Official Cindy Nader/Ralph Sheehan Bashing Thread

[Bonobo]

I thought someone should help clean up the mess around here and make one thread where the blind party loylists could hang out together.

As for me, I am old enough to remember that Cindy and Ralph are the ones representing our core Democratic values, so I won't be engaging in any of the mindless personal attacks against them.

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. K AND R

[Old and In the Way]

2. Why lump Cindy in with Nader?

Is she taking Republican money to run a campaign for President, too?

[Bonobo]

3. She would be happy to take their (green as all) money.

Issues count, not labels.

Also, talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

4. They're both independent and not official Dems which upsets some people.

That's why.

[The Count]

132. Nader was never independent. Check his stocks, political contributions. Nice try.

[The Count]

133. Clever attempt to reabilitate Norquist's butt boy, ain't it?

[malaise]

5. LOL

:rofl: :rofl:
:popcorn: :popcorn:

[LeftCoast]

6. Past history doesn't trump present performance.

Just look at Joe Lieberman. I mean...what the hell happened there?

[wtmusic]

7. Those loonies will piss off Republicans if they aren't careful

At least Cindy could work through the proper channels, and respect the president even if she doesn't always agree with him. :sarcasm:

[Virginia Dare]

61. Who cares about pissing off Republicans...

how does it work in their favor to piss off the people who are already on their side?

[Forkboy]

8. Hey,why don't you take your peace loving ass somewhere else!

We're Democrats!

[DancingBear]

9. Fabulous!

Perhaps we could also list all the red herring arguments that the BPL's use to justify their position.

What a hoot!!!

K&R, BTW.

[Bonobo]

10. They have no arguments. They make ad hominem attacks.

Nader is a narcissistic prick.

Sheehan is a media whore, etc.

[Old and In the Way]

13. Nader is a narcissistic prick?

No way.

[uppityperson]

36. And neither has ever done anything good. Don't forget that part.

[Old and In the Way]

11. Looks like Ralph is teaming up with Grover Norquist to spread those

Democratic values. Tranparency is such a strong suit of Republicans like Grover.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3364925

:rofl:

[DancingBear]

18. Is this like Clinton playing golf with Bush the Elder,

or is it more like Hillary being best buds with Rupert Murdoch?

No wait, I got it, it's like Edwards using DLC honcho Bruce Redd to write his "populist" 04 campaign speeches.

I'm sooooo confused -help me out oh dear BPL's, wont'cha???

[Beelzebud]

22. Or like James Carville donating to the Scooter Defense Fund...

But hey, as long as they put a (D) behind their name, they aren't to be questioned or challenged!

[mod mom]

28. Or even worse Carville's role in getting Kerry to quickly concede:

Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)


By M.J. Rosenberg | bio




On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

-snip

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

-snip

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

CARVILLE IS A TRAITOR TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED NEAR ANY OF OUR CANDIDATES OR PRIVY TO OUR STRATEGY!

[MadHound]

35. Worse still,

The defense industry giants like GE and Boeing giving obscene amounts of money to both big party candidates in order to by presence in the WH, Senate and House, all to get their corporate warmongering agenda advanced.

[Beelzebud]

37. Seems a lot like incest doesn't it?

We really dont' have anything but 1 big corporate party at this point, with a few good people in there still trying.

[mod mom]

65. Agreed. :(

[ellisonz]

128. Bullshit.

[Beelzebud]

144. Bullshit? Maybe you need to look into who his wife is....

[ellisonz]

147. No.

Bullshit to DUers beyond the Clintonites supporting Carville...

I'm a Dean supporter. :+

[Virginia Dare]

55. I'll help you out...

Nader is no better than the Clintons when it comes to getting in bed with right wing scumbags, so you can take him off the pedestal now.

[DancingBear]

127. I don't have him on a pedestal

Of course, I don't have him scheduled for a lynching, either.

Nor do I believe he:

a) caused Gore to "lose"
b) is responsible for low birth-weight babies
c) walked on the moon
d) is the fifth Beatle

How about that.

[sellitman]

138. Nader isn't a Liberal

True liberals don't disappear between elections.

