What we really need is another pointless Nader-bashing thread

[no name no slogan]

For a candidate who is little more than an asterisk, Nader sure is getting a lot of (obsessive?) attention on these boards of late. For being little more than a burr under the Kerry/Edwards saddle blanket, he's called everything from traitor to fraud to the devil himself.

But, you know what? No matter how much p!ssing and moaning the obsessive Nader-haters do, it STILL won't do a thing to convince potential Nader voters to vote for Kerry. If anything, it will drive them further AWAY, and make most of them WORK HARDER for Nader-- which could turn Nader from an asterisk into a serious contender.

If you're REALLY concerned about these Nader voters, why not look at their issues?

Most people in this country feel there should be stricter limits on corporate power, yet NEITHER major party is doing much to address this.

Most people also see the need for comprehensive, universal healthcare for all Americans, but NEITHER major party will even touch the issue.

Most people also think we need stricter environmental laws, yet the Democrats have REFUSED to support the Kyoto protocols in their platform.

Most people are suspicious of so-called "Free Trade" agreements that deport American jobs, yet neither party is truly willing to end these flawed agreements, and make new ones that put human rights above corporate rights.

Most Americans also believe in fiscal restraint by the government, yet neither major-party candidate is willing to take on the bloated "defense" budget, which accounts for $1 of every $2 of federal spending, even though the Pentagon still cannot account for over $1 TRILLION (that's $1,000,000,000,000) it has somehow "lost" over past years.

Even worse, most Iraqis want the US occupation of their country to end, yet the most "optimistic" end date to the occupation put forward by the major parties is four years out.

You want to win that 3-5% that might vote for Nader over Kerry? Speak to these issues. Tell them (and the rest of this country) how you'll address their REAL concerns, like their shrinking paychecks, spiraling medical costs, lack of public services, and polluted environment. Tell them how you'll end the pointless wars NOW, and return their children, siblings, spouses, and parents to their families.

Remember, Gore got more popular votes than anyone else in 2000. Do you seriously think any of these Gore voters would vote for Shrub this year? Even Nader's measly 3% in 2000 won't vote for Shrub this year.

This election is the Democrats to lose. Being "not Shrub" gets us 45-48% of the vote. Appealing to just a fraction of the potential Nader vote gets us closer to (if not over) 50%.

Let's focus on WINNING OVER voters, instead of alienating potential voters from our candidates.

[ulysses]

1. see, what you don't understand

is that Nader voters could destroy the country because there are so many of them...even though there are so few of them that they're not worth our time.

See? It's simple. :D

[no name no slogan]

2. OH, NOW I get it!!!

Dayum, I see exactly what you're saying! Thanks for setting me straight!

:hi:

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. I can't believe you didn't know that already! *lol*

[sangh0]

4. You all seem to have forgotten how

Nadir was NOT a spoiler in 2000, but if Kerry panders to the right, Nadir is going to play spoiler AGAIN in 2004

[no name no slogan]

5. EXACTLY what I'm saying!

Kerry has basically all the Gore 2000 voters and a good share of the Nader 2000 voters, too. Dubya will have a very hard time getting all the same people who voted for him in 2000 to vote for him again.

If Kerry goes decidedly right this year, he risks making Nader more important than he really is. Democrats don't win by being Republicans; the win by being Democrats.

[sangh0]

72. I know, but it was derogatory

I think you missed that part of it. You just said that Nadir was NOT a spoiler in 2000, but he might be a spoiler AGAIN in 2004 (clue phone sez "If Nadir didn't play spoiler in 2000, he can't play spoiler AGAIN in 2004")

[NoPasaran]

6. I hear Nader eats kittens!

Pointless enough?

[King of New Orleans]

14. I hear kittens are delicious

pointless? You decide

[cprise]

7. nah, don't inconvenience the Dems with 'ideological purity'

[quaoar]

8. Oh, I get it

We're supposed to kiss Ralph's ass and pretend he's really on our side. Maybe we should play nice with his new Republican playmates, too.

Well, if Nader folks can't take the heat, they should get out of the kitchen. If they can't run with the big dogs, they should stay on the porch. And if I can think of some more cliches, I'll use them, too.

[TeacherCreature]

9. oh goody

Now we can have the 10,000 post telling us about Naders "issues". Because of course, none of us who aren't Naderites could possibly care about those issues too. I guess if we read all about it one more time we will agree that Nader is not a spoiler. :eyes:

[no name no slogan]

34. 300,000 FL Dems voted for Bush in 2000

and 3,000+ little old Jewish ladies voted for Buchannan.

