So, how's the "Let's all hate Nader" thing working for you folks?

[Cuban_Liberal]

I was a HUGE Al Gore fan in 2000, and I had truly hoped he would run again this year. Al Gore would have become one of the outstanding Presidents in US history, IMO, had he won in 2000. Sadly, that didn't didn't happen, and there are a MULTITUDE of reasons why, only one of which was Ralph Nader's campaign.

Al Gore lost, primarily, because Donna Brazille ran one of the worst campaigns ever by a candidate for POTUS; at every critical juncture, she gave him godawful advice: abandon OH, but devote time to IL and CA(both safely 'blue', by any rational standard), don't 'go negative' or 'fight fire with fire', etc..

Let us not overlook the hand of the Bush junta in Florida, with it's purge of voter rolls and other electoral shenanigans, Let's not overlook the infamous butterfly ballot, which resulted in an astounding 3000+ votes from the previously-unknown "Jews for Buchannan" wing of the party.

I could go on and on, but most rational people will have gotten the point. We're not gonna win this year by 'fighting the last war', and Ralph nader's not going to 'take away' any votes from John Kerry, unless John kerry fails to earn them.

Let the flame-fest begin...

[zulchzulu]

1. My suggestion

[skooooo]

2. Don't you think there are bigger problems....

....then to sit around and talk about "Nadar"???

Who gives a fuck about him anymore?

[MoonRiver]

4. Those of us who don't want * to become a real dictator, that's who.

[Cuban_Liberal]

9. Then make sure that Sen. Kerry appeals to the voters.

Nader can't take away from sen. Kerry what isn't Sen. Kerry's to begin with. Kerry must either earn the votes to get elected, or he won't be elected. Nader voters aren't automatically people who would vote en masse for Kerry, but for Nader's presence on the ballot.

[MoonRiver]

15. I can't make Kerry be anything other than what he is.

I would like to think that there are enough rational people in this country who will vote for the obvious alternative (Diebold influence excluded) to this rightwing fascist nightmare. This is a total no-brainer, for those with brains, that is.

[Cuban_Liberal]

19. Then don't blame Nader, should Kerry lose

This is still a (nominally) free country, and if people decide that Kerry hasn't earned their vote and vote for Nader, or whoever else, that's their right. :shrug:

[sangh0]

31. I blame Nader for what he does

Even if Nader isn't the cause for anyone losing an election, I can still criticize Nader for all the mistakes he's made and all the lies he has told.

[Padraig18]

34. That's true. I think his point was blaming Nader for what he DOESN'T do.

:hi:

[sangh0]

40. I disagree

I think the point was to talk about the things Nader hasn't done wrong in order to distract attention from all the things Nader HAS done wrong

[Padraig18]

47. I disagree

The point was clearly to call attention to the utter futility of continuing to bash Ralph Nader with the 'he cost us Florida and Gore the Presidency' meme. Any other reading is a stretch.

[sangh0]

54. Right, and focusing on ElectionTheft2000

discussion of the real Nader-crimes is avoided. It's called "Framing the Issue"

[Padraig18]

60. Maybe becuase it IS the issue, ya think?

Nothing wrong with framing the issue when that IS, in fact, the issue...

[sangh0]

61. No, I don't

I think the future is more important than the past. Besides, this year there are several issues that are "the issue"

[Cuban_Liberal]

63. If you don't like the way I frame the issue, post your own thread.

No one's stopping you. :shrug:

[sangh0]

65. If I want to post in this thread, I will

No one's stopping me from that, either

:shrug:

[Cuban_Liberal]

67. Then quit bitching because I didn't frame the question YOUR way.

What's so difficult to understand about the concept?

[sangh0]

68. Nope

I'll keep posting for as long as I like.

[Cuban_Liberal]

73. I didn't say quit posting.

What I asked was for you to quit whining because I didn't phrase the question in the manner you would have preferred. If you want it framed differently, then do so in your own thread.

[sangh0]

74. Nope

I'll keep posting whenever, wherever and however I please.

[Cuban_Liberal]

76. Knock yourself out.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[balanced]

80. Let's get this straight. If Nader had dropped out in Florida,

Gore would have won. Simple. Straightforward.

[Cuban_Liberal]

82. Nope.

You have NO empirical evidence to support that statement--- NONE.

[balanced]

83. What do you mean by "empirical evidence?"

Assumption 1: Nader got about 90,000 votes in Florida
Fact: Bush won Florida by about 500 votes
Assumption 2: If Nader had dropped out and not endorsed Gore, then the lion's share of the 90,000 would have either not voted or voted for Nader by a write-in.
Assumption 3: At least 4,000 voters of the original 90,000 would have voted for either Gore or Bush
Assumption 4: The Nader voters would have gone for Gore, on balance, by at least a 60%-40% margin.
Assumption 5: Gore would have garnered more of the Nader votes than Bush by at least 800 votes
Assumption 6: Gore would have defeated Bush in Florida by at least 300 votes.

Moreover, if under Assumption 2, Nader had endorsed Gore, then Gore's winning margin would have been far, far, far greater.

Which of the above assumptions is out of line?

[Cuban_Liberal]

88. This one

Assumption 4: The Nader voters would have gone for Gore, on balance, by at least a 60%-40% margin.


Furthermore, assumptions are not, by definition, empirical.

[balanced]

90. Agreed. Assumptions are not empirical. They are contrary

to fact conditionals. But what would count as empirical evidence that Nader dropping out would have made a difference? And really. You don't think Gore would have beaten Bush by at least 60-40 as regards Nader voters?

