporate tool again... I made that decision in the early 90s when Slick Willie signed NAFTA...


But why are you so worried? Here in the belly of the beast, the home of your corporate capitalist masters, your side will probably win...


Hope you like more NAFTA, GATT and WTO crap, you're probably going to get it...

Hope you like this slide toward a 3rd world economy, you're probably going to get it...

Hope you like the Big Brother Police State, you're probably going to get it...

Hope you enjoy Iraq, you're probably going to get more and more wars...

Hope you enjoy media consolidation and the new two tier internet, you're probably going to get it...


Unless enough people get on board with a REAL progressive platform, we're going to get more and more corporate crap.

As your corporate capitalist masters would say, they pay the fare they get to go where THEY want to go...

[Kelly Rupert]

68. Gee, all that was either created or championed by Bush.

Who, as I recall, was thrust into office by your idiotic votes. Have fun coping with that.

[ProudDad]

95. Slick Willie was just as complicit

maybe more so since he was able to keep the unconscious "middle" quiet while he did the right-wing's bidding.

As for my votes -- I have an entirely clear conscience about every vote I've made since ceasing to vote for DINOS and DLC corporate shills...

I had NOTHING TO DO with bush getting into office and I carry ZERO responsibility for that debacle...

That was Al Gore, the DLC, the repub dirty tricks and, ESPECIALLY, Sandra Day O'Conner's doing...

[CreekDog]

77. If Gore had been President, the Iraq War wouldn't have happened

In fact, in 2002 and 2003, Gore was one of the most stridently anti-Iraq War leaders out there.

But he wasn't good enough for you in 2000.

You twit.

[CreekDog]

66. Gore ran as a liberal, so stop lying

In these debates that you say Gore "lost", he:

said he was PRO-CHOICE, unequivocally
said he was PRO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
said he was for civil rights

etc, etc.

I have never seen a major candidate express those views in such concrete terms, but Gore did.

Furthermore, he ran against the tax cuts, he ran in favor of keeping Social Security funded, Medicare funded, etc. etc.

And finally, it was the DLC that criticized Gore, after the election, for running a "divisive" and "liberal" campaign.

So try actually making valid assertions instead of just making stuff up.

[riverdale]

91. I noticed how he picked that liberal Joe Lieberman for VP

Gore was far more conservative in 2000 than he is now.

[JamesA1102]

12. Dean stole that line from the late Paul Wellstone

which is odd because when Dean was Governor of Vermont, he was one of the most Conservative Democratic Governors in the country.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Conservative?

I think he's better characterized as having had a high standard deviation - far left on most things, Conservative on some others. But you might be more knowledgeable than I.

[Progressive Friend]

7. Nader? Who knows. But the Green Party is running someone for president in 2008

No idea who it will be at this point.

[PhD]

37. Will the Green's even nominate Nader?

Or have they had enough of his whiny antics?

[Progressive Friend]

74. the GP would definitely nominate Nader again, if he seeks the nomination

In 2004 he only wanted to be endorsed and not be the official candidate of the GP.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

22. He's basically said he's in if the Dems nominate Hillary

and he's got my vote, under those circumstances.
I don't vote for pro-war, bankruptcy bill-passing, first amendemnt restricting, former wal-mart board member Republicrat friends of Rupert Murdoch

If the Dems want the vote of the grassroots, they'd better unhitch the party establishment from Hillary and nominate a real progressive (or failing that, at least someone left-leaning)

[Kelly Rupert]

25. There's a surefire way to kill the progressive wing of the Democratic party.

Set an impossibly high standard--one that literally no non-Kucinich (that is to say, viable) candidate follows--and declare that we will throw away our votes otherwise. Look at the Republicans. You know who always votes for the boys in red, no matter what? The base. You know who gets all the meat over there? The base. Look at us. You know who's a bunch of fickle spites who'll abandon a candidate over one issue? The base. You know who gets all the meat over here? The center.

I bet we ought to continue to alienate ourselves from the rest of the Democratic party. That'll work even better.

The Dems are realizing that the grassroots is, quite frankly, never satisfied. Why bother going for our vote when we'll huff and vote for the "purer" candidate like Nader? Might as well go for the centrist vote; there are more of them and they don't vote out of spite.

(Speaking of these things, I would have thought that after 2000, all you they're-the-samers would have learned your lesson. After eight years of Bush, and eight years of Clinton, do you still believe that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between "Gush and Bore?")

[Progressive Friend]

30. The base of the GOP does not threaten the economic interests of those who control the GOP

The super rich who control the GOP can easily pander to their fundamentalist base, because that base has basically no demands that threaten their economic interests in any significant way.

However, with the Democratic Party, the base of progressives and trade unionists does come into conflict with the super rich who control the Democratic Party. In addition, these differences over economic matters are irreconcilable - the rich want to continue getting richer at the workers' expense.