Yet somehow this is all Nader's fault, because he had the balls to talk through the politico-speak BS spewed by the major-party candidates.

Now, what was all that talk about "spoilers" again?

[TeacherCreature]

43. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

same shit different day

[no name no slogan]

54. How does that change the fact that Gore didn't appeal to 300,000 FL Dems?

Maybe it's just easier to ignore that fact and just continue to blame Nader instead.

Yes, it's obviously all Nader's fault. Let's just blame him, instead of fix what's wrong with this party.

:eyes:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. " How Does that change the fact and just continue to blame Nader instead"

There are folks who call themselves Democrat who haven't voted for a Democrat since Jimmy Carter....

[Inland]

52. And yet, Nader told people to vote against Gore, and they did

>>Yet somehow this is all Nader's fault, because he had the balls to talk through the politico-speak BS spewed by the major-party candidates.<<

Its not ALL Nader's fault, but he did campaign against Gore. He asked people to not vote for Gore, they didn't, and lo and behold--some heeded his words, enough that Gore lost. Now here we are again, Nader telling people not to vote for Kerry. If enough listen, Kerry loses. Don't pretend it wasn't what you wanted when it happens.

[no name no slogan]

53. So people only voted because Nader told them so?

He asked people to not vote for Gore, they didn't, and lo and behold--some heeded his words, enough that Gore lost.

That's a rather simplistic explanation isn't it? Nader may have done this, but so did Bush, and Pat Buchannan too, for that matter. Was Al Gore somehow "entitled" to Nader's votes? I suppose you could then also argue that somehow Pat Buchannan was just as entitled to Bush or Gore's or Nader's votes, too, since they all agreed that America should stay together as a country, and not dissolve into 50 independent, sovereign states.

So why is it all of a sudden Nader's fault that Gore lost in 2000?

Al Gore lost because he ran a horrible campaign, plain and simple. On paper, there was no way in hell he could have been beat. He was the sitting VP of a current two-term president who was still popular with voters. The country was doing reasonably well, with only a few signs of trouble on the horizon.

2000 was Al Gore's to LOSE. GWBush was a VERY weak opponent, who only had a one term as governor of a state with a constitutionally weak governorship.

Most Democrats have owned up to the fact that Gore waged a crappy campaign and lost on his own merits. Blaming Nader is not moving on. It's excuse-building for a possible Kerry loss this year.

Instead of tearing down Nader, why not talk up why Kerry is a better candidate? Why is Kerry better on trade than Nader or Bush? Why is Kerry better to lead this country? Or maybe that's too difficult. I'm honestly beginning to wonder.

[mydawgmax]

60. Yes Gore ran a crappy campaign but....

Nader got 98,000 votes in florida. I suspect that if nader hadn't been in the race, gore may have gotten at least the less than 600 of those 98,000 votes needed to win the thing even with Bush dirty tricks. No its not all nader's fault. Gore ran a bad campaign, made stupid mistakes in challenging the vote count in florida etc.. But Nader made a real and significant contribution to the fact that Bush is president. I wish defenders of nader would accept at least that much responsibility for the way things are.

[no name no slogan]

68. But the votes weren't even COUNTED

THAT's the problem with the "blame Nader for FL" argument: NONE of the votes were actually hand-counted, and we NEVER got an actual vote tally for the state-- until a year later, when the press did a recount, and (suprise) Gore actually won after all.

If you want to blame somebody for Florida, blame Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, and their other cronies who stole the election with their voter roll purges, civil rights violations, and dirty dealing.

Besides, 2000 is OVER. Let's focus on THIS election. WHY is Nader still getting support, even after all the negative press? WHY are people still supporting his issues.

And worse yet, WHY do Democrats feel the need to demonize the man, instead of criticizing his stance on the issues? Is it because the issues he's raised SHOULD be the positions that the Democrats should have?

:shrug:

[mzmolly]

10. 537 Votes in Florida decided this election. I'd say Nader is worthy

of our consideration. :hi:

[Forkboy]

12. No votes decided the election

[mzmolly]

18. Ahh, tis true I spose. But the close election enabled the Supreme Court

to decide our election more easilly did it not? :shrug: Shall we see if Ralph can pull it off again.

"The Democrats are going to have to lose more elections. They didn't get the message last time." Ralph Nader

[Forkboy]

20. Sure

So why no threads from you on the Dems who voted for Bush?
Or the votes for Buchanan?
Or the voters who were purged?
Or the voters who were intimidated from voting?