[Cuban_Liberal]

92. I don't know, frankly.

I know he would have beaten George Bush if he had run a better campaign, and had he asked for a full, statewide recount.

[balanced]

97. Frankly, I would like to hear Nader address the

accusation that IF HE HAD DROPPED OUT IN FLORIDA, GORE WOULD NOW BE PRESIDENT.

[Arkana]

106. Nader was responsible in part

but the fault lies with Democrats, as far as I'm concerned. As James Carville says, we must be willing to fight! We curled up like frightened armadillos and allowed them to steal the damned election from right under us. We never fought any of it! We didn't disregard the media's spin on us that said Al was a crybaby and a sore loser. We let it get to us, because our nature was not to be tough on anything. If we can't defend ourselves, how will we defend America? People like Tom DeLay, Trent Lott, and all the rest of the Repuke scum are so successful because they don't give a damn what Washington elite thinks of them. Democrats need to get thicker skin and be a tougher party!

Carville's right. I've had enough of losing elections, I've had enough of Marines dying in Iraq, and I've had enough of lying down and acting as a Repuke doormat because we're afraid of what the damned media will do.

[Bill Todd]

94. I seem to remeber having corrected you on this once before

by observing that in NH, which Bush carrried by only a few thousand votes, I think that exit polling showed that Nader took more votes from Bush than from Nader.

So unless you have similar polling in Florida to support your different view of how the outcome would have been affected there, you've got no case at all. Assumptions are only potentially useful if the person doing the assuming has some special insight into the question, and you've shown no evidence of that, either.

- bill

[balanced]

98. True enough. I don't have any special insight. But your

statement that "I think that exit polling showed that Nader took more votes from Bush than from Nader." doesn't make any sense to me. Are my assumptions more reasonable than your "I think that..."?

[Bill Todd]

101. Huh?

I'm relating what I believe I recall reading about the NH exit polls - in other words, passing on a 'fact' for which I'm unfortunately not in possession of the primary source (and hence which I can't be 100.000% certain of having recounted accurately, though my memory is usually very reliable).

If you don't understand the difference between that and an assumption, I'm afraid that I'm at a loss for words and you're on your own.

- bill

[balanced]

105. It doesn't make much sense, however, that a "Green" would vote for Bush.

But, it is important to determine whether Nader's followers would vote for Bush--on balance. If they would, we democrats should help Nader get on every ballot in the country. The prevailing thought seems to be, and Zogby polls indicate, that Nader would harm Kerry, not Bush.

[balanced]

99. If we democrats believe that Nader will take more votes from Bush,

let's encourage him to run in every state. Let's help him get registered. But I would still like Nader to directly address the issue: WOULD GORE BE PRESIDENT NOW IF NADER HAD DROPPED OUT IN FLORIDA?

[Ardee]

44. what brilliant political strategy

Attract voters to your side by calling them stupid! What a way to win an election, I simply cannot understand why no politician has thought of this strategy before......If I dont march lockstep with your own political agenda then I have no brains, of course! I am now totally convinced and will vote any way you say....thanks for the epiphany.

Now, for the rest of you who might actually have think they have some grey matter regardless of your politics......You do control your party, you do control your candidates platform and speech content. You do it by writing, emailing, contributing and voting for someone else who better rperesents you!

[balanced]

79. Who is this person?

You said, "Nader voters aren't automatically people who would vote en masse for Kerry, but for Nader's presence on the ballot."

So what? Gore would have got enough votes to win in Florida if Nader had dropped out. Some of the 90,000 plus Nader voters would have written Ralph Nader in no matter what. Some would have voted for Bush. But more would have voted for Gore. And he only need 500 or so votes. Get real.

[Cuban_Liberal]

81. Why don't you get real?

It's a democracy, and Nader has every right to run, if he so chooses. If Gore couldn't persuade enough people to support him to overcome Nader's presence, tough; that doesn't make it Nader's 'fault'.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cuban_Liberal]

115. You don't *know* that.

You cannot say to a scientific certainty that Gore would have won FL had Nader dropped out--- you just can't, because you have (pay attention here) no way of knowing OR proving the truth or falsity of that statement. The statement is, on its face, easily rebuttable, because it is absurd.

[Trajan]

6. You mean "Nadir" ?? ...

[ulysses]

16. THERE'S a unique joke. n/t

[liberalmike27]

37. A Lot of Us

Apparently.

Randi Rhodes on http://airamericaradio.com/ recently treated Nader so poorly he hung up on her, the first time I've ever seen him take this action against a host. I wrote this letter to hear, and it contains many things that Democrats should bear in mind, when they talk to Nader-people, many who like me are Deanocrats, or previously Deaniacs. Take it to heart, and maybe, just maybe you won't damage your party by firming up Naderites resolve.


April 1, 2004
Randi Rhodes

Air America Radio
Randi Rhodes
3 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10016

Dear Randi Rhodes,
Nader Phone Interview:
I couldn't be happier that you've found your way to a better place on Air America radio. I've been a fan for a couple of years, listening to the stream on the Internet from Florida. I hope you can all find a place on the dial all over America, rather than just a few select markets, or the Internet.
I have to say though, I was quite disappointed that you treated such a great man with such disrespect. You had Ralph Nader on, and all you could think to do was scream "We can't afford you this time," repeatedly, and never gave him more than two seconds to say anything himself, until he finally hung up. I must say, it must have taken extreme restraint for him to not use expletives. As much as you might think this was entertaining, it was really quite disappointing, and beneath you.
If you wanted to use the time constructively you could have engaged Ralph in an explanation of "strategic voting," you could have talked about the much needed "Instant runoff voting," or any number of other things more positive than just screaming the same thing repeatedly, and shouting him down in the style of your arch-nemesis Rush Limbaugh.
As a Green Party voter in 2000, and now a Nader supporter I can only tell you that this kind of behavior from Democrats who essentially agree with most of Nader's positions, only reinforces my feeling that the Democratic Party has left a huge chunk of us behind, and has no real idea how to best treat this situation. When you act in this manner, you do more to push this segment of voters away from voting for Kerry, and toward voting for Nader no matter what. Surely a smart woman like yourself can think of more engaging conversation than screaming at this much-respected man, or touting the trite "ego-maniacal" line the Democratic Party is throwing out there.

