Nader is as much responsible for the deaths of 540+

[JasonDeter]

of American soldiers and the maiming of over 3000 because if he hadn't gotten into the race in 2000 Al Gore would be sitting in the White House today instead of the biggest warmongering most hated man in the world (even more hated than bin laden!) george w bush*. I can't stand to even look at Nader, he's disgusting and should be shouted into shamed silence what little time that (never served a day in the military) piece of crap has left.

[David Dunham]

1. Very good and correct point.

[Guaranteed]

40. Someone oughta poll this

I've made enough polls today

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

106. obviously 100% false - Kerry is more responsible than Nader

and considering the attacks against Iraq under Clinton/Gore - saying Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq is a stretch.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. I agree 100%

same with destruction of environment. It's on Nader's conscience.

[fishnfla]

118. I agree 1000%

blood is on your hands, naderites

[Walt Starr]

3. I disagree completely

If you hold him responsible then the 50 million eligible voters who did not vote in 2000 are MORE to blame.

[Frances]

4. But those people didn't campaign and mislead naive voters

[Walt Starr]

11. Then blame Gore for not getting their votes

Nader had every right to run then as he does now.

I guess the claims of "electability" were all bullshit, huh?

[zoeyfong]

32. Exactly; some people on this board seem to think that dems deserve

everyone's vote no matter who they run or how the party has abandoned its principles.

[JVS]

62. Yep

[CivilRightsNow]

113. ABB 4 life foo'.. dontcha know? If you arent with us, yer against us

This whole board can blame one man for the failings of a fucking nation.

Unfriggin believable.

Crash and burn.

[formernaderite]

129. Seems like some of the democrats want to make damn sure....

...we'll vote Nader again. I found DU through a Dean message board...now I'm having second thoughts about being here. It's bordering on hysteria regarding Nader, it's the Salem witch trials all over.

Gore lost the GE all on his own. I feel no remorse over having voted Nader last time, and I'm starting to feel like the Stasi is operating openly and trolling for perceived traitors.

[MoonRiver]

28. I think they should seriously examine their consciousnesses.

Thank God I don't have that to deal with that revelation. I voted for the winner Al Gore, and have fought every second, since the presidency was stolen from him, to insure such an outrage doesn't happen again. Nader will not be helping the enemy again, if I have anything to say about it. The man needs to be exposed for what he is, a shill for *.

[zoeyfong]

34. If only you could stop kerry/edwards from helping the enemy.

[MoonRiver]

38. Yeah, right.

:eyes:

[Zhade]

115. Exactly. They blame the outsider while the insiders enable the crimes.

Unbelievable. Have even DEMS gone completely fucking insane? Or is the desperation to get b*sh out (which I happen to share) clouding their thinking?

[library_max]

157. "Insider"? "Outsider"?

Why not just say "Good Guy" and "Bad Guy" and be done with it?

The truth of the issue happens to be more complex than a cartoon show plot, but I'm probably barking up the wrong tree on that score.

[orwell]

5. We the Sheeple

Sorry but this doesn't fly. The ones responsible are the current group of lying thugs on capital hill, in all three branches of government, the whorish mainstream press, and most of all a spoiled, terrified American public.

In fact, if I would place a majority of the blame on "we the sheeple."

O

[Frances]

12. Gore won the majority of the votes

[orwell]

20. Asleep at the Wheel

I am not talking about the GE 2000. I am talking about the public acquiescence to the 9/11 trials by mob, the ensuing hand wave to bombing Afghanistan into the stone age, and the unbelievable lack of critical thinking when it came to the Iraq buildup to war.

O

[krkaufman]

75. Actually, he didn't

Gore won only a plurality of the votes in 2000; that is, more than any other candidate. However, the anti-Bush combination of Gore and Nader *did* constitute a majority of the votes cast, at 51.12%.

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Bush 50,456,002 47.87%
Gore 50,999,897 48.38%
Nader 2,882,955 2.74%

[JasonDeter]

22. Without Nader in the mix in 2000 none of that would have happened.

The meocons probably would have been trying to pressure Gore to go into Iraq after Afganistan but I doubt very seriously Gore would have done it.

[lcordero]

6. he isn't to blame for the spinelessness of 296 representatives

and 77 senators, of which 81 house democrats and 29 senate democrats were a part of.

[ikojo]

16. AMEN lcordero!

It was the "representatives' and senators who supported Bush (including the two top Democratic presidential candidates) who have culpability in the deaths of American soldiers.

Nader exercised a right available to all Americans: the right to run for political office if one meets the qualifications.

The miniscule number of votes he got had little effect on the election. The election was Gore's to lose and that he did, even after getting more votes than the guy in the white house. Gore distanced himself from Clinton and partnered with a republican (Lieberman) thus further muddying the distinction between the two parties.

[JasonDeter]

27. Hello! Without Nader in the mix in 2000 no vote would have happened!

[zoeyfong]

35. Or... if Gore had just won more votes it wouldn't have happened.

What are you suggesting? That we ban certain liberal candidates like they did in Iran?

[JasonDeter]

59. No, I am saying there is absolutely NO justification for voting Nader.

The man is an enabler of Death. The very fact he can say with a straight face there is no difference between the bush* neocon cabal and any Democratic candidate nullifies any validity he has to give his opinion in the public arena!

[zoeyfong]

104. KERRY is an enabler of death; that disqualifies *him* for public service.

The D behind his name doesn't change that. I bet bushie hopes that all the voters are as unable as you are to discern who supports/supported what legislation come november. Hell, maybe he and you can convince the voters that the war was all nader's fault, and bush shouldn't be held responsible. The time to defeat bush was in 2000. now it is time to beat bush-enablers.

[krkaufman]

76. Certainly not

But one would hope that truly "liberal" candidates would understand the existing, current electoral system as it relates to Presidential selection and know that a third-party candidate, when it comes to election day, can only act as a spoiler. It's one thing to run a campaign to rally voters to a particular platform; it's another to mislead those voters into effectively supporting a candidate antithetical to all their beliefs.

Until the Presidential selection process is changed, third-party candidacies are futile -- except for mobilizing voters and, if popular, affecting the platforms of the two major parties. Third-party candidates would best serve their constituencies by running, but directing their supporters to vote in targeted swing states for the candidate most alike their beliefs -- or for the candidate who agrees to incorporate critical planks from the third-party platform.