These all made the election close enough to steal also :shrug:

[mzmolly]

22. Do you really think DU hasn't had threads on these subjects?

(Zell Miller case in point.)

[Forkboy]

42. I'd bet it's 20-1 in favor of nader threads to the issues I raised

and that's being generous.

[mzmolly]

45. Welp, I bet your wrong actually.

;)

However, I think to suggest we either ignore or pander to Nader is absurd. :shrug:

Nader continuously makes innacurate statements about WHO the democratic party is and what it represents.

I read a post here just last night that said if only Kerry were for universal health care, the kyoto treaty, corporate accountability, cutting defense etc ... progressives could support him? A quick google search found that Kerry is quite progressive on all these issues. Nader has people assuming Kerry is Zell Miller, and were supposed to pretend he's telling the truth?

I intend to call Nader on his lying hypocricy as long as he remains in the race. I am certain you support any progressive's RIGHT to question John Kerry, do you not? Why then is Nader off limits?

Clarification: I don't have an issue with Cobb, or third party candidates in general. I do have an issue with Nader's lies and his goal to punish the democrats.

[mzmolly]

48. OOPS, I guess THIS is the thread in question.

I read a post here just last night that said if only Kerry were for universal health care, the kyoto treaty, corporate accountability, cutting defense etc ... progressives could support him? A quick google search found that Kerry is quite progressive on all these issues. Nader has people assuming Kerry is Zell Miller, and were supposed to pretend he's telling the truth?

:P

[Forkboy]

50. My unscientific results

:)


Nader threads on last 10 pages of GD and GD2004*

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1984506

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1984506

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1979242

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=576662&mesg_id=576662

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x577091

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=576557&mesg_id=576557

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x576723

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=576118&mesg_id=576118

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=573144&mesg_id=573144

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=573251&mesg_id=573251

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x576323

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=575905&mesg_id=575905

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x576227

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x575265

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=574643&mesg_id=574643

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x575785

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x575470

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x575385

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=574723&mesg_id=574723

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x575093

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=574147&mesg_id=574147

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=574474&mesg_id=574474

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x574721

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x574270

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x574270

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=572347&mesg_id=572347

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x573803

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x573803

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x573781

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x573490

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x573310

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x573507

*I left off threads that were polls including Nader


Voter Problems,Purges,Election problems,etc Threads in GD and GD2004 in the last 10 days

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x573184

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x573212

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x574977

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x574826

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x576003

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x576003

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x576847

Ironically,GreenPartyVoter started 3 of these,flpoljunkie started 3.None had more than 20 responses.2 had zero responses.

So,my guess was a little off,but the trend is obvious.

One thing Molly.You keep saying that I'm telling you Nader is off-limits.I have never ONCE said that.You can attack him all you like.Just dont fool yourself into thinking you're doing anything more than preaching to the choir.It's not helping Kerry one iota.Nader is NOT the factor he was in 2000.He wont be on nearly as many ballots,he has a fraction of the small fraction of support he had before.Even the Greens turned thier back on him.He is only a factor so much AS WE MAKE HIM ONE.

Meanwhile,the issues I'm raising loom large once again,and comparing Nader to Satan or Stalin,talking about his penis size (yes,I'm talking to you LoZoccolo) wont change a damn thing to help America.There's maybe 5 people on DU that actually would vote for Nader.There's thousands of us who will be affected by another stolen election which will happen again regardless of Nader if we let it.And the sad part is we'll fucking deserve it this time.

[mzmolly]

57. Well, you compared Nader to ONE of many issues we discuss here daily.

In addition, Nader recently debated Dean and has been out promoting his book *among other things* so he is likely to be part of the discussion as of late.

However I disagree with this statement very much:

Nader is NOT the factor he was in 2000

I see Nader as a potential spoiler in the comining election, and polls indicate that he very well could be.

Remember FB, it's a very close election, and ONE state could make all the difference ... AGAIN.

http://dontvoteralph.org/pollwatch.htm

In addition to national polls, we found state and special-interest polls that similarly compared Bush and Kerry head-to-head and with Nader added to the mix. Here the results were even more striking. Among other things, these polls (the first six in the above table) show Nader flipping New Jersey and Pennsylvania from Kerry to Bush, and causing an 8% surge for Bush among the large Arab-American vote in four critical swing states. These results alone would almost certainly swing the election to Bush.

