Nader, least of three evils

[joyautumn]

This was locked in the General Discussion, I guess because I mentioned primary candidates. Since it isn't directly about the primary I put it there, but I guess since I'm still open to backing Kucinich or Sharpton it makes sense here.


Bush, Kerry/Edwards and Nader, to me, leave me no choice but to vote Nader.
I've been watching the Dem race to see if I can be convinced to vote Dem. Sharpton and Kucinich are the only ones I could vote for. Kucinich or Sharpton I would consider. I would love to see a series of three-way debates this fall between Kucinich, Nader and Bush, or Sharpton, Nader and Bush.

The others really are no better than Bush. I'll explain that in a minute.

First, all this anti-Nader stuff doesn't convince me to think differently about Nader, because when I campaigned for Nader in 2000 I knew I was settling for less than my ideal candidate, which would be someone like Andrea Dworkin or Meredith Tax (not saints either, but my kind of devils). So don't bother arguing at me that Nader is no saint. Someone posted the one and only page on the web full of pretty weak dirt on Nader, and i believe it's basically all true -- i googled it up myself trying to find dirt on him four years ago. So let me give you a rundown of things I don't like about Nader, and have always disliked about him, so you know where I stand:

1) Nader organizations are union-busting. Well, every non-profit I've ever worked for was union-busting too. One even forbade unions in its by-laws because of a prior failed takeover attempt in the name of unionization by purported infiltrators hostile to the cause. I hate that about little non-profits, but the big ones are owned by the Ford Foundation and their ilk, or are just parasitic contractors for huge government bureaucracies that never solve any social problems. They aren't too keen on unions either. I spent a decade toiling in non-profits and the general attitude is, we're activists, we work above and beyond the call of duty, we're in a war against XYZ social ill or oppression, so unionizing is not applicable here. Nader's organizations are simply typical in this way. Mobil really doesn't ever sleep, unfortunately.

2) Nader takes money from Republicans. Well, his organizations certainly ALWAYS have had supporters across the political spectrum, because his issues have broad appeal. It's a plain lie that the Nader 2000 campaign took any corporate donations or GOP money. Republicans, I am sure, were individual contributors, along with 20-30% of his voters.

3) Nader tipped the election to Bush. So what? I was just as appalled by Clinton's illegal, unconstitutional annexation of Serbia as I was of Dubya's similar annexation of Iraq. Serbia was just as much about OIL as Iraq -- http://www.plp.org/TheCommunist2/kosovowar.html . Gore was gungho imperialist too, his father being the Senator from Occidental. It was about pipeline thruways via Macedonia near Kosovo, Halliburton and BP being key players. Dems toss a few bones to the left and we let them annex Serbia for Halliburton. Repubs toss a few bones to the right (like this nowhere-land marriage amendment that will NEVER get 37 states to pass it) and they let them annex Iraq for Halliburton. The Edwards/Kerry adminstration (yes, that's obviously the plan -- it's always southern pseudo-populist backed by pseudo-leftist blueblood) would toss us some more bones and then annex Saudi Arabia for Halliburton. At that point, we're looking at WWIII with China. No thanks. And welfare reform is STILL DEVASTATING to the weakest, poorest American residents, killing and maiming more Americans than the Iraq war, by far. Gore was gungho for that too.

4) Nader is an egomaniac. Well, my impression is that he's more of a civic moralist -- his coercive sniping is not about him, it's always about us. But sure his ego's as big as anyone else who is trying to become the most powerful human on earth. I've always been more troubled by the cultishness of his following. I hate cultishness, which is why I have zero patience for the cultishness of the Dem party. On DU I see tons of prosletyzing and very little debate. Reminds me of the worst aspects of the fundamentalist Christian group I left as a child.

5) Nader should be shot, strangled, RIP'd whatever. Well, you may get your wish. If Nader runs the campaign I want him to, I think he stands a good chance of being assassinated by October.

6) Nader is no feminist. As Meredith Tax wrote in her endorsement of Nader in 2000, "Well, I am." Roe v. Wade is no longer necessary, because the 7-1 VMI decision completes the case law for women's full equality. So let the pro-lifers have at Roe. Only a constitutional amendment could pry abortion rights out of the Constitution now. And I hope the Marriage Amendment passes, because then we can tie up the activist energy of the patriarchists for seven years of fun watching them chase down 37 states, while we batten down the hatches on our favorite 14 states, and devote all our energy to scoring big wins on every other front, just like they did to us with ERA. I think pro-lifers lost when that doctor was shot and their leaders waffled before condemning it. That was the begining of the end for them.

Okay, why is Nader less evil than Edwards/Kerry? Because Edwards and Kerry are pro-globalization and pro-imperialism -- their records belie their rhetoric. Edwards is a good lawyer but if Clinton had to tell him to brush up on policy, I don't want him negotiating with China for me. I'd rather have Nader, who speaks Chinese and has the kind of ruthlessness of mind that it takes to play hardball in the diplomatic arena, so we don't end up playing kickball with our children's lives on the battlefield. Kerry does what he is told to do by the powerful families that have made him what he is and put him where he is. He is not free to do as he wishes, nor even to let any of us know what it is he really wishes. If he comes out and denounces the Forbes family, the Heinz family and Skull and Bones, the continuity of the Bush/Clinton/Bush oil wars, and names names and gives us whatever dirt he has on the Bushes that are known within the secretive circles he frequents, so we have the evidence we need to throw the entire Bush/Cheney cabal in prison for good, then he could change my mind. I'm waiting.

[WillyBrandt]

1. "Nader tipped the election to Bush. So what?"

Sums it up for me.