[lcordero]

36. That STILL doesn't excuse anybody from voting "YEA"

:mad:

[zoeyfong]

105. Actually, i did not see a need for nader in 2000; I do now.

I voted for gore, and i think gore was a good candidate and offered a a pretty clear alternative to Bush. The same can not be said for kerry/edwards in 2004. If the last three years has not been enough to convince dems that the democratic party has seriously lost its way (and apparently it isn't, since we're nominating kerry) then nothing will. I will not help kerry win. If i help bush win, that is of less concern to me, because i don't count on the republican party to represent me. They represent republicans. If it takes several presidential losses to get the democratic party to start representing me (and if the opinions on this board are any indication, a lot of other people), then so be it. It seems to me that a lot of dems want to blame everything on bush (and Nader), and they refuse to look in the mirror. If Nader makes them look in the mirror, and work harder to serve and represent more people, then that is a good thing.

[no name no slogan]

37. Why not blame 30,000 Florida dems who voted for BUSH?

I NEVER see that mentioned by the Nader bashers. If Nader's few thousand FL votes is so damn responsible for Gore's "loss", then what about the 30,000 Florida Dems who voted for Bush? I would argue their party disloyalty had MUCH more to do with Gore "losing" FL than a few thousand Nader votes, or 3,000 old Jewish ladies for Buchanan.

But if you feel the need to blame somebody else but Gore and his lousy campaign, then go right ahead. Whatever makes you sleep better, I guess.

:shrug:

[youngred]

73. so easy to ignore all the facts

and choose your selective arguments

[bitchkitty]

86. Perfectly said -

some people will try to put the blame anywhere but where it belongs.

[Zhade]

116. Shhhh! You're just spreading the truth!

Many people here, sadly, will attack you for this, of course.

[Elidor]

7. Funny, I thought that responsibility was Bush's

There are a few missing links in your chain of logic, including the supreme court, congress, the media, etc. I despise Nader, but this diatribe doesn't serve the truth.

[JasonDeter]

29. I said AS MUCH AS not he WAS responsible. bush* is

the warmongering piece of crap but Nader was the first enabler of the neocon warmongering bush* cabal.

[peacetalksforall]

8. Yes, he shares, but he doesn't see it that way...he thinks you're taking

away his rights if you object to him running (past or present).

I'm quite depressed that the four top names in the run as of today are all for killing-murdering. I feel very strongly about it.

Time to say it again -

First vote in the Senate - against Gulf War 1
Last vote in the Seanate - against Gulf War 2
Paul Wellstone. Good job, Paul.
We will always miss you.

We need a candidate with guts.

[Guaranteed]

9. I'm sorry...did NADER vote for this war?

Did I miss something?

[JasonDeter]

19. Yes he did by his outright lying to the Ameican people

when he pushed the pathetic diatribe that there was NO difference between Gore and bush*! He's saying the same thing about Kerry and bush*! Enough people believed that crap, taking enough votes away from Gore that bush* was selected. Without Nader in the election Gore is sitting in the White House and all those soldiers are alive and there are NO wounded or maimed. You can't argue around that fact.

[Zhade]

117. You're looking at this with the benefit of hindsight.

In 2000, there really weren't a lot of surface differences between b*sh and Gore, because they both ran for the center. b*sh fooled more people into thinking he was a moderate than Nader fooled into thinking there was no difference.

After all, look back three years - did YOU see how horrible b*sh would be? To this extent? I doubt it. I didn't. Millions of people didn't.

[library_max]

158. Some people looked below the surface.

But anyway, you're right about one thing. Nader couldn't possibly have foreseen that Bush would invade Iraq. So, while I believe he has a significant (not total) responsibility for giving us Bush, I do agree that the Iraq thing is a bit of a stretch.

[peacetalksforall]

26. If he helps put Bush in again...he is responsible for the coming

colonialism of Syria, Cuba, and possibly of Pakistan.

(India is now colonized by virtue of getting our jobs - a more peaceful method, at least for now.)

[zoeyfong]

41. Excuse me? Aren't democrats responsible for actually making the case

for themselves, such that they can win enough votes to win the election? Perhaps the fact that the dem leadership and many on this board are unaware of this reality is the reason why we are in this situation.

[WitchWay]

42. who is responsible...

Who is responsible for the coming colonialism?

Don't even try to imply that the Democrats, under Clinton, were not rampant, global imperialists. Clinton was involved in the bombing of Iraq and Serbia and for NAFTA.

And take a good look at kerry and edwards voting records before you even begin to talk about outsourcing. Kerry, btw, would increase the size of the army by 40,000 in the first 100 days in office.

I think, that even with Kerry in office, there will still be rampant imperialism. I am praying that the Dems put up a more anti-corporate, anti-war candidate. This sort of scapegoating is unproductive and, in all honesty, quite alienating.

[Captain Absolut]

10. As a 2000 Nader voter

I disagree with you. No one knew Bush would be this bad. No one knew 9/11 would happen. Bush was just a joke at that time, not the epitome of evil.

[Frances]

14. He was to me

Didn't you look at his history?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

15. The Sierra club knew and pleaded with Nader in October to drop out

they saw the polls and feared the damage Bush would do to the environwment. They were 100% right. Nader allowed Bush to win.

[orwell]

23. Homework

Anyone who has studied the Bush Crime Family for years as I have KNEW exactly what we were getting. You didn't do your homework.

Bush's Texas record at the very least should have informed you.

Take responsibility for your own actions.

O

[peacetalksforall]

24. I'm sorry, there were people with much more vision

who saw what was coming, people who were capable of extrapolating and more aware of the agenda of those who selected him as the candidate and backers who worked so hard to purge records of little damaging things.

It became very easy in the 90's to examine the goals and objectives of the right wing. Explain away just one of the issues - candidates for the Supreme Court and Federal Courts. You couldn't see that coming? Just that single issue?

Also, all the Nader money stuff was all over the internet - investments in the very corporations that pollute and manufacture war weapons.

There is a significant money trail and motives around Nader - he is not the Nader of his idealistic youth.

(And before anyone else says it, maybe Kerry isn't either - or Edwards).

Anyone who gave permission to the PNACers is no better.

[youngred]

74. I knew Bush would be this bad

even seriously considered college in Canada over it.

That said, 2000 was not Nader's fault

[Evil_Dewers]

169. That said, 2000 was not Nader's fault

Will 2004 be Nader's fault?

He's a left-wing Ross Perot, except he's only a millionaire, not a billionaire. Nader hates every scummy corporation in America so much that he owns thousands of shares of stock in them. Big Bidness made Ralphie a very rich man.

