This poll makes me very angry that Nader is running.

[LZ1234]

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

:mad:

[IndianaGreen]

1. Perhaps it is that Nader's appeal is that he will bring the troops home

Perhaps it is that Nader's appeal is that he will bring the troops home and not try to "Vietnamize" or "de-Americanize" the war.

My candidate Dennis Kucinich also wants a troop pullout and an end to this criminal war.

[Hippo_Tron]

2. Perhaps if Kerry said he'd pull out of Iraq, he'd loose 15 points...

And those who support Nader would find something else wrong with Kerry and keep supporting Nader.

[w13rd0]

3. Loose 15 points...

...ah, so glad you didn't say something like "save 100 lives"...

Gotta keep those priorities straight...

Whatever, I'm resigned to the dismal prospect of voting for the one less evil and f*d up than the fraud presently occupying the WH. It might mean marginally better fortunes for me and mine, but it'll be a question of "nuance" and little else. I'd be glad to be wrong on this...

[leftistagitator]

4. And what about the thousands who would die

in the ensuing clash for power if we leave a power vacuum? I can't believe you guys think that with no established government in place Iraq wouldn't turn into a blood bath if we immediately left. What do you think will happen? The previous poster was responding to a another poster who said that Kerry should adopt a cut and run policy to pick up the Nader vote. He also mistakenly says that Kucinich supports such a policy, even though Kucinich has already said he will leave US troops in Iraq until the UN fully takes over. Kerry also supports turning political control of Iraq over to the UN, but he realizes that the UN is unlikely to provide enough troops to completely pull our troops home. So instead he wants to bring NATO in to help. What is so bad about this plan? Do you have an alternative plan that will avoid civil war and allow us to completely disengage immediately?

[w13rd0]

5. Democracy at the point of a gun...

...and pardon me, but why assume that Iraq would erupt into a civil war were we to leave? Does the US erupt into civil war every time we transition administrations? Let the UN name a governing body and get the hell out. We went in on false pretenses, playing "humanitarian" now is pretty disengenuous. If the Iraqis had been successful in their revolt of '91, would they have spontaneously erupted into civil war? If not, why not? If you say yes, what makes you say that?

[leftistagitator]

7. Are our government institutions completely destroyed every election cycle

We blew up many of their government buildings, arrested the old political leadership, destroyed much of thier records, eliminated their old currency system, and are desperatly trying to prevent the old ruling party from returning to power in the future. The last time we tried anything that drastic in our own country was the Civil War, and yes, we did use Marshall law to impose that. About 10 years of it, and when we got tired of terrorists attacking us, we pulled out too early then, too. Which is why we have the Republican Party of today, the philisophical descendents of the Confederates, because we didn't finish off their ideals when we had the chance.

If the 91' revolt had worked then it would have been, by definition, a Civil War. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands would have died. And yes, we would have swooped in with the UN, provided a lot of aid and possibly peace keeping forces to help setup a new government, whatever was needed at the time.

You seem to think I like this. I may end up dying in this war. I'm 22, and have training in engineering, that makes me very likely to get drafted. I put up signs opposing this war, wrote letters, and told all the people who would listen, and some who wouldn't, about why this was a bad bad idea. But I don't see any better option. We made the committment when we launched this stupid ass war, to inflict chaos on the Iraqis would just worsen our crime.

[MadHound]

12. You're a little shaky on your history there friend

Or are you forgetting Vietnam, another country that we unilaterraly occupied all in order to set up a "Democracy". The war in Iraq is going the same way any other imperial war goes. We are going to have to keep the lid on the country by force, and any governmental system we set up is going to have to be enforced by the barrel of our guns. The US is regarded as the occupying enemy, and any institution that has even the faintest whiff of the US on it will be pulled down as soon as we leave. A civil war IS going to happen even if we stay in Iraq a thousand years.

What needs to be done is that a UN force should come in made up of primarily ME/Muslim countries, both to organize Iraqi government and for peacekeeping purposes. The US should pull out ASAP and pay all of the rebuilding and peacekeeping costs.

