Im confused please help me out here

[freetobegay]

Is this not the Democratic underground? Not the Nader underground? Is not Nader helping in the defeat of the presumtive Presidential nominee?

With all the double talk coming from the repukes I have to listen to it here, which should be a safe haven for Democrats?

I just don't get it.

[NMDemDist2]

1. hmmmm good point-- shame on you for thinking freetobe

<kidding>

[Terry_M]

2. Some people who generally support Democrats

May not like Kerry.
Being a Democrat doesn't mean you vote for whoever the party tells you to.

[freetobegay]

4. So we go back to the original question

Democratic underground or Nader underground? You want to defeat Kerry by voting for Nader use the bandwidth of a Nader supporter.

[Terry_M]

6. I thought this was a forum for Democrats to speak their mind.

I didn't think it was Kerry Underground where everyone has to support Kerry.

[freetobegay]

7. I'm not saying support Kerry

But by supporting Nader you are not supporting The Democrats. See I'm good at double talk too!

[Terry_M]

8. Ah but maybe I support Democrats regaining Congress

And the Senate.

[freetobegay]

11. Nader has nothing to do with those

He is running for one office & one office only & this thread is about Nader Supporters. Care for anymore double talk?

[Terry_M]

12. My point is that

There is more than one way of supporting the Democratic Party. Supporting Nader does not remove your status as a Democrat, and DU is for Democrats to speak freely (at least that is my understanding).

If this doens't answer your question, then maybe I have misunderstood.

[mitchum]

32. And by that same token, we are free to criticize Nader...

as a vain wannabe spoiler with a dwindling band of dupes

Maybe you can help pony up some ducats for Ralph's own bandwidth? Just a suggestion :)

[JVS]

29. Wow

"Being a Democrat doesn't mean you vote for whoever the party tells you to."

Are you sure? That seems to be the popular requirement of many here.

[flaminlib]

3. I think most of them will come around in November

Just my thoughts but I cant see how anyone (on this board anyway) would willingly put a vote in the Bush column. Maybe a few hardcores, but I have thought that most Nader supporters will probably end up voting for Kerry when it comes time. Am I wrong?

As to the Nader threads, doesnt hurt to check them out and see what they have to say.

[skooooo]

5. I don't like Kerry-bashers or Pro=Nader people...

....my inclination is to suggest they just vote for Bush.

[eaprez]

9. I Wouldn't Waste Much

brain matter thinking on this topic. Nader isn't getting the response he hoped for and is having a difficult time getting enough signatures to get on ballots. He's not going to be the wrench in this campaign --- his supporters for the most part see the futility of supporting him.

[demigoddess]

22. but let's face it

When someone enters a race that is very close and feels that he is going to gather anywhere from 2 to 5 % , you have to wonder about their motives and/or their sanity. I can see running for city council or mayor, pulling just 3% or so, only for principle (please note the spelling) but not president of the united states. Gee, Ralph we are not a parliamentary system.

[senseandsensibility]

10. This is Democratic Underground

As Democrats, we can not allow Nader to say that we are the same as Republicans without calling him on it. The man is a liar and an opportunist.

[angryinoville]

13. Nader's a liar?

I respect Nader's candidness, and his brain. He won't get my vote, but I do agree with everything he stands for. Just as I did with Dean, Clark and Kucinich. Listen, this is a website for democrats. Let's be tolerant of eachother and our ideas. That's what separates us from the others. We think, discuss, debate and use actual research to back our claims. Tolerance! C'mon!

[senseandsensibility]

23. tolerance, sure

but when Nader states in many public forums that Democrats and Republicans are the same, literally that there is NO difference between them, he is LYING. It's a LIE. I'm sorry; I can't be any more clear than that. If you have some evidence that he did not say this, by all means post it. But he has said it many times, with no qualifications, and even his most ardent supporters have never denied it. So I plead guilty to lack of tolerance for bold face lying. Sorry if that offends you.

[eaprez]

25. He's Right

there's absolutely no difference in the way they do business and the DLC seeks to run from the word liberal and become more like the 'other' party. He does have a point - to deny that he doesn't is just foolishness.

[senseandsensibility]

26. words matter

First of all, the DLC does not represent all Democrats. I would have thought that much was obvious. Second, I would agree with Nader if he specifically said that the DLC is too much like the Republican party, or even if he had said that the Demcoratic party is TOO MUCH like the Republican party. I'm a Kucinich primary voter, hardly neo-conservative. However, the statement that there is no difference between the Democratic party and the Republican party is a lie. Please address my point without adding things to what Nader said to make his comments more truthful.

[Bill Todd]

28. Not being a close follower of Nader's candidacy

All I can offer in the way of insight is that the only statement I've seen quoted from him in this area this election season is that there's not sufficient difference between the two (though that was fairly recently, and it's possible that he made less carefully-qualified statements earlier).

- bill

[Ardee]

14. yes you are confused

and understandably so given the name of this site. If you would read the premise upon which this site was founded you would find it a place for ALL progressives, leftists and Democrats, not just loyal party members.

There is a knee jerk reaction to "that" name, but mostly from neoconservative democrats who simply seek to keep folks from close examination of the state of the Democratic Party itself, and from those who do not care to think for themselves but simply wish to belong to something.

There are many, many topics being discussed here, Ralph Nader being one of the more volatile. I take th etrouble to go to Nader sites and actually read and think about the things he says, I suggest that you do the same and then tell us which ones you disagree with........you might be very surprised.

[freetobegay]

16. Why would I want to do that

In the hopes I will change my vote from Democrat to Independent & not vote for Kerry?

It doesn't matter what Nader has to say at this point. A vote for Nader is a no vote for Kerry. The math is simple on this.

[smartyjones]

19. Nadar

Nadar has clearly implied that he won't be on the ballot. He is campaigning to express his views. He has made this point several times at least. The only thing he didn't do is to diminish his presence by saying; "I'm not going to run in the election."

I am completely confident that he doesn't want to draw votes as he did in the last supreme court presidential election. The first time I saw him reply to the question of votes/numbers and the 2000 election, he said the democratic party has nothing to worry about, he was smiling when he said that which obviously implies something. I don't see any reason to doubt his sincerity at all.

The circumstance of the last election was extraordinary and Nadar was trying to build the foundation of a viable third party. I'm sure the reality changed the principle he stood on.

[newyawker99]

40. Hi smartyjones!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Ardee]

43. whyt should you read what Nader says?

Well, for one thing, criticising someone for what he says and then admitting that you do not know what he says make you sound more than a trifle dense. If you are so suseptible to brainwashing that you fear reading because it might alter your opinion then of what worth is that opinion to begin with?

Oh,and buy the way, I challenge you to go to votenader.org and find somthing of substance with which you disagree.....

[Bill Todd]

15. I'll take that at face value and try to answer it

And since I'm not a Nader fan, with at least some possibility of objectivity.

First of all, considerable discussion of Bush goes on here as well, because Bush is clearly of significant interest to Democrats. And many posts about Nader here aren't much more positive than those about Bush: both seem to be seen by some people primarily in the light of their possible impediment to getting Kerry elected, and those people rant accordingly.

The obvious major difference is that while most people here are solidly anti-Bush (even though some of them manage to find ways to approve of stances that bear an uncomfortable similarity to some of his), Nader's positions reflect those of a significant portion of the Democratic base at least as well as, and sometimes better than, Kerry's do. So some Democrats who aren't single-mindedly focused on getting Bush out of the White House as the sole priority of this presidential election are at least sympathetic to Nader's candidacy (because they feel he is doing a much better job of expressing some of their interests than Kerry currently is) and thus are inclined to defend him even if they don't necessarily plan to vote for or otherwise support Nader.

Note that I said 'sole' priority above: even those people who have no reservations about making evicting Bush their primary goal can still have strong concerns about what Kerry may be likely to do once installed in office, and can want to try to address these concerns before the election rather than simply cling to faith in someone whose public utterances simply do not seem to justify such faith. Given the fact that Nader's candidacy unquestionably serves to help keep these concerns on the table and represents something close to a polar opposite to Bush's in this regard, it's at least as silly to equate Nader with Bush as it would be to equate Kerry with Bush.

