Speaking of Nader and funding problems....and some Green stuff as well.

[madfloridian]

I posted this about a week ago. I am also researching a convention the Greens had with a whole bunch of other 3rd parties. VERY interesting 3rd parties....YET the Greens come here and demand PURITY from the Democrats. This is just shameful. I will get it posted tomorrow some time.

While I agree with a lot of the ideas Nader espouses, he really does not have a structure or organization to offer us. Trying to hurt the Democratic Party without offering anything solid in return is what I fear too many progressive groups are doing. It is going on at Kos today, someone wanting people to drop their Democracy Bonds...it goes on here all the time. It was alarming that he took money from right wing groups in 04, especially the two mentioned below.

Group run by Democrats says "right-wing Republicans" and "extremists" aid Nader to help Bush. Characterizations aside, they've got a point.

http://www.factcheck.org/article216.html

Citizens for a Sound Economy is a nonprofit, tax-exempt group co-chaired by Dick Armey, the former Republican Majority Leader in the House, and C. Boyden Gray, former White House counsel to George H.W. Bush, the current President’s father. It describes itself as devoted to “free markets and limited government“ and claims thousands of local activists. It pushes to make Bush’s tax cuts permanent, cut federal spending, create private Social Security accounts, enact school vouchers and enact a “flat tax” in place of the current system of higher rates for higher incomes.

Another Oregon group, the Oregon Family Council, also said it made calls for Nader. Mike White, the group's director, told the Associated Press :

White: We aren't bashful about doing it. We are a conservative, pro-family organization, and Bush is our guy on virtually every issue.

That supports the ad's claim that Nader got help from "Republicans that are anti-choice." The Family Council describes itself as an "information service for Oregon Christians" and says its "Christian Voter's Guide" for 2002 helped thousands of Christians make "informed votes" that "produced more Pro-life/ Pro-family legislators than there have been in over 30 years!"

Conservatives for Nader, and proud of it. Here is a phone script used by this very conservative business group that does NOT have the best interest of the people in mind.

http://www.cse.org/newsroom/press_template.php?press_id...

Washington, D.C. - Oregon CSE members are working to get Ralph Nader on the November ballot! While this sounds completely backwards-- Ralph Nader opposes nearly every issue CSE fights for-- but there's sound logic behind Oregon CSE's actions. CSE does not advocate the election or defeat of political candidates, but Oregon CSE members feel that having Nader on the ballot helps illuminate the strong similarities between the uber-liberal Nader and John Kerry. That's why they've been making calls to their friends to sign a petition to get Nader on the ballot by attending a townhall on June 26th, using a phone script that reads:


"Hi, my name is Russ Walker, director of Citizens for a Sound Economy here in Oregon, and I wanted to tell you about an opportunity we have to drive a wedge through the Liberal Left’s base of support.

In this year’s presidential race, Ralph Nader could peel away a lot of Kerry support in Oregon, but he has to be on the ballot first. He will make it if at least 1,000 people show up this Saturday at Benson High school at 4:00 pm and sign the petition to certify his candidacy.

Liberals are trying to unite in Oregon and keep Nader off the ballot to help their chances of electing John Kerry. We could divide this base of support by showing up at Grant High school on Saturday.

Poor Ralph Nader: He just wants to make the ballot here in Oregon. Let’s give him what he wants and just watch what happens in November!"


And from Common Dreams this article about how the Republicans got him on the ballot, being quite open of their reasons.

Published on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Nader's "Grassroots" Campaign...Courtesy of GOP
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0720-15.htm

Just a few gems from this article:

Nader campaign spokesman Kevin Zeese initially took a principled stand, telling Associated Press last week that the campaign would not accept the GOP's help: "We won't take any signatures from them." But within hours he flip-flopped, AP reported, saying the campaign might accept the Republican signaturesIn Oregon, another swing state where Nader could tip the election to Bush, he only needed to attract 1,000 registered voters to a nominating convention to get on the ballot. Four years ago, 10,000 activists rallied for Nader in Portland. But in April, he couldn't rally even 1,000 supporters.

Once again, the Right rode to the rescue. When Nader made a second attempt at a convention on June 26, Oregon's Republicans enlisted the anti-choice, anti-gay Oregon Family Council and the corporatist Citizens for a Sound Economy to recruit rightwingers to attend and sign Nader's petition. The CSE's phone script asking Republicans to put Nader on the ballot explained the need to "pull some very crucial votes from John Kerry." Nader's Oregon coordinator said he saw nothing wrong with rightwing help: "It's a free country. People do things in their own interest."

Nader has complained -- correctly in at least one state -- of covert Democratic efforts to keep him off ballots. But in Michigan, he has no such excuse. In that key battleground state, after Nader volunteers had collected only 5,000 of the 30,000 signatures necessary to get on the ballot, Michigan's Republican Party came to the rescue with 43,000 Nader signatures.


And this article is by Jeff Cohen of FAIR and the Kucinich campaign, and he deplored these tactics. Here is one more thing he had to say.

"Camejo flip-flopped, telling the same reporter: "It is conceivable that pro-Bush, pro-Republicans believe we have a right to be on the ballot. We will not establish lie detector tests for people who give us money."

Camejo's new line was in keeping with Nader's laissez-faire attitude on accepting GOP cash: "Republicans are human beings too," he argued in a recent radio debate."

Nader's campaign manager was aware that the Republicans were using them to hurt the Democratic Party. Yet they went along with this. So did Camejo. These two groups bother me the most, but there were others.

[madfloridian]

1. You want purity? Nader's GAP opposed group he took funding from.

Demand it for all or don't be so picky.