Our continued occupation of Iraq does nothing except exacerbate an already hostile situation. In Iraqi eyes we are not the great liberators come to spread the blessings of democracy to one and all. We are the Great Satan, come to steal their lands and oil, while killing off thousands and millions of innocents. Any governing body set up under our auspices is considered illegitamite, and will be torn down as soon as we leave.

And I would suggest that you also study your Reconstruction history a little more also, the Union didn't pull out because of terrorism attacks, it pulled out because of a deal to make Rutheford B. Hayes the president after a brokered election. And actually, for the longest while, until the late '40s-early '60s, the Democrats were the party of the South. Haven't you heard of the Dixiecrats?
They were a fine reliable Democratic constituency, at least until the Democrats decided, albeit reluctantly, to embrace the civil rights movement.

[leftistagitator]

14. I am aware of Reconstruction history, friend

And the Ku Klux Klan, a terrorist organization formed to preserve the confederate lifestyle, was very important in stopping reconstruction from working. I also know about the election of Tildon, and exchange made to end reconstruction. The North grew tired of trying to change the South and gave up on reconstruction, in part due to resistance efforts from organizations like the KKK.

I also know about Vietnam. The previous poster asked me why I thought civil war didn't happen at every election since that is regime change too. I was responding that the last time regime change as drastic as what happened in Iraq happened in America was the Civil War. Unless Vietnam is now considered a part of America, I still stand by that.

I agree that Vietnam and Iraq have strong parallels, and agree that getting Arab troops in there is the best option. All I've been saying is that we can't leave until there is something there to replace us. The UN is not there, at least not yet, and until it is I see nothing terrible about trying to bring in NATO as Kerry supports. Although, quite frankly, if the government that is put into place is worth anything, it will be attacked. Even if it comes from the UN, do you think a secular democracy would be tolerated in Iraq?

I'm not sure what your point is about the Dixiecrats, since they jumped ship to the Repugs a long time ago, that doesn't contradict my sentiment that modern Republicanism is the philosophical descendant of Confederatism at all. Unless you were going somewhere else with that.

[ByRillYAN]

6. If only Kerry would actually

say that to the media. get it out to the mass public who don't/won't take the little time it takes to google kerry's campaign and find out for themselve. one kerry's biggest problems is his appearence of being unsure, uncertain, or 'flip-floppin'.
what the public needs is a debate between bush and kerry. kerry could not only get out his campaign policy, but he could also make bush look like by doing just that, and not trying to spin it so much tornadoes form.

[leftistagitator]

9. He's trying

The last time he had an Iraq policy speech some huge news story happened and the media didn't cover it. Your right though, these debates are going to be so much fun. I can't wait till moron* is put up against Kerry. I just hope Kerry doesn't pull any punches to avoid looking "mean" like the media bullied Gore into.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. It's better than the 1000s that will die if Bush gets another four years

When Kerry is in the white house he will actually address the very difficult question of when to bring the troops home. There's a chance that he will set a date sooner than we think and there's a chance that he won't. Bush will send as many troops as Rummy and Wolfie tell him to.

[meti57b]

15. A vote for nader is a vote for bush.

[IndianaGreen]

19. Then I suggest you go after those votes instead of going after...

Then I suggest you go after those votes instead of going after Republicans disaffected with Bush, or the always elusive "Reagan" Democrats, or that mythical "middle" that has never had a progressive fiber in their bones.

If you dilute the Democratic Party with enough Republican ideas (PATRIOT, IWR, Occupation, Sharon Plan,) eventually you have a solution that is more Republican than Democratic in its composition.

Luckily for us and for country there is another alternative, the real deal: Dennis Kucinich!

[Hippo_Tron]

28. Those voting Nader could actually get something done by voting Kerry

It's unfortunate how the democrats have screwed up their base to the point where it's questionable as to whether we even have one. But we can't appeal to the left and win the millions independents who are pissed at Bush that we need to win the election. BTW Kucinich is not an alternative to Kerry. Kucinich is a man who is leading the movement to bring the left back into the democratic party so that Kerry will have enough support to take liberal positions and be a more liberal president. I'm very thankful that we have Kucinich in the party.

[dfong63]

8. this is a free country. deal with it.

and remember, people who vote for Nader would not automatically vote for Kerry if Nader weren't running. those votes don't belong to Kerry in the first place. it's sad that some people think the only way for their candidate to win is by giving the voters no choices.