You really owe Nader an on-air apology, but I doubt you'll go to that length. But you should know that if your purpose is really to pull together the factions of the left, your interview managed to take us a step backwards, and you probably firmed up a lot of Nader supporters with your behavior, and lessened Kerry's chance to be elected. Do you want to push us away, or bring us together?

I doubt Alabama will be close, as this foolhardy state votes heavily Republican. Being one of the poorest states, this makes no sense, but being nearly last in education it becomes more clear why Alabama residents vote against their economic viability. If it is, however, I will vote for Kerry. If it looks to be the usual 55-45 Republican, I'll vote for Nader. It would serve us all if you were to promote that kind of thinking in voting, rather than trying to scream us into submission. If you'd managed to convince a thousand Nader voters in Florida of this "strategic voting" in 2000, Gore would be president now. But the Nader candidacy has been substituted in the media to silence the real story in Florida, the theft of the election by Kathy Harris, and Jeb Bush.
Thank you,

Liberal Mike

[citizen snips]

3. Nader did not make the ballot in Oregon.

I hope Nader does not make the ballot in Florida.

[Trajan]

5. He even failed ...

... to make the "Ballet" ...

"Too Big and Clumsy" was the excuse given ....

[zulchzulu]

8. I'm pretty sure St. Ralph is on FLA ballot

No signatures needed. A small fee... I don't want to pollute my browser cache with his web site, so I ain't lookin...

[citizen snips]

11. That sucks.

Now I hope Nader goes bankrupt.

[Ardee]

45. small minds have little room for fact

You rail against a man about whom you admit you know nothing, what brilliance!

Try "polluting" your cache and your mind with Nader's writings and ideas and then at least you might have reason to opine.Instead you get your vision of Naders political body of work from neoconservative democrats who want you to look anywhere but inward for the failures of your party....Blind allegiance sucks and leads to uniforms and goosestepping, would that make you happy?

[zulchzulu]

78. So vote for Bush for all I care

This is what my suggestion is for St. Ralph.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

7. I don't hate him, but I do think he should be forcefully rebutted when

necessary. That's politics.

[sangh0]

26. I don't hate him either. In fact, I love him

He's fun to ridicule, and his ridiculous "there's no difference" and "it should be easy to defeat Bush*" rants only serve to emphasize that there ARE differences and that it WON'T be easy to defeat Bush*.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bill Todd]

95. How do you manage to ridicule him without looking incompetent?

After all, it should be easy to defeat Bush, shouldn't it? Even easier this time than before? Hell, it should be easy for Ralph and the Democrats to come in 1-2 (in whichever order) and make Bush come in 3rd.

So why are people like you so hot and bothered about Nader's candidacy? It can't be a threat if there's enough difference between Bush and Kerry to wake up the voters - as you so clearly suggest.

On the face of it it would seem that one of your two points is wrong: either Kerry offers a clear enough choice to win (hence Ralph is right about its being easy to defeat Bush), or he doesn't (hence Ralph is right about there being insufficient difference). That's really not too much to be able to wrap your intellect around, is it - even with the distraction of the Big Bad Bush hovering over it?

- bill

[sangh0]

108. So why aren't you running for President?

After all, it should be easy to win, right?

Hell, it should be easy for Ralph and the Democrats to come in 1-2 (in whichever order) and make Bush come in 3rd.

So why doesn't Ralphie do it?

So why are people like you so hot and bothered about Nader's candidacy?

We're not. It's just that when the Naderites have no argument (which is always) they resort to name-calling and misportraying their intellectual betters' emotional state



either Kerry offers a clear enough choice to win (hence Ralph is right about its being easy to defeat Bush), or he doesn't (hence Ralph is right about there being insufficient difference).

Umm, I never said Nader is right, so I don't see how an assumption I've never made could be used to show I made a mistake.

[lastknowngood]

10. Lovin' it it works for me.

n/t

[Cuban_Liberal]

12. Does it help you register new Democrats?

Does it help you get Sen. Kerry's message out? Inquiring minds would like to know...

[sangh0]

27. It's helped me

I've had several successes convincing ill-informed voters who repeat some of Nader's propoganda by pointing out how ineffective and counter-productive his actions have been. Then I inform them of the various achievements the Democrats have had as compared to Nader. Then, when I ridicule Nader, they laugh and have fun which is the MOST EFFECTIVE way to get people to listen to you.

Make them have a good time, and they'll be more willing to listen to you, and nothing makes them laugh like making fun of Nader.

[liberalmike27]

42. Well,

IF you look at the 2000 campaign, what both Bush and Gore were saying, adn what they didn't say, the number of times they said "I agree" particularly in the last debate after Gore had been so beaten by the media you could see the puppet strings extending from his joints, then yes, they were very much alike.