The implications of these findings could be enormous. The nation is very closely divided, and it is extremely likely that in some battleground states, these numbers would determine the outcome. When a few percent of voters in a few states will determine the next president, Nader’s independent candidacy could well tip the balance.

So you see, FB. One strategical state could be all he needs.

I can't sit back and watch Nader PRETEND to be a progressive who is looking out for people, quietly. I refuse.

I suggest we all discuss what we find interesting and allow others to do the same? :shrug:

No hard feelings Forkboy, as I said before you and I will have to agree to disagree on this one. :hug:

[LimpingLib]

61. AWSOME Now maybe Kerry will reconsider his support for Sharons wall!

Maybe instead of blaming Nader we should look at Kerry's position and that might suggest why he is loosing 8% of Arab Americans to Nader. (How do you know they wouldnt leave the ballot blank even if Nader wasnt in the race? People you could loose are soft anyway)

But you dont seem to be too crazy about that. Just look at your health care responce . No details or anwsers about who exactly would be covered and how much the insurance coverag plan would cost upfront to singles, spouses , children, plus how much the monthly premiums would be, plus how much the deductable would be , plus what percentage or health costs post deductable would be out of pocket , plus what the "coverage" would cover , etc. etc.

You were happy with the "universal health care" soundbite which frankly could apply to anything from our current system in the USA to the Canadians system all the way to Japan.

[mzmolly]

62. Yes, let's see if Kerry can please every person on the face of the planet

shall we? Let's make sure he agrees with you/me/us 100% on EVERY issue! And, when he doesn't (because it's not f-ing possible) we can blackmail him with the help of Ralph Nader. After all, who cares if Nader is a union busting haliburtion stock owning hypocrite he's got some kick ass rhetoric!? :headbang:

Then, when Nader assists Bush AGAIN in 2004, we'll all blame Kerry like we did Gore because he didn't pass the PURITY test. :eyes: OK I'M IN!

You dare question soundbites while proping Nader? NADER IS THE KING OF CLEVER SOUNDBITES, and NOTHING MORE.

In the post you mention above, I was simply pointing out that OP overlooked many things about John Kerry.

Here are the details you requested which took all of 60 seconds to find on John Kerry's website.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/kerry_health_plan.pdf

As for Nader's plan: It's not even HIS.

The Nader Campaign finds persuasive a plan based on Physicians for a National Health Program's A National Health Program for the United States: A Physicians' Proposal, first published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1989, and A National Long-term Care Program for the United States; A Caring Vision, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1991.

[LimpingLib]

63. High on cost containment for sure. (might even reduce costs)

Problem is that as the prescription drug bill showed double didget inflation ends up eating all savings up real fast. Kerry at least attacks the root of the problem.Anyway.......

Factoring all that in you have to ask where are we starting from? A family of 4 without employer based coverage can expect to pay $600-$700 per month even before getting a single service.


And as for your Arab American comment then all I can say is "Democracy sure does suck doesnt it?" .


Nader had to bust the union because he works so hard a bunch of tired volunteers got all limp. How can an organization on a shoestring budget afford to mess with unions? My suggestion to you is to make sure ALL WORKERS in our nation get the ability to have the power of unionizing then lecture Nader on what he does with his private organization. I know if I was a disruptor and wanted to neuter a movement then I would do what the workers in his group tried to do.

[mzmolly]

64. *I* didn't make an Arab American comment, it was a quote.

Regarding your "democracy sucks" comment, I'd say what sucks is the corporate controlled media giving their pal Ralph loads of attention so they can help their boy George get reSelected.

Democracy sure sucks for Ralph these days because most of his signatures have been illegit.

"Nader HAD to bust a union" ??? :eyes: Yes that poor multi millionaire couldn't afford to pay his workers. :nopity: My gawd that says it all. For someone so critical of Kerry, you sure don't know much about the candidate your defending here.

You act as though Nader only busted one union? And also as if union busting would'nt be enough to remove Kerry from liberal consideration, if the shoe were on the other foot?

However:

Nader had a role in undermining airline and trucking workers in the 1970’s, he also fought to prevent unionization in a publication he founded The Monitor, and neutralized a bigger union drive at Public Citizen.

http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id439/pg1/

Nader's elitist roots continue to manifest. Nader is pro-union, unless it comes to his own employees. He engaged in lockouts, nuisance lawsuits and even filed bogus crime reports against staff members of Multinational Monitor in 1984, when the employees there tried to form a union. He also crushed a union drive within the PIRGs. Sixteen years later, while appealing to union workers and gaining the endorsement of California nurses, Nader still believes that his projects should be off-limits to unions.