[sleipnir]

13. WRONG! The Failure of the DLC tipped it.

If the Party (but mostly the DLC) hadn't screwed up the Gore campaingn, we wouldn't have to worry about Nader.

Saying that Nader got Bush elected is like saying that the guy who hit my car is guilty even though I ran the red light.

[WillyBrandt]

20. I was quoting the poster.

[sleipnir]

23. Fair enough.

But my point still stands to contradict the OP's talking point!

[WillyBrandt]

27. A number of things tip the balance, almost by definition

Nader was one of them. There are a great variety of others that served as well.

As for the DNC, I hope they're not so stupid as to not harness the tremendous energy and passion in the Party that is just waiting to work creatively for a new administration and for progressive change.

I think it's far better than I could have hoped for 2 years ago, but we'll see.

[joyautumn]

45. i agree

there were lots of factors. i got into the Nader campaign when he was excluded from the debates, because I was certain that if he had the chance to debate Gore and Bush he would have exposed Bush for the idiot he is, and forced Gore to stop pretending to be just as stupid.

Nader's exclusion from the debate told me that the election was rigged, so I wasn't surprised at all when the DLC and Gore handed it to Bush after they actually won. there were newspaper articles two full years before the 2000 election reporting that Bush had already been chosen in backroom corporate circles to be the next President.

Nader recently cited an exit poll showing that Bush would have beat Gore 49 to 47 in Florida if Nader hadn't run. Haven't seen the poll myself but I'll post once I find it. The number of black voters illegally denied their right to vote was far larger than the difference Nader made but Gore refused to make an issue of it.

There is the question of how Gore would have done if he had not expended so many resources against Nader instead of Bush, but that was not Nader's decision.

[VOX]

82. WRONG! Two words: New Hampshire...

http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/nader.htm
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

Nader's 22,188 votes in New Hampshire far outstripped the 7,211 votes separating state winner Bush from Gore.

Bush 273,559
Gore 266,348
Nader 22,198

New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes went to Bush, who with Florida, got 271 electoral votes.

If Bush didn't take New Hampshire with the help of Nader, and if its 4 electoral votes then went to Gore, Gore would have won the election with 270 electoral votes.

[Walt Starr]

66. Nope, the non-voters did much more damage than Nader

Get those 50 million morans (sic) who don't vote off their asses and you'll have a major win.

[NYC]

83. The Supreme Court interfered with the election.

.

[mountainvue]

2. Enjoy another 4 years of the Bush Cheney junta.

Hope none of your kids are draft age.

[joyautumn]

46. under Kerry, you mean

Kerry is free to repudiate his extensive ties to the Bush-Cheney junta, and he was free to vote against them when they turned every American into accomplices in an international crime. He has made his choices and chosen his allegiances. Kerry would be four more years of the Bush-Clinton-Bush oil bonanza. Did you support the illegal unconstitutional invasion and occupation of Serbia that Kerry voted for and Clinton and Clark waged?

If you did, it is plain hypocritical to have any doubts about the Iraq war. The Serbia war was about oil pipeline rights-of-way for Halliburton (which Cheney was running at the time) and BP Amoco. That being secured, it was time to get the oil to pump through that secured pathway. There is also the matter of Serbia's rich mineral resources, including the largest coal deposits west of Russia - http://www.members.tripod.com/kosovo99/lastfree.htm.

And the Patriot Act was hardly a Bush invention. Remember Clinton's easing of wiretap restrictions, then his zealous use of wiretapping -- http://archive.aclu.org/news/w070896b.html It's all smooth sailing from Bush to Clinton to Bush, and it would be to Kerry as well.

[Rooktoven]

77. Bullsh---.

This is a case of being a whiny immature person who is upset because a nominee does not agree with them %100 of the time. If you oppose Bush you better be ABB, otherwise you support him. A vote for "the lesser of three evils" that permits the greatest evil to win is an evil stupid vote.

Yes, stupid and evil. Leatn to be a democrat and work from within if you truly oppose the crap Bush is doing to this country.

[IconoclastIlene]

91. not my kid and not anyone's kid

Draft Beer; not Students!!!

Deja Vu!!

[onebigbadwulf]

3. I will vote for Nader if Kucinich or Dean isnt on the ticket

It's the only way to force the DNC into reformation

[kiahzero]

7. ...

Where are the people who say that "No one wants Bush to win to 'reform the DNC?'"

[grytpype]

8. Very, very few people are going to make that mistake this year.

I think the vast majority of the electorate is taking this election seriously, with a view toward the RESULT, not FEELING SMUG ABOUT THEIR VOTE.

[joyautumn]

48. are you still smug about our invasion of Serbia?

did you support the illegal, unconstitutional invasion of Serbia for Cheney's Halliburton and other military-industrial mega-corps to get oil-routes and coal for them? i made that mistake by voting Clinton in '92, by sitting out rather than actively campaigning against Clinton in '96 and I won't make that mistake again by trusting the DLC candidate to do anything but exactly what the Bushes and Clinton have done -- bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb and maim.

Remember what Madeline Albright said when asked by a reporter if 500,000 children killed by sanctions against Iraq was worth the gain for U.S. interests. Without blinking she said, "Yes, it's worth it." That's what Kerry's IWR vote means to me. It means the mass slaughter of children for big oil.

[oasis]

58. self deleted response.

[Rooktoven]

79. The problem with invading Serbia is that it didn't happen sooner.

Else The Milosevic armed thugs wouldn't have killed and raped half the Bosnian population. God Bless Wes Clark on this one.