The only thing that makes the chasm between both parties so much larger now is Bush's trip into modern-day fascism, or what some like to call corporatism, and his war-mongering. So in essence, Nader was right at that point, and only revisionist viewpoints would be able to claim he was wrong.

As far as what he is saying now, he actively campaigns against Bush, he no longer calls both parties alike, as now, they aren't! But the Democrats have moved way center, especially under Clinton, then Republicans moved even farther to the right to establish not just a greater distance from Democrats, but the real purpose a continued moving of the duopoly to the right.

[sangh0]

43. blah, blah, blah

The argument being made here is that ridiculing Nader doesn't help the Dems so why do it? I refuted that by describing how I use Nader-ridicule to persuade voters.

And you're response is to repeat Nader-blather. If you respond to the point and can't show how ridiculing Nader hurts Dems, then I am going to continue, and I suspect many others will too.

So keep repeating your insults of how Democrats are part of the conspiracy. We didn't believe it the first time, and even fewer believe it now.

Keep thinking that Nader blather is an appropriate response to every issue. As the post I responded to asked "How's that working out for you? Are you happy about the 3% Nader got in 2000? If not, why repeat the performance?"

And your response can be to repeat the blather

[liberalmike27]

109. Go Ahead

Approach it logically, talk about strategic voting, realize you have more in common with Nader voters than you do differences, you might convince people. Making fun of someone's icon will only firm up their support. Your choice.

I'm personally more pissed off about the Bush family stealing the election in 2000, than I am about a great man using the democratic process.

Nader voters are often willing to take the bad, if only to make Democratic voters take into account his positions, and perhaps throw that into the analysis as to who you choose to vote for. Dean Incorporated many Nader (Democrat) principles, and we see he was excoriated by the Democratic Party, and that voters were convinced by the media to vote for Kerry.

Look to the faults of the Democratic Party, and you will see why the elections are so close. Were Democrats keeping to the party lines of old, they'd be elected overwhelmingly, and control both houses of Congress. But due to them taking increasing contributions from Corporations, they have gone along with so many things that are considered Republican, that people are sincerely confused as to which party does what. This confusion is why Democrats lose elections.

If Bush wins again, it'll be because we have a wimpy, patronizing, limp candidate, that the media appointed for willing democratic sycophants. You have no one to blame but yourselves.

[Ardee]

51. success is how you measure it

Sangha, Sangho, whoever speak:


ill informed voters = those who disagree with h/her viewpoint

Nader's propaganda = the truth that disputes the democratic complicities with Bush

Democratic achievements = Patriot Act,invasion of Iraq, deaths of ten thousand Iraqis six hundred American soldiers and counting.
More democratic achievements, complicity with the destruction of the balanced budget, complicity with the offshoring of thousands of jobs , the unemplyment of millions of Americans, the insolvency of pension funds and the gutting of the education bill.

Im sure those on unemployment lines, those being fired upon in Iraq and Afghanistan, those seniors trying to choose between catfood for dinner or their medications, the children without textbooks much less computers are sharing a laugh with this apologist for the status quo.

[sangh0]

55. Well, I guess some CAN argue with success

and who better than the man who hasn't had any success in politics?

[jonnyblitz]

103. good post.

:thumbsup:

[ulysses]

13. *hurriedly launders asbestos boxers*

You'll need 'em. :D

[Cuban_Liberal]

17. LOL!

Ehhh, I'm pretty well flame-retardant, at this point, but thanks! :D

14. I Like Ralph Nader

can I say that?

I still don't want Bush to be president again.

[LiberalManiacfromOC]

52. Same here

I see nothing that he's ACTUALLY DONE to be considered so bad. bush never won the election of 2000, in case none of you remember. Don't blame Nader, he's done nothing wrong.

However, I really don't want bush to win this year.

[wryter2000]

18. I don't disagree with anything you've said

The thing I can't stomach about Nader is entirely different. He claimed there was no difference between Gore and Bush. He's saying much the same thing now about Kerry. That's a DAMNED LIE. He's either stupid, or he's a liar, and I don't think he's stupid.

He had the right to run in 2000. People who wanted to vote for him were right to do it. He had no right to LIIIEEEE (think of Franken here) about the Dem candidate.

[Padraig18]

22. That much I agree with.

There was and is a huge difference between Al Gore and George Bush, and one has only to examine the last 3 years to see the truth of that. :)

[Nadienne]

23. The differences grow smaller

when you look at the bigger picture.

[Padraig18]

24. Pray tell, enlighten us, knowledgeable one.

We mere mortals cannot perceive 'the big picture', it would appear. Enlighten us, do.:eyes:

[Nadienne]

28. The bigger picture

is centered on social and economical injustice. Which, I might add, paved the way for Bush's pResidency in the first place. And I am only beginning to understand the enormity of this situation. Neither Kerry, nor Gore, nor Nader can fix the real problems.

[sangh0]

29. Does that bigger picture include images of poor people?

I work for a charity that has seen the Republicans cut our budget by millions of dollars, and as a result THOUSANDS of poor people are going without the needed services we provide.

The differences can become smaller in the big picture only because the poor people disappear from that view.

[Nadienne]

32. Poor people are the focus of that view.

They are the victims, not only of wealthy corporations, but also of the fear of those who don't want to risk what they have.

I'm not saying Bush is better for them. I'm saying don't expect a real, permanent solution from Kerry.

[sangh0]

36. No, poor people are the focus of their blather

but their actions do those poor people no good. What helps poor people is electing Democrats who not only don't cut our funds, but also increase them.

Republicans have, as an official party policy, dedicated themselves to destroying charities like mine. Democrats like Kerry are committed to keeping us around PERMANENTLY and their committment has been demonstrated by their actions in support of organizations like the one I work for.

No matter how large or small the picture, the fact still remains that Repukes want to destroy us, and Democrats want to help us.

[Nadienne]

39. Right.

There's no need for charity if there is no poverty.

And, charity is a bandaide that makes the real problem (poverty) more bearable.

The cause of poverty is the greed of the wealthy. They desire profits; if you can't give them profits, you don't deserve food, shelter, clothing, etc.

I'm not saying, "Don't vote for Kerry."

I'm saying, "Wake up. This is the real problem."

[sangh0]

41. The left's circular firing squad at wrok again

Helping charities help poor people is A Bad Thing because it's doesn't eliminate poverty

Once again, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Until you actually start working with the poor, I doubt you'll have much insight on what's good for them and what's not. Calling charity a "band-aid" is extremely paternalistic, but I really doubt you can see that.

[Nadienne]

46. I never said it was a bad thing.

I said it wasn't a real, permanent solution.

Are you one of those who think I'm either with you or against you? And since I advocate doing more than giving charity, that must make me the enemy of charity?

Do you like to brag about how charitable you are? If so, then no wonder you so loudly sing its praises. Maybe it's occured to you that without poverty, you can't talk about how charitable you are.

For what it's worth, I spent a few hours volunteering in a soup kitchen years ago. Their spirits were deflated; their eyes never met mine. No, I'm not an expert, but I'm not untouched. Maybe I don't have you're insight... what kind of charity work do you do?

[Nadienne]

50. I'm leaving for the weekend

May we continue this discussion later?

[sangh0]

53. "There's no need for charity if there is no poverty. "

There IS poverty and there IS a need for charity. Talking about hypotheticals, like the elimination of poverty, is a distraction from reality. Tell me how charity is unneeded AFTER poverty is eliminated.

The simple fact is that there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between the Repukes and the Dems on the issue of poverty, regardless of the size of the picture, big or small. Instead of defending your statement that the big picture makes them the same, you are now trying to defend a straw man about the elimination of poverty.

[Nadienne]

107. I think I see what you're saying:

Since it is "impossible" to make the poverty situation any better (except by lessening the burden with charity), it is a waste of time to think about any solution.

If all you want is funding for charities, then I apologize for getting in the way of your lofty ambitions. Could it be that I was correct when I insinuated that you don't want the problem of poverty to ever be fixed?

If the differences between Republicans and Democrats on the issue of poverty boil down to how much funding they give to charities, then even if the difference in the amount of funding is billions of dollars, that difference is small in comparison to perspectives that seek to eliminate poverty, that treat the illness and not merely the symptoms.

By the way, a "straw man argument" is one in which a barely related argument is transposed with the actual argument by someone who can't refute the arguments made. What you call my "straw man" about the elimination of poverty was actually an attempt to widen your perspective, since you brought up poverty and seem quite content to believe that nothing can change the poverty situation. On the other hand, you seem to be trying to convince me to vote Democratic and have been attempting to refute my statements as though the conclusion to which led was an attack on Kerry. You're attacking a straw man.

[sangh0]

110. Actually, that's your argument

Since it is "impossible" to make the poverty situation any better (except by lessening the burden with charity), it is a waste of time to think about any solution.

You've been disparaging actions that help the poor on the grounds that they don't permanently eliminate the existence of poverty.

If all you want is funding for charities

Never said that. Please try and limit your criticisms to things I've actually said.

If the differences between Republicans and Democrats on the issue of poverty boil down to how much funding they give to charities...

If that's what you know of the differences, I have to wonder what you're doing here.

By the way, a "straw man argument" is one in which a barely related argument is transposed with the actual argument by someone who can't refute the arguments made

Wrong. A straw man argument is a refutation of an argument that no one made, such as the argument you imagine I've made that "it's impossible to change the poverty situation", an argument I've never made.

What you call my "straw man" about the elimination of poverty was actually an attempt to widen your perspective, since you brought up poverty and seem quite content to believe that nothing can change the poverty situation

What you call "an attempt to widen your perspective" is a straw man because, despite your dishonest claims to the contrary, I haven't said anything about the impossibility of changing the poverty "situation"

You've just pulled that out of thin air

[Nadienne]

113. Okay, then, back to the original topic:

"The differences between democrats and republicans grow smaller when you look at the bigger picture."

Please note: I never said "no difference"; nor did I say "insignificant difference." The size of the differences between Democrats and Republicans are relative to point of view.

Do you dispute this?

[no name no slogan]

20. Thank you for the most logical "Nader" argument I've seen...

...in a looooooooong time.

Denegrating Nader and his supporters will NOT win it for us. A candidate who appeals to those concerned about the control corporations exert on our economy and our lives WILL.

Kerry is pretty good on the "Nader Issues". What he needs to do is NOT let Ralph or Dubya define him on these, like Gore let Dubya define him.

Kerry needs to LEAD, not just answer. HE needs to set the agenda, not just react to Shrub or Nader.

And that is how we'll win with an unstealable margin in November.

[Cuban_Liberal]

21. Thank you.

I'm no fan of Nader's, but I don't have a pathological hatred of him, either; he speaks for a part of the electorate that no one else does or has, so far, and he has every right to run for POTUS, just as those voters have a right to be represented.

If the Democratic party would just honestly look at WHY these folks are voting for Nader, and not our nominee, we would have a leg up on answering the question of how to 'bring them into the fold'. All this hostility and hopt air directed at Nader is pretty much wasted energy, and gets Sen. Kerry no closer to the White House.