As they say people who live in glass houses ...

[LimpingLib]

65. Kerry is fine but I ask questions.

n/t except to say time to focous on issues PLEASE.

[neverforget]

11. What we really need is unity and turnout to defeat Bush because

he is the enemy.

[Cuban_Liberal]

13. Ralph Nader is not *the* enemy, he is *an* enemy.

The amount of energy expended in demonizing Nader here boggles my mind. Ralph Nader is, frankly, a tired old man who time has passed by. We should be far more concerned about the votes of 8 million 'Bush Democrats' in 2000 than the pathetic numbers of progressive votes Nader received.

I want to win in November, and Nader-bashing isn't going to help Kerry/Edwards do that, y'all.

[quaoar]

15. Me too

I want to win in November as well -- and Nader running isn't going to help Kerry.

[Cuban_Liberal]

16. Kerry needs to concentrate on getting *Democrats* back into the fold.

8 million Democrats nationwide voted for Bush in 2000; that is far, FAR more votes than Nader got.

[quaoar]

17. If those same

8 million Democrats vote for Bush this time, they were never Democrats in the first place.

What do you suggest Kerry should do to win them back?

[Padraig18]

21. I disagree with the premise.

I know some Democrats who, for many reasons, did not like Al Gore and Joe Lieberman, and voted for Bush. To say that 'they were never Democrats in the first place' is to paint in black and white an issue that is anything but.

[no name no slogan]

69. Good points Pad

I've had serious issues with Gore since the 80s, when Tipper helped found the PMRC (with James Baker's wife), and Gore ran for President. I never liked him, didn't trust him, knew he was in the back pocket of the Washington/big money crowd, and thought he represented what was wrong with the party-- not what was right.

I know many other people (especially civil libertarians) who could not vote for Gore in good conscience because of the PMRC flap. They still voted, but did not vote for Gore.

The situation is much more gray than black and white, as it was in 2000. I don't begrudge anybody voting for Nader-- after all, this is a democratic republic. I myself cannot do so, simply because I believe it's easier to steer the Democratic party in a leftward direction than it is to start another 'major' party in this day and age.

[no name no slogan]

33. Thank you Cuban_Liberal!

I read that there were 300,000 "Bush Democrat" votes in Florida ALONE in 2000-- why don't we blame those people as much as the Nader-haytahs do Nader?

Like I've said before, there's NO CHANCE any of Gore 2000 voters will vote Bush this time-- NONE. Even the moderate vote will have a hard time supporting Bush, war or no war. Although Nader's numbers are small, I'd feel much better with them on our side than on Nader's (or Bush's) side this year.

[welshTerrier2]

19. nicely said ...

i think Nader was dead wrong for running in 2000 and is still wrong for running now ... but my views on the issues are far closer to those Nader has expressed than those Kerry has expressed ... i'm totally supporting Kerry, btw ...

because I believe Nader increases the risk of getting stuck with four more years of bush, i can understand the animosity of those who endlessly complain about him ... but i agree with the essence of your post ... we must separate our frustration for Nader's candidacy from the ideas he espouses ... there are many who are very attracted to his ideas and villifying them for their beliefs is not the way to win elections ...

we need to separate Nader's message from Nader as the messenger ... and we need to show respect and seek to influence those who don't agree with us ... that's how you win elections ... it isn't necessary to "sell your soul" to attract Greens ... but we should try to find some common ground ... i, for one, would like to see some recognition from Democrats that third parties should be given a greater role in the election process ...

[mzmolly]

23. John Kerry on Universal Health Care.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040617-120823-6869r.htm

The battle for middle-class voters in November's presidential election reached full pitch yesterday as Sen. John Kerry campaigned here, promising universal health coverage and an expansion of after-school day care.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

38. "universal health coverage" key wording

Coverage meaning, everyone can pay to be covered.

There will never be universal coverage in a for profit system.


TWL

[mzmolly]

24. John Kerry and Corporate Power

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/

In 1984, after winning election as Lieutenant Governor in 1982, Kerry ran and was elected to serve in the United States Senate, running and winning a successful PAC-free Senate race and defeating a Republican opponent buoyed by Ronald Reagan's reelection coattails. Like his predecessor, the irreplaceable Paul Tsongas, Kerry came to the Senate with a reputation for independence -- and reinforced it by making tough choices on difficult issues: breaking with many in his own Party to support Gramm-Rudman Deficit Reduction; taking on corporate welfare and government waste; pushing for campaign finance reform; holding Oliver North accountable and exposing the fraud and abuse at the heart of the BCCI scandal; working with John McCain in the search for the truth about Vietnam veterans declared POW/MIA; and insisting on accountability, investment, and excellence in public education.