[OneBlueSky]

10. I got a hunch that a lot of people are expressing support for Nader . . .

in the polls, but will vote for Kerry come November . . . since the polls don't count for anything, it's thier chance to vote for Nader with no repercussions . . .

[Tinoire]

11. Let me get this straight

8% of Democrats are saying they're for Bush, 4% for Nader
39% of Independents are saying they're for Bush, 4% for Nader
12% of Independents are undecided as are 4% of Independents

and you're steaming at the combined 8% behind Nader?

Do the 8% of Democrats behind Bush get a free pass? Same as the 39% of Independents?

For YEARS Progressives have been warning "New Dems" that we will not be held with our backs against a wall and vote, once again, for the lesser of 2 evils, that we will not vote for anyone who enabled this war and now you're mad? You're mad at Nader for running?

Those votes were Kerry's to earn and he lost them.

Just chalk this one up to another unmitigated disaster by the DLC. Not like the writing hasn't been on the floor for all to read.

4 more years of Bush? Thank the DLC!

[MadHound]

13. Nice post!

Thanks for expressing those points, as always you do it eloquently and with grace. :yourock:

Sad to say however, many Dems this election, as in the last election, will fail to see the point, and simply, mindlessly blame it all on Nader. That is probably the only reason I would like to see Nader out of the race. Maybe then the Dems would be forced to deal with their own shortcomings and mistakes. But more likely they would just find some other scapegoat.:eyes:

[Cuban_Liberal]

16. They blame Nader because *thinking* is hard

It's much easier to spew the mindless meme about Nader being responsible for Gore's loss. God forbid that we would honestly examine, analyze and act upon the multitude of problems that preceeded and enabled the coup d'etat in 2000.

[On the Road]

32. No, They Blame Nader Because It's Straight Cause-and-Effect

and Ralph can see that as anyone else. Some people blame Bush for causing the Mideast to blow up because it's to his political advantage. Based on the last election and his actions in 2004, Ralph seems to be trying to wreck the US government to strengthen more radical alternatives. He is not a stupid man. He knows there is a distinct possibility he will get Bush reelected.

And for those of you assume a more progressive agenda is all it will take to win, let me ask this:

Why are the Republicans not the ones trying to be like Democrats to avoid losing elections? Why are the Democrats the ones trying to deal with declining control of national government? Nixon had to adopt liberal policies to win -- Clean Air Act, EPA, Affirmative Action, claiming to be the peace candidate in Vietnam. Now it's the Democrats who are dealing with a political landscape that does not favor the party.

For whatever reason, more voters trust Republicans than Democrats. Democrats no longer have the hearts and minds of the majority. Democrats no longer have the luxury of having most people profess their agreement with the political philosophy.

There are various ways of dealing with that, from Clinton to Gore to Dean. But if Kerry adopted Nader's platform and rhetoric, what would his chances of winning be? As we've been finding out the last three years, taking comfort in moral superiority is of no help to anyone.

[TreasonousBastard]

18. Right on cue...

bash the DLC and us for eating our own.

The 8% of Democrats who like Bush are a lost cause and show up in every election to some degree. Rumor has it there were some Republicans who actually voted against Reagan! These things happen.

Nadir, however, adds something new-- someone else for disgruntled Democrats to vote for, and that 8% of his may or may not be realistic, and I doubt is is, but some of it is definitely sucking votes away from Kerry that need not be sucked away.

That evil DLC, of course, managed to get us a President elected three times in a row, although the last was stolen from us. This is something that progressive Democrats haven't been able to do since the FDR-Truman years. After the TR debacles and Wilson, it looked like we'd never get a Democratic President again and it was the Depresssion that finally got us back in.

But then, progressives really kicked ass running against Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I, didn't they? We beat up Goldwater, but then look what happened.

There's that half a loaf thing.

[Tinoire]

23. Naw... You're not eating your own

Because Reagan Democrats, Bush Democrats, they're all A-OK! They basically agree with the DLC but should be forgiven for having over-stepped the line by a wee bit. Their total "confusion" is understandable and forgivable but when it comes to people who want nothing to do with that confusion, let's persecute them right? Let's persecute the few who think independently and don't fall for the swill. Go for the swing vote where the grass is greener or so the DLC thinks.


