Nader (who recommended Edwards to John Kerry for VP) now pontificates:

[mzmolly]

"I am the only candidate who did not support this war!"

He said this on Hawdbawl today. Hate to say I told ya so buttttt, who didn't know this was coming ??? ;)

That Ralph, he's a sly one.

[LTR]

1. Easy for him to say

He wasn't in a position to vote on it.

[MercutioATC]

4. I've never bought that excuse. There were plenty of people who had the

common sense not to support the war. Some of them were even quite outspoken about it. Apart from members of Congress, none of them actually had the option to help make the decision.

That doesn't detract from the fact that they were right.


Believe me, I'm NOT defending Nader. I think he's a selfish, egotistical bastard. It's no excuse, however to rule out the fact that people were right just because they couldn't vote.

[LTR]

11. Yeah, sure

But anyone could say that, and who's gonna prove it.

Just because Ralph was irrelevant enough that nobody really gave a shit what he thought is no excuse.

Ralph's a phony GOP patsy. Fuck him and the Corvair he rode in on!

[MercutioATC]

13. I'm guilty! I was speaking more of Dean and his detractors who

said it was easy for him to make anti-war statements because he didn't have to vote.

Sorry, you caught me out...

[Liberal Veteran]

As I said yesterday...his messianic/persecution complex is getting tired.

His behavior of late has been less than rational I question his mental health.

[senseandsensibility]

2. You mean

he's not backing out now that Kerry selected the person he demanded? I'm shocked,shocked, I tell you. Next you'll be saying he's backing down on his promise not to campaign in battleground states! Oh he already did that? Well, atleast he doesn't make fun of others' physical appearance with cheap insults about their weight...oh, never mind.:argh:

[still_one]

3. why do you think they give a person so much time

who has no chance of winning?

[In Sha Allah]

26. Umm...could it be because he's RIGHT?

As old Ralphie said, 42% of America wants the troops home NOW. They don't want to "stay the course" under Bush OR Kerry. Aside from Ralph, who speaks for them?

[mom cat]

5. Oh Yeah! What about Dennis? He is still a candidate.

[mzmolly]

10. Your absolutely right!

:shrug:

[Beloved Citizen]

6. Rotten Ralph does not qualify as a candidate

A person becomes a candidate only when it is proven that he/she has a realistic chance of winning something.

[In Sha Allah]

27. You do understand how wrong you are, don't you?

[Beloved Citizen]

29. Hmm. The fellow speaks in riddles

Either that or he has nothing in his gun to shoot with.

[In Sha Allah]

34. Surely you understand monism and it's implications!

"A person becomes a candidate only when it is proven that he/she has a realistic chance of winning something."

You're just wrong at so many levels, dude. Forget the fact that merely by declaring yourself a candidate you become one, and forget the concepts of "long-shot" or "underdog," because you require that some "thing" be "proven." Conventional Monism teaches us that nothing can be proven because there is no "thing" distinct and separate from any other "thing" in the first place. Hence, there can be no "thing" to prove.

Understand?

[Beloved Citizen]

39. Oh dear, it's "what is reality" time.

In a vacuum you can call yourself a candidate, a giraffe, an imported dust mop, tropical fish, a breadbasket, a large sack of manure-based "eazy-spread" fertilizer, or someone unduly impressed by arcane and impracticable philosophical precepts.

But here on Planet Earth you are only a candidate if you actually stand a chance of winning something.

Nader is not a candidate.

[cprise]

40. Actually he only has to declare his candidacy, ballot or not

[Beloved Citizen]

41. Well, OK.

But Nader is definitely not a serious candidate.

[cprise]

42. He is if he keeps Kerry from moving Right

And for all we know Nader could be planning to withdraw at the last minute.

He's in it to affect the debate, and to make a Democrat stand up for their supposed principles.

[Beloved Citizen]

43. Nader is taking money and help from the corporate GOP right

...and therefore has abandoned his claim to whatever principles or moral high ground he might once have occupied.

He's nothing but a Republican tool now, a straw man whose purpose is to fool the gullible and divide the anti-Bush vote.

[quaoar]

7. The Libertarian Factor

OK. I'm new here. So maybe this has already been discussed.

But does anyone see the Libertarian Party as the choice of significant numbers of republicans who are upset with Bush but can't bring themselves to vote for Kerry?

In other words, is the Libertarian Party the Ralph Nader of the right?

