If Nader runs and the Dems WIN

[GreenPartyVoter]

I hope to see no more posts trashing Ralph around here.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

1. but the damage of Bush will be permanent in some respects

so we will have to deal with that fact.

[kiahzero]

2. No more about Ralph being a spoiler

Still plenty about him being a hypocrite and a liar, though.

[mitchtv]

3. I think it depends

On how much money he takes from the GOP,

[pa28]

4. This is a forum for Democrats eom

[jonnyblitz]

10. 'democrats and other progressives" according to the page

you read when you register.

[mot78]

32. "Who work for shared goals"...don't forget that either

"shared goals" include getting rid of *.

[fromthegroundup]

19. progressives

Yesterday I received mail from the admin here asking for a donation. They explained that these donations will help keep this forum open to progressive minded people, where ideas can be shared. Democratic doesn't mean democratic party. I'm fighting for true democracy where the people truly choose, and that's not going to happen until we do some real election reform, implementing run-off voting.

http://www.instantrunoff.com /

I recommend the flash presentation.

The Greens and Nader cannot be spoiling for participating. Kucinich is the only Democrat I can stand behind, and it's very evident that the Democratic Party doesn't want anything to do with him. Truly liberal Democrats who believe in Kucinich's vision should come help build the Green party. His grassroots network would be greatly welcomed, helping build upon an already existing movement.

Question...what year will you allow third parties to start running?
Every four years there's an incumbent, and judging by the opposition to Republican views in this forum, every election would be so important to your PARTY that third parties never will be accepted. The reality of America's constitution is it doesn't limit the system to 2 parties.

I just got through petitioning for Kucinich and the Democrats that I encountered here aren't fighting for the changes I want to fight for. You want Independents and Greens to vote Democrat, start listening to Kucinich.

I'm not a fan of Kerry and only know Dennis seems to get along with Edwards. If Edwards gets on the ticket, I'll try and help him as long as he promises election reform to improve participation in our democracy.

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. IRV is _not_ the best choice for ranked voting

check my page out for some other options which are less likely to fall victim to second round spoiler issues like IRV is.

[capriccio]

5. Ralph's legacy

He saved the country from the Corvair and gave it Bush-Cheney, 2000-2004 (and counting). That's it. Final. And too bad for him it's not even close as to which was the greater threat to the country and the world.

[rpf113]

6. Polls are already showing...

that Ralph nader takes away 4% of the vote from John Kerry giving Bush a 2% lead. We need at least a 5% lead to keep the Republicans from stealing the election again. Nader is going to ruin us again. I just heard today that he is announcing a run for the Presidency and my head just started pounding with anger.

The man should just team up with his pal Grover Norquist and join the Republican party. In my eyes he is a Benedict Arnold without even the small amount of dignity that Arnold had.

Nader is a tired old man who needs to disappear. Forever.

[kiahzero]

8. Holy shit!

He's taking 4% now????

That's more than he took in 2000, wasn't it? Jesus Christ, what the hell is wrong with people that they want to hand this fucking election to Bush?

[Mairead]

12. Why the surprise? Polls showed that perhaps only 1 Green voter in 10

actually voted for Nader in 2000. The other 9 voted for Gore. This year there's an actual good Green-attracting candidate standing--two if you count Al--but the corporatocracy is, of course, marginalising him and (as in San Francisco) supporting the DLC candidates.

So what that 4% should be telling you is that a lot more Greens are planning to say "bugger this, I'm off!" this year. It might not stop at 4% either.

[kiahzero]

16. Yes, the media marginalized Kucinich

And I make no qualms about being pissed about that. But Kucinich wouldn't have had much support even if the media was propping him up - he's far more progressive than most voters.

[GreenPartyVoter]

25. Hmmm I dunno

He was margianalized for sure.

But even though he is more progressive than most voters, he might still have been able to sell universal health care and preschool through college level public schooling (funded by scrapped Pentagon pork).

He also would have done well with union folks since he is very anti-Nafta.

And small business owners would have liked him becuase by offering universal healthcare he would have lifted the health benefits monkey off their backs.

Yeah, it's just crappy that more folks haven't been able to hear what he's all about.