[hippiechick]

25. Ding Ding Ding !!

We have a winning post !

VERY well said !!

:hippie:

[edzontar]

30. I do not hate Nader. I just disagree with its strategy.

Much as I despise the "thinking" that so often informs the ABB argument, I must agree that this time the defeat of Bush has to be the first priority.

Plus, of course, changing the congress.

What Nader is doing is ill-advised, but "Hating" him is ridiculous.

[Padraig18]

33. I agree it's ill-advised.

At least in the battleground states. But the energy that goes into hating him, as so many here clearly do, is completely wasted, and could be put to more productive uses, don't you agree? :)

[edzontar]

35. I think we should try, calmy, to convince his potential supporters

To vote for Kerry.

I live in PA--to do so is a must.

[Padraig18]

38. MUCH more productive use of time, I'd say.

I live In Illinois, so it's not likely to matter much, frankly, because we'll be as blue as any state between the two coasts.

[Desertrose]

49. Good post CL... and here's the key right here.....

We're not gonna win this year by 'fighting the last war', and Ralph nader's not going to 'take away' any votes from John Kerry, unless John kerry fails to earn them.

Kerry has yet to take the lead, to define himself and what he stands for...if we lose, IMHO it will be because we chose the wrong message and the wrong candidate....if its close enough for the repubs to steal again then SHAME on US!

Nader can not take away from Kerry what was never his....

Peace
DR

[G_j]

56. and technically

(unless you are Jeb Bush or Diebold) you can't "take away" votes from anyone.

[Trajan]

58. Sad ......

It is so unfortunate that one can fall back on an obtuse argument over 'message' and the ability of the message to 'earn' votes ....

Why not field MORE candidates with a leftist perspective to sap even MORE of the electoral power from our side of the spectrum ??? ....

Our system simply doesnt function well with THREE candidates ... Its killing us in the majority .... ALL because the message from the Democrats is NOT enough to win over you ??? ...

Nader Supporters: SO smart that it hurts ! ....

Egads .... You lack an active pragmatism ... To our ultimate and collective detriment ....

[Desertrose]

59. yes it is sad...

I resent being told that what I care about "saps" electoral power...please.

Why shouldn't a candidate have a message that people resonate to? I don't see a problem with that. Just because someone has a "D" after his name doesn't necessarily mean I agree with his message.

First off..even though its none of your business...I am not and have never been a Nader supporter. .....BUT the man has his points...points that resonate to enough people that he threatens folks like you. My choice is (obviously) Dennis Kucinich, who happens to be a Dem . I hope that the party listens to him cause that man is doing his utmost to keep dems in and bring in greens/indys and others.

"Egads .... You lack an active pragmatism ... To our ultimate and collective detriment ...."

Your big assumption is that because I don't blame Nader for the Dems loss, you therefore assume I will vote for him and then you further insult my intelligence with your arrogant tunnel vision by saying that I lack pragmatism? You are full of yourself and this is EXACTLY what will push those *on the fence voters* right into Ralph's waiting arms.

I would say that it is YOU who are lacking pragmatism to the ultimate and collective detriment of us all.

Nader supporters so smart it hurts? No...its those who share YOUR attitude that hurt us.

There is a lot at stake here...don't be in such a fine fast hurray to write off and piss off those you may need in the future,OK?

on edit - did I ever say I wasn't voting dem?? did I?? another wrong assumption on your part

Peace
DR

[Trajan]

66. I could respond tit for tat ...

But I frankly couldnt care about your petty needs ....

Something I will note:

"You are full of yourself and this is EXACTLY what will push those *on the fence voters* right into Ralph's waiting arms. "

WHO is full of themselves ? ...

I, on one hand, will NOT look to Kerry or the Democratic Party to fulfill EVERY requirement, or repair EVERY peeve that I may possess about this or that obscure point ..... in the end: I will DEFER my personal needs for the good of the whole population ...

YOU, on the other hand, look to Kerry to service your every need, point by point, where the slightest deviation from your desire demands his immediate and absolutely gratifying response to you, or you will be 'pushed off the fence' into Ralph's waiting arms ....

So: I ask again: WHO is full of themselves ? ... WHO is placing their own needs above the whole ????

Guess who ....

You know what ? ... YOU want Ralph, you GET Bush: It's that simple ...

No matter HOW you try to misdirect or philosophicize .. If you make unrealistic demands on a party to PERFECTLY adhere to your every whim, or you will bolt to some third tier candidate, then you dawdle on the edges of your own self imposed exile: far from the center of the electorate, ... useless and impotent ...

EXCEPT to our enemies on the Right ... they will thank you, for the moment ....

[Desertrose]

69. awww c'mon....petty needs?

you're getting a bit over the top here...dismissing me and things I care about like they are worth nothing. That is not the best attitude to get anyone to see things your way!

"....placing my needs above the whole...? looking to Kerry to service my every need? wanting Ralph?"

good grief! I don't want Ralph or bush...dude...you need to calm down from ranting on about me...you have NO idea what I'm about. I was trying to give a little advice so you won't offend others who ARE on the fence and there are some out there...must feel real good to be so sure you know everything....

So much for reasonable discussion...

Peace
DR

[sangh0]

71. Yes, petty needs

I've re-read your posts in this part of the thread, and here are the supposedly important "needs" you mention:

1) "Kerry has yet to take the lead"
2) "Why shouldn't a candidate have a message that people resonate to?"