Then in 2004 Nader took campaign assistance from them. Nader is a very bright man. He knew what he was doing.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_for_a_Sound_Economy

And an interesting quote:

"CSE has been criticised by the Nader-founded group, the Government Accountability Project (GAP), as lacking independence. In 2000 GAP spokesperson Gary Ruskin told the Washington Post, "It's part of a rent-a-mouthpiece phenomenon. ... There are mercenary groups that function as surrogates when industry feels it's not advantageous for it to speak directly." <2> (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=artic... )"

[Crazy Guggenheim]

2. Good post !!!

:popcorn:

[mdmc]

42. Nader took their money, then PISSED on them!

Nader still opposed the GAP. I find it refreshing that a politician can accept money from a lobby, then turn and say that the lobby's positions are wrong.

I would allow Oliver North to finance my campaign - I would not endorse his beliefs. It is his money to lose!

[The Magistrate]

3. As You Have Observed, Ma'am

It has long been an open secret that Republican money and organizing muscle has been moved to the assistance of the Green Party. It benefits the Republicans greatly for the differing factions on the left to engage in fratricidal struggle, rather than to unite and fight as one.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[madfloridian]

4. Well, if they can fight here, so can I. Purity...hell, yeh.

I will be getting the post together tomorrow to show all the 3rd parties the Greens aligned with in a conference. Let them show me their purity.

[The Magistrate]

6. It Will Be Quite Interesting, Ma'am

There are some damned odd organizations involved in that....

[madfloridian]

5. A Salon article that is very eye-opening.....

If you want such piety and purity and honesty from our Democrats demand it from everyone. Demand that they set high standards as well. Demand that people quote other people absolutely correctly. Don't allow them to misquote and divide.

This post is not so much about Nader, it is about being honest. It is about the fact that people like me here are absolutely made fun of not only here but progressive forums all around. We are made fun of for being Democrats by people who are not Democrats on the whole.

I don't like being made fun of for caring about my country, and wanting to do what is best for it. Since the other day when I said to be a "good German" (implying that I let Bush take over the country like Hitler did Germany)....I have been deeply angry. I work hard for the Democrats.

It must absolutely break the hearts of the Democrats or their staff when they read DU and other forums with Democratic in the name. None of them are perfect, but I am working to change the way things work from within.

This is such an absolutely painful interview with Nader by Salon, that I won't post any of it but the link. If you demand all this perfection of good Democrats, then first be sure you are one and then be sure you are perfect as well.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/07/14/naderphonecall/

If you don't have a membership at Salon, I will PM the article to you if you want it.

[Crunchy Frog]

9. Actually, you don't have to be a member to read the article.

All you have to do is get a day pass by watching an ad. It's pretty easy.

[mdmc]

34. let me check out this link...

peace

[madfloridian]

7. CNN Group: Bush allies illegally helping Nader in Oregon

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/30/bush.nader/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Efforts by two conservative groups to help President Bush by getting independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader on the ballot in the key battleground state of Oregon has prompted a complaint to the Federal Election Commission by a liberal watchdog group.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) said phone banks encouraging Bush supporters to attend a Nader nominating convention last Saturday amounted to an illegal in-kind contribution to the Nader campaign by the Oregon Family Council and Oregon Citizens for a Sound Economy."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Greens supported recall of Grey Davis:

Camejo, the Greens and the recall

"There are definite political calculations behind Camejo’s portrayal of the California crisis as a purely local affair, a presentation that defies both logic and the facts. It serves the basic aim of the Greens: to utilize the recall drive to secure a place within the political establishment in California and the US as a whole.

Camejo moved quickly to lend his support to the right-wing effort to depose Davis. Well before the recall petitions had been certified, when the only other politician to announce his candidacy to replace Davis was Congressman Darrell Issa, the Republican who had bankrolled the petition drive to the tune of $1.6 million, Camejo announced his support for the recall and proclaimed himself the Green candidate. The Greens themselves had not yet taken any position nor endorsed any candidate."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/sep2003/came-s30.shtml

[anitar1]

8. Thank all of you for this info, will pass it on. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

10. This is a comprehensive thread that should be read by all at DU.

You've been busting your butt lately, MF, and I thank you for your efforts.

Kicked and highly recommended.

[MadHound]

11. Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, get over it already!

I swear, the Nader haters around here are entirely too obsessive about this. Rather than focusing on the tangible reasons they lost, rather than addressing real issues that cost them the election, they choose to blame it all on Nader. Rather than figure out how to craft a winning Democratic strategy, they come back to Nader.

Well listen up people. It is Nader's Constitutionally granted right to run as a third party candidate, and to take money from whomever he pleases. Rather than pissing and moaning about long gone elections, get up off your asses and figure out how to win despite Nader in the race. Tune your message and address the issues in order to draw voters away from Nader and others.

This is how democracy works in this country, deal with it and move on. Otherwise you will simply render yourself ineffective come next election cycle.

[seabeyond]

12. or educate and be informed

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

13. Well, this is also how Democracy works here....I get to have my say also.

That is part of being an American. If other groups come here spouting purity and condemning Democrats then I get to point out their problems as well.

Part and parcel of being in a Democracy. Right?

You know the CSE group that supported Nader? The one his group he formed (GAP) actually condemned? Well, here they are this group of men who detest any kind of taxes...here they are protesting Dean at a fundraiser. Oh, the hypocrisy of it all.

[MadHound]

14. So in other words,

Rather than facing up to the reality of the multitude of problems within the Democratic party, you are choosing to bash Nader and blame it all on a man who got 2% of the vote. No wonder the Democratic party is losing ground quickly, apparently the members are incapable of facing reality:eyes:

You have every right in the world to bash Nader, and say whatever you wish about him. I'm not contesting that. I'm just saying that it is quite counterproductive, and at this late date it makes you look foolish. But hey, in this country you have the right to look foolish all you want. But remember, while you're accomplishing nothing by bashing Nader, your opponents are out there beating this party silly. Think about it.

[madfloridian]

15. I am fighting to change this party.

Many people coming here are not Democrats, never will be, and they are influencing some people who are just not aware that no one is perfect. Many are very sincere, like I am, about wanting to change things from within.

But this is new, the new restructuring of the party, and they are not sure what to do.

So I am just presenting another side of the issue.

More to come.

[MadHound]

16. Oh heaven forbid

That other progressives come here and try to influence peoples' thinking:eyes: You say that you're trying to change things from within, well then I suggest that you do so rather than complaining about elections long gone. Complaining about Nader and other third party candidates changes nothing, and prevents you and others from focusing on creating such change within the party, that is if there is an outside chance that such matters can be changed. Based upon over thirty years of experience of beating my head against the wall, I find the prospects of change highly unlikely.

[madfloridian]

17. You are not addressing the issues I raised. You are ignoring them.

I am working to change the things in the Democratic Party without reverting to anarchy right now.

Unless I am told NOT to post about things like this, I will do so.

It is still going on here. People who are not Democrats are so pious saying they are trying to pull the party leftward.

Then everytime one of our Democrats stands up and speaks out clearly and loudly, here come the negative posts here.

An example: some came here and started attacking, saying the Democrats were going to neglect the gay community by dropping the contact for them. Actually they are rearranging the whole issue and working up partnerships, and doing as much as before.

Then I pointed out that Dean and Jesse Jackson, Jr. are having a big fundraiser for the GLBT community tomorrow night. And that they are going to protest their own fundraiser.

Not a person commented on the hypocrisy of that. No one.

I have a right to post fair stuff. You have a right not to read it.

[MadHound]

18. I'm not saying you can't post friend

I'm just saying that you starting anothre in a long line of Nader bashing posts is counter-productive. You aren't going to sway anybody at this late date, and you are rehashing old news, again and again. How is that productive? How is scolding people who post critiques of the party productive?

Sorry, but it sounds to me like you're trying to control the message that gets out around here. While that is your right to try, I seriously doubt that you're going to have any effect, and your efforts can be better spent elsewhere. But hey, if you wish to engage in useless rhetoric, by all means. . .

[madfloridian]

19. Elsewhere? Useless rhetoric?

Gotcha.

[mdmc]

40. the voters in this pic should support Nader in a blue state

It is good election strategy and it will not hurt any of the people in this pic. Their support for Nader helped Bush, helped further their cause. Very smart, don't you think?

[The Magistrate]

20. The Problem With That, Mr. Hound, Is Two-Fold

First, the splinterist factionalism that enabled Nader from the left is a real and pressing problem: it provided great assistance to the reactionary victory, and threatens to continue to do so.

Second, a good deal of the criticism leveled by Nader apologists and similar factionalists at moderate elements of the Party consists of charges the latter groups are indistinguishable from Republicans, or tools of the Republicans and collaborators with the Republicans. Yet it is abundantly clear from the record that the Green Party and Nader did indeed collaborate with the Republicans, and serve as tools of the Republicans, accepting Republican monies and assistance from Republican campaign operatives. Whether or not they have the right to do so is quite beside the point that they did in fact do so, and thus signed on to the Republican efforts to secure a reactionary grip on national office and destroy the prospects of the Democratic Party. This must in honesty and fairness be considered when assessing the worth of their charges against other political blocs....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[MadHound]

21. Sorry friend, but is has been, and will continue to be a chimera

First off, all the experts, including Al From, have stated that the reason that Gore lost in Florida wasn't Nader, it was Gore's inept campaign and Bushco's theft. Gore threw away aprox. 600,000 votes on the issue of off shore drilling in Florida alone. And Nader's share, as was the Green's share, in '04 was even more negligble than in '00. But again, the electio was stolen, in Ohio this time, and interestingly enough the only ones to put up and kind of real stink about it were the Greens.

You are also misstating history. The Greens did not accept money from Republicans, either in '00 when Nader was their candidate, nor in '04, when Nader ran as an independent.

And you are sounding almost like you are in favor of banning any sort of criticism of the moderate Dems by the leftists. Sorry, but such criticism is a needed and natural part of politics. If we all existed in an enforced criticism free zone, then nothing would ever change. The charges leveled by myself and by the leftists both within and without the party are valid ones, and issues that the Democratic party should be exploring itself. Instead, they are too busy bending over for Bushco's every little whim, and leaving us, the ordinary people, stranded and on our own. Frankly, many of us are fed up with such accomidationists, and will fight back. If that means pissing off the moderates of the party, so be it. But if we don't, the Democratic party will continue to roll over and piss all over itself like a whipped pup in a vain attempt to please this administration.

There for awhile the Dems actually started to show a bit of spine. But sadly that has disappeared, and they are back to their accomidationist ways. Perhaps it is time to light another fire under them:shrug:

I find all of this fixation on Nader counter productive and foolish. We should be looking forward, not back. But sadly, it seems that there are people who simply can't get their head out of the past.

[madfloridian]

22. So you can criticize me, but I can't criticize you. Sounds fair to me.

:shrug:

Funny how things work when the tables get turned.

I was really leaning left, and getting pretty doggoned progressive which for me was not easy. I was about to leave the party.

What changed my mind? All the mindless claptrap here and elsewhere about how nasty and ugly and useless our Democrats are....and those who are doing it have nothing to take its place.

So I changed. I am finding myself aligned with some folks here I did not expect to agree with. I don't agree always, but I am NOT going with the crowd that wants to destroy the party.

[MadHound]

24. Never did say that you couldn't criticize me friend

This is still a free country, nominally at least.

And that you are allowing an anonymous internet chat board dictate your politics only goes to show what a shaky foundation you are basing your convictions on. Perhaps you should base such choices on reality, not the ephemeral musings of cyberspace. That you admit to doing so speaks volumes about you, and little of it good.

[madfloridian]

26. You worry me with that kind of rhetoric. You really do.

It is like you have no sense at all of anything going on in the Democratic Party.

And yes, when I began to see the way it was here, with nothing else to offer....and we had to drop out of local peace activist group because they are intolerant also...yes, I changed.

And yes, the peace group was joined through the internet, but was local on the ground. Then it changed. It has become intolerant of many of us have been loyal for rallies every week for years. If one is opposing the war in Iraq, one does not stand in a peaceful weekly rally in a conservative area with pro-Chavez signs. It just does not work. Not here.

Intolerance on the left is just as dangerous as intolerance from the right.

[The Magistrate]

28. Indeed, Ma'am

In my view, Col. Chavez is a grand fellow, who is the best thing to happen to Venezuela in decades. But he has nothing whatever to do with opposition to the occupation of Iraq, and a rally purportedly aimed at rousing public fervor against that occupation should concentrate on that object, and not present a scatter-shot laundry list. People who pay little attention to politics nonetheless care about the course of events in Iraq, and can be moved to more strident opposition to its occupation, but they care nothing and know less about Venezuela, and cannot be moved to bother themselves with it. Focus and discipline are essential to successful action in any field, and particularly so in political action.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[The Magistrate]

23. Banning Criticism, Mr. Hound?

That is hardly my interest, and certainly not my purpose. But when criticism proceeds from a shaky foundation, to put it mildly, those who engage in it must expect the opposition to point out areas where it is unsound.

Nader serves as an emblem of the destructive effects of factionalosm pushed to the knife on the hopes for success of left and progressive elements of our polity; a cautionary fable, as it were. As such, he will continue to be assailed so long as people press the same body of ideas that gave rise to his wrecker's course in previous elections, for what he did, and the result it had, is the logical outcome of that body of ideas in the present circumstances.

[MadHound]

25. What shaky foundation friend?

We have reams and volumes of evidence of the Democratic party's cooperation with this misadministration and its corporate masters stretching back to the Clinton days and beyond. This isn't shaky, this isn't made out of thin air, this is the real politick of our time, and one denies it at your own peril.

When the Democrats back an illegal, immoral war, even after being shown that it was based on lies, that isn't shaky, that is fact. When Democrats go merrliy along with the Republicans and strip US citizens of our civil rights, that isn't shaky, that is ugly fact. I could go on and on friend, but I don't want to see your eyes glaze over.

And it simply amazes me how many people, both here and in the party itself, still continue to dwell on Nader. Understand this friend, A: He had a minimal effect on the outcome of both the '00 and '04 elections. B: This continued obsesson with him is detrimental to both yourself and the party as a whole. It's done and over with, time to move on. By continuing to pick at the scab of Nader all you're doing is fixating on a non-problem while the party falls apart around you. Wake up and smell the corruption! There are major problems abounding in the Democratic party, problems that need to be seriously addressed. Obscessing over Nader is not going to do one damn thing about these problems except allowing the corporatists of the DLC to gain further control of the party. Is that what you really want? For from my perspective, the DLC has done nothing but harm to the party. Perhaps it is time to clean your own house before you focus on anothers:shrug:

[The Magistrate]

27. You May Safely Allow Me, Sir, To Worry Over What Is Detrimental To Myself

The fact is that Nader's effect on the 2000 election was major, indeed decisive. The unwillingness of splinterists to look that fact in the face and accept the role they played in putting the present administration into office is a serious problem, for it is a gaurantee of persistence in the same destructive behavior in future.

The persistence in presenting such current matters as the invasion and occupation of Iraq as if these were the result of Democratic office-holders is similarly troubling. These things are the policies of the Republican administration, and it has the votes necessary to secure their implementation, and the willingness to act regardless of the voting outcome in accordance with its schemes. Fire aimed at Democrats over such matters simply muddies the waters, and makes it more difficult to effectively attack the undisputed authors and agents of these policies. So long as the "not a dime's worth of difference" line is pressed, it will remain impossible to rally an electoral majority against the cabal of thieves and bloody-minded little dreamers currently in control of our national government.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Jujiman]

43. Jimmy Carter Says Otherwise!

Ex-president Carter thinks that Al Gore won in the 2000 election.

If you won't take his word whose word would be convincing?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/22/13574/1443


:eyes:

[MadHound]

47. Friend, you've allowed yourself to be deluded by the spin

Nader's effect on the outcome in '00 was negligble at best. While the votes that Nader garnered in Florida are in the tens of thousands, the votes that Gore alienated with his stance of offshore drilling in the Gulf amount to almost 600,000(source, Greg Palast). In fact in the Jan'02 issue of Blueprint, the DLC magazine, Al From himself stated that Nader didn't have any effect on the outcome. Indeed, he went further to state that according to their exit polls, if Nader hadn't been in the race, Bush would have gotten even more votes, since apparently Nader was pulling in Bush votes at a rate of 2-1 over Gore votes. Then there is the matter of the Votescam in Florida, the systematic disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of black voters. The journalist Greg Palast handed this whole scandal over to the Gore campaign during the recount process. Now think about this for a minute, you've just been handed a scandal so big that not only would it ensure you a victory, but it would banish your political foe to the wilderness forever. What would you do with such information? Well, Gore and his handlers decided to sit on it. Yep, so much for counting every vote:eyes: Then there is the little matter of the Supreme Court ruling, and the fact that Gore actually did win the vote in Florida(though through his handlers' mismanagement those votes weren't counted until too late) and one can clearly see that Nader indeed didn't have an effect on the outcome. And his effect on the '04 election was even less.

And what you are advocating, no criticism of the Democratic party, is absurd on the face of it. We all have not only the right, but the duty to criticize the party. It is, after all, our party, and how are we supposed to improve it if we don't know what the problem are? And you can use the excuse that the 'Pugs were in power, etc. etc. all you want, but it still won't cover up the fact that the Dems went along to get along on the war and oh so much more. What, you don't think we could have at least mitigated some of the worst of this Bushco disaster if the Dems had at least fought? Well, we could have, we could have prevented at least the worst of these actions, but politics being politics, and the Dems being afraid of appearing unpatriotic or whatever just rushed right out and voted as the 'Pugs did. Sorry, but being the minority party is not an excuse. There are many, many powers and tools available to the opposition party, and the Dems have use none of them.

And frankly, while the "not a dime's worth of difference" meme might have had no credence back in '00, the Dems actions since then have proven time and again that indeed, Nader knew whereof he spoke.

[madfloridian]

50. Then Nader is just like the Republicans as well.

Let us all now pray that we not be hypocrites about this. If he allows and says it is ok to take money and help from right wing groups...then he is not the same Nader he used to be.

[MadHound]

52. That was indeed disappointing of him last election

And part of the reason I didn't vote for him. However the Greens do not take Republican money, and unlike the Democrats they don't take corporate money either. Thus they don't fall into the "two party/same corporate master" trap that the Dems fell into long ago.

[G_j]

72. and Nader didn't run as a Green

last time around, unless my memory has totally failed me.

I didn't quite get the Green/Nader linkage in the OPs subject line.

[Inland]

29. Telling truth about Nader IS a part of a winning strategy.

The democrats haven't sworn off winning. That's Ralph's goal, not ours.

And to the extent that it means going over the 2000 election again, we're going to do it. It's our consititutionally granted right to say why voting for a third party candidate is full of shit, and to use the past as a guide to the future.

Yeah, I'm sure you want everybody to just forget. But a shameful and disasterous result isn't going to be forgotten because you would rather people look everywhere but the Nader factor. How voting for Nader swung the election to Bush IS an issue, and anyone who thinks that the election result matters is going to avoid Nader and third parties. Anyone who doesn't, or sees value in the democrats losing to republicans, is going to stay Nader.

Let us worry about whether it's effective or not, since the effectiveness of the democrats is hardly YOUR goal.

[MadHound]

54. See my post #47 above

And you will see indeed that Nader had no appreciable effect on the '00 campaign, and even less in '04. But hey, continue obsessing on the past, and you will forfeit your future friend. It simply amazes me how many people want to keep picking at this scab, while refusing to confront the problems within the party that give rise to Naders, Greens, and other third parties.

Oh, and just for your information, I've given money to, voted for and worked for Democratic candidates, from the street to convention delegate, in the past thirty plus years. WTF have you been doing? Yeah, that's what I thought, so STFU about what I can and cannot worry about, that is not your call. And next time don't assume that somebody voted for Nader or whatever just because they don't buy the spin but prefer to deal in reality. You know what happens when you ASS-U-ME? Yep, you got it.

[Inland]

59. Well, we'll just take that chance, won't we.

I disagree that Nader didn't have any effect, and it's pretty clear that you are trying to make a distinction between a Nader effect that you want to distract attention from and other reasons for the loss that you would rather emphasize.

We'll take the chance that it's all for naught, thanks. The "future friend" would have to be somebody who would rather vote against democrats even if the vast majority didn't agree with any particular position, and then tell us it was all our fault. Fuck that. Making a couple of percentages into a tough sell leads to parties not buying, which isn't at all unusual. The only difference for the Nader and green party people is that they lie to themselves and everyone else about it.

And don't tell me to shut up, dude. You don't have the right to raise Nader's constitutional right to run as a justification and tell the rest of us to shut up.

[rockymountaindem]

32. No, all we're saying is that Nader is at best a hypocrite

and at worst a useful idiot the right, and that people should keep that in mind when they try to argue that he has a point about Democratic party leftist "purity". We're not blaming him for electoral losses, at least not in this thread.

[mdmc]

38. Holla, madhound!

I voted for Nader in 1996 and 2000. I voted for Kerry in 2004. The Dem's got me on board. Even though I live in a blue state, and Nader was on the ballot, I voted for a pro-death penalty, pro-war, pro-drug war, Dem.
Nader was closer to my values and positions, yet I voted for Kerry (the best choice for unseating Bush).
If you are rich, and white, Bush is not much of a threat to you. The Dem's scare tactics don't really work on rich, white liberals or non voters. <-Rich white liberals and non voters seem to respond well to Nader. Why won't they suck it up and vote Dem, like me?

:kick:

[AtomicKitten]

60. you rang?

[leftstreet]

30. I knew more Repubs than Dems who voted Nader

But I'm in a sea or red-staters.

Has anyone ever done an analysis?

:shrug:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Do Democrats receive contributions from RW orgs?

Like the DLC?

[mdmc]

33. Thanks for your post. I don't understand the point of your thread.

I would gladly help Pat Buchanan get on the 2004 Ohio ballot if I thought it would help Kerry beat Bush. This would be excellent, progressive strategy.

Nader has the right to accept support from any sect willing to give it. Th question becomes, "What can the democrats do to get the left in line with the Democratic party?" I think that DNC Chair Dean goes a long way toward that.

I will always be disappointed in the democratic party, for I want the party to be truly progressive and liberal, not a watered down GOP. I will stick with the party, as I have always done, but I will not condemn those that fight for what they believe in.

Far worse then the green voter, is the non voter. Lets go after them!

Peace and low stress,
mdmc

[madfloridian]

35. Then you don't know what is going here.

If you don't understand my thread, then you don't know what is going on here.

It is not an excellent strategy when the groups who are working with him have Republican right wing goals.

And this thread is about far more than Nader or Greens or any one group. It is about those who want to hurt the existing structure without offering anything.

[mdmc]

36. I want an anti-war, and death penalty, and anti drug war

democratic party. BUT I also want my democratic party to be elected and in power. Now would I rather have a pro-war, pro death penalty, pro drug war Democratic party in power, or a GOP pro-war, pro-death-penalty, pro drug war party in power.

I would rather have the Dems in control, because they will almost always be "less evil" then the GOP alternative.

I would love to convince "pure" greens, and non-voters, especially young, progressive non-voters, that they should agree with me and vote for the lesser evil (pro drug war, pro death penalty, pro war) Dem party.

I have bought your logic (voted for Nader in 1996 & 2000 - voted for Kerry 2004). Why can't I sell this logic to progressives and non voters?

I think that "I don't know whats going on here" because "I am actually part of the problem" in that I think that Nader is doing a world of good for the progressive movement. I think that it is very important to have these ideas out there.
That being said, I guess that Kucinich and Sharpton "got these ideas out there" and did so without hurting the Dem chances for victory. And I "guess" that they articulated the progressive , liberal, radical message that made Nader's run unnecessary.

Did I get the point of your post?

[madfloridian]

37. I am not sure.

We agree on some things. I was willing to be progressive and perhaps join 3rd party, but I have seen it in action now and I won't.

I used to respect Nader's consumer advocacy, but that is NOT what he is doing.

This post is about intolerance overall. If you got that, then you got what I was saying.

It is about intolerance of moderate people who want to be sensible and achieve possible goals.

[mdmc]

44. This is about intolerance?

I still don't get it. My belief that having someone out there talking' liberal, radical, and progressive is good. This is what I want from democracy. I vote for the more viable Dems, but I love the green platform, and want it to be the Dem platform.

The Dems can create our platform anyway they choose, I just think that if it is very different then the green platform, then the greens should run a candidate to present their ideas. Do you disagree?

[madfloridian]

49. No, you are not understanding at all.

Let the Greens be Greens, but they do not have to hurt the Democrats to do it. If the Greens or any third party take support from right wing groups with the Bush agenda.....then they are just plain wrong.

[eggman67]

39. I think one of the main points about Nader

Is that it's fine for him to take help wherever he can find it, but if he's gonna take it from Republicans then he shouldn't be pointing the finger at Democrats and yelling that they're in bed with the Republicans.

[Jujiman]

46. Corporatism Has Taken Over Both Parties

Was the message that I got from Nader.

Now, especially after last weeks Alito debacle, it looks like he's correct.

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

51. And Nader is being corporatist as well, if you follow my posts.

So we all all corporatists, but some are in more denial than others. Read the links I gave.

[Jujiman]

56. The Denial Is Not Hearing Or Understanding Carters Words

Jimmy Carter himself thinks that Al Gore won the 2000 election.

Your whole thread seems so difficult to relate to.

I mean SO WHAT? So what if these BIT players were helped A LITTLE?

It still is, in comparison to the FACT OF ELECTION THEFT TWICE NOW,

A very small deal. Reading the links does not convince me that

Nader is a Corporatist. Some small people who worked for him were helped

by Rethugs, is NOTHING in comparison to the fact that Clinton passed a

Corporatist NAFTA, that was a REPUBLICAN AGENDA...supported by the DLC.

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

58. I am showing the hypocrisy and intolerance of some progressives.

who hold the Democrats to impossible standards, yet they don't demand the same of the 3rd parties.

[Jujiman]

63. I see...thanks!

Since I'm new here...i haven't really seen those kinds of progressives.

It seems to me that:

1. Which "impossible standards" are we talking?
Having a spine? Not selling out to NAFTA & GATT?
Wefare reform? China permanent most favored trade partner?
More recent, Alito cave in...Seriously...which standards?

2. Don't demand the same of 3rd parties? That is a conjecture...
I haven't seen evidence of that. IF a green ever got a high office,
I'm certain that most greens would POUNCE if given a chance!
Saying nothing of everyone else.

Once again, this still is unconvincing. I just don't see how this taints
a man like Nader, who may not be perfect...but please be honest.
He's never had the power to really mess up bad like the DLC folks who
sold us out...NAFTA!!CHINA!!"FREE" TRADE!!ALITO!!:eyes:

[madfloridian]

41. Someone said what was this post about. It is about intolerance....

in this case it is about the intolerance being shown here lately of moderate Democrats.

That is what this post is about. It is pointing out that no one, absolutely NO one is pure, perfect, or ideal.

What some are doing here by posting threads to attack the very Democrats who are trying to change things has turned my stomach. It has turned me right back to moderate when I could have gone the other way.

It is the intolerance of a party who is trying to find their way back. I think only a few like Dean realized what was happening...because they were outside of the DC loop. I think many were caught up in things before they realized it was almost too late.

I am all for demanding more, and I will. I am not for destroying and harming, and I won't.

[mdmc]

45. If this is about tolerance

Why not do an appreciation thread for all those "moderate" (Conservative) Dems that refused to support the filibuster. Most of those Dems have very calculated reasons for not supporting a filibuster, such as they wanted to be elected by their moderate constituency. Why not shout out to Zell Miller?

All of these conservative Dems are a world better than their GOP alternatives, including Zell Miller.

Why not support these Dems instead of posting about 2% Nader?

[madfloridian]

48. I do, all the time.

Maybe you need to read more of my posts. This post is about intolerance that has been directed here toward me and others like me who would like to be more progressive....but are turned off when they try to get others to withhold support.

[mdmc]

55. I just know you as a fellow Dean supporter

I can't remember a shout out to Zell Miller, or Joe Lieberman thread by you, or anyone here at DU.

I am very sorry for me and my "holier than thou" progressive buddies getting you down. DU is my place to vent, and my "God Bless Ralph Nader threads" must anger those who blame Nader for our current state of the union. I am trying to be less confrontational, and more agreeable here at DU. I really have to avoid these Nader threads, and Hillary threads...

I spend all day with GOP + Conservative Dems in real life. These are good people that do not think that progressive values are American. It is frustrating. I come to DU to be with lefties!

If you are trying to preach tolerance, perhaps attacking (somewhat) progressive (since he takes right wing money, but not their positions) Nader is not the best approach. Please continue to do what you feel is necessary to support DNC Dean and the Dem party. I, too, will do the same.

wE NEED TO:
CONVINCE NON VOTERS TO gotv
convince progressive to get on the bus (stand behind thee!)
convince the Dem party to be a party of opposition to the corporate run political scene.

Peace!

[madfloridian]

57. No, sometimes one needs to counterattack.

Sorry but that is the way it is. Perhaps you missed the threads where people just assumed I was helping Bush get the power.

NO, I did not. I worked hard. I have been called names because I started getting moderate again because some of the so-called progressives I used to respect called me names and implied I was not doing my job to help the country.

[mdmc]

64. well this Nader apologist appreciates what your doing

Good luck and best wishes on reforming the DLC. God Bless You, mad floridian. You are one of my favorite DU'ers - especially when your not caring about 2.6% Nader... Now on to my shout out to the DLC thread...
Peace and low stress,
mdmc

[madfloridian]

66. Cute one..clever....I do NOT like DLC...I advocate for DNC. Clever one.

It was not a good thing to do, to pretend to misunderstand so thoroughly.

You should be ashamed. Stand up for what you believe, and quit misinterpreting what I say.

[mdmc]

70. my bad... really... I don't think that the DNC needs reforming

I am sorry for my post.

[Jujiman]

53. I Salute The "Moderate Democrat" Zell Miller

Salute you Zell, and all you other "moderate democrats", who've done such

a heckava job steering the Democratic Party to the RIGHT!

We really do notice you all...

:sarcasm:

[WildEyedLiberal]

61. Nader also took Swift Boat liar money

What a principled guy, unlike that corporate whore Kerry! It's good to know there are people in politics who don't compromise their principles and beliefs just for a little campaign cash!

:sarcasm: :eyes:

The obfuscation of the Nader apologists on this thread shows just how deep in denial they are about their responsibility for the state of this country and their hypocrisy in demanding that Dems be held to standards to which they don't hold their own "ideologically pure" candidates.

[madfloridian]

62. Barbara Ehrenreich, "It's Over Ralph,"

--Barbara Ehrenreich, "It's Over Ralph," The New York Times, July 18, 2004

All right, Ralph, I always knew we had issues: Me the Led Zeppelin fan, you the policy monk. Me the fervent feminist, you who once dismissed gay rights and abortion as ''genital politics.'' But four years without even a phone call....? I voted for you in, yes, Florida. I lost friends on account of you; I risked death by sporting your bumper sticker well into the reign of Bush.... So I will admit I was hurt when you didn't call me to discuss your plans to run again this year, although none of the other former Nader loyalists I know got a phone call either. Maybe you could guess what we'd say. Because, Ralph, a lot of sewage has passed under the bridge since 2000....

If the first time was tragedy -- and I will admit now, with hindsight, that it was -- the second time is predictably farce. Maybe those years spent wandering in the wilderness -- disdained by Democrats, excluded by arcane ballot access rules -- have taken their toll, because there's been something grotesque about your campaign from the start, when you advised left-wing critics, in words no one knew your vocabulary included, to ''relax and rejoice'' in your run. This while casualties mounted in Iraq and civil liberties evaporated here.

In 2000, you could at least claim to be doing it all for the Green Party. This summer you didn't even bother to drop by its convention. You were in Portland, Ore., addressing an audience of 1,100 (you got almost 10 times as many there four years ago) that was heavily larded with conservatives eager to get you on the ballot to suck votes from John Kerry. When Howard Dean confronted you about your conservative ''supporters,'' you lamely observed that ''Republicans are human beings too.''

Republicans are the least of it. You've been kissing up to the Reform Party, which ran paleo-right-winger Pat Buchanan the last time around.... I loved you for your principles ... and now you've tossed them for a few more moments in the sun.

http://query.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F20A15FC395E0C7B8DDDAE0894DC404482

http://www.hereinstead.com/NADER-NEWS-JULY-2004.htm

[mdmc]

65. that poor lady

we are all human beings, even the gop...

[mdmc]

67. DLC! DLC! Nader is wrong, the DLC is right!

where is the defense of the DLC!

[madfloridian]

68. Do you know the difference in the Democratic Party and the DLC?

I don't think you do. The DLC is a think tank formed in the 80s to get money from corporations and not need the traditional parts of the party like minorities or unions.

The DNC is the Demoratic Party. The DLC is trying to be in control of it.

Get your issues straight before you start blasting.

[mdmc]

69. And is our boy Dean NOT a DLC'er?

Look at the list of DLC members. Now, remove all DLC'ers from office. Where did all the elected Dems go? The DLC is a pretty big part of the DNC...

For the record, I really don't mind the DLC. Sure they are trying to turn the DNC into a GOP-lite, but this is what I've always thought of my party. I will fight the DLC as much as I can, without enabling the GOP. I will fight for progressive third party participation in elections as long as it doesn't enable the GOP.

We need to make the DNC more appealing.

[welshTerrier2]

71. you just don't get it, do you ?????

everyone's out to get poor little Howard Dean ... those evil Greens are conspiring against you ... you've finally figured out their demonic plot ...

let me try to spell out for you why your endless ramblings reflect nothing but useless paranoia ...

you have failed again, as you always fail, to convince anyone who believes in the Green Party and is fed up with the Democratic Party why their views on the issues, the parties and the candidates are wrong and your views are right ...

you just don't have a clue!!! spouting all this "they're out to get us" bullshit does nothing to win votes ... got that??? do ya??? let's repeat it because you never seem to hear the message: whether Nader sucks or anyone else sucks is NOT the f**king issue ... your whinings are 100% irrelevant ... they have zero political impact ...

you need to find a way to get your beloved Dean to genuinely reach out to Greens and alienated Democrats ... you need to pressure the Party to recognize and respect all voters, left, right and center ...

where in your accusatory vacuous post are your ideas on how to win back former Democrats who have left the Party???

what the hell kind of political strategy are you peddling ... "Greens demand purity; Greens demand purity; Greens demand purity" ... you think that endears the Democratic Party to Greens who follow the issues and hold deep and sincere beliefs that the Democratic Party has lost its way?? i can't imagine what kind of thought process would lead one to think that further alienating potential voters will help the Democratic Party ...

instead of your endless whinings about what everyone else is doing wrong, why don't you figure out how to win more votes ... that's the way you grow the base; not with the crap you keep peddling ...

[madfloridian]

73. Wow. I did not really say all that, did I?

I think you need to realize that we all have a right to present various points of view. Sometimes you don't like what I post, I understand that.

But the demands for righteousness should work both ways. That's all I mean.

I very much respected Nader as a consumer advocate. I followed his work avidly. But when the group he formed condemns an organization, then he makes excuses for taking money from it...then it worries me.

Hey, I was doing no whining here. Presenting facts. And thank you, hubby and I have been very active here in the redistricting drive in Florida. Getting petitions signed...all kinds of stuff.

[welshTerrier2]

75. the point is ...

the point i keep raising about all those who spend so much energy bashing the left and bashing Greens and bashing those who don't vote and bashing those who have left the party and bashing those who won't vote for war supporters and bashing those who won't give money to the DNC or the DSCC or the DCCC (and will give money to progressive Democrats only) is that all of these people are:

POTENTIAL VOTERS

when i hear you saying that you're becoming a moderate because of the way others are acting, i have to tell you i think that's a pretty foolish way to choose your political beliefs ... i don't choose my political positions based on the conduct of other voters ...

the continuing failure of the Democratic Party is that it seems uninterested or unwilling or unable to effectively reach out to ALL VOTERS ... we have a serious communication problem ... criticizing those who don't agree with you is not the way to win these alienated voters back ... we need to engage them in dialog; not insults ... and we're not doing that !!

[madfloridian]

76. My point is that it works both ways. BOTH ways.

.

[welshTerrier2]

77. i understand that's your point ...

and your point is DEAD WRONG ...

we are asking for their votes ... they are acting based on their beliefs ... it our job to hear their concerns and to do the best we can to persuade them to support our candidates ... they are under absolutely no obligation to so ... those who don't vote or who vote for third party candidates could help the Democratic Party grow its base ...

your posts are a parade of "i just discovered the evil plot of those who are organizing against us" ... i never see anything constructive about how we're going to gain the support of these alienated voters ...

you say it "works both ways" but i never see posts from you raising the question about how to earn the trust and support of those who have rejected the Democratic Party ... if you believe it works both ways, it seems you should be committed to opening a dialog; not slamming the door with criticisms ... and if your view is that Greens and Nader supporters (they aren't necessarily the same you know) or non-voters or Social Democrats or Libertarians or anyone else has to show their commitment to the Democratic Party before we solicit their support, all i can say is "good luck" ... it just doesn't work that way ...

and btw, none of this is to argue that I agree with Greens or non-voters or any other group ... i'm a Democrat ... i believe our Party, and certainly the republican party, does a miserable job engaging citizens on the issues of the day ... i'm disgusted with how little visibility most Americans have to their elected representatives ... my view is that the most important thing elected officials can do is educate the public ... i think they do a poor job ...

those who no longer support the Democratic Party are more than entitled to their views just as you and i are entitled to ours ... we can disagree; we can strongly disagree; we can refuse to support any candidate or party we don't agree with ... but in the end, it is nevertheless the job of our Party to keep the lines of communication open wherever possible ... the bashing parade is NOT the way to do that ...

i'd be interested to hear how you think Democrats can win back alienated voters ... we do want them to vote for our candidates, don't we? or do we see them as evil and hopelessly lost to us forever?

i think it's fine to be critical of those who have left the party ... i think it's fine to strongly disagree with them ... however, i see nothing to be gained by bashing potential voters ... instead of spending time pointing out all of Nader's faults, maybe Democrats would be better served understanding what in his message appealed to those who voted for him ... perhaps some of his themes have a place in our party and perhaps some who voted for him would return if we incorporated parts of his message ...

[upi402]

74. I dropped my Democratic bonds and feel GREAT!

Ralph may not have helped in ousting the national disaster posing in a "Mr President Mans" suit, but he's still right.
Dem/Repubs = two different sides of the same corporate coin.