[NV1962]

12. Reformation? Sounds like a religious deviation

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

[joyautumn]

52. What do you call the Patriot Act?

It may not be the Inquisition per se, but the shredding of the Bill of Rights, to me, is just as bad. I saw Clinton and Dole chumming it up at some joint talk they had, and Libby and Hillary introduced them and there was lots of chummy joking about how the wives don't have time to cook anymore or something like that as they went off for some Senate vote. Dole during the talk said he felt Clinton's invasion of Serbia was the right thing to do. Clinton didn't have any harsh words for Bush's invasion of Iraq. Chummy chummy chummy. Wiretap Bill started the whole ball of wax rolling that has now become Patriot Act I, and II.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. You'll only push them further to the right

They have known for several years they couldn't count on you to carry their water bucket.

[HFishbine]

51. They never asked us (liberal progressives) to

How would they know?

[Ediacara]

18. that'll learn 'em!

Same logic last time didn't work, but maybe it'll work this time...

Or maybe just maybe, if you don't want Bush, hold your nose and vote Kerry.

[corporatewhore]

37. you can vote for david cobb (green)

[joyautumn]

47. if Kucinich and Sharpton lose and Nader waffles, I will vote Green

I never trusted Nader. Every time I hear he's about to make a move of some kind, I brace myself. I still have no idea what he's going to do Sunday. I almost quit campaigning for him twice. Once over the mutual fund flap, and again over a passing reference he made to rich people in Skokie at the Chicago rally, which I thought might be anti-Semitic.

I decided to stick with him once he explained that he organizes stockholders as a method of corporate accountability, campaigns loudly against the companies his mutual fund invests in, and intends to work on a Mid-East Peace process that assures the security of Israel as well as the self-determination of Palestine.

Considering that his parents were immigrants from Lebanon and he has, I assume, relatives in Lebanon where so much of the conflict has horrifically spilled over into, I give him credit for being as principled and fair-handed as possible on the Israeli-Palestine issue.

Again, though, if Kerry denounces all his ties to the Bush-Cheney junta, and proves he means it, I will consider him again.

[Rooktoven]

78. It's the only way to show how much you hate america.

It's voting like a baby. If you want change first make sure the ability to change isn't outlawed.

[dawn]

4. But Nader won't win...

He could help Bush* squeak by again, though. And that's enough of a reason NOT to vote for him.

[joyautumn]

62. Open Debate Commision

Nader, Buchanan, Weyrich, Keyes and others across the political spectrum recently sued the Commission on Presidential Debates to get a court injunction stopping them from sponsoring debates this year, because their charter states that they are a "bipartisan" commission set up basically to limit debate to the two major parties. Remember, the airwaves are a public commons -- they belong to the People, us. We have every right to decide how they should be used for the good of America. And I think most Americans would agree that elections need free and open debate, not a debate controlled by a two-party collusion to lock out other viewpoints, funded by corporate cash funneled through a non-profit with hardly charitable motives.

So Nader and others have started the Open Debate Commission to sponsor genuinely free and open debate on the issues facing our country. Its purpose is to maximize the spectrum and depth of viewpoints and issues the public gets to see in the debates, and by doing so push the media to cover that breadth and depth as well.

We are interviewing people for the most important job in the world. We have a right to interrogate them thoroughly. The problem with the horse-and-pony-show method by which we pick them now is not the vanity aspect, but the fact that we are not in control. All candidates should be required by law, in my opinion, to sit down for six months and do nothing but give detailed answers to thousands and thousands of questions posed by Americans across the country. They should not get to decide how, where or what their campaign is -- we the people should decide that for them.

It's time we stopped this campaign baloney and switched to a Presidential Job Interview format, where they have to go through whatever test we put them to until we say stop.

The Open Debate Commission is a first step in that direction, and yes, imagine a series of ten or twelve free-wheeling debates between Nader, Kucinich, Bush, David Cobb of the Green Party, Buchanan if he runs, the Libertarian Harry Browne, and others. We would learn so much about our political system and the state of our nation. And Nader could do very well in those debates. And Bush would get shredded trying to fend off Nader, Kucinich, Cobb and Browne.

[MurikanDemocrat]

5. Vote as you please. Spare us the bullshit.

[QC]

33. Thank you.

Why does every single person who decides to vote for a vanity candidate feel compelled to come in here and babble about how noble it makes them and how misguided and mercenary the rest of us are? What's the point? It became tiresome a long time ago, after the first hundred or so near-identical threads.

[joyautumn]

57. stop deflecting

"vanity candidate", "babble", "noble", "misguided", "mercenary", "tiresome", "near-identical" -- this is all deflection and avoidance.

you're implying that there is no point in reading any threads posted about third-party support because there certainly will be no new or interesting viewpoints, ideas or issues raised by them. are you tired of hearing these arguments because there has yet been no valid counter-argument and you just would rather not lose the argument yet again?

or are you just afraid that if people engage in free and open debate about the selection of the most powerful job on earth that it will divide the solid block of voters who believe that a vote for the DLC candidate will be significantly better than a vote for Bush? If it's so obvious that the DLC is better than the RNC, then what's the harm in debate? if you think a couple percent will be convinced to think DLC = RNC, then are you presuming those two percent are too weak-minded to make their own minds up about it?

what's going on here is that those who are vehemently against the DLC=RNC position want to shut down debate about it, because they're afraid that if even a few weak-minded individuals get lured into the DLC=RNC camp, then Bush wins. So to protect those few weak-minded invdividuals from the moral corruption and brainwashing wrought by the likes of me and other DLC=RNC posters, you resort to namecalling, personal attack, browbeating, bullying, ridicule, dismissiveness, all the Karl Rove tactics that indicate a lack of confidence about one's ability to actually win the argument on its merits. and if all else fails, tombstone.

if you're so convinced that DLC=RNC is wrong, but you cannot win an argument on the issue, then why are you so convinced? doesn't it make you wonder why the freepers behave as they do? couldn't it be because they also feel that their freedoms and liberties are at stake in this election and that this justifies them doing whatever it takes to prevent THEIR weak-minded from being won over by insidious arguments from DU and other progressive voices?

if coercion and fear-mongering is the only way to beat Bush, count me out. open debate must be the context of any election if it is to be called free and fair. failing that, it really doesn't matter who wins, because there's no point in voting for the kinder of two dictators. there's a reason why the Second Amendment follows the First.