Eventually, either one of two possibilities will happen: the progressive base of the Democratic Party will finally take over the party, resulting in an exodus of the old wealthy elite who currently control it. Or, the progressive base will exit the Democratic Party and form its own political party/organization. One of these scenarios is inevitable.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

31. BINGO

i need add nothing more

[Kelly Rupert]

34. Sorry to slow you up a bit,

but the trade unionists are not Nader's support focus; they tend to be socially conservative, and recently are far more likely to cross over for the Republicans for the Greens. It's the hardcore progressives who form Nader's base. And frankly, they are not a threat to anyone. They're five, maybe ten percent of the electorate, IIRC, and most of those are sensible enough not to throw away their votes.

Frankly, you overestimate your importance. Hillary does not pander to you not because you are a threat to her, but because you are fussier than your numbers allow you to be and still be taken seriously.

[ProudDad]

50. From the Rules

"Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals <clip>."

"Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates."

Hell, you don't even have to be a "Democrat"...

[Kelly Rupert]

54. Please try to respond to my posts.

That has nothing to do with anything I said in the post you replied to.

Edit: Since I assume you were trying to respond to the above thread, my response is this:

Your snip is very interesting. The full quote is:

"Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

Moreover, the other line you quoted is simply saying that the site is not run by, nor does it have any official links to, the Democratic party, and it does not claim to speak for the Democratic party. Legal boilerplate.

[ProudDad]

56. I support REAL democrats for office

I voted for the Barbaras -- Lee and Boxer...

Didn't vote for DiFi the Dino...

I'm not driven by the corporate money soaked "leadership" of the Democratic Party but by my principles and values...

You should try it...

[Kelly Rupert]

57. I'm sure you were very proud of your principles

the day Bush was sworn in.

[CreekDog]

67. You are twisting and misquoting the rules for your own purposes

And you are a fully dishonest person here and you've shown that for everybody to see.

The rules don't say "Real Democrats" and your quote in a previous post left out the portion of the rules that contradicts your point.

This is terrible, how do you expect to convince anybody here to agree with you when you won't be honest and accurate in your statements?

[CreekDog]

78. Proud, you don't support real Democrats

You supported Nader in 2000.

If your vote is so sacrcosanct, then why did you vote for Nader, who took money from Republicans and twisted the truth during the campaign?

Or maybe that's only a big deal unless it's your candidate.

Please don't moralize to us, clean up your own backyard first.

[ProudDad]

99. Here's why I voted FOR Nader...

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/09/131226&mode=thread&tid=25

Ralph Nader on Abortion

* If Roe is reversed, decision just reverts to the states. (Sep 2002)
* Threats to overturn Roe are “scare tactics”. (Nov 2000)
* Women should decide whether to use RU-486, not government. (Oct 2000)
* No government role; let women privately decide. (May 2000)
* Roe v Wade is safe; GOP must back off pushing it. (Feb 2000)

Ralph Nader on Budget & Economy

* Jobs lost may not be replaced by new ones. (Jul 2003)
* 47 million full-time workers make less than $10 an hour. (Oct 2000)
* Use surplus to rebuild country & provide for communal needs. (Oct 2000)
* Top priorities: Infrastructure; poverty; preventive health. (Jul 2000)
* High gas prices are the fruit of corporate power. (Jun 2000)
* People indicators are down despite good economic indicators. (May 2000)
* Two-tiered economy is unhealthy & troubling. (May 2000)
* Allow citizen lawsuits for waste in govt spending. (Feb 2000)
* The economy is down, when measured by human yardsticks. (Feb 2000)
* Fed worries wrongly about wage inflation over profits. (Nov 1999)
* Spend surplus on public works & infrastructure. (Jul 1999)
* GNP fails to measure quality of life. (Dec 1995)

Ralph Nader on Civil Rights

* Get rid of gay discrimination fully, not halfway. (Jul 2004)
* African Americans progress is too slow-we can do better. (Mar 2004)
* Women are still second-class citizens in school athletics. (Jan 2003)
* Truth and reconciliation commission for Native Americans. (Aug 2000)
* Disagrees with ACLU on spending money as free speech. (Feb 2000)
* Supports “impenetrable protection of privacy”. (Oct 1996)
* Differentiate discriminatory justice from indiscriminate. (Oct 1996)
* Political discourse narrows when media serves Mammon. (Dec 1995)
Gay Rights
* Nader supports gay marriage; but gay groups support Gore. (Nov 2000)
* Equal gay rights, including civil union. (Oct 2000)
* Supports Civil Union in Vermont and elsewhere. (May 2000)
* Long history of fighting in sexual politics. (Feb 2000)