The only "issues" I see in those three posts are "leadership", and "message". The rest of those posts cnocerned YOU and YOUR vote. Nothing about health care, poverty, war, etc. Based on the amt of effort you spent on leadership and message compared to the NO TIME you spent on actual issues, I'd have to agree with Trajan that your concerns, as expressed by you, are petty.

[Bill Todd]

96. Perhaps she just assumed that Kerry's flaws were pretty obvious

to anyone sufficiently involved to be posting here.

Kerry has an essentially neocon position on preemptive war and aggressive use of American military and economic power to coerce the world into accepting our positions (see statements in his book taken nearly word-for-word from PPI documents), the only saving grace being that it's not as unilaterally fascist as Bush's is. He either expressed that position in his vote for the Iraq War Resolution or displayed incompetent judgement at that time (in contrast to 22 of his fellow Democratic Senators plus one Independent), he reinforced that position by refusing to speak out against the coming war (as he had promised to do in his floor speech supporting the IWR if Bush failed to adhere to the understandings associated with it) in the month before its inception (despite entreaties from many Massachusetts constituents and Democrats nation-wide - who got a form letter effectively supporting the war in response to their contacts), and while he has criticized details of Bush's planning and management of the war and the ensuing occupation he has never been anywhere nearly willing to step up to the plate and state that it never should have occurred.

Kerry is showing his neocon colors in tax policy as well. After promoting an economic package during the primaries promising Democrats everything but the kitchen sink plus retention of the Bush middle-class tax cuts (and criticizing Howard Dean as being a meany for suggesting that they should be rolled back along with the upper-class ones), he's just now 'realizing' that the numbers don't add up - and instead of rolling back the middle-class cuts to the perfectly reasonable tax levels that existed during the Clinton administration is scaling back his social programs. And his reaction to the off-shoring problems affecting the American job market was not just to close tax loopholes that actively promoted such activity but to offer a cut in corporate tax rates along with it to compensate (and in the future quite possibly more than compensate) for the insult, rather than devote the additional tax revenue (from corporations already paying only about 1/3 the percentage of total tax revenue that they were paying 30 - 40 years ago, and hence hardly in a position to complain) to more worthy areas such as social programs, deficit reduction, or even paying for the lower/middle-class tax cuts that he's unwilling to compromise.

How about health care? Don't look to Kerry for single-payer solutions or (last I knew) even full coverage at all: he's resolutely in the "let's tinker with the current system (and not rock the corporate boat)" DLC camp. And while Dean's proposals weren't all that different on a superficial level, they reflected his own personal experience in successfully implementing a staged approach in Vermont (after trying and failing to get a single-payer solution off the ground) plus the expressed intent to move beyond that to a single-payer solution after the first stage had been achieved.

"Leadership? I've heard of it" seems to be Kerry's motto, as he continues to avoid taking clear stances in virtually any area, instead preferring to utter orotund and soporific generalities that he couldn't really be held to in any specific way even if he were inclined to act on them (which in any event based on historical precedent would not be a good bet to make). And any 'resonance' you hear is likely to be the sound of the electorate snoring.

I suppose one could go on, but that seems like at least an initially adequate explanation of why people less enamored of Kerry than you seem to be have reasons beyond their own 'needs'. The John Kerry of the past decade or so is not the John Kerry who stood up against the Vietnam war 30 years ago - not by any stretch of the imagination. And neither is the Democratic party, at least as currently led.

- bill

typo edit

[sangh0]

111. So now Mr Toad speaks for others

Nice

[liberalmike27]

112. Sangh and Trajan

These two are classic examples of people who'll firm up Nader's support. They show disdain, and disrespect of the issues that Nader supporters care about, and they expect us to cow-tow to their beliefs. I can tell you, I'm not going to care anymore about your issues that you care about mine.

Why do you think 67% of those of age to register and vote in presidential elections don't? They don't see that either candidate represents their needs and issues adequately. Nader does, he speaks them, he represents us well. What do democrats do? They helped with "welfare reform," Clinton signed in "free trade" with no provisions toward "fairness." Democrats didn't fillibuster the ridiculous tax-cuts for the wealthy, they passed some very onerous provisions in the Patriot Act, and they've been running scared for years, and being increasingly bought and paid-for by the corporations. All it takes is 41 people in the Senate to stop anything the Republicans do. The fillibuster, and Cloture are in the Constitution to be used in this very situation, but they have let Republicans walk all over them.

Democrats will continue to lose if they keep moving to the right, and not representing the whole of their constituents. Personally, until they show a more substantial difference, I just really don't care. If Kerry wants Nader's votes, he needs to embrace Nader's issues, speak them loudly and proudly, perhaps even openly promising him a position in the administration. But if he keeps excluding them, then he'll lose not just those who vote for Nader, but that 67% who have realized that neither candidate will substantially change their lives. The same can be said for Democratic voters. You keep going for the soccer mom's, you are going to continue losing the team.

[MoonRiver]

57. I have a lot of respect for you CL,

but I still hate Nader. No, he's not totally responsible for fiasco 2000, but he had a serious hand in bringing it on. For that I'll never forgive him. And it is all the more a slap in the face to have him pulling the same stunt again. But that's just me.

[NightTrain]

62. Couldn't have put it better myself!

I never denied that Nader was a factor in 2000, but to place the blame for Al Gore's defeat squarely in Nader's lap is a great example of living in denial.

[Cuban_Liberal]

64. You can see that denial in posts to this thread.

Some people just can't handle the truth, sadly... :shrug:

[Desertrose]

70. can't even imagine there IS another truth besides their version....