[Dogmudgeon]

8. The Libertarians are in a state of disarray

They're suffering from poor organization, no real motivation, and they're being ignored by the media. Libertarianism has become marginalized as a kind of Internet religion.

No, Ralph has staying power because he's useful to his new patrons in the Republican Party. Period.

--bkl

[union_maid]

9. The libertarians I know are in a state of realism

They're more interested in getting rid of Bush than in playing around with third parties at a time like this. The ones I know are voting for Kerry.

[LTR]

12. The Libertarians are for the hard-core that don't like Bush

And would rather eat broken glass than vote for Kerry.

They're a protest vote this year.

Otherwise, they don't seem to be very serious about growing their party.

[LimpingLib]

14. Anybody want to know what really happened???

Anyway Nader spent the whole show complementing Edwards for being a trial lawyer. No joke.

It was Matthews that had to wrestle a small comment out of Nader on the Iraq issue. Nader just sat silent on that issue.Matthews went ballistic sying how there is no debate or even a conversation in the campiagn about this issue. Nader simply said in a subdued way poll numbers showing most think the war was a bad idea and 45% want troops home NOW (emphasis mine , Nader wa very relaxed)


All Nader could do was come bak to complement edwards and honestly he wasnt very convincing. He kept dodging Matthews attmpts to get him to deride the ticket.Funny thing is that he could only mention ONE SINGLE ISSUE positive about Edwards and it was the trial lawyer thing. Its sad Nader is reduced to this.

I disagree with Nader big time on the lawyer issue.My view is that lawyers shouldnt be able to collect any more than $25 per hour from clients and whatever money they win (aside from some going to victims) should go into a national fund which funds small claims type courts on every block (literally 1 court for every 100 people)plus free legal advice for citizens. Also the money they win should go to establishing hope scholarships for lower income citizens to learn the intricate matter sof the law (hence become citizn lawyers themselves).

Nader sadly doesnt want reform on this issue to empower the citizens. And he is no btter than Edwards on this.And the fact that all he could do the entire show was say how great edwards was and only run around in circles back to the trial lawyer profession of edwards was just a joke.

LOL actualy I just remembered ONE OTHER THING NADER mentioned and honestly I didnt even think much about it at the time. Nader was whinning about the Democrats disenfranchising his signature collectors with lawsuites, actualy Nader was relating a phone call to Kerry about 2 days ago. He explained to Kerry that it is anti-democratic what they are doing and he needs to control his underlines. Nader pointed out that they (thug Democrats in Arizona) went after certain ex-jailed citizens in Arizona who were collecting hundreds of signatures for Nader plus other citizens who legaly could vote and collect signatures. They were able to temporarilyy disqualify 1000s of signatures using dirty tricks through lawsuits.

Now heres the kicker.Matthews asked Nader why he couldnt just defeat them in court.GET THIS.......... Nader said that it would cost like $100,000 at least in legal bills to defend his supporters who got sued and his organization DIDNT HAVE THE MONEY. Stop and think...repeat...stop and think.......... he is talking about how great Edwards is as a milti million $$$ lawyer who nobody can afford and who lines his own pockets (and this is Naders main selling point for Edwards)then the only other issue Nader can mention is how thuggish corperate legal tatics from quazi fascist Democrats were able to work due to the fact that his little guy supporters and organization cant afford to defend themselves through legal fees.

Anyway there is what really happened on Hardball tonight.

[mzmolly]

15. Here is what *really happened* the transcript is below.

Matthews: "Are you a spoiler in this election?"

Nader: "Bush is falling in the polls. By the time the polls come, Bush is going to be falling apart… and the margin isn’t even going to affect it.

Bush isn’t even telling us about the casualties in Iraq. Not just those killed in action, but those who actually died in Iraq. Why don’t the Dems challenge that? There’s not much of a national debate when comes to the war. We’re the only anti-war candidacy. Who’s speaking to that in the campaign?"

I find it ironic that he is concerned about the war, yet didn't recommend Kucinich or Dean as a running mate.

Sure Nader said some good things about Edwards, he has to. He's on record as suggesting him as a running mate.

Regarding that pesky attorney situation, I imagine some of Naders republican contributers will help out right soon.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5388254/

[LimpingLib]

20. Ill check the transcript soon,thanks.

If your quote is fluent as it seems then I think the transcript is innacurate.