Ralph Nader on Corporations

* Citizens' agenda for cracking down on corporate crime. (Oct 2004)
* No eminent domain gifts to private enterprises. (Aug 2004)
* Legislative "tort deform" for consumers, not corporations. (Jul 2004)
* Economic powers control our lives and our elections. (Jul 2004)
* Capitalism can lead to fascism. (Jul 2004)
* Corporations should not legally be counted as individuals. (Jul 2004)
* Giant corporations roam the Earth making people into serfs. (Jul 2004)
* Net worth is $3.8 million; owns corporate stocks. (Oct 2002)
* Consumerism is about corporations vs. citizens. (Sep 2002)
* Shift power from corporations to consumers. (Oct 2000)
Auto Safety
* Auto safety devices are simple & cheap; but take years. (Oct 2000)
* Safety regulation works; but Auto Safety Agency sold out. (Oct 2000)
* More regulation for auto safety, with criminal penalties. (Oct 2000)
* Cancel R&D giveaways to auto industry; let them do it. (Oct 2000)
* Gore has given auto industry and other polluters a free ride. (Oct 2000)
* Motor vehicles are the greatest environmental hazard. (Feb 2000)
* DOT: Focus on safety and mass transit. (Oct 1996)
* Automakers avoid replacing internal combustion engines. (Dec 1995)
Consumer Rights
* Help for ordinary people should replace corporate welfare. (Sep 2000)
* Address corporate crimes piecemeal AND by revoking charters. (Feb 2000)
* Stop giving corporations the same rights as people. (Dec 1995)
Corporate Welfare
* Scrutinize even “good” corporate welfare which helps public. (Oct 2000)
* Corporate welfare is a function of political corruption. (Oct 2000)
* S&L bailout helped bankers & hurt consumers. (Oct 2000)
* Rules needed for examining & challenging corporate welfare. (Oct 2000)
* Disallow benefits to companies except for public purposes. (Oct 2000)
* Stadiums & other local tax abatements ignore small business. (Oct 2000)
* Federal regulation of state & local abatements & subsidies. (Oct 2000)
* Bailouts: require payback; practice prevention by regulation. (Oct 2000)
* Legislation to eliminate all corporate welfare. (Oct 2000)
* $1000 bounty for suing for abuse of corporate welfare. (Oct 2000)
* Big business influence hurts democracy. (Jun 2000)
* Corporate sponsorship turns debates into beer commercials. (Jun 2000)
* Corporate government has hijacked political leadership. (Feb 2000)
* States & the public should oppose corporate tax breaks. (Apr 1999)
* Role of government is to counteract power of corporations. (Apr 1996)
* Coined the term “corporate welfare”. (Jul 1995)

Ralph Nader on Crime

* Crime in the suites worse than crime in the streets. (Sep 2002)
* Decreasing unemployment reduces crime; not enforcement. (Aug 2000)
* Death penalty does not deter. (Aug 2000)
* Moratorium on executions. (Aug 2000)
* Some executed by death penalty were innocent. (Jul 2000)
* Pollution & toxic exposure cause more deaths than homicide. (Jun 2000)
* Death penalty does not deter & is discriminatory. (Jun 2000)
* Focus on crime prevention instead of harsher sentences. (Jun 2000)
* Police must follow the law too. (May 2000)
* Product liability suits are a pillar of democracy. (Mar 1996)
* Lawyers & victims need unlimited contingency fees. (Mar 1996)
* Regulatory agencies are needed to fight corporate crime. (Dec 1995)

Ralph Nader on Drugs

* Rehabilitation, not incarceration. (Jul 2004)
* Women targeted by tobacco and alcohol companies. (Feb 2003)
* Failed War on Drugs endangers communities. (Oct 2000)
* Legalize marijuana, and treat addiction as a health problem. (Sep 2000)
* Treat hemp like poppy seeds, not like heroin. (Sep 2000)
* Remove industrial hemp from DEA drug list. (Jun 2000)
* Replace Drug War with treatment and alternative sentencing. (Jun 2000)
* Supports legalization of industrial hemp. (May 2000)
* Solution to addiction is information, not prohibition. (Oct 1994)
* Rated A+ by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record. (Dec 2003)

Ralph Nader on Education

* Abandon standardized testing; focus on teaching civic skills. (Oct 2000)
* Invest in K-12 education; that will reduce poverty. (Jun 2000)
* Teach democratic principles & citizenship in schools. (Feb 2000)
* Kick Channel One & commercialism out of class. (May 1999)
* Focus on civic & consumer education. (Oct 1996)
School Choice
* Support choice within public schools. (Jun 2000)

Ralph Nader on Energy & Oil

* US lags behind Europe & Japan in renewable energy. (Oct 2004)
* Kyoto treaty is so watered down there’s nothing to fight for. (Nov 2000)
* Drilling Alaska is a temporary fix for an inebriated system. (Oct 2000)
* More renewables & more efficency to stave off global warming. (Jul 2000)
* Raise CAFE standards; treat SUVs like cars. (Jul 2000)
* Congress should revive energy policies before crisis. (Oct 1999)
* Promote energy independence to avoid foreign wars. (Oct 1996)

Ralph Nader on Environment

* Charge agribusiness for water; stop charging more to people. (Oct 2000)
* Mining companies get free mines for campaign contributions. (Oct 2000)
* Highway pork leads to sprawl, air pollution, global warming. (Oct 2000)
* End all commercial logging in National Forests. (Jul 2000)
* Head off a genetic engineering rampage. (Feb 2000)
* Protect whistleblowers on health, safety, & pollution. (Feb 2000)
* Corporate collectivism leads toward ecological disaster. (Feb 2000)
* More funds to maintain National Park system. (Jul 1999)
* National corporate charters for environmental bankruptcy. (Mar 1996)

Ralph Nader on Families & Children

* Corporations are commercializing the world of the child. (Jul 2004)
* Democracy needs youth’s energy & participation. (Jun 2000)
* Commercialism & TV make childrearing more difficult. (Jun 2000)
* Support personal responsibility; teach dispute resolution. (Jun 2000)
* TV ads targeting kids are “electronic child molesting”. (Feb 2000)
* Corporate TV marketers are raising our kids. (Oct 1999)
* National speed limit saves lives. (Mar 1996)
* Commercial TV separates children from parents. (Dec 1995)

Ralph Nader on Foreign Policy

* Corporate activity destroys the third world. (Jul 2004)
* Redefine national purpose to solve Third World scourges. (Jun 2000)
* Support foreign peasants instead of foreign dictators. (Jun 2000)
* Support social and economic justice across the globe. (Jun 2000)
* Assist Russia & Israel in moving towards better governments. (Jun 2000)
* Selling arms is not a good way to conduct foreign affairs. (Feb 2000)
* Cuba: corporate sales of junk undermines their system. (Feb 2000)
* Support human rights as cornerstone of US foreign policy. (Jun 2000)

Ralph Nader on Free Trade

* Free trade isn't win-win: we're exporting jobs. (Jul 2003)
* High-tech jobs lost to foreign countries. (Jul 2003)
* NAFTA and GATT supersede national and state laws. (Sep 2002)
* Restrict IMF power, or abolish it. (Oct 2000)
* End export assistance; it’s corporate welfare. (Oct 2000)
* Renegotiate NAFTA & WTO “as if human beings mattered”. (Oct 2000)
* Subordinate the commercial to human rights, enviro, & labor. (Jul 2000)
* It’s not free trade; it’s corporate-managed trade. (Apr 2000)
* NAFTA failures: $50B Mexico bailout; 400,000 exported jobs. (Oct 1996)
China
* China & other dictatorships have no real free trade. (Jul 2000)
Globalization
* Globalization is a betrayal of workers and environment. (Nov 2000)
* Seattle sparked movement to question corporate globalization. (Feb 2000)
* “Battle of Seattle” convinced president to reconsider WTO. (Dec 1999)
* Global trade concentrates power & homogenizes the globe. (Dec 1999)
* WTO’s “trade uber alles” hurts environment, health, & safety. (Dec 1999)
* A growing movement: international labor rights. (Aug 1999)
* Multinational corporations challenge democracy. (Oct 1994)

Ralph Nader on Government Reform

* Civic engagement fights corporate-government fascism. (Oct 2004)
* $13M for "educational" party conventions wastes tax dollars. (Jul 2004)
* The two parties are proxies for corporate government. (Jul 2004)
* Taking away votes from Democrats gains leverage. (Jul 2004)
* Advocate to allow people to vote "no confidence". (Jul 2004)
* Democracy gap: people must claim power, or the greedy will. (Jul 2004)
* Giving information to people overcomes propaganda. (Jul 2004)
* Change requires a critical mass of the involved. (Jul 2004)
* Presidential Debates designed to exclude third parties. (Jan 2004)
* Increase voting by weekend and holiday Election Days. (Sep 2002)
* Primary architect of Freedom of Information Act. (Sep 2002)
* Bush & Gore are same corporate party; would impeach Clinton. (Nov 2000)
* Don’t waste your vote: Gore & Bush only marginally differ. (Oct 2000)
* Supreme Court nominees should have a sense of justice. (Aug 2000)
* Nader in debates will draw out the “priceless truth”. (Aug 2000)
* Justices need sense of justice & sense of history. (Jul 2000)
* Allow voting for “None of the Above”. (Feb 2000)
* Empower citizens via accurate information from govt. (Feb 2000)
* Reinvent democracy via new tools for citizen empowerment. (Feb 2000)
* Concentrated party power weakens democracy. (Feb 2000)
* Focus on anti-trust enforcement to help small business. (Oct 1996)
* 100% publicly funded campaigns, by $100 tax checkoff. (Oct 1996)
* Government delivers more service than people realize. (Dec 1995)
Campaign Finance Reform
* Green Party does not take PAC, soft, or corporate cash. (Oct 2000)
* No private money in public campaigns. (Aug 2000)
* Spending campaign money is not free speech. (Feb 2000)
* Public campaign finance; 12-year term limits. (Feb 2000)
* Public election financing, with free TV & radio time. (Feb 2000)