Hey, maybe Nader likes Bush's tax cuts for millionaires (himself)--and that's why he's running--to make his tax cuts permanent.

There is no God. Wellstone and his family die in a plane crash. Nader announces he's running for prez in 2004.

[union_maid]

88. Wrong!

Didn't know about 9/11 and the opportunities it would afford Bush, but lots of us knew he'd be this bad. Nader voters didn't and in the case of the young ones it wasn't their fault. He lied to them and no one knew what a despicable liar he was.

[Kahuna]

95. I knew he would be that bad. He's an oilman FCOL!!!

Two oilmen in the WH = oil wars. :eyes:

My main talking point to voters in 2000 was that two oilmen in the White House was a very very bad idea.

[JackDragna]

13. How patently unfair and ridiculous

You know, if Gore had gotten all the International World Worker's Party votes in Florida, Gore would be president. Yet, I don't see you or anyone else here frothing at the mouth, accusing Communists of causing the war in Iraq. Spare us, please.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

18. And the GOP gave how much to the International World Worker's Party

of Florida? :hi:

[JasonDeter]

31. Not in the least! Who would be President today without Nader in 2000?

You can answer no other way than say Gore. The facts are there.

[zoeyfong]

45. And who would be president if Gore ran a better campaign? Time to look in

the mirror. Besides, Dems can not control whether someone runs 3rd party, so why don't they just focus on getting their own message together so no one will *vote* 3rd party?

[no name no slogan]

49. 30,000 FL Dems voted for BUSH

What about those who didn't "toe the party line"? Should we blame them, too, since they voted for Shrub instead of Gore?

:shrug:

[lastliberalintexas]

132. No, we can't blame them

We're supposed to CATER to them by moving far enough right for them to feel comfortable voting for us instead of Shrub. Didn't you know? :eyes:

[JasonDeter]

55. Excuse me but Gore won the popular and IF

the votes that had Gore punched and Gore written in on the same ballot were counted Gore would be President. They were not, giving the republican supreme court the chance to give the election to the warmongering piece of crap bush*. But you know that don't you?

[zoeyfong]

107. Oh my god. No, i didn't know gore actually won the election. NOT!!!!!!!

Jesus H. Christ, i am going to avoid the temptation to flame the hell out of you. The point is that you could blame gore's loss on a lot of things - nader, the supreme court, bad voting machines, florida corruption, bad legal representation, the communist party, people who don't read their ballots, etc. That you choose to focus soley on nader, rather than saying, 'hey, what can the democratic party do to win so many votes that we won't need to worry about these things?' indicates an unwillingness to take any personal responsibility, and a predisposition to blame others. That is not going to help the democratic party, because all the factors mentioned above are very likely to be in play in every election for the forseeable future. The dem party ought to focus on what *it* can do to ensure victory, rather than what it can get *others* to do so it can win.

[edzontar]

17. This is nonsense. Bush did it.

I don't even know how you can post this sort of stuff.

[sangha]

25. Stop contradicting yourself

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=368677

If "Bush did it" then why won't you ever forgive the Dems? If your answer is "Because they allowed it" or "They went along with it" then please answer this question "So what? What difference would it have made? Remember? 'Bush did it'

[Guaranteed]

46. No, you're right! nt

[edzontar]

101. I have criticized only those Dems who voted FOR the war.

Many others were against it.

[bushwakker]

21. Can't agree there

AWOL and his rotten, corrupt adminstration are responsible.

[zoeyfong]

30. Nader is as responsible as... John Kerry? Actually, not quite as much.

Look, i did not vote for nader in 2000; i was strongly against nader voters, but now i am seeing that the democratic party has sunk so low that there is no longer a net gain to be had by electing a democrat. And i am really tired of all these posts about all the horrible things that will happen with 4 more years of bush; the one tiny little detail that is left out of these posts is any persuasive case that it will be different under kerry. Seems to me that once kerry decided to run for president he all but abandoned every decent thing the democratic party stands for, and in that, he has much company among congressional dems. The war dead whine is really rich; the dem's golden boy john kerry couldn't wait to send americans off to die for nothing, but it's not his fault, it's nader's fault. Not. I am not voting for nader in 2004, but before democrats bash nader, they better get their own house in order. If democrats have nothing to offer, don't be surprised if left-of-center 3rd parties spring up.

[JasonDeter]

39. The Democratic Party is redeeming itself.

Its unfortunate some refuse to allow that to happen.

[zoeyfong]

50. I haven't seen any signs of redemption, and who is preventing it from

happening? Given the way that all the truly progressive dem candidates have been dumped and we are now left with bush war-collaberators and empty suits, it doesn't look to me like any redemption is happening, and it is *long* past time for it to start happening.

[JasonDeter]

52. Hello! Its not a bush*8ter! Its Nader!

[Zhade]

121. REDEEMING itself? Reinventing itself, maybe.

It's becoming more like the Republicans every day, thanks to people like Kerry and Edwards.

[library_max]

43. Kerry voting against the IWR wouldn't have changed anything.

76-24 the bill passes just the same as 77-23.

Nader dropping out in October of 2000 and endorsing Gore would have made it President Gore, and we wouldn't have even had an IWR vote.

[WitchWay]

47. ....then,

Then why the hell did he vote FOR IWR?
Peer pressure?

[library_max]

58. This has been asked and answered about a million times.

If you want to see an abbreviated version again, look at #57 below.

[zoeyfong]

48. Yes, and 1 nader vote wouldn't have changed anything either.

I can not believe that you are justifying kerry's vote on the basis of 'the war would have happened anyway.' Yes, maybe kerry's no vote wouldn't have stopped the war, but if many in congress stood up and voted no, it *would* have stopped the war. You could just as easily say that any one person voting nader/write-in etc. had nothing to do with bush being elected. The bottom line is that in matters of the magnitude of war and peace, a person damn well better vote their conscience, and any person who doesn't can not be trusted with the presidency and doesn't deserve my vote. It is also worth noting that Kerry is not Gore. If kerry were president right now, there no reason to believe that this war would not have happened.

[library_max]

57. If one person - Nader - had dropped out of the race,

it'd be President Gore.