[QC]

61. No, what's going on here is

that all of these many, many "why I just can't bring myself to vote Democratic" threads are pretty much alike. They're rehashes of rehashes of subjects that were discussed and overdiscussed in exhaustive detail long before you ever showed up here. We've heard it all, many times over. That's why it's hard to treat your particular rehash as a profound revelation.

you resort to namecalling, personal attack

These drama queen hysterics do not help your case. I know it's fun being a martyr for truth and all, but believe me, if I had made a personal attack on you, you would know it.

[joyautumn]

76. "drama queen hysterics"

is certainly a personal attack. cease and desist.

[Rooktoven]

80. accuracy in reporting --nt

[Piperay]

40. Well said...

Thank You! :thumbsup:

[joyautumn]

53. what bullshit are you referring to?

be specific.

[grytpype]

6. Nader is going to be a non-issue this year.

He's going to be a Larouchian figure. Or like Pat Buchanan, when he ran on the Reform ticket in 2000. He was ignored and he had no impact whatsoever on the election. Same thing, Nader 2004. He's not even running as a Green, the Greens won't have him.

So I won't bother to point out what a prat you are for supporting Nader again after what happened in 2000 and what's going to happen to America and the world if Bush wins re-election.

[MidwestTransplant]

10. Yep

[joyautumn]

55. you just DID point out what a "prat"

you think I am for supporting Nader again, in the very sentence you used to say you're not going to.

what you didn't do is actually give any evidence or reasoning to convince me or anyone else who doesn't already think so that i am a "prat" for supporting Nader.

just what is a "prat", anyhow? i always thought it meant "cad" or something like, "foolish selfish jerk". i really don't mind namecalling if it's supported with some sort of actual criticism for me to reflect upon my views or actions with. the epithet by itself, though, doesn't do much for me.

[Archae]

9. Nader is a (bleep) jerk.

And that's putting it mildly.

Oh, he had some great ideas and programs going back in the 1960's.

But the power went stright to his head.

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

[joyautumn]

69. thanks

hey, that's the one and only page on the web attacking Nader that I was talking about!

when i heard he was running in 2000, i went to see what dirt i could find on him, because i've always felt he was kind of a cult figure, and i hate cult figures.

what i found was that the arguments against him were mostly about his personality. so he's a curmudgeon. so what? the really weak stuff trying to discredit his public interest work is totally unconvincing to those of us who know the value of the work his organizations have done, and who already know he's not the Messiah.

so I decided to hear him out, and found out that he makes a lot of sense when he talks about issues, and he makes a lot of sense when he talks about democracy and the crisis it faces in America today.

he said his lobbying for better consumer and worker protection, and for economic and political accountability and responsibility in the halls of power, had been all but stalled by the early nineties due to the increasing control over Washington by megacorporations getting huger and huger by gobbling each other up. so he found that he had to change focus to reform the democratic process because no progress on any public-interest front was possible any longer without democratic and electoral reforms. corporate-controlled gridlock in Congress stifled all activist efforts.

so it became clear to me that he's just doing what he's always done -- trying to get public accountability for government and corporate corruption and callousness. and his platform in general is just to convince us we should elect a President who first and foremost holds government and corporations accountable to the People.

As for power going to his head -- he was on McGovern's short list for VP, and turned it down because he felt his work organizing grassroots public interest organizations was more important than getting famous and having your finger one heartbeat away from the nuclear button. he wasn't interested in that, and nobody heard that much about him for twenty years because he just worked his ass off on low-profile issues that others were ignoring like product safety, food safety, working conditions, health care policy, environmental protection, campaign reform, discrimination against women by car dealers, you know, Reader's Digest stuff. he lost steam in the eighties due to health problems but recovered.

so far, i've found that his campaings for president are reasonable, practical and important for democracy. the stuff on the page you cited won't convince me otherwise because that page is exactly where i started my investigation of him before i joined his campaign in 2000. if you can dig up anything else on him, I'd appreciate it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. It's late and your reasons are mostly convoluted and specious

There's 2 minutes I'll never get back.

If you are going to argue a principled vote then the lesser of THREE evils is not any fucking different than the lesser of two....that's the problem with a high fucking horse...no equivocating allowed.

It's easy to defend Nader's record as a champion for his constituency. He's never had one because he's never held elective office.

[joyautumn]

67. take another minute

when you're less tired and my posting might start to make more sense to you.

my point is that arguing practicality versus principle completely misses the point, and the debate between ABB and third-party might be better if ground shifts to why X or Y third-party candidate is less "evil" than the other two. obviously, no candidate is going to be everything anyone wants. I was just making clear that never in my life have I considered Nader to be anything like an ideal candidate, and I gave my reasons why I think he's a better candidate than Kerry or Edwards.

i don't have a high horse and my only uncompromising principle is free and open debate, so i guess I'm allowed to eqivocate, and as I've said, I equivocate all the time about Nader. i've also said exactly what Kerry or Edwards can do to get me to consider them again -- show me they are not in the pocket of big oil and the military-industrial complex.