Unfortunately, those who have a blind passion for evicting Bush have turned what should be a healthy debate within the party about the relative priority of such concerns into something resembling a Mexican stand-off, wherein it's possible that the only beneficiary could be Bush (because many of those who feel that their concerns are legitimate simply aren't willing to be railroaded into falling into line and shutting up).

If Kerry's positions fell closer to the center of what his party's traditional base believes in, this wouldn't be an issue: the percentage of that base unwilling to join in supporting him would be pretty negligible. And if it were clear that Kerry's positions are in fact those required to win in November, at least a large portion of those who currently question them would fall into line, because they certainly detest Bush every bit as much as the rest of the party does.

But the experience of the past decade seems to many of us to be that the DLC strategy of continuing movement to the right is not a winning one, rather the exact opposite. And the fact that despite having demonstrably run by far the worst administration in living memory on so many counts that it's not worth even starting to list them Bush remains more or less tied with Kerry in the polls suggests rather strongly that we may be right.

So we're not just worried that Kerry won't address our concerns if he's elected: we're worried that failing to address at least some of them will keep him from being elected, even if we grit our teeth and support him.

Those are a few of the reasons why Nader is important (in a positive sense) to some of the solid Democrats here. And they're the same reasons that a significant percentage of solid Democrats are not willing to jump on the bandwagon yet, regardless of Nader: they think that it's headed over a cliff, and are trying to pull it to one side before it's too late.

Other opinions, of course, differ.

- bill

[blondeatlast]

39. Excellent summation, But, there is a LW candidate within the party

who can do far more to move the party and the nominee to the left than Nader can--Dennis Kucinich.

Nader supporters cut off their noses to spite the Democrats and themselves in this regard.

Yet DK doesn't get near the response that a Nader thread does in terms of replies or passion.

Even those who see little difference between Kerry and Bush surely must see there is still a viable LW in the party and that it is disingenuous to give up on it (especially in this election).

I prefer to vote to get the evil out of the White House first and continue the struggle incrementally.

I'm well aware I'm now a MINORITY in my party--I have to work harder to see my views represented, and I do.

I don't care to see ANY progressive tombstoned--but I won't back down in my disdain for those who can't see that this election is about much more than their needs alone.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

17. When you signed up for this site..

there were notices about who was welcome here.

Since I have been here (a few months after launch) there have been Democrats (liberal to conservative), Greens, Socialist, Communists, and a few Republcans.

And except during election/primary time, they have all been generally free to express their opinions.

[freetobegay]

18. "And except during election/primary time,"

BINGO!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

20. I was referencing the midterms..

we experienced here on DU in '02.

The Admins come out and specifically post notices when the regular DU rules change about what can and cannot be posted.

As far as I know, the rules are not in effect right now -- but, from what I've read, they will be reinstated as we get closer to the election.

If you're really bothered by it, don't ask the members, talk to the people who run the site. You can find them in the Ask the Admon section.

They make the rules, not me or not you.

[freetobegay]

21. I'm just fighting fire with fire right now

Waiting for that glorious day when the convention gets here!

[MoonRiver]

24. Yes, I've been wondering the same thing.

I have no answers though. Adms are good about deleting outrageous statements, but won't stop a lot of the anti-Kerry negativity.
:shrug:

[Cuban_Liberal]

27. This is a *progessive* message board, not exclusively a Democratic one.

Hope that clears things up for you...

[ACK]

30. It is?

Seems to swing widely from point to point on the spectrum depending on the situation actually.

But there are always a lurking group of borderline socialists, anarchists and others that are far further to the left than the average everyday Dem centrist liberal or right leaning DLC'er.

+

[markomalley]

31. If this is not a progressive board...let me know and I'll leave

First...I will hold my nose this November and vote for Kerry.

But, tell me? What is wrong with working to get the party to more reflect a progressive point of view?

Geez...if I want to goosestep, I already know where I can go for that.:hurts:

[ACK]

33. Progressive Manifesto

I did not say goosestep or that you should not work for a more progressive Democratic party.

I am merely saying that the opinions on this board vary widely.

There are people here who range from Edwards style soft DLC'ers, to the centrist liberals like Kerry to old-school liberals like Ted Kennedy right on to Chomsky leftists.

We have to come up with the vision. Remember the contract on America that the Repubs used during the Republican Revolution? We need our own manifesto for the future.

Kuicinch may feel too much like Dukakis for my tastes. However, he has something right when he states that some libertarians, reform party, greens and other outside forces in American politics can be wooed to a Dem candidate with a unified vision of America and its future.

We have much of the roadmap already laid out in front of us people.

Wellstone showed us the power of grassroot movements in modern politics.

Dean showed us the power of new media and the essential need of small contributors to stop the influence of big money and the DLC on Democratic politics.

Clinton showed us how to communicate and talk to the population of this country and he also illustrated how to paint our rivals as the dangerous radicals they really are. He did this to Dole but no one else has had the guts to pull this move again?

Mark Warner in conservative Virginia showed the Democrats how to run in the districts they are actually trying to win. He did not change positions or whatever he understood the image is the thing. He instead just shows up in front of guns and nascar vehicles and got pictures taken to show he knew who his own damn constituents are.

This is the way you win seats and influence people. There is no rocket science to this.

Here are set of my core political beliefs. I propose that a platform of change around these ideals could appeal to all of America. The real key is to reclaim the language of debate and find a new progressive populist voice forged around our beliefs.

1. I believe the Government has a duty to regulate the power of corporations when the corporate interests conflict with public interests. In a capitalist society you have to work with business interests but you cannot be whores to them. When the rubber meets the road and the public interest is at stake then the citizen's interests much be preserved.

2. I believe that the full protection of the Bill of Rights outlined in the Constitution should not be curtailed. Repeal the Patriot's Act and keep government out of the bedrooms and out of the business of trying to dictate behavior and speech. No MI5 in America!

3. I believe in a woman's right to choose. It is not the government's place to regulate procreation or destroy a woman's right to privacy.

4. I believe that universal healthcare is a moral imperitive and can benefit both the public and the corporate structure of this country. This can be a great benefit to both the public and business interests in America. Free up the HR departments from having to worry over healthcare and you free up an incredible amount of money into the economy. With that kind of money back into the economy insuring the uninsured with pay huge dividends in increased productivity in the end. I see a single-payer system with plenty of options much like what is available to the feds right now. However, I am open to all options that meet the requirements of universal healthcare.

5. I believe in the seperation of church and state and that public money should not go to fund religious organizations.

6. I believe in the social safety net. I believe that government can give a hand up and not just a hand out. The real issue is connecting people with jobs in the private sector. The real issue is retraining and getting people to the available jobs in their areas. Moreover, the biggest issue is figuring out how to prevent single moms from having to choose between providing for their families and abandoning their children. A workfare system with a system of available childcare, retraining programs that work with local businesses and job networking systems that focus on the local employeement needs.

7. I believe in proper education funding. Focusing on the schools in the most need is crucial and accountability for performance is important as well. There can be no more unfunded mandates. We must have the guts to put our money where our mouth is. The money has to be connected to results but the idea of results without proper funding is a self-fullfilling prophecy of doom.

8. I believe in morality in foreign policy. Too often, being pragmatic has turned to being opportunistic and bullying. In the end, we always pay for it. We have to frame our actions within the insititution of the UN and embrace our allies. We do not have to take a weak hats in our hand approach but that is not the same as being arrogant and unilateral in our actions. We have to have a policy that understand the role of diplomacy and action.

9. I believe in protecting the environment and this can be done without being proxies for industry and without destroying industry. Any progress toward a cleaner environment has to involve business interests as well as environmental groups. A balanced well thought out approach is the answer here. When the business interests work with government and play fair -- praise them (this is tough for some of us) but you have to give them the chance. This is the noose of a chance that every polluter will have the opportunity to hang themselves on. Play the game or pay big. Enforce the laws on the books with a vengence. Come up with a list of the best companies and the worst and make it a huge public affair. Take down the punks and praise those who try to do right.