Man, that is scary & makes me sad to see how far right the dems have gone....I never changed the things I wanted/believed in for the past 30+ years and now suddenly I am a fringe lefty??

:wtf:

go figure...
Peace
DR

[sangh0]

72. So aside from YOUR version, which other versions are truthful

.

[balanced]

75. Campaigns have lots of problems,

no doubt, but that doesn't excuse Nader for not dropping out in contested states, as he was asked to. The fact is that if Nader had dropped out in Florida, Gore would have won. Simple. Straightforward.

And when you say that "Ralph nader's not going to 'take away' any votes from John Kerry, unless John kerry fails to earn them", this is quite simple minded. Kerry could do a good job, not a perfect job, of campaigning and still be in deep shit because of Nader. Is it the case that Kerry has to do a perfect job before Nader will relent? Ridiculous.

[Cuban_Liberal]

77. What right do we have to ask anyone to drop out?

We have no right to demand t5hat people not campaign for the same voters we want; that's democracy, and it's too bad that some don't like it. The fact of the matter is that, as I posted initially, Nader is but one of several reasons that Gore didn't win in Florida. Other were just as important, and that is NOT 'simple minded', your calling it so aside.

It's time we quit blaming Ralph Nader for the fact that the SCOTUS installed Bush as POTUS in a coup d'etat. People who focus their anger solely or largely on Nader are intellectually lazy AND intellectually dishonest.

[balanced]

85. Who wants to focus on blame? I simply want Nader to get his

head out of his ass and see the real world. What is "intellectually lazy" about trying to convince Nader to get out of the race before the same thing happens in 2004 that happened in 2000.

Nader won't say the words, IF NADER HAD DROPPED OUT OF FLORIDA IN THE 2000 RACE, GORE WOULD HAVE WON THE ELECTION. Why does he constantly (at least as far as I have heard) evade commenting on this assertion?

I don't know whether Donahue has been asked this question. I'm not sure that Donahue is even involved in Nader's campaign.

What is intellectually lazy and dishonest is refusing to admit what is intuitively obvious even to the most casual observer: IF NADER HAD DROPPED OUT OF FLORIDA IN THE 2000 RACE, GORE WOULD HAVE WON THE ELECTION.

[Cuban_Liberal]

89. 'Intuitively obvious'?

The only problem is, it's not intuitively obvious. It is, at best, a somewhat educated guess.

[balanced]

91. I said "intuitively obvious EVEN TO THE MOST CASUAL

OBSERVER." If one really thinks about it, it is absolutely grounded in supportable assumptions: IF NADER HAD DROPPED OUT IN FLORIDA, GORE WOULD NOW BE PRESIDENT.

All I want is for Nader to address this assertion--whether he agrees with it or not. I would definitely like to hear his rationalization. I would definitely like to hear him say, "What have I done?"

[Cuban_Liberal]

93. I'm more than a casual observer, and it is not 'intuitively obvious' to me

Hence my disagreement with your statement/speculation...

[balanced]

86. I would like to hear Nader say, "What have I done?"

Remember the colonel in "Bridge on the River Kwai?" At the end, the colonel realizes that he is trying to undermine his own army's objectives: that he is helping the enemy. With this realization, he says, "What have I done?" and tries to do the right thing.

I would like Nader to admit that IF HE HAD DROPPED OUT IN FLORIDA, GORE WOULD HAVE WON THE ELECTION. I would like Nader to say to himself and others, "What have I done?" and then do the right thing.

[Cuban_Liberal]

116. Your *opinion* of what 'the right thing' is differs from Nader's, I'd wage

What incredible arrogance to assume that only your opinion about what 'the right thing' is is the only one that counts. Ralph Nader brought people into the process who would normally not have been involved. Was that 'the wrong thing'? He speaks for a group of voters who don't believe that EITHER party speaks for them. Is that 'the wrong thing'?

:eyes:

[rasputin1952]

87. Nader has no chance to win, Reality 101...

If people vote for Nader, I say let them; they might get bush again.
So the "vote for principle", ideologues will be to blame, NOT Nader.

Would those who vote for Nader take $1000 and toss it into the wind?
All that happens, is you're out $1000. Someone will begin to pick up the money, so they might gain, (R's), but you lose it all. There is no point in voting Nader, but I won't stop people from doing it. I just wish they'd get behind the push to get bush out of the WH.

:)

[yorgatron]

100. i've driven a corvair,that's how i know nader is wrong.

fuck you ralph!!!

[Bill Todd]

102. Dear me, I hope you have more to go on than that

I owned a couple of Corvairs, and loved them: they were definitely the poor college student's Porsche. But they were built after the change in rear suspension design that occurred in 1964, when the swing-axles that led to the behavior that Nader described in his book were replaced by double-U-joint units and other aspects of the handling were made more palatable to the unschooled American motoring public (like a reduction in its tendency to oversteer).

I do blame General Motors for folding its tent and slinking away rather than making it clear that the behavior which Nader described was no longer an issue (and indeed had ceased to be a couple of years before the book came out - and that I've always held against Nader to some degree). But he's done enough service for consumers (of all stripes, including political) since then that I've become reasonably convinced that he's actually committed to the causes he espouses rather than being a pure opportunist (and since we're comparing him against conventional politicians, being anything less than a pure opportunist gives him a leg up).

- bill

[BeachBuckeye]

114. How's it going? Not bad actually....

I still hate him.

[jadesfire]

117. Nader has done some good...

but i'm glad he didn't get on the ballot in Oregon.