Nader's record is fifty years of constant work on a spectrum of issues basic to the quality and sustainability of everyday life and democracy in America. His constituency includes anyone who pays utility bills, buys food, travels in a car, puts money in a bank or in a company, works in a dangerous job, etc. etc. It's true that he's never held elective office. That is a weakness to his candidacy that he should be forced to answer to in full, in a free and open debate.

[fearnobush]

15. Coming this fall: Darth Nader in -

'The Bush Family Evil Empire Strike Back'

[jus_the_facts]

28. I give it......

:thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

:scared:

[bluestateguy]

16. Please don't complain to us when you or a loved one is drafted in 2005

Nader voters in 2004 will have no standing, no moral authority to criticize the Bush Administration if they get a second term. This is not a time for over-intellectualizing and silly shibboleths that look like they have been borrowed from a Chomsky reader. That may all be fine in the towers of academia, but this is the real world and we must live with it.

[joyautumn]

68. what exactly is a shibboleth anyhow?

i've never really understood that word.

sorry, i'll just look it up. here's what i found:

shibboleth

SYLLABICATION: shib·bo·leth
PRONUNCIATION: shb-lth, -lth
NOUN: 1. A word or pronunciation that distinguishes people of one group or class from those of another. 2a. A word or phrase identified with a particular group or cause; a catchword. b. A commonplace saying or idea. 3. A custom or practice that betrays one as an outsider.
ETYMOLOGY: Ultimately from Hebrew ibblet, torrent of water, from the use of this word to distinguish one tribe from another that pronounced it sibblet (Judges 12:4–6).

so, are you saying that what i've written marks me somehow as part of some cause, or as an outsider?

i really don't quite get what you're saying. I've said in a different thread I totally disagree with what I understand Chomsky's stuff to be about -- historical forces and what-not. but your "gee, that ivory tower stuff just don't make sense" crap comes straight out of Dubya's playbook.

I just know that there's a crook in the White House, he's got a bunch of crooked buddies who meet in secret and cut backroom deals, and Kerry belongs to that club.

so stop trying to make this about me when the discussion is about Kerry, Edwards and the DLC complicity with the Bush-Cheney cabal.

[Maddy McCall]

17. self-edit

posted in wrong place.

[CityDem]

19. I will support Nader at the polls and with money

The DLC and establishment democrats used dirty tactics to bring down Howard Dean. Dean was the only candidate in this race that was against the war and stood for the common man/woman. Kerry and Edwards are not a whole lot better than Bush. I will support Nader -- I just wish we could have a Dean/Nader ticket.

On edit: Dean was the only major candidate to oppose the war.

[grytpype]

21. Take a look at Larouche.

You might find his positions appealing.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

22. Dean was no more major than Kucinich

He just got more press with which to lose voter confidence

[bluestateguy]

24. Dean lost because of Dean

The "Establishment" (whatever that word means) can only do so much. They wanted to stop Jimmy Carter in 1976, but they failed. Dean is endorsing the nominee, and he is urging his supporters to do so as well. Kucinich and Sharpton will also support the nominee. Because the latter two grew up poor, they understand the consequences of a second Bush presidency, something that the limousene Leftists supporting Ralph Nader cannot understand.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

26. Exactly..look at the REAL HARM caused to families these past

three years and the mountain of debt brought on future generations and tell me any fucking Nader supporter has a fucking conscience.

[Nashyra]

70. Dean has said that he would not run as a 3rd party

or support a third party candidate. Dean has said the most important thing right now is to get rid of *. If you trusted Dean enough to want him as President why don't you trust him enough to do what he suggests. Hey I'm pissed about how they treated Clark but he has asked his supporters to back Kerry and to CONTINUE to work for change. Nader disappears for 3 years and comes back like some hero. Fuck him, why wasn't he working his ass off for Dean? And where was Nader during the 2002 elections? Working not to let the Repukes to a bigger lead in the house? Not. Read EGO, Nader does not do anything unless it makes headlines for himself. We deserve everything coming down the pike from * if we are too stupid to recognize what is at stake right now. If people want Nader or a green party candidate elected, get your asses out of bed the day AFTER the elction and get to work. Timing is everything, there could be some major changes in the 2006 elections if you start to work in 2004. If * wins what do we care what happens in the Dem party, it won't make a damn bit of difference because by the time * next term is up he will have already stacked the supreme court and then everybody is fucked and don't think that any judicial ruling will ever be in the greens favor, at least not in our life time

[AngryYoungMan]

25. Joyautumn, please read my simple response

I used to have arguments with feminists when I was in college. The feminists would point to the inequities in our society, and describe the result as a "patriarchy."

Now, please pay attention. I would not proceed by disagreeing with their "patriarchal" premise. There was no way I could, because the evidence was overwhelmingly on their side.

Instead, I would point towards historical trends. I would argue that, on the whole, oppression and objectification of women has decreased over the centuries. I would point out that the feminist position -- that male domination of women just arbitrarily fell from the sky, imposed by men the same way that wars are etc. -- was nonsensical. Just look at the behavior of human societies during crises, in fringe societies or survivial situations, where primitive male-protector relationships immediately re-emerge.

The fact is that civilization is a construction, a human-made thing; a product of will and imagination and intellect and fortitude that presses against the baser forces of nature. It takes civilization to make us all equal. John Locke, bless his kind heart, was wrong, but by striving toward his goal in a Jeffersonian sense -- proceeding as if "all men (sic) are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights" -- we can create the society we want.

This is why conservatives always talk about "Darwin" and what's "natural" -- because they mostly use bibles as their philosopy and don't accept the argument I'm making here. The feminists I argued with in college were little different. They could not see the difference between imagining a desired goal (a truly egalitarian society) and indignantly pretending that that goal would come true if a few recalcitrant nay-sayers like myself would get out of the way. The fact that women are better off today than at any other time in human history (notwithstanding Susan Faludi's brilliant arguments of a decade ago) was totally lost on these feminists. They wanted it all, right now, becasue, since they could clearly picture it, that must mean it could come true.

You Naderites are the same. You do not want to accept the historical meaning of the United States. You do not want to accept that the very idea of Civil Liberites did not even exist in humans' brains until the beginning of the 20th century, if then. You do not want to accept the fact the the United States is the best example going, historically, of a progressive society that takes the ideas of egalitarian government further than they have ever been taken.

Your analyses of Kerry, Clinton etc. might even be true (although, as a side point, I think they're exaggerated; I am not exonorating them the way the posters above are doing, although your position angers me as much as it does them). But you are completely wrong-headed in your application of these ideas. Historical inertia is going to prevent the U.S. from becoming the society you want until, say, 2050. Dreamers like yourself (and RFK and MLK) are to be commended as visionaries. But the martyrs I just referred to made a difference by understanding that getting an ocean liner like the U.S. to change its heading is a drawn-out, generational process.

The world is not ready for the ideas you are espousing. Not this Nike-driven, Britney-Spears-listening, bible or Koran thumping world. But it will be, and soon. Your solution, basically, amounts to a combination of nay-saying, wish-fulfilment and fantisization. Remember what Deep Throat said to Woodward (back when Woodward was a force for good, around the same time that Nader was a force for good): "you build from the outer edges and you move in. If you shoot too high and miss, you leave everyone feeling more secure." This is what you are guilty of. You are the child in the passenger seat of the car screaming "are we there yet?" as if that's going to help. We are not there yet. But the difference between Bush and Kerry -- the difference your stratospheric positioning prevents you from acknowledging -- is, for those of us with our feet planted firmly on the real American ground, crucial.

Even Noam Chompsky agrees with me. Please take a moment to think through what I'm saying. You're smart and well-informed, but there is an essential flaw in your thinking and we, the Democrats, need you and your ilk to correct it.

Thanks for listening.

J

[kiahzero]

30. Damn good analysis

Also similar to my thought process. Thanks for elucidating it far better than I could.

[AngryYoungMan]

32. Thanks very much!

I was afraid nobody would read it. Especially the original poster.

[Democat]

38. Good post AngryYoungMan

Thanks for taking the time to make that post. :)

[AngryYoungMan]

39. Thank you very much.

I still don't know if the original poster read it. But really, thanks.

[joyautumn]

41. of course i'll read it

thank you for your thoughtful response.

i disagree strongly with chomsky and you that historical processes control the course of human events. that is a common leftist view that comes from Marxism and socialism. i see this 'historical process' and 'systemic structural process' viewpoint as a way of mesmerizing would-be activists with theoretical mumbo jumbo. there are specific people doing specific things to harm people, and there are specific things specific people can do to intervene and counteract. i would never argue, for example, that people shouldn't blame Nader for XYZ because the harm he's accused of doing is actually just part of some historic trend. No, I agree with the Nader-bashers that Nader and we who supported him probably did make Bush's victory in 2000 more likely (other factors were far more important to Bush's victory, but that's besides the point here).

to say that women are better off than they were at some prior time in history is to assume we know how all women in the world today, and in the past, are feeling and faring and have felt and fared in their lives. we don't have that information. we do know that women have suffered discrimination and oppression throughout the history of agrarian societies, at least after the rise of militarism in those societies. see Gerda Lerner's books for more info.

but the important political question is what are people living through now? while i'm sure i would strongly disagree with the feminists you argued with in college on any number of things (feminists are an extremely contentious lot), i think i do share with them the sense of urgency and potency of the moment. but that is just what activism means, no?

i'm glad you are optimistic enough to say lots of improvement might be possible by 2050. one feminist scholar and activist i knew was sure it would take about 3,000 years to put an end to patriarchy. i reject her notion that the undoing must take the same time as the doing.

i also disagree with your notion that historical change follows a smooth course like a ship sailing. you got that notion from reading history books, which were written specifically to give you that idea so you would believe that most actions to change unjust conditions are pointless and futile.

no, change happens rather suddenly, lurchingly. again I agree with the Nader-bashers and ABB people that the slightest push in a different direction, if well-placed, can have large cascade effects.

"historical inertia" will prevent us from saving the Bill of Rights from the military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex and the Dem/Repub leadership that colludes with it? No, I think Terry McAuliffe and Karl Rove will prevent us, if we let them.

[John_H]

29. Nader: 'cause enabling evil makes me feel soooooo good.

[AndyTiedye]

35. Is the Loss of Roe v. Wade NO DIFFERENCE?

Is John Ashcroft NO DIFFERENCE?
Is Chief Justice John Scalia NO DIFFERENCE?

[joyautumn]

64. Roe v Wade

Abortion rights are not in danger because they can be put on the stronger footing of equal protection under the law if Roe v. Wade is overturned. The danger to abortion rights from here on out is access, and that fight turns on other legal issues like children's rights, sex education, health care policy, and discrimination on the basis of economic class or income. Roe v. Wade is so firmly entrenched as precedent, it's going to be hard to dislodge anyhow. If it is, it will only be as part of an overall dismantling of federal power of the states. Then the ballgame changes not just for abortion rights, but for all sorts of things. Right now, if states' rights were stronger, marijuana would be legal in California and gay marriage would be a done deal in Massachussetts, so it's just a different ballgame. Some feminist scholars have argued that if Roe v Wade had not come down, the states' rights people in the Republican Party would not have fought abortion rights so hard, and a trend that began in the late sixties of states abolishing old, worn-out anti-abortion laws, would have swept across the nation within a few more years. How many states can you name that would ban abortion if given the option? 36 states passed ERA. Most would likely legalize abortion. There is so much national support behind abortion rights now that a battle in 15 or 20 states would probably be mostly won, especially if the states' rights activists abandong the fundamentalists on the issue, having won their part of the battle already.

The Christian right is getting the same good-cop-bad-cop treatment by the corporate duopoly as the progressive community. They're scared we're going to ban public displays of religion, force all their children to engage in homosexual experimentation in public shools, etc. Progressives and Christian fundamentalists have to stop seeing each other as the bogeyman, and realize that their danger to each other is at least equaled by the danger of the corporatist globalization movement to all Americans who value their freedoms.

So does 20% of America want to criminalize abortion? Probably. But I think 20% of America would like to criminalize Christian fundamentalism as well. A truce might be wise, and it isn't impossible.

[joyautumn]

63. Nader's IWR and Patriot Act Votes

certainly did enable Bush, didn't they?

[mitchum]

31. Andrea Dworkin???!!! Surely you're fucking joking

Go ahead and vote for Nader again. Whatever makes you feel righteous...

[Erika]

34. Nader is apolitical.

Vote as you wish. Nader only cares about Nader and the few he can suck into feeed his ego. He's still a corvair...and a joke.

[nightperson]

43. Hee hee.

Dworkin an "ideal candidate" for President! Don't forget about the praise for the noble Sharpton. Kerry is repulsive and out of the question, a better choice is Dworkin/Sharpton: the Democratic Dream Team! Too funny. Camille Paglia should really see this. Or maybe not-she might have an aneurism!

[joyautumn]

71. Paglia is funny

and kind of inspiring, but not very convincing in the end. She oversimplifies things too much, and her appeal is mainly to people who like to ridicule those who struggle with the hardest questions about the human condition, rather than engage them thoughtfully and meaningfully.

I never said Kerry is repulsive -- that would be a Paglia type of argument. I said he has highly questionable secret allegiances that he will not even talk about, much less renounce and expose.

Dworkin/Sharpton, hmmm. Is that funny to you because they are both Rush Limbaugh's favorite caracitures of feminists and black civil rights activists? ditto away then.

Unfortunately for Limbaugh and you, neither are caricatures. Of course Dworkin would make a good President. Most feminists would campaign hard against her, but in the end she would appoint a cabinet that reflects a diversity of opinion, and she would work with them to craft policy that first and foremost champions the rights of the most unfairly hated, denounced, scapegoated, downtrodden, forgotten, silenced, mistreated and ostracized members of the American body politic. it would finally be the America that immigrants hope to find, but never do.

Sharpton would not be on my ideal ticket. I like him, but if you read my post I said Meredith Tax would also be a good candidate from my point of view. There are others that come to mind, but I was just trying to give examples.

[incapsulated]

59. Andrea Dworkin!

Good God there's a blast from the past, lol!

[Qanisqineq]

36. A vote for a third party

is actually a vote for the candidate you want least.

[BruinAlum]

42. Fuck Nader

[joyautumn]

72. Go Trojans!

just kidding.

[NicRic]

89. My thoughts exactly !

.

[wyldwolf]

44. Nader - the path to Bush 2004!

Or is he?

Is the democratic base so energized that Nader, and the Green party, will be marginalized and rendered impotent?

Hope so!

[GreenPartyVoter]

49. I agree he is the least of the three evils

but I am giving the Dems my vote this time. They have ONE chance. They don't give us major election reform during the next 4 years, my vote is going back to the Greens.

[kodi]

50. voting isn't therapy

a vote for nadir is merely emotional therapy.

Andrea Dworkin?

bahahah.

good luck in that room full of fun house mirrors you call reality.

[GreenPartyVoter]

54. It shouldb't have to be "therapy" it should just be an option

For some of us, telling us to choose between a Dem and a Repub is like telling a Baptist to choose between Temple and Mass.

[rpf113]

56. The evil DLC and the evil DNC.

That's the entire Democratic Party. If you hate all the Democrats, why don't you join a different party and spare us the constant bashing of a Party that most of us here are trying to mobilize to get one of the worst presidents in history out of office.

Maybe you should join youir allies at freerepublic.com and stop bashing us.

I think we need to embrace the DLC, the DNC (which is our PARTY), and EVERYBODY else in the party.

I'm tired of hearing how much better you are than me because I *gasp* support the DNC. How could I??

You know you really could save yourself the troubl of voting for vanity candidates and just punch the ballot for Bush.

[joyautumn]

73. I never said DNC

I said DLC. I never said I was better than anyone. Not sure where that got into your thinking. I'd love to have allies at the freerepublic.com if they'll dump Bush who's betrayed their interests as much as Clinton betrayed mine after I voted for him in '92.

I've also said that Kucinich and Sharpton look like good candidates to me, so I guess you're saying that

a vote for Kucinich is a vote for Bush, or

a vote for Sharpton is a vote for Bush.

Sounds like you don't actually want EVERYBODY in the party -- you want the "vanity" voters out, right?

[Blue_Chill]

60. So then you would rather live in fantasy land then the real world?

Because all Nader does is help Bush. The idealistic BS doesn't buy nothing here. Nader gets more votes Bush has a easier time - it's that simple. You can pretend all you want that you are making a stand and whatever but at the end of the day you make it easier for Bush to install supreme court and federal court justices that will cause far more harm in the long term.