If you have been on DU these past few years you would know that.

FUCK NADER

[DancingBear]

149. That is no doubt one of the dumbest responses I have yet seen,

but I have the utmost faith that it can be bettered.

Keep trying!!

[sellitman]

151. Try finding all the good Nader has done these past 7 years

All he has done is bad mouth Dems. He is amazingly silent on Repugs.

Oh that's right.....they help pay his campaign expenses.

My Bad.

Great Liberal, yep.

[Spoonman]

12. The real topic for debate here is

"core Democratic values"
There is such a huge gap between platform ideology within our ranks, their is no such thing as "core Democratic values".

I've read everything on this board from democracy to communism, and few if any opinions have consistency.

So what do you see as the core values?

[Solon]

15. We don't have political parties, we have coalitions...

we have TWO major parties, that's it, those two represent maybe 50% of the population, if that. There is no way in hell that either can ever have consistent "core" values.

[John Q. Citizen]

53. More like 25% to 30% of the population if you look at all potential voters, not just

registered voters.

[Solon]

56. You are correct...

I was concentrating on registered voters. The fact of the matter is that, due to the structure of our system, two parties will always dominate, and most potential voters will think that they shouldn't participate because their vote wouldn't count anyways, and they are correct too.

[Madspirit]

73. You Are Correct As Usual

I used to be one of those who went around admonishing folks who didn't vote with:

"If you don't vote, you can't bitch."

...but now we know, who cares if you vote or not. They will steal the election. I cannot, with good conscience, admonish non-voters any longer.
Lee

[John Q. Citizen]

123. I vote and probably alway will. It's a habit I guess. But I know lots of people who

don't, and most don't vote conciously.

They feel it's rigged, and has always been rigged and they are pretty much right.

Considering the candidate with the most money wins something like 95% of the time, it's pretty obvious to many that the system is totally corrupt.

The two parties do all they can to block ballot access to third parties, independants, and people who would threaten their power.

The Dems have a long history of election manipulation as do the Repos. Is it any wonder that the Dems leadership seems to ignore, downplay, or sit on their hands in the races all around the country where there is obviously skuduggery going on, where activist are screaming for justice, and the party just yawns?

The Holt bill is a good example of Democrats commitment to election integrity - Little to none.

The Dems all signed on to HAVA, a total scam.

And then people wonder why most people don't vote. Cause they aren't that dumb, is the answer.

[Virginia Dare]

63. That's true..

but nine times out of ten one platform or the other will more closely align with your "core" values than the other.

[Solon]

66. True but really, its not that close...

I agree with Democrats about 40% of the time, and Repukes about 0% of the time. The fact is that neither represents my "core" values, its just that one is slightly less offensive to me than the other.

[Morereason]

20. How about no tolerance of corruption and standing against wrong?

I used to support Pelosi, not any more. She is just the "same ol'". We need real leadership. In my mind this is all part of the core message we should be sending to all of our representative. Get out there, and yes, even put your butt on the line for the real America, or get out of the way!

[Beelzebud]

14. Ralph Nader stole my shoes!

[RufusTFirefly]

16. Nader on Gore

From today's Democracy Now

"Anybody who thinks that the Greens cost Gore the election should ask Gore. He not only won the election, he knows how it was stolen from him."

[devilgrrl]

17. He said that today. What did he say then? Where was he with this then?

Huh?

[mzmolly]

74. Nader on Gore:

"Nader, a veteran consumer advocate and long time environmental activist, has been relentless in his criticism of Gore. Nader has charged that Gore would no better protect the environment as President than would Bush. The Green Party candidate has referred to Bush as "nothing more than a big corporation running for President disguised as a person."

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45c/055.html

Nader is a lying hypocrite and anyone that gives him any credibility at this point, is an idiot.

[bvar22]

91. Gore on Nader:

In an interview with Jon Stewart Gore said: {paraphrase}
The loss was not Nader's fault. It was my (Gore) fault for not spending time convincing Nader supporters that they should vote for me.

[RufusTFirefly]

106. Exactly!

Kudos to President Gore.

When something like the Nader campaign starts siphoning off voters, the solution is not to trash the candidate or brand the voters as traitors. It's to start asking questions. Why are these people voting for him instead of me? What do they believe, and how does it differ from what I believe? What if anything should I do to adjust or refine my campaign or message? People who choose to demonize a segment of the voting public that used to be an integral part of the Democratic Party instead of asking questions, listening, and learning are making a fatal, tragic mistake.

To his credit, Gore never played the blame game. (The same can obviously not be said for some of his supporters though.) And I think he's showing how classy he is even now by assuming the blame himself instead of blaming his handlers who really hamstrung his message and hid his greatest strengths.

[Moochy]

108. Gore: "It was my (Gore) fault for not spending time convincing Nader supporters "

:kick: worth repeating.

[Warren DeMontague]

142. And what's Nader's excuse for 2004? nt

[MuseRider]

19. Thank you!

Now they never have to learn, learnin is hard work ya know. They can just make stuff up and get their hate on without being upset by the facts and we don't have to cope with the mess. :thumbsup:

[hfojvt]

25. There are facts in this thread?

Nader sycophants have facts? Or do they just love to bash other DUers?

The obvious facts are these: Gore 266 Bush 271. Bush (FL) - 2,912,790, Gore (FL) 2,912,253, Nader (Fl) 97,488.

Here's another fact. Nader spent alot of time bashing Gore

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20000812/ai_n13866479

from before election 2000:

"Nader is untroubled by the prospect of helping bring on the dark night of a Bush presidency. The notion that "worse is better"- worsened conditions in the near term will be a catalyst for better in the long run-is a hardy perennial in politics. "Nach Hitler kommen wir" (after Hitler, we come) was the slogan of German Communists who, thinking dialectically, reasoned that Hitlerism would provoke a socialist revolution. Nader believes that if Gore loses, especially after casting his lot with the Lieberman tendency, Democrats will repent their centrism and recur to real liberalism."

And he is, apparently still untroubled by the fact that he did bring on the Bush Presidency.

Maybe Cindy should ask him why, since he helped elect the President who started the war that killed her son.

[MuseRider]

29. Maybe but I have not read through it.

There were facts in another thread started by an OP that was totally ignorant about the contributions of Ralph Nader.

I call bullshit but then we are both entitled to our opinions. Yes, sometimes things have to get downright mean, nasty and dark and oppressive to wake the masses from their sleep and teach them that Democracy is not free, it is messy and it requires them to pay the fuck attention. It ain't pleasant for the rest of us who do pay attention and our job is to keep it from totally falling apart if we can while the stuporous among us wake up and figure it all out. Of course that is just my opinion and I am pretty sure you will not agree. If it takes 100 Naders and 100 Sheehans to move the Democrats from their unresponsive position then I say whatever it takes but then I am not a party before country person and I do not believe the Dems have been doing us any favors in a long while. They WORK for us and very few of us are being represented. It does not help that there is not a media outlet available to the people in the country who speak from both sides of an issue.

[bonito]

21. K&R n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

23. Neither represent ALL of our core progressive values.

Cindy Sheehan represents the "get out of Iraq at all costs" value, where as Ralph Nader represents the "get corporate dollars out of politics" value. Unfortunately, they care about little else, and I have no use for single issue people.

[ellisonz]

129. And neither one of them actually gets it done!

The only way we're going to get out of Iraq is to pressure the GOP Senators with imminent electoral defeat and George W. Bush with impeachment and conviction. Barring breaking either one of those thresholds we need to elect a Democratic president, and even then, it's still not as simple as the hysterical one's would have us believe. This war is a mess, but the reason we're there is both because of the neo-con's and because of the ineffectual "peace movement" that made it more difficult for Democrats on Capital Hill to represent the voice of reason in opposition to a blundering, foreign endeavor. Thucydides and Tacitius are rolling in their immortal graves.

:argh:

[Bitwit1234]

24. I beg to differ about Nader

He used to be one of the most consumer friendly guys out there. But I think he got a republican boost the first time he ran for president and he jumped over to the dark side...His ego exploded. He's not even an effective consumer advocate anymore.