I seem to remember Nader talking about all the people with blown off limbs (or something like that) and bashing Bush then PERHAPS asking why Democrats arent challenging that (more of a continued attack on Bush) THHHHHHHHHEEEEEEENNNNNNN Matthews yelled real loud something like "they arent challenging him on anything about this war" and Matthews said a little THEN Nader threw in there after Matthews kept pushing it that he is the only anti-war canidate.


I think that transcript didnt get the chronology of Matthews interuptions correct if you are quoting is fluently without breaks "....." forgotten to be included.

Heck Im going to check but I trust you. I think the transcript is messed up.

EDITING: That transcript is severly abbreviated. And they are combinning things Nader said without mentioning is was Matthews pointed questions/interruptions that lead to things Nader said. Just as I figured.

Anyway going by memory (this is going to be messy as it isnt covered in this sliced up read) Matthews interrupted Nader after he mentioned the injured soldiers and recomended Democrats attack Bush more (which Nader did throughout the entire interview)then Matthews attacked the Kerry-Edwards get together yesterday mourning as only having 1 little line about Iraq and ho there is no debate whatsoever THEN Nader just mentioned after Matthews kept loudly pushing him that he is the only anti-war canidate (first Nader started responding after Matthews pushed him 3-4 times)by saying that Bush or Kerry arent talking about the issue but it was only in responce to Matthews.

I assure you that transcript isnt accurate.

[In Sha Allah]

28. You're for "staying the course," I take it?

"Regarding that pesky attorney situation, I imagine some of Naders republican contributers will help out right soon."

I wish they'd get on with it, then. While they're keeping democracy safe from the Democrats the Democrats could keep democracy safe from them by helping the Libertarians, because the Repuds pull the same crap on them.

Neither big party can abide a level playing field...

[mzmolly]

38. Staying what course? I suggest the course is Bushville 101, and NO I'm

not interested in taking it again.

It would appear Nader is 'INTERESTED IN STAYING THE COURSE' as he is assisting Bush gain another crack at the White House.

Regarding your suggestion on libertarians:

The libertarians are a non issue because the RW falls in line. Also note, Ruppert Murdoch's media is educating the American Public, and you can bet we'll see alot more of Nader then any inde candidate that can threaten George Bush.

:hi:

[liberalmike27]

31. Surprised

I'm surprised that so many still think the war was a good idea, and want the troops to stay.

You know, most of you Nader-haters out there probably agree with a lot of his positions. This person seems to not like his lawyer defense, but lawyers can try many cases and not get paid a cent. If they lose, they don't get paid, and if they win, they get a percentage that is agreed upon before they even go to trial. Why is it that people begrudge lawyers being paid. If you really want to be pissed off at lawyers, choose the corporate kind, that argue in court to pollute our air and water, and to deprive people of damages their product or services cause. Trial lawyers are people lawyers, and if they can find someone else to try their case for less, percentage wise, then they should do so. And no, I'm not a lawyers. Many years of brainwashing have taken many people to their lawyer hatred, and we'll certainly see much more of it before the election.

The guy that collected the signatures had been a felon, who'd had his voting rights restored, he was a legitimate voter. But you are right, the lawyers to try the cases would have been expensive, and he put out a request for pro-bono lawyers. I do think it is bad for politics when we continue to shore up a two-party system, when both parties seem to have lost any will to defend the American peoples' best interest.

Ask yourself why Democrats don't fight for Instant Runoff Voting, which would stop spoilers like Nader, or Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party from affecting the outcome of the race? Reason? The Democrats would rather risk losing repeatedly, than to actually let a party pull things back to the left a bit, where the people actually have a political party to defend them from corporations and the political donor class, that gets all the tax breaks, and every other right known to mankind. It doesn't matter though. Democrats will continue to lose repeatedly, until they bring back the economic populism, that is the soul of the Democratic Party. If you have two parties, that only differ on social issues like abortion, gay-marriage, and race hating, the Republicans will win that one every time (it's sad to say).

[Darkamber]

16. However, he did a hell of a job supporting Trial lawyers...

Just saw Hardball myself and I have to hand it to Nader for defending Edwards and Trial lawyers. He had some good things to say and against Insurance companies and their claims for higher malpractice rates.

He might be the 'anti-war' vote, but he made a few good comments for Kerry/Edwards as well.

[mzmolly]

17. He did, I think that's because he recommended Edwards to Kerry

as a running mate.