Ralph Nader on Gun Control

* Support Brady Bill & thoughtful gun control. (Jun 2000)
* Supports trigger locks, licensing, & banning some guns. (Jun 2000)

Ralph Nader on Health Care

* 3.5% payroll tax to fund universal healthcare. (Sep 2002)
* Enforce fair drug prices if sponsored by govt research. (Oct 2000)
* Medicare prescriptions covered under universal health care. (Sep 2000)
* Price restraints on drugs; limit profiteering. (Sep 2000)
* Opposes assisted suicide laws for terminally ill. (Aug 2000)
* Cradle-to-grave health care better than Clinton’s plan. (Jul 2000)
* Use Canadian system as a model for US. (May 2000)
* Health care is a universal human right. (May 2000)
* Recast health care in a non-profit mode. (Mar 2000)
* Keep commercialism out of maternity wards. (Aug 1999)
* Make medicines affordable in Third World. (Jul 1999)
* Challenge the monetization of HMOs. (Jul 1999)
* HMO review procedures must be independent of HMOs. (Jul 1999)
* HMO plan: accountability, doctor-driven, independent review. (Jul 1999)
* Criticizes “sweetheart deal” for big tobacco. (Nov 1998)
* Let FDA regulate nicotine as an addictive drug. (Mar 1996)
* Tobacco is the world’s worst air pollutant. (Oct 1994)

Ralph Nader on Homeland Security

* Weapons corporations indirectly control tax dollars. (Jan 2003)
* Bush attacks civil liberties while saying he defends them. (Oct 2002)
* Cut defense budget by $62B by reducing waste & fraud. (Sep 2002)
* Corporate welfare: taxpayers fund defense industry mergers. (Oct 2000)
* Deter wars by being attuned abroad. (Oct 2000)
* Kill F-22, Seawolf, Osprey, & other gold-plated weapons. (Oct 2000)
* Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is discriminatory against gays. (Sep 2000)
* SDI doesn’t work; money better spent elsewhere. (Jul 2000)
* Stop using weapons sales to determine foreign policy. (Jun 2000)
* Stop spending on unneeded weapons & non-existent enemies. (Jun 2000)
* Cut defense budget by $100B; time to demobilize. (May 2000)
* Stop unneeded defense of prosperous countries. (May 2000)
* Defense frameworks: how to wage peace while building weapons. (Feb 2000)
* Popular participation instead of corporate involvement. (Feb 2000)
* Supports Test Ban Treaty & arms control. (Feb 2000)
* Arms race is driven by corporate demand. (Feb 2000)
* F-22 aircraft is unneeded; and dangerous to fly. (Feb 2000)

Ralph Nader on Immigration

* Don’t criminalize the border; but no open border either. (Oct 2000)
* Guest workers OK, with labor standards. (Oct 2000)
* Support democracy abroad so fewer will immigrate. (Oct 2000)
* Immigrants don’t come for welfare; restore safety net. (Jun 2000)
* Don’t blame immigrants for social and economic problems. (Jun 2000)

Ralph Nader on Jobs

* Focus on family farms instead of large agribusiness. (Oct 2000)
* U.S. farm policy should focus on family farmers. (Sep 2000)
Labor
* Living wage spreads economic expansion to reach all areas. (Oct 2000)
* Repeal Taft-Hartley; strengthen unions. (Oct 2000)
* Unions struggle even in heart of union country. (Sep 2000)
* Vote for a union supporter, not against Republicans. (Aug 2000)
* Message to Democrats: Don’t take labor for granted. (Jul 2000)
* Raise the minimum wage immediately. (Jun 2000)
* Functional wages are falling despite economic boom. (Jun 2000)
* Top CEOs make 415 times entry wages. (Feb 2000)
* Limit executive salaries & perks. (Feb 2000)
* Student pressure can help oppressed textile workers abroad. (Aug 1999)

Ralph Nader on Social Security

* Social Security is solid; pending bankruptcy is nonsense. (Sep 2000)
* Pensions controlled by people, not banks or insurers. (Feb 2000)
* Social insurance is government at its noblest. (Jan 1999)
* Social Security privatization replaces certainty with risk. (Jan 1999)
* Fears loss of retirement funds in privatized investments. (Jan 1999)