The IWR vote did not require an invasion. The purpose of the IWR was to get Bush to go through channels, first Congress and then the UN, rather than just invade with nobody's by-your-leave, as he was threatening to do. It didn't turn out to make any difference, but that was the plan, at least the plan of the Kerry faction who worked on the language of the bill and made a deal. If they hadn't, the Republicans could have passed it without them, they had enough votes, and the language would have been much worse. Again, it didn't work, but it was worth a try.

[zoeyfong]

109. What about write-ins/other 3rd parties? Geez, take responsibility already.

The future of the dem party is not bright if all it can do is blame others for its failures. What if all third parties were outlawed and dems still lost? Would it be the republicans' fault then? If the democratic party was offering something that appealed to enough voters, they wouldn't have to worry about nader. Btw, if bush started the war on his own, and kerry fought to stop it, then i would vote for kerry. It doesn't matter whether it would or wouldn't have happened anyway. This is about kerry/edwards and where they stood. The stood on the wrong side in what was probably the most critical vote they will ever cast in the senate. The responsibility is solely theirs; and the responsibility for the success of the dem party in nov is also its own.

[library_max]

110. So your entire argument boils down to "what if"?

What if penguins could vote? Would that make everything the Democrats' fault?

I'm sorry the votes and stands of Democratic candidates don't appeal to you. Is Bush better? No? Is Bush worse? Yes? Then it does matter that the one and only way to get Bush out of office is to vote for the Democratic nominee, whether or not everything he has ever done is entirely to your personal satisfaction. Or you can be "pure" and let other people make the actual decision. Either way, the responsibility for your vote will be yours, not mine, not Kerry's, not the DLC's, etc.

[Kahuna]

96. Plus, bush didn't need the IWR to go to war. It was an

election cycle ploy to use against the Democrats and paint them as soft on national defense. It was a divide and conquer ploy. Nothing more.

[jonnyblitz]

33. oh give me a break

If we are gonna get this friggen LOOPY then I blame the DLC for dragging the party to the right and CAUSING people to feel the need to vote for Nader in the first place :crazy:

[library_max]

44. Games people play.

This is the game called Look What You Made Me Do. Like an earlier poster said, take responsibility for your own actions. Nobody "made" you or anyone else vote this way or that way.

[JasonDeter]

53. Well isn't that special

America is increasingly moderate AND DaMn ThEm for being so! The very fact that Nader only got enough votes to be a spoiler in 2000 SHOULD TELL YOU SOMETHING!

And America is STILL MODERATE so what purpose is a NAder in the mix today? To be a spoiler. Nader sux.

[mdmc]

51. Nader and every IWR voter is responsible

except Kerry and Edwards. They are immaculate.

[InhaleToTheChief]

54. That is a crap accusation

It barely dignifies response, except so many others are jumping on this bandwagon. You could pick many things that, had they been different, would have avoided this Iraq War.

And in the end, the Bush Administration is to blame for their actions...not any outside factor that put them in office.

[JasonDeter]

60. Without Nader there is no bush pResidency. Why

is that so hard for some to admit? Without bush* 540+ soldiers are alive and over 3000 are whole. That fact should bitchslap Nader every time he opens his mouth in public and if he ever comes to this area I will carry a sign that says so. The man is the ultimate snake right down there with bush*.

[Zhade]

127. "Why is that so hard for some to admit?"

Because is an untrue statement.

I find it so astounding that there are still progressives who would rather blame Nader than the traitors who stole the election in a coup.

[library_max]

130. The Scalia five may have stolen the election,

but Florida Nader voters left the door unlocked and the keys in the ignition.

[Zhade]

134. No, Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, and Clay Roberts did that.

Please stop blaming voters who exercised their right to vote for their candidate. It's a weak and pointless argument.

Fact is, the theft could have happened even without Nader.

[library_max]

137. No it couldn't.

Do the math. 96,000 Nader voters in Florida. If 5% of them had voted for Gore instead, that's 4,800 more Gore votes. Gore would have won the first mechanical count and every count thereafter. All the Republican chicanery worked because and only because the outcome was so close. 4,800 more votes would have put it beyond their reach. And can you seriously suggest that, if Nader hadn't run, not even 5% of his voters would have gone to the polls and voted for Gore?

[Zhade]

138. Right. And at least 90,000+ voters had their rights removed.

You can keep trying to sell your argument, but it doesn't hold up.

[library_max]

142. That's an unsupportable figure.

It's just an estimate.

Even if it were a hard number, there's no way to know how many of those people would have voted for Gore.

Even if they would have voted for Gore and changed the outcome, it doesn't matter, because the purge was done by Republicans for Republican reasons. We don't have the power to undo it or to stop it from happening again. There's no point in going to Bush supporters and saying, "Come on, admit it, you helped Bush get into the White House." They already know that. They're proud of it. They'll cheerfully do it again.

Hence the total irrelevancy of the purge to this topic. It's just a distraction, and one that's been refuted time and time again.

[Guava Jelly]

56. Yes he is

Maybe he can run on Bushs ticket in 04

[Forkboy]

61. This post should serve as a battlecry

for simpletons.

[JVS]

63. I think it already does

[JasonDeter]

66. Anger cloud clarity. Think about what the post is saying

and then try to respond again.

[charlie]

67. I thought about it

It's codswallop.

[Forkboy]

68. Thanks, but I like my first response just fine

[JVS]

93. What is it saying? Your sentence is not clear

Nader is as responsible....... (drifts off)

As responsible as what/who?

[JasonDeter]

108. Nader enabled bush*.

Without Nader and his lies there is no bush* pResidency. Without a bush* pResidency there is no Iraq war because Al Gore would not have unilaterally invaded Iraq. Simply said, Nader was and is too stupid to see a difference between Al Gore and bush* and John Kerry and bush*. Nader and bush* are both morons, they compliment each other in so many ways.

[JVS]

146. I don't think that our party is in a good position to accuse people...

of enabling Bush.

I would agree however that Bush and Gore are not the same. That is why I voted for Gore. But there are two things I must say about this issue.

1) Nader said that they was "no fundamental difference" fundamental is the catch here. It's vague. AS far as dishonesty goes, I'd equate it with "a vote for nader is a vote for bush" So I guess we have a moral tit for tat thing going

2) The Democratic party should be more than able to show such criticisms to be false. Why did they fail to do so?

[aquart]

64. I agree.

Ralph, however, still thinks he's a saint.

You know, I'd be happy to canonize him. What are the requirements again?

[joyautumn]

65. Clinton keeps his wang his pants during business hours

and Gore wins in a landslide. If Clinton had only philandered more strategically, Bush wouldn't be in office.