[zalinda]

26. This is comparing apples to oranges

Sheehan has every right to run against Pelosi, but I think this is more of a bluff than anything else. Pelosi does not have the right to appoint judges, does not have any real power at all except for HER position in the congress. If Sheehan won she would be one of over 400 reps in congress and would not wield much power.

To compare Nader and Sheehan is disingenuous at best, and bear baiting at worst.

zalinda

[Virginia Dare]

58. To compare either one of them to any national Democratic politician..

is disingenuous as best.

[mod mom]

27. I don't get it. Many of the same folks who rant on how the republicans are brown shirts

are willing to act the same way when it comes to challenging Dem leadership. There is corruption in both parties (but obviously rampant in the GOP) and it's time for the people to push the government toward what it right. If they don't want to lead, then challenge them! Enough already of living with criminals running the country. IMPEACH!

[Virginia Dare]

59. How do you change the Democratic party by alienating them..

that's the part I don't get..:shrug:

[mod mom]

70. you show them that the people want real change or we are not going to support

them. They need to understand that they work for the people and not the huge corporate money machine. They need to work in OUR best interest or they won't have our support.

[ananda]

30. I love Cindy and can't stand Ralph Nader.

So sue me. ;-))

[cgrindley]

31. I agree

Ralph and Cindy's democratic credentials are impeccable.

[Fierce]

32. Union-busting is a core Democratic value?

No, it isn't. Even when St. Ralph does it at his own magazine.

[mzmolly]

76. Woot!

THERE IT IS!

:toast:

[uppityperson]

33. Thank you. No one is totally good or bad.

[philosophie_en_rose]

34. Have fun roasting marshmallows over your flaming bag of dog shit.

:thumbsup:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

38. what a stupid position to take. 2 people not even in our party are the true representatives of our

party. :eyes:

talk about utter bullshit and stupidity.

[Bonobo]

41. Can't argue with that kind of iron-clad logic!

Apna khayal rakhna.

[buddhamama]

43. who said anything about the "party"

core democratic values go beyond party politics.

required reading: http://www.classroomhelp.com/lessons/cdv/cdv_definition.html#Anchor-Constitutiona-42383

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

50. Indeed.

Core democratic values my ass.

[BuyingThyme]

39. And I was looking for a fight. Thanks Bonobo!

Vote Cindy!

:hi:

[Peace Patriot]

40. I think it will be quite interesting and a great public service to push Pelosi to

explain herself. For instance, why were the first words out of her mouth--after the American people outvoted the rigged voting machines and handed her the House gavel: "Impeachment is off the table"? WHAT "table"? Who was invited to sit at this "table"? She owes us an explanation. I'm a 40+ year loyal Democratic Party voter and supporter, but I can see the danger of Democrats being unopposed by anything but fascists and wingnuts. Let's get some opposition from the left to keep them honest! I'm all for it. I had hoped that Sheehan would run against Feinstein--a thoroughgoing warmonger and corporatist. There were rumors that she might. But Pelosi is also a good choice, since the Congress in which she is a major presiding official has failed to do what the American people elected it to do.

Sheehan won't likely make much of a dent in Pelosi's support. It's a "safe" district, crammed with rich, corporatist Democratic donors. But she WILL stimulate debate and discussion, of a good kind. Why are our Democratic Party leaders so lame and ineffective? My key question of Pelosi is: Why did our Democratic Party leadership support conversion of our voting system to electronic voting machines run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations? Hm-m? I want to know. And they're supporting it to this day. Are they frightened, bullied, collusive? What? I find this to be a MIND-BOGGLING betrayal of the Democratic Party grass roots and the American people. How can they defend this? And it's not a rhetorical question. I really want an answer. Cuz I think the "trade secret" vote counting is the heart of our problem.

Democrats who dis Nader--or Sheehan--fail to suggest what the Democratic Party's membership should do when the interests of its members--the vast population of workers, the poor, the elderly, minorities, middle class professionals, small business people, environmental and human rights activists, students, et al--are time and again betrayed by the leadership. For instance, Bill Clinton promised labor and environmental protections in NAFTA, and then, as soon as we elected him, broke his promise--an action that has inflicted enormous damage on worker rights and wages, in outsourcing of jobs and manufacturing, in local and worldwide environmental impacts, and in impacts on third world countries. Current Democrats are promising an end to the war. Is this promise any better than Clinton's promise on NAFTA, or LBJ's peace promise in 1964 on Vietnam--which was followed by the slaughter of 2 million people in Southeast Asia, including over 55,000 US soldiers?