He's pulling back a bit now, but I expect him to come out gunz a blazin' soon. ;)

[LimpingLib]

23. Moroccan mansions are nice too.

Except for that little affordability thing.

But at least Nader explins all the intricacys and conspiracys on almost every issue. Even when I disagree with him I know he studys literally every policy paper from every obscure corner of every university on whatever the issue happens to be.


Newt Gingrich (who could clobber any of the 9 Democratic canidates in a debate hands down) just got so overwhelmed by Nader a few years back in a debate that after looking like a fool during the first 2 debating issues just agreed with Nader for the next 2 hours on every issue.Newt is just an amazing speaker who can pull almost any obscure study out of his @$$ and talk 100 mph and is just formidable and I dont reccomend anybody try and debate him (the guy sleeps 1 hour per night and reads endlessly) . Well Nader was even smarter and more devoted plus had the truth on his side and Gingrich for the first time had to implement plan B.

Its a shame we had one of the devoted and genius ones on our side and one who made a good shot at getting our votes but we shut him out each time. I still dont understand how Nader can study all those policy sheets and then have time to become FLUENT in 6 languages. A native English speaker (with English thrown at you in every country) can barely learn anything more than a few broken languages at best usually.Plus his legal expertise doesnt seem to be lacking, very well maintained especially considering the massibe trillions of pages added in every corner of the nation every year plus nationaly. Even foreign diplomats have trouble speaking English fluently.

[TexasSissy]

18. Does anyone really care what Nader says anymore? I don't.

[Pabst Blue Democrat]

19. Confession time

I voted for Ralph in 2000. Living in a "safe state," I've long told myself that this was forgivable but the more I think about it, the more I regret that vote. Every vote for Gore, whether it won him electoral votes or not, widened the popular vote gap between him and *Bush, and a larger margin of victory will NEVER hurt our cause.

I urged Nader not to run during his exploratory period earlier this year. I'm sure many others did too. Not that he cares. A man like this is best countered by ignoring him. With an ego like his, it's a safe bet that even ill-will toward him is a soft sensual tap on his ass. I'm beginning to think that the best retort is pure unadulterated indifference.

[janx]

21. I had friends and family who did the same thing.

The important thing to realize in this very important upcoming election, however, is that

THERE ARE NO SAFE STATES when it comes to voting for Nader.

[Pabst Blue Democrat]

22. It's a non-issue

At least it is for me. I was pretty young in 2000 and I thought I was being hip. Now I know I'm about as far from hip as a pinky-toe. That was my first presidential election and it'll haunt me for the rest of my life!

[Robb]

32. Welcome to DU, PBD!

Great name, great phrase ("...as far from hip as a pinky-toe") :D

Don't let it haunt you, just focus on what to do next. :thumbsup:

[Pabst Blue Democrat]

33. Glad to be here

Thanks.

[mzmolly]

37. I don't think you should feel guilty for voting in a manner you saw fit.

But, I'm glad you realize that Nader can't win and the election is too close to chance it this time round. So, welcome to the pragmatic/progressive club! :toast:

Heck, be proud of the fact that you VOTED at all. Most people sit on their ass and bitch without even trucking out to the polls.

Oh and ... WELCOME TO DU ALSO! ;)

[JI7]

24. Nader knew Kerry was going to pick Edwards

he is a smart guy so if he was paying attention to kerry's campaign he would have known. and kerry probably told him which way he was leaning. he wanted to act like he had a say in the matter.

but for those who closely followed kerry's campaign and where it was moving it's not surprising he picked Edwards for vp. while everyone kerry was considering for vp would have made a great vp and president. i believe for kerry, edwards was the closest to perfect choice for vp.

[AP]

25. Nader has known Edwards for years and has praised his work in the past.

He sincerely likes Edwards.

The point here is that Nader wasn't in a position to have to vote on this war, and if he had been, he either would have voted for it and remained in office to do good in every other way, or he would have voted against it and would have lost the next election, unless of course he was the Senator of the new state of Berkeley, carved out of California.

[DaveSZ]

30. hehe

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/PCbest10.asp

[David Zephyr]

35. Yes, Nader Seems to Be On Quite A Roll Now.

MrsGrumpy just broke this story in LBN of more of Nader's treachery. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x673667

[mzmolly]

36. Interesting that he criticizes Democrats for dirty tricks while he's in

bed with Rove and the boys. :(