More here:

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Corporations.htm

[no name no slogan]

70. What about the 1996 Telecom Act?

Didn't Kerry support that, along with Clinton?

That single act has done more damage to freedom of the press than any law in the past half-century. We've seen more media consolidation into the hands of the wealthy, and the expense of diversity of opinion and (more importantly) the TRUTH.

When elected, will Kerry break up these monopolies? How about the monopolies in agribusiness, who have done more to ruin American farmers than drought ever could? Will Kerry break them up.

I'm hopeful, but then again, I'm not holding my breath, either...

[mzmolly]

25. John Kerry on the Kyoto Treaty.

“Bush’s abrupt and unilateral decision to abandon discussions with the world community on climate change was early evidence of this Administration’s misguided approach to dealing with the community of nations. Dropping out of international implementation of the Kyoto Protocol was foolhardy then, and it is even more obviously foolhardy today. In our absence, many of our major trading partners in Europe and elsewhere have been working on the details of international programs to manage greenhouse gas emissions. American interests are on the sidelines, having no ability to influence the development of a system that will profoundly affect the global approach to resource protection and investment in climate change technologies….”~John Kerry Democratic Presidential Nominee


http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=622

[no name no slogan]

58. One question though

If the Kyoto treaty is so important, why was adherance to it dropped from the platform?

The platform is largely dicated by the candidate-- i.e., John Kerry. Why was it suddenly "dropped" from the platform?

Not that I'm doubting Kerry's sincerity-- however, I would like to believe the conviction matches the rhetoric. So far, I've not seen much to convince me otherwise-- unless pressure is applied by grassroots progressives for Kerry to take the stands.

I truly want to vote FOR Kerry this year, really. However, I'm still voting "against Bush" more than anything. I just don't see him willing to take bold stands unless he's put under pressure by somebody else to take them.

[mzmolly]

59. I used to agree with you about Kerry, but I've re-examined him

and feel I can now support him.

Would you mind showing me what part of the platform you have an issue with (re: the kyoto treaty) ? I'd like to see it.

Ralph persists in advancing the view that it does not matter (or does not matter enough to matter) whether a Democrat or a Republican sits in the White House. His position derives much of its energy and plausibility from moral fury against the Democrats who, for example, helped pass the infamous USA Patriot Act and voted to authorize Bush to attack Iraq in a war of aggression that will stain the national escutcheon in history.... The pivotal issue, though, is whether we should let this moral fury become blind rage that will help elect Bush in 2004....~Ronnie Dugger

Glad your voting against Bush. After reading this, I'm convinced Kerry is BY FAR the best choice in the coming election.

http://www.soc.qc.edu/Staff/levine/THE-REAL-RALPH.html

Even *I* was shocked at much of what I read.

[no name no slogan]

67. Hey, I NEVER said I'm voting for Ralph

Quite the contrary, I've done quite a bit of p!$$!ing and moaning about how much I don't like Kerry, but that I'll be voting for him anyway.

Kerry makes great speeches about his issues, but why doesn't he back them up on the platform? It's one thing to say "I favor the Kyoto Protocols", but to not include the language in the document that states the party's philosophy?

Same goes with Iraq. The war CONTINUES. His stance is not much different from that of Shrub, except that instead of 30,000 more troops he feels we need another 40,000 in the military to "finish the job". He plans on still having a US presence in Iraq in four years, and has NEVER renounces a permanent US military presence in the Middle East-- which, you may recall, was one of the main reasons OBL attacked the US on 9/11 in the first place.

I don't hate John Kerry. I think he's very good on several issues, and has voted correctly most of the time. However, I severely dislike his timidity to take strong stands on the issues. Sure, he may anger one "swing voter" for it, but I bet he'd energize two disaffected voters for every one he's alienate.

Maybe I'm slowly coming around to Kerry-- after all, I was a BIG fan of his in the early 90s, and probably would have supported him wholeheartedly in 2000, had he run. I will indeed vote for him.

However, I've got better candidates in other, tougher races who need my money, time, and bumper space more than John Kerry.

[mzmolly]

26. Ralph Nader quote:

"The Democrats are going to have to lose more elections. They didn't get the message last time."