Why didn't Bubba give damn? Because he was planning on invading Iraq during his third term anyhow.

[joyautumn]

69. Nader served in the Army Reserve

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/elections/2000/whitehouse/naderralph/

Yes, he showed up, probably two hours early, for every drill.

No, he won't be whining about you questioning his patriotism without bothering to Google before you slander, because unlike Kerry, Nader is interested in being elected on substance, not image.

The strategic arguments against a Nader vote are all valid. This claptrap of trying to slander and bully people into accepting those strategic arguments as the only consideration are just -- well, let's just call it the state of today's liberal intelligentsia, perhaps.

And your posted image just shows the depths to which your smear campaign have dipped -- it calls to mind the only political TV ad in American history that was actually more low-down and degrading to the political process than the Willie Horton ad.

[joyautumn]

71. I take that back

Jesse Helms' "Blacks are taking away your jobs" ad has to rank down there as well.

[krkaufman]

77. "liberal intelligentsia"

What is that, exactly? Sounds like Nader's substance-less name-calling from 'Meet the Press.'

From what I can tell, Nader's taking his talking points right from Rove's playbook, trying to brand "liberal" as something negative. (Along with the "no difference between the parties" bullshit.)

Nader cannot get votes without tearing down the Democratic Party, and this will only serve to bolster Bush and the ROG. Nader chooses to ignore that the electoral process dictates how campaigns must be run, and instead chooses to blame the "workers" rather than the system.

[joyautumn]

80. i think Nader is echoing Nixon

who, at least according to Stone's film, used to rail against the "liberal-intellectual establishment" or the "Eastern intellectual establishment" meaning harvard liberals, etc.

it sounds odd coming from Nader, who went to Princeton and Harvard Law, but he did grow up in a small town in Connecticut where his parents ran a small family restaurant (and still do), so it might be a go.

but what he's referring to specifically here, I think, is the Nation magazine.

i suppose Rove told Nader to attack the left with Nixonesque slurs that hardly anyone under 40 can make head or tail of, to lure the young progressive Dean support away from Kerry. if that's in Rove's playbook, the GE will be a cakewalk. maybe next he'll instruct Nader to start lending his persona to those public service announcements reminding young men how cool and important it is to register for the draft.

[krkaufman]

85. But it wasn't 'The Nation' that he was criticizing

Nader tossed out the "liberal intelligentsia" comment on 'Meet the Press' in response to Russert's playing the animation from "Ralph Don't Run" .net, none of whose founders are affiliated with 'The Nation.'

Nader is on a break from reality.

[joyautumn]

89. ah, i am discredited

by your making an irrelevant nitpick, right?

i am open to any and all arguments that a vote for Kerry or Edwards is NOT a wasted vote, as my Clinton vote in '92 turned out to be. I voted for Clinton, and he put blood on my hands for it. I take responsibility for that. That is precisely why I have no intention of letting the DLC implicate me in its murderous imperialist agenda again.

[krkaufman]

94. Ummm... not looking to "discredit" you...

... was just correcting your statement for the benefit of those who hadn't seen Sunday's MTP.

Vote however you want. Arguing with you that, given the existing, current electoral process and not some idyllic democratic model, a vote for anyone other than the Dem or Bush in the GE is a vote for whoever wins a given state's plurality of votes would seem to be pointless.

[library_max]

125. You've never answered the earlier question

about what Clinton did that put all that blood on your hands.

The question before us now is, which president would commit us to the fewest atrocities, at home and abroad - Bush or the Democratic nominee (Kerry or Edwards)? Because that's the only choice there's going to be. Washing your bloody hands just leaves the real choice up to other people.

[Piperay]

70. TOTALLY agree...

I don't know how he sleeps at night, the guilt should keep him up. :wtf:

[youngred]

72. BULL-SHIT

If 10,000 Palm Beach Jews hadn't voted for Pat Buchanan Al Gore would have won.
If Al Gore hadn't run about the worst presidential campagin in history he would have won.
If the Media hadn't decided they wanted Bush and slammed Gore as a liar, shifty and a non-entity from the beginning he would have won.
If JEB Bush was not the Governor of Florida Al Gore would have won.
If Gore had spent a few more days and more money in Ohio he would have won.
If Gore had managed to carry his home state he would have won.
If The Supreme Court weren't Republican supportive Al Gore would have won.
If 10,000 DEMOCRATS hadn't voted BUSH in Florida (more than voted for Nader there) Al Gore would have won.
If Gore had managed to excite a few of the 50 MILLION voters who stayed home he would have won
If thousands of African Americans hadn't been illegally purged from the voter rolls Al Gore would have won.
If roadblocks in Democratic areas hadn't stopped people from getting to the polls Al Gore would have won.
If, as Florida law called for, all the ballots had been recounted Al Gore would have won.

Nader was ONE factor among many. Stop the Scapegoating, it helps only the Republicans

[krkaufman]

78. We can agree then, Nader has some responsibility for Bush admin policies

> Nader was ONE factor among many.

We agree, then, that Nader has some responsibility for the Bush "victory" and its effects.


> Stop the Scapegoating, it helps only the Republicans

Yes, we need to understand as many of the causes of the 2000 disaster, as possible, and try to address them all. With Nader's running being one tangible cause, it should be addressed -- either by convincing him to not run, or by aggressively undercutting his ludicrous platform of "no difference between the parties."

[joyautumn]

81. arguing against "no difference between the parties" is a hard sell

with Kerry and/or Edwards heading the ticket.

let's face it, Rove is wiping his brow and counting all the money he's saved to dump into Florida now that no credible anti-war candidate will be there in the GE to ask Dubya what his sense is of the general consensus on his performance in Iraq thus far among the families of the soldiers who are never coming home.

Bush will just ask right back, "What's your sense of what they think of the millions of your fellow liberals who flooded the streets of San Francisco and New York with demoralizing messages for our troops."

Edwards or Kerry's "nuanced" position on the war won't allow them to finesse this issue. You can finesse other stuff, but war vs. anti-war, you can't mush out to seem like you sort of represent all sides of that issue.

As an undergrad at Yale, Kerry served with Lieberman (who was at Yale law at the time) on a committee on how to suppress the anti-draft protest movement on campus. Presumably this was to marginalize and expunge the inflammatory "extreme left" position so that a reasonable debate on the Vietnam War might be possible. Well, reasonable debates that results from amputating principled positions are nothing but rationalizations that go nowhere. If Kerry's VVAW years did not teach him that, then it's pretty clear he was faking it the whole time.

DLC=RNC is really pretty indisputable on Iraq, Rove knows it, and McAullife knows Rove knows it, which explains why there is no anti-war candidate. Because the Democratic Party leadership has always been lock-step with Bush on the imperialist oil wars, and the fact that Kucinich represents the majority of Democrats in the House and Democrat rank and file on the issue will not deter the leadership from making sure the party does not veer from its imperialist course. It would rather lose to Bush than veer from imperialism, because nothing is more important to the Democratic leadership, in the end, than assuring the continuation of corporate America's march toward world oil hegemony, even if it means four more years of Bush.

If you're looking for the Democrats who are secretly colluding with Rove, isn't it a no-brainer that you should look at the Dems who are actually closest to Rove in their stated positions on all the big issues, than those diametrically opposed?

[krkaufman]

82. Not at all

Similarity or agreement on an issue or three (which I am NOT conceding) does NOT translate to "no difference between parties." To say so is illogical and irrational, one might even say lacking in sanity considering the stakes this year.

[JVS]

91. It depends on if they are big issues or not.

These issues are not highway funding, ethanol pork-barrel politics, and metrification. These are some whoppers.

[library_max]

128. It also depends

on whether or not these "big issues" are being grossly misrepresented. The IWR, for example, did not require an invasion, and was in fact conceived as a way to persuade Bush to go through channels (Congress and the UN) rather than just invade on his own initiative, as he had said he was planning to do.

[JVS]

147. The fact that all but 1 Republican Senator was backing this

really should have been a red flag telling our leaders that this was going to give Bush a free hand. Anyone who thought that this would put a damper on his belligerent plans was a fool.

[library_max]

149. Hindsight is twenty-twenty.

:shrug:

[JVS]

152. They were touting it before the vote.

It was clearly a case of "You Democrats better vote for this or you don't love America" You could see the drooling over it. It was clear that the Republicans were behind the bill. You'd think that after watching Bush make political hay out of one war that they'd have a little suspicion.

[library_max]

155. Hindsight is twenty-twenty.

:shrug:

[JVS]

156. You said that already

The fact that hindsight is 20-20 doesn't excuse the fact that many had absolutely no foresight. It is a lame excuse and there were many in the Senate who could see that it was a bad thing.

[library_max]

160. I repeated myself because you repeated yourself.

And you're still doing it. I therefore reiterate, in different wording if that's important: it's easy and cheap to say now that it was or should have been easy for senators without access to Bush's intelligence sources to know that he was a liar and that the rationale for the war was a fraud. Many people opposed the war even if Saddam did have WMD (I was one of them), which may help explain the IWR "No" votes. But it wasn't anything like the slam-dunk then that it is now, and it's unfair to pretend that it was.

[JVS]

161. I'm not repeating myself.

I'm pointing out that many knew back then that it was bad news.

If Hindsight is 20-20 is a viable excuse, then we might as well excuse Bush for how poorly the war has been conducted. After all the Iraqi people were supposed to welcome us.

[library_max]

164. Yes, four times now you've pointed that out.

It's not relevant, because people had many different reasons for supporting or opposing the war. Most of the nation supported it at the time and feels lied to now. So Kerry is well-positioned to speak to that sense of betrayal. Which plays better? "People like me knew better than people like you all along," or "Bush lied to all of us"?

[JVS]

166. I edited to explain why I find the hindsight excuse unacceptable

[library_max]

168. Bush had the intelligence sources.

The senators did not. You might as well say that a con man and his mark are equally guilty of fraud, since at the time they both claimed to believe the same thing.

[Zhade]

Now THAT'S an intelligent post full of excellent points.

"reasonable debates that results from amputating principled positions are nothing but rationalizations that go nowhere"

Very well-said.

[library_max]

162. Well,

if by "principled positions" we mean "doing what I feel like without regard for the consquences," then at least it was relevant.

I can't say that I'm enthusiastic about all the contempt for rationality that I'm seeing around here.

[youngred]

170. because threads like these present an opening and welcome attitude

towards former Nader voters, leftists and greens :eyes:

[library_max]

171. Between you me and the lamppost

I'm not real happy about the original post in this thread either. It's tactless and somewhat of an exaggeration.

So are you telling me that people are justified in voting for Nader because a poster in DU wasn't nice? Are we really asking that little of adult voters?

[youngred]

172. No

But its attitudes like that expressed above, and all over DU in the last week that show leftists that they are not welcome in the Democratic party. With no other option and having been marginalized, and discarded (except when they want the left's votes in which case we're traitors and enablers and closet republicans) many choose to leave. I'm not leaving but I don't blame them

[youngred]

99. the problem is

This kind of scapegoating helps Bush more than anything. Why? we haven't addressed any problems relating to 2000, instead we've thrown up a further divide between the left and the center. And while the left may be compelled to vote for the Dems this time to get rid of Bush, they will abandon you again unless something serious is done to win them back. Running the party to the middle and calling for purges of anyone who disagrees and sounds progressive isn't the answer

[krkaufman]

79. Body count

Don't forget all the rest, as well...

~2,700 citizens on 9/11 (since a Gore win would likely have allowed implementation of the Al Qaeda "Roll back" plan, developed by the Clinton admin, in early 2001, possibly preventing 9/11)
3,000+ Aghani civilians
8,000+ Iraqi civilians

[joyautumn]

84. good heavens i forgot all about 9/11

come on, this kind of argument is no use at all.
Why is it that Clinton only formulated this plan in his last few days in office? I guess that's Ken Starr's fault, right?

The last thing the Repub or Dem leadership needs is a candidate on either side that can't or won't blame all his failures and betrayals of his/her constituencies on the other party.

Clinton used the same WMD lie that Dubya did, based on the same CIA chief George Tenet's daily briefings, to bomb the hell out of Iraq.

Did you support the illegal invasion and occupation of Serbia? If so, why? Would you say that, if I do not find it acceptable to vote for a party that will not renounce its criminal invasion of Serbia or its criminal bombing of Iraq before I vote again to hand it the keys to WWIII, would you say that I am an enemy of the Democratic Party? Or should I just resign myself to WWIII now that Dean has dropped out, and be a good little party feminist and go waving coat hangers at people to remind them of the price of stepping out of the single-issue boxes they've been assigned to by the wise DNC strategists at the helm?