Ralph Nader on Tax Reform

* Stop tax cuts and start dealing with real problems. (Jun 2003)
* Tax code loopholes benefit corporate donors & cost taxpayers. (Oct 2000)
* Sunshine on tax loopholes; sunset on tax breaks. (Oct 2000)
* Put meat in the process of progressive taxation. (Oct 2000)
* More taxpayer input into tax & spending policy. (Feb 2000)
* Tax breaks for big business hurt families. (Dec 1999)
* Tax breaks to big business unfairly hurt small business. (Apr 1999)
* Focus on under-taxation of corporations, not income tax. (Oct 1996)
* Against flat tax; keep progressivity. (Oct 1996)

Ralph Nader on Technology

* FCC is hapless agent in media regulation. (May 2003)
* The media needs more diversity and competition. (May 2003)
* FCC gave away $70B in airwave licenses to large corporations. (Oct 2000)
* Domain name registration needs openness to replace monopoly. (Oct 2000)
* Put all Congressional voting records on Internet. (Jun 2000)
* More free info from govt via computers & airwaves. (Feb 2000)
* Ruling against Microsoft bodes well for competition. (Nov 1999)
* Bold investment needed for public transportation. (Jul 1999)
* Microsoft is anticompetitive and anticonsumer. (Nov 1998)
* Microsoft must be stopped. (Nov 1998)
* The public owns the airwaves; express our rights. (Apr 1996)

Ralph Nader on War & Peace

* Responsible six-month withdrawal from Iraq occupation. (Jul 2004)
* Impeach Bush & Cheney for 5 falsehoods on Iraq war. (Apr 2004)
* Bush is acting as a selected dictator. (Jul 2003)
* US oil companies & Bush Admin eye Iraqi oil. (Feb 2003)
* US deserves to know the influence of the oil industry. (Feb 2003)
* Americans don't believe in Bush on Iraq. (Jan 2003)
* Palestinian statehood and security for Israel. (Sep 2002)
* Afghanistan: Bush burned down haystack to find needle. (Sep 2002)
* Wage peace and anticipate conflicts abroad. (Oct 2000)
* Should have anticipated Yugoslav breakup by “waging peace”. (Jul 2000)
* Forget “hot spots”; ask “How did we get into this?”. (Jun 2000)
* Iraq: Trade sanctions strengthen Saddam. (May 2000)
* Bosnia: Force acceptable to help against mass slaughter. (Oct 1996)

Ralph Nader on Welfare & Poverty

* Charity work is good; but politics addresses root causes. (Oct 2000)
* Attack corporate welfare kings, not poor welfare queens. (Oct 2000)
* Limit executive compensation to 30-to-1 over lowest pay. (Oct 2000)
* Domestic Marshall Plan to abolish poverty. (Oct 2000)
* Democracy can’t co-exist with gross income inequality. (Jun 2000)
* Retail malls siphon off business from central cities. (May 2000)
* Homelessness is peaking despite good economy. (May 2000)
* Big business lobbying subordinates democracy. (Feb 2000)
* Training & earned income credits are corporate subsidies. (Apr 1996)
Homelessness
* Severe shortage in affordable housing. (Jun 2003)
* 14M families spend half of their income on housing. (Jun 2003)
* 1.35 million children are homeless. (Jun 2003)


http://www.ontheissues.org/Ralph_Nader.htm


-------------

Hundreds of young activists, inspired by Nader's work, came to DC to help him with other projects. They came to be known as "Nader's Raiders" who, under Nader, investigated government corruption, publishing dozens of books with their results:

* Nader's Raiders (Federal Trade Commission)
* Vanishing Air (National Air Pollution Control Administration)
* The Chemical Feast (Food and Drug Administration)
* The Interstate Commerce Omission (Interstate Commerce Commission)
* Old Age (nursing homes)
* The Water Lords (water pollution)
* Who Runs Congress? (Congress)
* Whistle Blowing (punishment of whistle blowers)
* The Big Boys (corporate executives)
* Collision Course (Federal Aviation Administration)
* No Contest (corporate lawyers)
* Destroy the Forest (Destruction of ecosystems worldwide)
* Operation:Nuclear (Making of a Nuclear Missile)

In 1971, Nader founded the NGO Public Citizen as an umbrella organization for these projects. Today, Public Citizen has over 140,000 members and scores of researchers investigating Congressional, health, environmental, economic and other issues. Their work is credited with facilitating the passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act and Freedom of Information Act, and prompting the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

----- AND -----

In 1980, Nader resigned as director of Public Citizen to work on other projects, forcefully campaigning against what he believed to be the dangers of large multinational corporations. He went on to start a variety of non-profit organizations:

* Capitol Hill News Service
* Citizen Advocacy Center
* Citizens Utility Boards
* Congress Accountability Project
* Consumer Task Force For Automotive Issues
* Corporate Accountability Research Project
* Disability Rights Center
* Equal Justice Foundation
* Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights
* Gay Rights Convention
* Georgia Legal Watch
* National Citizens' Coalition for Nursing Home Reform
* National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest
* Pension Rights Center
* PROD (truck safety)
* Retired Professionals Action Group
* The Shafeek Nader Trust for the Community Interest
* 1969: Center for the Study of Responsive Law
* 1970s: Public Interest Research Groups
* 1970: Center for Auto Safety
* 1970: Connecticut Citizen Action Group
* 1971: Aviation Consumer Action Project
* 1972: Clean Water Action Project
* 1972: Center for Women's Policy Studies
* 1980: Multinational Monitor (magazine covering multinational corporations)
* 1982: Trial Lawyers for Public Justice
* 1982: Essential Information (encourage citizen activism and do investigative journalism)
* 1983: Telecommunications Research and Action Center
* 1983: National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest
* 1989: Princeton Project 55 (alumni public service)
* 1991: GLAAD sponsorship committee
* 1993: Appleseed Foundation (local change)
* 1994: Resource Consumption Alliance (conserve trees)
* 1995: Center for Insurance Research
* 1995: Consumer Project on Technology
* 1997?: Government Purchasing Project (encourage the government to purchase safe and healthy products)
* 1998: Center for Justice and Democracy
* 1998: Organization for Competitive Markets
* 1998: American Antitrust Institute (ensure fair competition)
* 1999?: Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest
* 1999?: Commercial Alert (protect family, community, and democracy from corporations)
* 2000: Congressional Accountability Project (fight corruption in Congress)
* 2001?: League of Fans (sports industry watchdog)
* 2001: Citizen Works (promote NGO cooperation, build grassroots support, and start new groups)
* 2001: Democracy Rising (hold rallies to educate and empower citizens)

Consumer advocacy, public interest, and civic action

Because his early work stressed consumer (and worker) protection from unsafe products, Nader is often referred to as a "consumer advocate". This description should not be misinterpreted to suggest that Nader is an advocate of consumption. On the contrary, his message of civic engagement (citizen activism in the public interest), like his harsh critique of "rapacious" corporations, calls for resistance to excessive consumerism. According to Nader, mass advertising creates artificial and often harmful desires. Nader's "consumer" should not be conceived as a free-spending shopper, but rather as an active participant in democratic institutions. For example, in criticizing television news as largely empty sensationalism, Nader acknowledges that most Americans may have been trained to behave as the passive "consumers" of what passes for news; Nader's call for engagement urges citizens to work together to organize community-based news production.


http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/nad0bio-1

----------

Among other things.

He's the REAL DEAL not a bullshitting shill for YOUR corporate capitalist masters...

[ProudDad]

49. Guess what?

Most of the super-rich who support/control the GOP are the same as those who support/control the Dems now, especially ObamClint.

[ProudDad]

46. You have a problem reading the English Language?

The poster said "if Hillary is nominated". The poster didn't say anyone but Kucinich...

"Look at the Republicans. You know who always votes for the boys in red, no matter what?"

So we should emulate the republicans and abandon our principles in favor of the Corporate Candidate de Jour now????

The "Progressive wing" of the Democratic Party has been uniformly dissed, ignored and marginalized ever since McGovern... We're just seeing more of the same with ObamClintWards...

[Kelly Rupert]

52. It's always the illiterate ones who accuse others of such.

I did not say "anyone buy Kucinich." I said "anyone who does not meet a level of purity met only by Kucinich." Since you believe that the three Democratic candidates who are polling above single digits are all unacceptable, I would say that is a fair statement.

Yes, I do believe that. It is only by participating in the party that we can influence the party. Quite frankly, your numbers are too small to play the "Do everything I say--93% is not enough--or I don't vote" game. The candidates no longer believe it is worth courting you.

And I'm surprised you're still implying that the Democrats are just as corporate as the Republicans. Were the eight years of Bush really the same as Clinton? Would Gore have slashed taxes and invaded Iraq?

[ProudDad]

61. No the 8 years of bush were NOT really the same as clinton

bush failed to pass most of the egregious anti-worker crap he tried to pass.

He failed to pass CAFTA. He failed to "privatize" Social Security.

He's a lousy Slick Willie -- couldn't accomplish half as much for his corporate masters as Willie did.

So, his corporate masters have swung over to Hillary...just as bush's dad's corporate masters moved their support to Slick Willie in '91...

[Kelly Rupert]

71. So your position is that Clinton was worse than Bush.

:rofl:

[CreekDog]

72. Proud you have trouble using the English language

You keep saying that Progressives have been ignored. No, was Jesse Jackson ignored in 1984 and 1988. Was Jerry Brown ignored in 1992? Was Bill Bradley ignored in 2000?

Of course not.

But they didn't win either.