Gloria Steinem quote on Ralph Nader:

"He was able to take all those perfect progressive positions of the past because he never had to build an electoral coalition, earn a majority vote, or otherwise submit to democracy."

[mzmolly]

27. John Kerry's voting record shows responsible cuts to defense spending.

Right wing source, but you get the picture.

http://www.boycottliberalism.com/biographies/Kerry-votes.htm

In 1991 Kerry voted to cut defense spending by 2 percent. Only 21 other senators voted with Kerry, and the defense cut was defeated.

In 1991, Kerry voted to cut over $3 billion from defense and shift the funds to social programs. Only 27 senators joined Kerry in voting for the defense cut.

In 1992, Kerry voted to cut $6 billion from defense. Republicans and Democrats alike successfully blocked this attempt to cut defense spending.

In 1993, Kerry voted against increased defense spending.

In 1993, Kerry introduced a plan to cut the number Of Navy submarines and their crews; reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force; terminate the Navy’s coastal mine-hunting ship program; force the retirement of 60,000 members of the armed forces in one year; and reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one. The plan was DOA.

In 1995, Kerry voted to freeze defense spending for seven years, cutting over $34 billion from defense. Only 27 other senators voted with Kerry.

In 1996, Kerry introduced a bill to cut Defense Department funding by $6.5 billion. Kerry’s bill had no co-sponsors and never came to a floor vote.

In 1996, Kerry voted yes on a fiscal 1996 budget resolution – a defense freeze that would have frozen defense spending for the next seven years and transferred the $34.8 billion in savings to education and job training. The resolution was rejected 28-71.

[LimpingLib]

29. Kerry said he wants to raide defence spending.

Not that nader is relevant as he isnt attacking Kerry but Nader has a view that is similar to my own. Reduce the $100 billion per year we spend on European bases (we agree there) then Nader wants to use some of the money to enhance weapons (we disagree there)so we have a "leaner , meaner national defence" in Naders words. Nader wants to use most saved money domesticaly.


While Nader is 100% better than Kerry (EDIT: on defence), I think his $100 billion cut per year (plus some increases elsewhere however small reduces savings a bit)is too moderate.I think we can and should cut defence spending about $150 billion per year or even more.

[mzmolly]

30. I don't think Nader is better then Kerry. He is also not in a position

to know what we need to spend on the military. He has zero experience in Government.

And, if you'll note, Kerry voted to cut defense and put the money in domestic programs. :)

The guy I supported Howard Dean wasn't big on cutting the pentagon budget either, but he supported reducing waste which we must do.

[LimpingLib]

31. Im thinking of our 2000 positions oops

The $150 billion cut was back when defence spending was (forgive my numbers, going by memory) around $280 billion per year after Clinton had signed around $20 billion in increases since 1997. Now that spending is around $350 billion per year Id say we can cut is about $200 billion per year.

Anyway both partys agree more than disagree so I dont keep up much on areas of potential cuts anymore. It will be a cold day .

[mzmolly]

32. Keep in mind, defense spending is one of many issues.

http://damnedbigdifference.org/KerryvBush.htm

It would be political suicide to suggest we cut defense spending after 911.

[LimpingLib]

28. Nader refuses to even attack Kerry/Edwards

He is trying to walk a tightrope and its making him look real wobbly.


Id like to know exactly how much a family of 4 (as that is the apple pie we always measure)will have to pay for health insurance per month under the Kerry/Edwards plan plus the deductable and percentage of health costs needed to be paid and what is covered. Nader isnt asking.


Id like to know if regressive taxes like the Payroll tax will have an exemption or deduction that the government will swallow since Kerry/Edwards want "familys" (family value apple pie , Id rather look at individuals honestly) to swallow a certain amount to save the government money. What about the regressive 18.3 cents per gallon gas tax at the federal level? I suppose these are necessary to "fund certain things" well then does that mean all revenues from sales taxes on food should go toward feeding starving and hungry children or giving rations to every citizen? Everybody uses roads, with NO EXEPTIONS , so let it be general revenue funded. Gas taxes only collect about $30 billion per year anyway at the federal level.

Will housing be affordable so we can be 1 America that doesnt have to worry about having a roof over our heads with running water? There arent too many ways to do that. Price controls? Direct subsidies to individuals ( problem is politicians like using the tax code.more on that later)? Forcing banks to charges interest rates at severly reduced levels to lower income citizens or "familys" ? Those are the only 3 ways to do so without much disruption.

