Let's talk about Nader's SECOND "big lie"

[dolstein]

Everyone is familiar with his first "big lie" -- which is that there isn't any meaningful difference between Kerry and Bush.

But then there's the second "big lie" -- that Nader's candidacy will hurt Bush more than Kerry. It's a little odd for Nader to be making this argument -- after all, if he truly believed that there wasn't any meaningful difference between Kerry and Bush, why should he care about which candidate he hurts more? It's obviously a transparent attempt to assure his wavering supporters that don't want to tip the election to Bush a second time. Of course, poll after poll demonstrates that Kerry runs stronger against Bush when Nader isn't on the ballot. And clearly Bush's own supporters believe that Nader hurts Kerry more -- otherwise why would the be working so hard to help Nader get on the ballot?

It all boils down to this: if Nader honestly believes that his candidacy will hurt Bush more than Kerry, than Nader is simply too stupid to be president. And if Nader doesn't believe it, then his willingness to keep repeating this claim demonstrates that he is too dishonest to be president.

[mzmolly]

1. Now that's some decent logic!

So, Nader is lying or ignorant. Either way he's not qualified. Hmmmm I LIKE IT! :evilgrin: :toast:

[unblock]

4. lying and ignorant. hmm. why does that sound so familiar?

[mzmolly]

5. I dunno, Bush is lying and ignorant?

:shrug:

I guess that makes sense because he and Ralph are on the same team.

[zoeyfong]

8. Lying or ignorant- sounds like Kerry's IWR vote explanation.

[mzmolly]

21. No, that would be "Lied to by the ignorant." Which could also be said

of anyone supporting Nader ... AGAIN. :P

[RummyTheDummy]

2. If he doesn't know it he's either naive or just plain stupid

In either case he's not fit to be president.

[ashling]

3. Good point.

[cprise]

6. Having a classic liberal icon

...like Ralph Nader campaign to the Left of Kerry totally negates any attempt for the media to portray Kerry as "far Left" or "radical" and makes him look much more centrist. Kerry stands to gain many thousands of swing votes for that difference in perception. The question is whether this gain will be enough to compensate for Nader supporters who would otherwise vote for Kerry.

Also remember there was just a war that Kerry/Edwards enabled, and many Naderites see in them two would-be Tony Blairs.

[jpgray]

7. Unfortunately, that isn't how it works

Nader allows the left editorials to call Kerry no different than the GOP, while the mainstream will still call him more liberal than Ted Kennedy. So he loses both ways--he is at the same time an ultra-rightwing corporatist, and a loony flower child pinko, depending on who is writing. :crazy:

(I'd say he's a little right of center myself. Most Democrats are, but he's pretty close to the center compared to many.)

[cmkramer]

9. No he's not

Kerry is a mainstream liberal. He's definitely not a foaming-at-the-mouth fruitcake leftwinger but he's also nowhere near "right of center".

[jpgray]

10. On an international compass, he definitely is a teensy bit right of center

On our own scale, he is a good distance left, while I suppose Kucinich would be rated somewhere in the Pacific. :crazy: It is difficult to describe this without defining your terms, so sorry if I caused any confusion on that score.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Kerry Is A Traditional Liberal No Matter How You Cut It...

But like all successful politicians he trims his positions at times...


Most if not all rigidly ideological politicians on the left and right don't do very well in American politics...

[a kennedy]

12. jpgray: how "a little right of center" was Clinton????

I think Clinton was the problem with how far right he dragged the Democratic party. His welfare reform and trade agreements were not liberal causes, quite the contrary. He dragged us way to far right. Kerry I'm hoping will at least bring us back to where the causes we should be fighting for won't "sound" way out there. I didn't vote for Clinton, in fact I haven't voted Democratic since, and dare I say this.....Jimmy Carter. I'm hoping within the next few months, Kerry/Edwards will woo me into pulling that Democratic lever and feeling great about it. As it is right now, Dennis Kucinich is still my Democratic hero, he's out there but he IS saying all the things I need to hear, how many days until the election????

[GreenArrow]

19. DK is not "out there"

he's ahead of his time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. How Can Kerry Be Right Of Center When He Has A Lifetime ADA Rating In The

Nineties?

[NNadir]

14. Kerry does not make his living pretending he gives a shit.

This doesn't appeal to people who make their living by pretending that they do give a shit.

Let's list Naderites in 2000: Nader (got rich pretending to give a shit), Michael Moore (got rich pretending to give a shit), Barbara Ehrenreich (got rich pretending to be poor)...

[jpgray]

15. Compared to most European countries, he is a bit right of center

As I said above, if we are talking the US political compass, then he would be considered fairly liberal.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. It's Hard To Make Transontinental Comparisons...

Their political culture is so different...

[no name no slogan]

17. Those ratings are misleading

as they only show the votes made by certain politicians, NOT their own personal views, or the platforms on which they campaign.

I'd have to agree that Kerry is what today passes for a liberal-- a little left of center for the times, but far to the right considering what has gone before him in the last half century.

Thirty years ago, many of Kerry's positions (esp. "free trade" and "welfare reform") would be considered mainstream Republican, or even to the right of Nixon. But then again, that just shows how times change.

[cprise]

20. Whatever the press says

...those extremes are not going to be the impression that most voters end up with.

[no name no slogan]

18. One thing I don't get among some Democrats

is how much time they spend knocking-- no, OBSESSING ABOUT-- Ralph Nader. The man is a political asterisk at this point in time, yet so many Dems expend so much time slagging him off, as if that will somehow get those leaning toward voting Nader to see the folly of their ways.

Instead of beating the man up personally, or attacking him for his campaign, why not look at the ISSUES he raises?

Why do corporate criminals get special treatment from our justice system, while common street criminals get thrown out like so much used Kleenex?

Why do 60% of the big corporations pay no taxes in this country, while taxes for the middle- and working-class go up every year, no matter what party is in office?

Why was invading Iraq wrong, but keeping our troops there INDEFINATELY is the right thing to do?

Why do we keep throwing money at a branch of government that can't account for $1 TRILLION, and yet we still can't provide a free public college education and free medical care for everybody in this country?

So far, the Democratic nominees-apparent have done NOTHING to address these questions, and have only offered an aspirin to treat the cancer that eats at our country.

Instead of slagging Nader, why don't you figure out why he has the support of so many potential Democratic voters.

:shrug: