Question/Statement from a foreign DU-er about Ralph Nader.

[mzmolly]

We had a discussion about Nader taking money from Republicans (who desire to see Bush elected again) and one of our DU-ers made the following comment:

You are biased, predjudiced and prejudging when you question Naders supporters BUT IGNORE THE DEMOCRAT'S LARGEST SUPPORTERS.

Sure Nader has taken money from right wing groups, and the Dems have taken money from the same groups via a different route - corporate donations.

Why is it alright for the Dems to use corporate money to win an election, but not Nader? Why is it that the Dem's platform erases their dealing with corporations such as Enron, but Nader's don't?

That is bias. That is prejudice. That is prejudgment.

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. If the Dems can do it, why can't nader?

I'm having trouble explaining this in a manner that he/she understands. Can anyone help out?

Feel free to state your agreement with the above statement as well. Thanks :hi:

[lovedems]

1. Hi mzmolly!

:hi:

Still dilligently working I see! You have heard all of my arguements! I am eager to see other responses!

:yourock:

I am glad you haven't given up!

[mzmolly]

3. Given up? I know not the meaning of the words.

Though I think I need to learn them at times. ;)

I have decided to give the benefit of the doubt here.

Heck, your initial answer said it all. But perhaps as I said, there is a barrier in communication? :shrug:

:hi:

[bryant69]

2. One explanation is this

The Republicans are giving to Nader specifically to keep a progressive liberal agenda from being implemented. That is their motive. They want a continuation of the Repressive Republican / President Bush policies so they are giving to Nader.

If a corporation gives to Edwards / Kerry they might prefer that President Bush Win, but they have to know that there's a good chance Kerry / Edwards will win. They are buying access (which is obviously problemattic as well, but a whole other issue). But they are not giving money to keep a progressive agenda from being implemented.

That's the difference in my mind. Nader is taking money from people who are giving it to him to have the opposite of the America he believes in continue and worsen.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[mzmolly]

4. Sort of my take on this as well.

:shrug:

Also, corporations are not solely owned by Republicans. There are some conscientious business owners in the world that donate to progressive candidates and causes.

And there are some corporations that contribute because they believe in the merits of doing so. Though generally they give to R's more heavilly.

[Warpy]

5. Let's do this point by point

First, corporate donations to the DNC are in the form of hedging their bets, and are usually quite small compared to what they lavish on Repuglicans who are likely to stay bought. In other words, they are token contributions and the Democrats know that and act accordingly, with no loyalty at all to the hand that bribes them.

Nader is not taking money laundered through corporations. He's taking it directly from the GOP, and knows where that money came from, and what he is expected to do with it. His ego is so massive that he honestly thinks he will singlehandedly push the Democrats to the left without damaging them in the process. He is wrong.

Lastly, he has absolutely no chance of winning, not now, not ever, and his candidacy as a spoiler when we are trying to unseat not only the worst president ever but a real threat to the world at large, is an unconscionable exercise in pure ego.

The upside to all of this is that he will be getting far fewer progressive votes than he did in 2000. He will in all likelihood siphon off more votes from Bush than he will from Kerry, should he be on the ballot in any states. The down side is that he's blown any credibility he ever had with progressives.

[mzmolly]

6. Thanks for your reply.

I am trying to keep my .02 out of this particular discussion, as I've said all one can say on the subject.

I appreciate your input, thanks again. :hi:

[lovedems]

7. I want to keep this kicked.

I would love more responses!

:kick:

[mzmolly]

8. Thanks, I'm out for a while.

:hi:

I'll stop in later.

[mzmolly]

9. kick

:kick:

[spooky3]

10. "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

That was my take after seeing your valiant attempts to reason with the unreasonable.

[mzmolly]

11. Thank you !!!!!!!

I felt I was going ... :crazy:

[sangh0]

12. Campaign finance reform and corporate reform and corruption

are all central to Nadir's candidacy. In the Dems case, they are issues that they support, but these issues are not as central to the Dem's platform as they are to Nadir's.