Hooray for you. Remember to but a Bush sticker next to your Nader bumper sticker because that's what you're doing. Lie to youself if you want I can't help that. But there is a difference between idealim and reality, you need to decide what really matters and what only comes into play in discussions over coffee.

[joyautumn]

74. What really matters

is not voting in another corporate stooge who values his family fortune and his little secret clubhouse buddies more than the American people.

I took a good look at Edwards since he isn't a Skull and Bones rich-aristocracy type, but his votes on IWR and Patriot Act, his pro-free-trade votes (particularly MFN for China) and his general weakness on policy knowledge (something Clinton was very very strong on), just make him a non-starter for me.

what you don't seem to get is that i share the sentiments of the ABB crowd, except all the evidence I have seen shows me that I can expect from Kerry or Edwards just more war-by-any-other-name for Halliburton, ANWR drilling (caving in to the AFL-CIO who also has been helping Bush try to overthrow the democratically elected government in Argentina) and a refusal to push hard on any feminist, anti-racist or anti-poverty issue lest they lose the ability to threaten these activists every election year with some horrible setback they deliberately failed to fight off in the interim. My breaking point came with welfare reform -- it made me sit out '96. I had my doubts about Clinton but I never imagined he would go from destroying the safety net to waging illegal unconstituationl imperialist war like he did. Daddy Bush was not as bad as Clinton -- in fact Daddy Bush's Supreme Court appointments ended up better on the whole as well; Breyer is horrible.

ANWR -- Nader or Kucinich would save it by giving the AFL-CIO something real instead: repeal Taft-Hartley and NAFTA, out of WTO and GATT. Maybe then they'd start organizing workers again and stop sidelining as oil-conglomerate sidekicks trying to undermine elected governments like Argentina so they can get their huge oil reserves.

[mzmolly]

65. This sounds like a joke. Nader is a hypocrite without a record in Public

office, let him start out as Governor of Rhode Island or something if he wants to run for President.

[joyautumn]

75. Nader knows Washington inside out

I've said he should answer to this in a debate, but I'll tell you what I know.

Nader has been writing and marshalling groundbreaking legislation through Congress since the sixties. He was a Congressional staffer for Daniel Patrick Moynihan (you know that staffers do the real nitty-gritty policy work, don't you?), and throughout the seventies he kept track of every Congress member's voting record. Nobody in the country is more knowledgeable and experienced with the legislative process. He would be an extremely effective President in terms of crafting and moving legislation through Congress.

His judicial appointments would be excellent because he knows the Supreme Court inside out. This is a guy who spent his free time in college reading the entire Congressional Record from the founding fathers' time onwards. I wouldn't doubt that he's read every single Supreme Court case ever issued, certainly all of the ones that have been cited to any significant degree. He would make appointments that would balance the court so as to protect the separation of powers, but still provide a solid check on Congress and the President, guard against imperialism by encouraging local self-determination, but assure that individual and civil rights are always both respected, and national commons like the environment or the public airwaves be protected as well.

Nader's foreign policy would be very hard-nosed, but not imperialist. It would make no bones about where America will come first to Americans, but also emphasize that peace, prosperity and self-determination abroad are vital to American security and well-being.

But I hadn't meant to start campaigning for him here. I just want to say enough to put to rest this ignorant attack on his qualifications for the Presidency. Anyone who knows his experience knows he is well-qualified for the job from a general point of view.

[greatauntoftriplets]

81. He definitely brings a new dimension to the election.

Should be ineresting.

[IconoclastIlene]

84. On Election Day; Just Flush your toilet, that's where your vote went.

Instead of bothering to vote, just step into your bathroom and flush!! That's what you are doing with your respective vote!!!

Nader is dead set on becoming the pariah of the century? Then, let him; just don't follow him.

WE WON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN?

I was never fooled; I voted for Gore.

Back at Ya!!!

[mmonk]

85. Bad arguments for a bad decision

I'd never send my country on a one way trip through hell for a protest vote.

[snoochie]

86. If Kucinich doesn't get the nod I might vote for Nader as well

n/t

[mmonk]

87. Would DK want bush to stay in power?

[snoochie]

90. Of course not

And neither do I.

However I think that whether bush or kerry or edwards is in power, we will still be seeing a draft in '05.

I also think that no matter which of the three is in power, we will not see any progress toward electoral reform or the ending of corporate control of washington.

[NicRic]

88. Throw you vote away and help bush....

now thats just a great idea ! Wasnt it nader that said there was no differance between the two parties .If he really still believes that after what our country has gone thru and still is with a bush white house ,then someone should find out what cave he has been in for the last 3+ years ? I really dont get the attraction any nader supporter has, and if anything he has shown his true colors by running ,its all about nader , not our country ,not whats good for it , just what will feed hids obviously overblown ego !

[Forkboy]

92. Kick for a friend

:kick:

[Gore1FL]

93. Classifying NAder with Bush and Kerry

Is like classifying a Hotwheels with a dragster.

Nader is as likley to win as I am. Therefore he is a non-issue.

[joyautumn]

94. Nobody has my vote for sure

until Diebold decides what it shall be.

[Gore1FL]

95. If it weren't a realistic concern

That would qualify for a belly laugh.

Thanks!

[moondust]

96. Nader is no different than Bush.

He's making a killing off corporations. He's just a Republican talking out the other side of his mouth, doing all he can to ensure that corporations control everything so he can suck up more money that he doesn't need. Yep, that's Ralf.