A far more effective solution would be to end the home mortgage deduction so housing prices could fall 30%-50% right away then in addition the federal money could be used (that would otherwise go to bankers and costs like $200+ billion per year)to fund massive house building programs that could reduce housing prices another 50% compounded to about a 75% housing price reduction.Problem is the the more affluent half of the "2 Americas" wouldnt like that as they would loose property value plus the bankers would rip out lungs out.

Which side of the "2 Americas" will Kerry/ Edwards stand on ? Will they simply have some tax code gimmick that wont help lower income Americans but will greatly please the upper crust of the 2 Americas? Will whatever measly tax deduction gimmick be able to be counted against payroll and sales taxes?

Heck is anybody asking? Not nader so why are we even worrying about him?

[zulchzulu]

35. Yes. We must pelt the loser until he drops out

I can't actually figure out who I think is more of an asshole. Nader or Bush...

Hmmmm.... they are both egomaniacal liars hellbent on fucking up this country. So it's a tie.

If you think Nader isn't a goddamn snake that can't be trusted, you need to watch and learn. Do your homework on the guy. He is no better than the chickenhawks in terms of evil intentions. He makes the idea of getting third-party options an embarrassment. It's a good thing the Greens disassociated themselves from him.

[oasis]

47. Nader=Bush any way you slice it.

[Zomby Woof]

36. good comedy

which could turn Nader from an asterisk into a serious contender. :D

Yeah, and Santa Claus will fly out of my ass with 1,000 purple reindeer too.

We bash only in proportion to his colossal ego, and the fact we REALLY don't have a vote to spare for the Chimpo.

[quaoar]

37. I'd like someone to explain to me

Precisely what it is that Nader's candidacy is meant to achieve that cannot be achieved without his presence on the ballot.

What issues will be forgotten without him to push them?

What positive outcome from his candidacy is worth having him draw votes from Kerry?

[Capn Sunshine]

40. I have to ask this again

IF we are so worried about "drawing votes from Kerry" isn't it OUR responsibility to move the party in a direction that ensures this doesn't happen?

Is our lack of broader appeal to the progressives worth getting the much smaller % and number of votes from folks that might otherwise vote republican?

[Capn Sunshine]

39. Why?

Anything wrong with the ones we already have?

[LimpingLib]

41. Yea they are endless and pathetic.

Like people want to keep a dead conversation alive. Everytime people actualy shut up some stupid poll or something gets started and the retards have yet another quorum.

I try to avoid most (like 99%) of Nader flamebaits because I feel like I am participating in some @$* hole convention.

[cprise]

44. Wheeeeeeee!

:D

[oasis]

46. Each Nader vote helps Bush. In 2000 and 2004. That's the point.

[WI_DEM]

49. Stop Talking Sense!!

[Inland]

51. Nader and his people can go pound sand.

>>You want to win that 3-5% that might vote for Nader over Kerry? <<

Not so much. There is no way for Kerry to outNader Nader, so as long as Nader runs, that three to five percent is lost. Moreover, every suckup move to Nader will lose more votes than it gets, since Kerry will never outNader Nader and he will lose more moderate votes.
The fact is that the Nader by running has marginalized his own consitutuency--Kerry can't adopt a position to gain their votes so why bother. Better to run against Nader as the selfish, selfdestructive jerk he is. We democrats love it, and independents will be thrilled.

My favorite Nader move was the open letter to Kerry advising him on a running mate. Would Nader drop out if Kerry took his advice? No. Would Nader advise his people that Kerry was now an acceptable alternative? No. But Nader has no influence and no purpose except flapping his gums and pretending to be important, thanks to the fact he has no purpose except to get people to vote against Kerry. What a jerk.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. I'd Settle For A Moratorium On The Anti Nader Threads If He Disappeared...

NT

[fujiyama]

66. I hate to admit

It is sorta fun to bash Ralph in a strange way...but seriously speaking though, I think he should be held accountable for his actions and his judgement. I'm especially angry at his delusions in believing that republicans want him on ballots for altruistic reasons. Then again, he probably knows all too well what he's doing. If he demands respect as a candidate, he should recieve as much scrutiny as anyone else. For the most part I agree with you -- it's non productive though. Plus, in some ways, the attention we give him is playing into his hands.

We shouldn't worry too much about him. The states where he is likely to have an impact are showing him to be polling pretty poorly (FL, OR, haven't seen any recent WI polls). One poll showed the race much closer with him in PA, but I don't see how he'll have any larger impact in any state than he did in '00.

[Hippo_Tron]

71. Since you insist... Ralph, Go Fuck Yourself!