[krkaufman]

90. You're familiar with the timeline for the development of the plan, then?

> Why is it that Clinton only formulated this plan in his
> last few days in office?

You're familiar with the timeline for the development of the "roll back" plan, then?

And, rather than shooting off in 6 different directions, the parenthesized point was simply that 9/11 may well have not occurred had the Al Qaeda "Roll back" plan not been shelved by the incoming Bush Administration. (link)

And I was not arguing for or against blame for any entity or entities, I was merely reminding the original poster of additional casualties that he/she might attribute to the difference in administration.

[WitchWay]

139. Was he holding back on national security because of "politics"?

This is from your link. The reason why Clinton didn't start "rollback" was because he was afraid that he would be perceived of helping Gore win the election. So, the question is -- why the hell was that more important to Clinton than stopping Al Qaeda?
Maybe the 2,700 belongs in the Clinton body count.

"It wasn't just Pentagon nerves that got in the way of a more aggressive counterterrorism policy. So did politics. After the U.S.S. Cole was bombed, the secretive Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, N.C., drew up plans to have Delta Force members swoop into Afghanistan and grab bin Laden. But the warriors were never given the go-ahead; the Clinton Administration did not order an American retaliation for the attack. "We didn't do diddly," gripes a counterterrorism official. "We didn't even blow up a baby-milk factory." In fact, despite strong suspicion that bin Laden was behind the attack in Yemen, the CIA and FBI had not officially concluded that he was, and would be unable to do so before Clinton left office. That made it politically impossible for Clinton to strike-especially given the upcoming election and his own lack of credibility on national security. "If we had done anything, say, two weeks before the election," says a former senior Clinton aide, "we'd be accused of helping Al Gore."

[molly]

83. If anyone has any doubts that this is true

take a look at the votes state by state.

[joyautumn]

92. has the DNC focus-grouped this out

to be an effective guilt-tripping tactic or something? it doesn't work on me because my vote for Clinton put more blood on my hands than Bush II has spilled.

are people under some delusion here that voting Dem in good faith means you aren't responsible for the consequences of your vote? you're responsible for not making the mistake of voting for empire, whether you meant to do so or not. i knew full well that by campaigning for Nader it might help Bush beat Gore. so it's irrelevant to me whether or not or to what extent it actually did, because short of renouncing my American citizenship, I am responsible for what my President does whether I voted for him, against him, or didn't vote at all.

[JasonDeter]

111. "my vote for Clinton "

"my vote for Clinton put more blood on my hands than Bush II has spilled"

Please explain?

[CWebster]

87. Yeah right

but you would grovel at the feet of those who voted to give Bush a blank check. There are an assortment of reasons why Gore isn't in the whitehouse. Why don't you ask Kerry why he would have nothing to do with assisting the congressional black caucus when they sought to address the disenfranchised Afro-Americans voters in Fla?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

97. Senate Dems never had the votes to stop Bush

and the horse was already out of the barn in Fl.

[JVS]

98. If they could have forced all the dems to vote no they'd have won by 1

Chaffee voted no

[NewYorkerfromMass]

100. Not Zell Miller

get real. Biden, Lugar, et al. knew what was possible and they tried what they could. They were real. They did their best.

[JVS]

103. If ALL democrats had united against it! That includes Zell

Sesides. I thought the Kerry supporter orthodoxy is that Biden Lugar was much more terrible.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

119. Not all Democrats would vote 'no' on any resolution

a few wanted a war resolution no matter what, the problem was the few who wouldn't vote yes on any resolution, and that is what killed Biden Lugar, and any hopes at a more sane process of resolving any Iraqi conflict.
SO they could never get a unified opposition to Bush when they themselves weren't unified in their opinion of Saddam and the reslotuon.

[JVS]

148. Hence the common disdain for Democratic senators on this board

[moondust]

102. Nader's role.

Nader didn't kill all the chickens. He simply unlocked the door to the hen house and held it open for the foxes. He denies any responsibility the way a small child would: "Duh, I didn't kill any chickens."

[pollock]

112. Have you no shame?

Nader is responsible for the deaths of 540 soldiers? What moral philosophy makes that a true statement? Why not blame Adam and Eve.

[Zhade]

114. This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've heard in a long time.

First off, Gore won. b*sh was illegally installed. Nader didn't cost us the election.

90,000+ Democratic voters in Florida lost their right to vote.

Then there was the intimidation of black voters at polling places - not just in Florida, but in other states.

Then there were the electronic voting machines, one of which gave Gore a later-corrected -16,000+ votes in Volusia county. How many other "mistakes" weren't caught, we may never know.

Then there was Katherine Harris allowing some counties to refuse to do a recount. She allowed others to do partial recounts only.

Then there was the "Brooks Brothers" Republican semi-riot in Miami-Dade county that forced the county to stop their recount.

Then there was the assistance of James Baker in getting the case heard - wrongly - by the USSC.

Then there was the illegal, unConstitutional, one-time-only special perversion of the Equal Protection Clause, during which it was ruled that b*sh had to win so his "reputation and character" wouldn't be damaged.

Finally, to our collective shame as a nation, there was the overwhelming failure on the part of the American people to stand up and prevent the coup.

Nader did fuck-all to cost us the election. He pulled some votes, and made it easier to steal, but the blame for the electoral theft rests with the Republicans, not Nader for exercising his right to run.

Now, let's pretend he DID cost us the election. In effect, you're blaming the man for 3 years' worth of actions that he had no connection to, undertaken by the b*sh criminals. Okay, so if he HAD enabled b*sh to be placed into power, he's guilty of the crimes b*sh committed? Hell, he wouldn't even be complicit.

You want complicity? Look at Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, Daschle, Feinstein, Miller, etc.

Sorry, your "Nader's hands are bloody" diatribe is a specious argument. It just doesn't wash.

[library_max]

122. This is old and tired.

The laundry-list of Republican chicanery misses the point. Harris, Scalie, et al know they put Bush in office. They were trying to put Bush in office, and are happy that they succeeded. No point in complaining to them about it, is there?

And what were "the American people" supposed to do about "the coup" exactly? Appeal Bush v. Gore? To whom? I forget, what's the name of the next court above the U.S. Supreme Court? Again, no point in complaining about that either.

Many Nader voters have already admitted that they made a mistake in 2000 and said that they don't intend to repeat it. That's all we're asking. Maybe the original message is tactless, but it's no response to pull out this sad old list and say that it was everybody's fault except ours.