10. Fiscal responsibility is key. We have to balance the budget. The borrow and spend Republicans are giving away the future for short term economic gains. We have to repeal the giveaways to the rich. We have to move the country forward toward the goal of a balanced budget. The tax cuts for the working and middle class were warranted but they were a smoke screen for other people in the highest tax brackets who did NOT want to pay their fair share. A total reform of the tax structure, simplification of the rules and the cutting of loopholes for the wealthy are needed immediately.

11. Gun safety laws need to be strengthened but a ban on firearms is not practical or workable. This is the kind of talk that soothes the hunters and brings out the harsh nuts and exposes them for the idiots they are.

12. Corporate welfare should end. It is not the government's job in a capitalist society to bail out or give aid to failing corporations. Target the worst of the pork belley giveaways to the richest corporations and make it a reform based media event. Plug this constantly along with the next point.

13. Small business initiatives that promote competition in a free market society is not the same thing as corporate welfare and should endure to promote the ideals of small business owners.

14. I believe in a military strong enough to defend the nation. A two-pronged approach to the military is needed. Weed out waste and give over better benefits to the men in the ranks. We all know there is waste in the current defense budget. This is the only way to cut down defense spending without looking weak. You highlight the cuts as unpatriotic wastes of the taxpayer dollars. You give back at least 50% of all the cuts back to the common soldiers and the vets that have given so much.

15. Independence from non-renewable energy sources should be a national goal with a set of real deadlines. A real energy policy that focuses on getting America away from the dependency on foreign oil and onto the path of using renewable resources is an idea who's time as come. We cannot simply give away more money to energy companies and destroy our national wildlife heritage. That is not the way. Initiatives and grants aimed at promoting new ideas and technologies is the real winning plan. These are the technologies that can put America businesses on top in the long term and preserve our nation's treasured resources.

16. I believe in a worker's right to organize and collectively bargain. Any law that would take away over-time benefits or prevent the rights of workers to collectively bargain must be stopped. The minimum wage must be expanded. Illegal union busting tactics must be stopped. The business of America is business but the core of business is built on the initiative, work, sweat and pride of the American worker.

Wrap progressive values in a package of a populist voice with a pretty charasmatic Clinton style package and you have a winning formula.

+

[mitchum]

34. ACK, I'd vote for you in a heartbeat!

That's a great platform :)

[Bill Todd]

35. I'll second that

Though words as general as these can be subject to multiple interpretations: can I assume that you believe that Kerry currently significantly diverges either in principle or in lack of adequate specificity with most points in your platform, even though he may come pretty close some instances (points 3, 5, perhaps 11 and 16, and possibly 9 come to mind)?

- bill

[ACK]

36. Sometimes I think about it

Not handsome enough or charasmatic enough and do not have the speaking voice needed for candidancy.

Wedding picture:



I am the one not wearing a dress.

Plus, my wife would kill me if I ran for office.

Plus, I do not have the money needed to be a candidate.

Oh yes, I live in Northern Virginia. Repuke territory.

+

[markomalley]

37. Good Ideas

And I think we are moving farther and farther away from them as a party. We are beholden to the special interests -- they are the political bosses of today.

I would add the following:

Rather than the use of the minimum wage, I would support the "living wage" concept, where the salary is dependent upon what it would take for your family to be able to live at least a modest life in the locale you are trying to live that modest life in. (btw, by "modest life" I mean a housing unit that is not overcrowded, is maintained properly, and is in a safe neighborhood)

I think that the large oligarchies that have sprung up and are continuing to spring up need to be busted -- just like at the turn of the last century. Microsoft needs to be broken. The major oil companies need to be broken. Defense contractors need to be broken. ADM needs to be broken. and so on. These provide a slush fund for candidates of both parties that corrupt the recipients. Insurance cabals need to be broken. Large banks need to be broken. The big 3 car companies need to be broken.

Free trade is OK if everybody plays by the same rules. Not everybody does -- and so we have another source of exploitation. I say get rid of the WTO -- another tool for exploitation of the worker!

I believe also that the idea of universal health care is an absolute must. Having said that, I don't think that any of the ideas I've seen to date are good implementations of that concept. Something needs to be done so that we don't become resource-scarce like has happened in a number of other countries with universal health care (long waiting lists for non-emergent but still medically necessary care), etc.