If Kerry doesn't want votes "sucked away" then maybe he should figure out how to "suck" them back in. Kerry's made his choice. Swing voting, war-supporting voters are more important to him than the responsible adult. Take it with some sense of responsability for the choices which were made.

Maybe if we just keep easing to the right we can become a full fledged Fascist state and then we won't have to worry about those pesky progressives? Then we can really unfurl the big "Welcome Home Reagan Democrats" sign because those people the DLC is courting are Saints.

And do plesae, pray tell about all the elections the DLC has won. Other than Clinton's presidential elections which were more won by broken promises and his very special, impressive persona, what the hell has the DLC won other than a blurring of the lines between the two parties? A blurring so severe that the uninformed should be forgiven while the informed, appalled at this newest corporate acquisition and merger, should be hounded and persecuted as treasonous bastards.

:puke: I say because more and more people are staying in bed for elections. More and more people are saying "there's too little of a difference". More and more people do NOT care about abortion as a defining issue- and expect something a little more substantial.

More and more people have had their jobs lost thanks to NAFTA, GATT, WTO, FTAA and thanks to a bi-partisan Welfare Reform can't even survive- you want them to give a rat's ass because Kerry is for abortion and Bush is not? We can see a wedge issue when it's thrown out there and frankly do not care.

Bring the boys home NOW. Stop mumbling that you (Kerry) voted correctly but that Bush mis-used your vote. Especially when people like Robert Byrd paced the Senate floor for hours warning you and people like Kucinich exposed the lies faster than they were spewing forth.

NOW NOW NOW Senator Kerry and quit mumbling about needing 40,000 more troops to "finish" the job, quit not having an effing word to say about the atrocities in Fallujah, the murder of Yassin, the atrocities in Palestine, the atrocities in Colombia, the coup in Haiti, NAFTA, WTO, GATT... Quit, quit, quit pretending that all is fine and hunky dory except for the domestic issue of abortion which, frankly, not enough people feel strongly enough one way or another to swing the vote. Ask me as a woman if I prefer my right to an abortion over millions of oil-possessing Muslims dead and I'll tell you "Hell, I'll have the damn baby". If that's the cost, you hear me, I'll have the damn baby. People who don't want children should be "investing" in reliable birth control anyway. I am so sick of seeing abortion being blown up to be THE effing issue when there are MANY other more important issues. War, globalization, corporate media, job security, social programs for my tax dollars (as opposed to weapons & corporate subsidies), free tuition, healthcare- THOSE are important to me and many others!

For the first ever time in my life (and I am no spring chicken), I am wrestling with my political conscience because it's getting harder and harder to vote Dem.

[TreasonousBastard]

33. Good God Almighty...

you are depressed about all this, eh?

Well, buck up because it's always been this bad and it probably won't get any better.

We're in a world where the dreaded WTO can't be stopped no matter what we do. Capital and the means of production can move around the world with a mouseclick, and no amount of whining can stop that.

We're in a world where China, India, and south America are seriously competing for the 25% of world resources we use in the US, and even knocking Europe for a loop.

We're in a country that will not, except for a few local areas, elect anyone tainted with the "liberal" label.

We're in a country where a large number of union members are making such good money they don't consider themselves workers any more and vote Republican.

We're in a country where the electorate hardly ever votes-- a trend that has been getting worse no matter who is running. A 50% or so turnout in a Presidential election has been typical as long as I've been alive.

We're in the "liberal" party where the voters rather eloquently rejected all the "liberal" candidates.

I could go on, but you get the idea. The real problems we face are the ones no one wants to talk about because the solutions either evade us or are too draconian to talk about. This is an election, and no one gets votes talking about Venezuelan politics or the obscurities of trade agreements. You get votes talking about bullshit, like abortion or guns, or platitudes about disappearing jobs that will never return.

Quite frankly, a lot of the "solutions" posed by the left are as dangerous and whacky as the ones proposed by the right.

What is needed now is not a radical agenda, which could easily slide us over the edge, but sound management to restore economic balance, prepare for coming problems, and repair much of the damage that has been done.