[SerpentX]

29. Your "good" Green attracting candidate

would be piss-poor at attracting a lot of pro-choice voters who don't believe in mealy-mouthed, opportunistic, last-minute conversions. Far greater than 4% I should think. Frankly, no one has done a better job at marginalizing Kucinich than St Dennis himself.

[Mairead]

30. I won't welcome you because you sound like a reincarnation

Nor will I bother to point out--again--that Dennis's last anti-choice vote was about 3 years ago, according to the Planned Parenthood site.

[SerpentX]

31. A reincarnation of what?

Do you get paranoid with everyone who criticizes your candidate?

Dennis's last anti-choice vote was about 3 years ago

Wrong. It was less than two years ago. HR 476, Minors' Access to Abortion 2002. DK started waffling after Pollitt's 5/02 Nation article, right about the same time people started talking about a presidential run. I'm sorry you don't like it being brought up, but it's a legitimate issue. It obviously wouldn't prevent me from voting for him over dumbellya, but it's not unfair and I'm going to bring it up every time I hear some DK supporter go on a tirade about Kerry or Edwards. There are plenty of arguements that can be made against either one of them, but please spare us the conspiracy rhetoric.

[Mairead]

33. I think you're being inappropriately selective

Though I agree I was wrong, that it was only 2 years 5 months, not 3 years: 25th September 2001, when he voted against allowing abortions in US military facilities.

The vote you cite was to make it illegal to take a non-adult across state lines to get an abortion without parental involvement IF the non-adult's state has a law requiring such involvement.

However he also voted to exempt from that law any adult sibling or grandparent, or a minister, rabbi, pastor, priest, or other religious leader.

So things aren't quite as cut-and-dried as you'd like to paint them, are they.

[SerpentX]

39. It was cut and dried enough for Planned Parenthood.

The other candidates managed to get it right. Or are you suggesting that the law was justified.

[Mairead]

42. Really? How about a pointer. I couldn't find their list this time.

As to what I think it was: I think it's obvious that it was about the rights of adolescents.

If it had been about Choice as such, he wouldn't have happily voted to allow sibs, grandparents, and even religious advisors to help any pregnant adolescent duck hostile parents and get an abortion out of state.

The military-hospitals one was anti-Choice, your one wasn't.

[SerpentX]

43. So he was voting against the rights of adolescents?

Seriously, I do believe he struggles with his conscience on this issue. And just as we should forgive him his past mistakes, we should be willing to forgive other candidates theirs.

Link to Kucinich's record at Planned Parenthood

[AntiCoup2K4]

18. "Jesus Christ, what the hell is wrong with people..."

I asked that question when it became evident that the DLC, DNC, and media whores were teaming up to stop the most viable candidate this party had in 35 years. You wanted that weak pathetic PNAC supporter, well you got him! And now, whatever happenns as a result can only be blamed on those who let this bullshit happen.

[ozone_man]

35. Nader didn't vote for the Iraq war.

We wouldn't need Nader if we had Senators with spines. But they all bent over for Bush and Kerry fell right in line.

I think there is a substantially large number of people who are furious about this war (like me), and many of those people will not be voting for Bush or a Bush enabler.

[AntiCoup2K4]

15. Keep in mind that Nader didn't jump into the race

...until the DLC all but ensured Kerry would be the nominee. So if having a "choice" of Tweedle Dee vs Tweedle Dumbass causes Tweedle Dumbass to win, then maybe Tweedle Dee wasn't the best choice to run against him, huh?

And no, I'm not a Nader supporter.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. What polls? I haven't seen that.

[MurikanDemocrat]

37. That's balony. He only got 1% last time. There's no way he's polling

4% now. That's gotta be a bogus poll.

[Raya]

7. The issue is the SELFISHNESS of it. Instead of winning Congress

Dems end up pre-occupied with fending off Nader and his
cuts.

[BradCKY]

9. If the Dems win

Sure we won't be trashing Ralph Nader because he will be a non-issue by then. HOWEVER if his candidacy produces similar results as 2000, expect nothing but contempt, especially after how closely we lost Florida before.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. Why? Ralph's not a Green.

Isn't he running on the Ego ticket this year?

[fromthegroundup]

22. I don't think so...

He's running on issues not ego. Kucinich said publicly he would bring the troops home and get the UN in. He's at the furthest end of the spectrum, and during the debates, when another candidate says "I agree with Dennis" you've made the issues come to light. Nader wants to push the Democrats to be more progressive. If Kerry agrees to incorporate some of Ralph's ideology into the platform, he probably wouldn't run at all. Ralph's an idealist, and openly stated he wouldn't run if Kucinich was on the ticket. If Dems didn't want Ralph to run, they just chose the wrong guy.

[GreenArrow]

34. no.

that'd be John Edwards.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

13. Hey, there's no "ifs" about it!

The "moderate Dems" keep telling us that elections are won and lost in the centre! Fringe lefties like yourself are meaningless and thus could not possibly cost the Dems the election, and that is why they can safely ignore you.

You see, by running to the right, the Dems will be able to pick up the "swing voters" who don't really care if the Dems or Repubs get in, and thus their opinion is far more important than yours! :eyes:

[hlthe2b]

14. If A and B, then Z?

I fail to see what you are arguing. If the Dems win and it is a sunny day, do we curse the clouds the following week?

Look, I once had great respect for Ralph and not all of that has gone away. So, I'll just leave it at that.

[The Magistrate]

20. If That Happens, Ma'am

Wrecker Nader's supporters and apologists will be still outcasts and wreckers: murder and attempted murder are alike felonies, and no credit is given in my book for failing to succeed in the crime one has embarked on.

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[reprehensor]

21. Vote Nader! Vote Republican!

The GOP loves Nader. Loves him.

[diamondsoul]

24. I just sent Ralph Nader

a very respectful and even grateful e-mail in response to his letter to The Nation.

I can't help it- he's asshole-ish about his opinions, but the opinions are dead-on. Nader was the man who made me see two Party can't possibly work in my and my friends and loved ones' best interests, period.

I didn't like having only 2 choices in 2000 and I sure as HELL don't like it now! I agree with Ralph Nader on too many things to be at ALL pleased about determining before he even announces that I can't vote for him, but that's how things stand now. I'll help him in every other way, except I can't promise him my vote, and that pisses me off royally!

Freedom- FREEDOM folks. That's what you all claim to be standing for and it's all BS. You don't stand for "freedom" because if you did I'd feel FREE to cast my PRIVATE ballot any way I felt was right and just. But NO. Instead everyone labels me as a Bush "enabler" because I don't accept being stuck with the two-party garbage being handed down as a "nominee" or "electable". Fuck that. I stand for freedom. Give me liberty or give me death. I don't want to live if my vote is controlled by two corporate-whore parties who don't give a flying fuck if I live or die unless it impacts their bottom line.

[ozone_man]

36. Vote your conscience.

It's the only way. If all Americans did that, we might actually have a Democracy, instead of this tweedle-dee/tweedle-dum charade. I'm voting for Dean as a write-in in the GE, but I will be watching and listening to Nader, who had my vote in 2000.

[DFLer4edu]

26. Sorry

but even after Bush cheated in 2000, we would still have a democrat in the White House, if it wasn't for Ralph tipping New Hampshire and Florida to Bush. In addition, he makes many states unnecessarily vulnerable to Republican victory. If he runs and the Dems win, I'll still blame him for 4 years of Bush.

[onehandle]

27. Ralph will not be a factor...

He won't draw enough voters to fill a Corvair this time around.

Assuming he's actually running.

[GreenPartyVoter]

28. That's what I think, too

Too many of us are panicked by the $hrub.

[John_H]

38. If we win, the Ralph-backing rad left will have to go ask Ralph for

a say in the Administration's policy. Jeez. Nader's going to kill the far far left--and they're going to help him do it. How beautiful is that?

[Democat]

40. We can't talk about the four years of Bush he gave us already?

You want people to get over it? Even the dead people who Ralph helped Bush to send to their deaths?

[Forkboy]

41. Dont forget the Dems

they helped send those kids to their deaths just as surely as ralph did.Of course I realize that ACTUALLY VOTING FOR THE WAR doesn't mean anything :eyes:

Fucking insipidness on DU is running unchecked.