I do not agree with the military ideas you have though. A strong standing army is only a tool for imperialism. We need to massively scale back our active military, increase the militia, and reconfigure to allow for defense of our borders and coastal waters only. Why do we need a million men under arms? To defend other countries' interests? To spread "truth, justice, and the American way" to poor brown-skinned barbarians who are too stupid to want it? Or to advance the interests of the corporations? If we don't have the military that is capable of being deployed to these immoral wars, we won't be tempted to use the military in that way. As long as we have a massive military, we will be tempted to use it. So, get rid of it and reconfigure to a true "defense" department.

I would like to see a campaign finance reform law put into place. Not this imitation one that is out there now. I would like to see a ban on all private fundraising -- equal amounts to all candidates.

We also need to clear our consciences and open our brains. I would like to see put in law a COMPLETE declassification of all documents from all previous administrations approximately one year after they leave office. The only exception I would make for that is that the names of agents should be redacted, cryptographic material should be excluded, and material related to an ongoing operation that transitions between administrations should be kept under wraps if desired until one year after that operation is finished. (those exceptions should be subject to review by an independent commission of properly cleared people). BTW, this goes for Congress as well -- about one year after the end of a particular congress. E-mails, so-called private, internal documents, etc. should all be exposed. I bet these so-called leaders would act a whole lot differently if they knew that they would face scrutiny.

[ACK]

38. Some of your points I agree with

The living wage concept is a vital one.

The idea of breaking up large companies I think is important when in such cases where a monopoly like Microsoft has truly utilized its monopoly position in anti-competitive ways. That is the populist as oppossed to academic liberal position. Why? Because otherwise, your opponents can paint you as an extremist. You pick off the big nasty dogs because it becomes it helps competition and is needed to punish the bad guys. Like toughening laws aimed at preventing the consolidation of media power by a few special interests with the FCC.

The real key to getting big money out of Democratic politics is a Dean style approach of small donors and Wellstone style grassroots campaigning. Better campaign reform is needed and that is important. The best approach would be to ban all private/corporate donations and have the campaigns run through government funds always will equal amounts to all qualifying candidates. The problem there is it does honestly limit political speech. Hard limits to all private donations is needed.

Listen lets talk about money in the government. I believe that if you closed all the loopholes for the rich and corporate interests the government would never have to want for money. 60% of all corporations paid no taxes between 1996-200 during the boom! That is outrageous. If our corporate citizens paid their fair share -- nothing more and nothing less, then we would not have to reduce our country the richest country in the world into pissing matches over the budget.

Fair trade not free trade is not a slogan its a moral and economic necessity. We have to also understand that education in the hard sciences have to be increased in this country to truly compete and move in the world but there is no way we can keep playing the how low can you go game with American labor. It does not work. Someone always will have cheap labor. Companies moved to Mexico then to China ... where next?

The American people in vast majorities want a strong military. They just have no clue how strong. They have no idea that we outspend almost every other major power combined. You have to frame it terms of cutting waste and balancing the budget. Clinton could (yes, I had other problems with Clinton ok) close bases and cut spending and still get elected because he framed the arguement in such a way it was painted clearly in terms of cutting waste and reducing the budget deficit. A good bit of what you are proposing could be done slowly by taking this approach. There is waste in the military budget. The American people just do not understand that 90% of the damn budget is waste and the soldiers in the field still get shafted with limited and crappy equipment. I grew up the son of a professional soldier and realize that even with huge pentagon budgets military families are always getting the shaft.

I like the idea of real transparency in the government in this manner. I think that the exceptions might become the rule when the Congress is ruled by the party of the President and that the exception will be forgotten and used to hurt real secrecy concerns for political gains when the reverse is the case. However, there has to be a real solution. The idea of a shadow government of career political hacks is a scary real thing we see now everyday.

+

[CabalBuster]

41. Some of us supported Dean & are now left with the option of chosing Nader

Because we cannot support Kerry.

[mzmolly]

42. Not this Dean supporter. I am supporting Kerry along with Dean...

because *I* cannot support Bush. :hi:

[citizen snips]

44. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. (n/t)