I can't say for sure that Kerry promises sound management, but the present administration certainly doesn't.

So, cry in your beer as much as want over your own view of things. Me, I see possible economic collapse, unrepairable environmental damage, and a number of other serious problems that are not adequately addressed by either the left or right fringes.

And I see only one of two people being inaugurated next January, so any whining about how neither of them is acceptable is simply whining. We are stuck with one of them, so figure out which it will be.

There are plenty of sorry-ass congresscritters to get rid of. Perhaps less whining and more work there would be appropriate.

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. If only Kerry would drop out so that Nader could take all of his votes.

[LZ1234]

20. I hardly think that would happen, don't you?

[GreenPartyVoter]

27. Too bad it won't. :(

[LZ1234]

21. I feel a need to clarify myself.

First, I have nothing against Nader. In fact, I think he would make an excellent president. However, I'm trying to deal with reality. Unless something miraculous happens, Nader doesn't have a chance to win. From the polls I've been seeing, Nader is taking more votes away from the democrats than from republicans which can't be afforded at this crucial time in America. I don't want to give Bush any more of a chance to win than necessary and that's what I see happening with Nader running. That's what I'm angry about. We all know it will be a close election. It actually terrifies me thinking about another 4 years of Bush.

[IndianaGreen]

22. The Democrats are losing votes by embracing Sharon, the Occupation

(of Iraq and Palestine), PATRIOT Act, and NAFTA, to name just a few.

If you want to gain market share you have to either change your marketing strategy, or change product. You don't gain market share by bashing the consumers.

Voters are consumers of the political process!

[Tinoire]

25. Thanks for that. 4 more years of Bush terrify me also

but

1. I am not trusting Kerry to be the man to do it

and

2. I am not believing that Kerry is different enough from Bush to do anything more than slow this train, speeding at 115 MPH, to more than speeding at 105 MPH.

I hate Bush with a PASSION but, on top of the personal dislike, I hate everything he represents and everytime Kerry opens his mouth, I see him as representing the same things Bush does.

For less informed votes... Kerry should just STFU and watch Bush self-destruct (that would be considered a win DLC-style) but no, he has to open his mouth endorsing every idiotic thing Bush ever did because his votes enabled Bush.

I am loathing Kerry, who used to be my number 2, more and more everyday but pragmatically, I tell you, because I'm on that train speeding at 115MPH that it wouldn't hurt to slow it down to 105MPH but if Kerry wants the conductor's job, he needs to STFU so that people won't realize he's from the same school of driving.

If I even roll out of bed to go vote on Nov 7, eyes duct-taped shut, to play eenie-meenie-miny-mo, it will be a miracle.

There are days I wish we did not have the internet to know as much as we know.

There are days I yearn for my old "Democrats are great and Republicans suck" days but they're not coming back because since then I've learned a few ugly words such as PNAC-endorsing DLC, PPI, IWR votes, GATT, NAFTA, WTO, Welfare Reform, FTAA, Plan Colombia, Yugoslavia, NED and the list just goes on and on and on...

The entire thing is sordid.

[Hippo_Tron]

29. I understand your concern, but Kerry is more liberal than you think...

Look at his voting record over the years. A person doesn't have a sudden change of ideological beliefs like that. He has changed his positions so that he can beat George Bush and become president. With Kerry you will have a good liberal in the white house who will at the worst not be able to fully accomplish his liberal goals. He will not harm this country like Bush has done.

[Zinfandel]

24. We're all angry...only thing to do is vote Democrat and educate

Regugs and Nader voters the best we can.
(And donate as many bucks as you can to Kerry).

[salonghorn70]

30. Nader's Support Will Melt Away

As Election Day draws near, his support will be down to 1%-2%. That group probably would never vote for Kerry under any circumstances anyway.

[shawn703]

31. My problem with Nader

Is that as a rich white man, he won't personally be inconvenienced by the country moving further to the right if Bush gets reelected. In other words, he can afford to stoke his ego and play these political games at the expense of those whose beliefs he claims to represent. If Nader was running and he was instead a homeless, lesbian, Muslim, single mother I might take him a little more seriously.