You've got to find a way to win votes from OTHER Democrats who aren't voting for candidates you like. If you can't win among Democrats, then you don't have a prayer in the general election.

And the whole shaming the rest of us into voting your way is simply not working, even among people who largely share your values, so time for a new tactic.

[ProudDad]

98. I truly don't give a f*ck who you vote for

You Nader-haters DO seem to care overmuch who I vote for and why...

You sure as hell whine enough about your fallacious assumptions concerning 2000.

I vote my conscience, my values and my principles.

Research shows that if the majority of USAmericans did the same, we wouldn't even have gotten Slick Willie, let alone bush...most people don't know it but their policies are "left liberal"...


But you appeasers just seem to want to roll the dice again on your corporate candidate(s) de jour...


Well, bunkie, doing the same dumb thing over and over expecting a different result is a good working definition of insanity.


To reiterate: I sleep GREAT at night with my choices...so I don't give a f*ck WHO YOU VOTE FOR.

[Vickers]

32. I predict he will accept more Repuke campaign contributions.

He's a total fucking tool...I admired this guy back in the day, and now he's a goddam asshat.

What a disappointment.

[ProudDad]

51. Kerry took 100 times as much from republicans...so is Hillary (n/t)

[Kelly Rupert]

55. Please give numbers

regarding the proportion of funding from Republican activists that Nader received versus the proportion of funding from Republican activists Kerry received.

[ProudDad]

59. You look it up

I've already posted it a dozen times...

[Kelly Rupert]

69. The Internet version of, "Okay, I made that up." n/t

[ProudDad]

97. You look it up clown

I'm not going to do your work for you...

Just use the little search thingie up top there -- you know how to look up there for the little search thingie, don't you?

Lazy bastards...

[CreekDog]

75. Proud's point is weak and contradictory

Kerry got contributions from corporations.

Nader got contributions from Republicans.

Either he's arguing that Nader is no more tainted than Kerry or that Nader is less tainted than Kerry.

But that's kind of ridiculous.

If Nader is so pure, then he should not accept contributions from either, at least if he's going to argue that OTHER candidates are creatures of their contributors --he should not argue that he alone, is not.

[ProudDad]

96. I'm saying

that NEITHER Kerry NOR Nader should be considered automatically tainted by the fact that people who were registered republican gave money to both of their campaigns (although in Kerry's case VERY MUCH MORE MONEY -- but then he had a chance to win so they'd get a payback for their dough).

It's idiotic arguments like that of you Nader-haters that are "weak and contradictory"...

Get over yourselves...

[Vickers]

62. I heard Nader took *500 times* as much Repuke money as Kerry.

I mean, per capita and as a percentage of total gross and adjusted for inflation etc. etc. ad nauseum. :eyes:

[CreekDog]

64. But Nader claims to be better than them

Despite his undisclosed stock ownership and big time investment in corporate America.

And his accepted campaign contributions should be better than his opponents because he claims to be better than them, but he's just a hack like everybody else and raises money just like them.

So why is he so special? He's like the other candidates at best and unlike them in that he can't get elected and actually do anything that he talks about --provided he actually would do those things. After all, he's not that honest a person, he was downright duplicitous in 2000 and 2004.

[Romulox]

92. Corporations and their lobbyists are NEITHER Democrat or Republican...

Does that make it OK for Hillary and Obama to lap up the filthy corporate $$$s? HRC doesn't even have the sense to be embarassed by accepting bribes! :wtf:

[penguin7]

39. Ralph Nader hurt Gore in 2000

He campaigned in the swing states and was spreading disinformation. He attacked Gore very hard on his environmental record. This was dishonest as at least on this issue there were clear differences in the two candidates.

So I am pissed off at him.

[Forkboy]

44. Our resident Nader reporter has been slacking lately.

Why, I don't know if Nader is speaking to three people in Pudunk or five people in Poughkeepsie today. x(

[Imagevision]

84. Nader has all the time in the world before primarys to become the spoiler again.

and he will, you can take that to the bank.

[Hekate]

85. Maybe he took my advice, which was "Ralphie, go home."

A long time ago I used to admire him, but he lost me for good when he claimed there was no difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, and that it didn't matter who got elected to the White House. He seems to have stuck to that story even in the light of events from 2000-2007.

I refuse to get into the business of how many (if any) votes he cost us in 2000 -- it's his attitude that gets me. And now my attitude is "Ralphie, go home."

Hekate

[riverdale]

93. It's your attitude that gets me

You and the rest. Does it even matter to y'all that Ralph never really did say that there was "no difference between the Democrats and Republicans?"
To repeat: Ralph did not say that there was NO difference between them.

He said that overall there were few major differences for which the Democrats were willing to fight -- differences not just in rhetoric but in reality.

Now, sitting here in 2007 and looking back, tell me that Ralph was wrong. What are the Democrats - now in the majority - really willing to fight for?