[Zhade]

136. Yes, fighting to keep democracy alive is tiring.

It's not a "sad old list", it's a rundown of the crimes that enabled the election to be stolen. Blaming it all on Nader - when he was barely a factor - is what gets "old and tired".

Ignore the crimes at your own peril.

[library_max]

143. "Fighting to keep democracy alive"

by screwing up and throwing away an election and then blaming everything that moves except ourselves for the outcome. I can see how that might be tiring (I know I'm sick and tired of it), but I can't see how it's "fighting to keep democracy alive." I think maybe it's more "fighting to avoid accepting responsibility." Which is also tiring. Especially to those who have to listen to it.

[cavebat2000]

120. sorry i dont buy that argument

[Desertrose]

123. There are no winners in the "BLAME GAME"...

good grief..all this bitching and moaning and trying to blame someone won't change what has already happened.


Get your asses off DU and go out and make a difference NOW!!!!


DR

edit html

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

124. Bull fucking shit. George Bush is the sole arbiter of that decision

[John_H]

126. Spin it how you want. No Nader, No Bush, No dead soldiers in Iraq

To argue otherwise is like saying so what it I ate cream of butter soup three meals a day and had a heart attack. I would have died because I ate hotdogs anyway." There is more than one cause of those people's deaths, just like there is more than one cause for everything.

The fact of the matter is that if Nader had not run in 2000, those soldiers would be alive today.

[redqueen]

131. Gore is as much responsible blah blah blah

because he didn't challenge all the votes, only certain precincts.

The cowardly democrats on the hill are as much responsible, because they didn't challenge the voter fraud.

I could go on, but I trust the ridiculousness of your 'argument' is evident by now.

[library_max]

135. The "certain precincts" argument is wrong.

It wasn't Gore's fault, it was a matter of Florida state law, which required recounts to be initiated by the individual county boards. The four counties selected themselves, Gore didn't select them. And what were the "cowardly Democrats on the Hill" supposed to do about the purge? It wasn't actionable (plenty of people looked into suing), and it wasn't brought up until after the election, when it was too late to do anything about it.

Is this deliberate disinformation, or have you actually missed my dozens of posts debunking these claims, including threads I've seen you on?

[redqueen]

163. So you're seriously telling me that there was nothing that could be done

to get a recount of the whole state? I could be wrong but I swear I remember that it was their decision to go for the precinct-based recounts...

As for the claim that there was nothing that could be done about people being denied their right to vote... I just don't know what to say to that. I find it very, VERY hard to believe.

As for you seeing me on those threads, I'm afraid you'll have to refresh my memory. I don't think I've seen them -- I'm pretty forgetful about some things, but politics isn't one of them.

[library_max]

167. No sweat about the threads.

Florida state law divided any recount issues into a "contest" phase and a "protest" phase. The recourse of a candidate or a campaign was different from one to the other. In the contest phase, if the margin of victory was less than 0.5%, election boards in the respective counties could, at their option, request a manual recount, but only of their own counties. Broward, Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia were the ones that volunteered. At this point, the Gore campaign had no legal right to ask for anything under Florida law.

In the protest phase, the law allowed the candidate or campaign to protest the election and, in the case of any irregularities that might have swayed the outcome, gave the courts permission to "craft any remedy" to rectify the situation. I don't remember how many days had to elapse after election day before the protest phase kicked in, but that was established in law too.

I keep using past tense because the crooked cowards in the Florida legislature changed the law ASAP after Election Day and whisked the old law (which was still the law that mattered for Bush v. Gore - we don't do ex post facto law in this country) off the web. I wish I'd printed it off at the time - now I can't get to it.

But the accusation that the Gore campaign chose those four counties and had no interest in a broader recount is false, no matter who puts it forward. They had to abide by Florida state law.

As for the purge, what could have been done? It's illegal for felons to vote. Therefore, it is legal to set up a mechanism to prevent felons from voting. It is not ipso facto illegal for that mechanism to be stupid and overbroad, the equivalent of swatting flies with a cannon. If we could prove that the intent was not to prevent felons from voting but to purge minority voters by common last names, we'd have a case for discrimination. But how would we go about proving that in a court of law? The fact that it is obvious to you and to me is not admissable evidence.

[Turbineguy]

133. Bush would love to be absolved

of his responsibility. Nader, or any other candidate can run for office. Bush cheated and won. Bush stonewalled on stopping terrorists until Sept 10, 2001. Bush started this Iraq war based on lies.

Nader did not do those things. He only ran for office.

I did not vote for him then, nor would I now. But he has the right to run.

[laruemtt]

140. the more i hear this

blame nader meme, the more i'm inclined to defend him. being vocally delusional is not going to help the dems' cause at all. it just makes us look stupid, sort of like * blaming 9/11 on clinton.

[snoochie]

141. If this is how democrats 'reason'

I don't want to be one, either.

:puke:

[jpgpenn]

144. don't let the door hit ...

your ass on the way out!

[Forkboy]

145. You've done great service to the party

[Scott Lee]

151. for the Republican party, yes!

Rove thanks you.

[Scott Lee]

150. Julius Caesar is responsible for all the deaths in Iraq!

Think about it. If he hadn't gotten his ass stabbed to death, he'd have been around longer, and gotten Cleopatra to orgasm 19 times in a row, her shrieking convincing the Priests of Set that she was being killed, causing them to run to her aid and stumble over each other knocking over torches that caused the ancient city to burn - sending a huge smoke cloud over Greece, which scared the Greeks into thinking the end of the world was here...in their fear they all prayed to Zeus, which amounted to the greatest harmonic disruptive sound wave the world has yet known going out into space and reverberating off of an asteroid, unleashing a shock wave of unimaginable power which unleashed the Nine Avatars of Oobakhalik in Tau Ceti, who descended upon earth in vengence, but unable to reach it before disintegrating, morphed into a black mass of ill will which descended on a small farm in Crawford, Texas....

You know the rest. No, really! It happened!

[MAlibdem]

153. No he's not

nader shouldn't be running but he isn't responsible for the deaths of american soldiers any more than the average citizen.

[corporatewhore]

154. what about the 4500 iraqi kids per month killed by sanctions under

clinton gore?and if i rember correctly edwards and kerry voted for yes on giving bush permission to use the soliders

[redqueen]

159. Silly chica, "New Democrats" do not care about dead Iraqi children!

[library_max]

165. Wow, that's harsh.

Good thing nobody outside of a safe red state will see that post, eh?