Workers, the poor and ordinary people have seen their lives and hopes steadily eroded over the last four decades, while our Democratic leaders played footsie with Reagan on elimination of the progressive tax (the first set of tax cuts for the rich, and shifts of the tax burden to the poor), supported Reagan/Bush wars, cut social spending under Clinton and favored the Corporate Rulers in a hundred different ways, and now are sitting back in the face of massive crime by the Bush Junta, including assaults on our very sovereignty as a people--shredding the Constitution and the rule of law, and non-transparent, privatized, secret, corporate vote counting!

What are we to do? Just keep voting for them--in so far as our votes count at all these days--and sending them our money--in the pollyanna hope that they will change themselves and suddenly stop enabling this fascist coup?

It is a conundrum. And it is not easily solvable. The fracturing of the center/left was what led to Hitler's rise. I don't easily recommend anything that would lead to that. And I think we are probably better off working within the Democratic Party framework than outside of it. But I do understand where Cindy Sheehan is coming from. And I understood Nader as well, although I never voted for him. How do you break up this highly corrupt political establishment at the top of the Democratic Party? How do we get our party to start being responsive to its membership? Some gains have been made. I think Howard Dean as DNC chair is a gain. He believes in the grass roots. I think we have other office holders who are good people, trying to do the right thing. And I don't think Pelosi is an especially bad leader or person. And I have some sympathy for the spot she is, vis a vis the highly dangerous Bush cabal which has seized the executive branch. These are not normal political times. But I cannot in any way condemn someone who wants to speak from outside this political establishment, and say, "WTF is this!?"--and stimulate debate, and force the debate to be about the things that truly concern the voters, like, WHY can't this war be stopped? And, what the hell is our military doing in the Middle East at all? And, how can these criminals in the White House be getting away scot free, after so many crimes?

These questions need to asked. And Pelosi is not going to ask them of HERSELF. And if she is not going to answer them when voters ask, then there has to be a candidate expressing our point of view. And I don't give a crap if the asker is a Democrat or not. I have been given little or no reason to believe that leaders with a "D" by their name represent my interests or the interests of the majority of Americans.

[bvar22]

96. Post # 40 RECOMMENDED!

Well Said!
:patriot:

[PVnRT]

42. Blah blah blah I'm more liberal than you because of X blah blah blah

Same shit, different day.

[hiphopnation]

44. never thought i'd see the day

when cindy sheehan would be bashed around here. what's this DLC, establishment-defending bullshit going on around here? it didn't used to be this way, i'm pretty sure. sure the acerbic, stingy nader debate has always been around, and that's (i guess) understandable. but i remember a time when activists (capital A) were given deference and the utmost respect, especially when standing up to, what I thought, was the common enemy that we all shared.

big corporate
plutocrats
racists
warmongering imperialists

ETC.

I'm not old enough to remember the bulk of nader's consumer advocacy work, and i was pretty pissed at him after 2000 and any more TO ME, he seems like a grouchy old guy, but maybe, just maybe, he has good reason to be grouchy because he's faced with a lazy, over-fed, staid, complacent party establishment that is not willing to rattle the cages because their own interests are too indelibly wrapped up in the system that needs to be dismantled. If I worked my entire life just to see Dems roll over when the likes of Bush/Cheney show up to the white house, I MIGHT BE PISSED TOO!!

Should there be a poll to assess whether or not all of DU is still united on these fronts, cuz I'm starting to get confused, not sure where I am any more. GAH!

:argh::banghead::argh::banghead::argh::banghead::argh::banghead::argh::banghead::argh::banghead:

edit: added word

[Forkboy]

46. Great post!

:thumbsup:

[hiphopnation]

thanks

peace through gimp
i have no idea what it means, but i love it

:rofl:

[slowry]

51. ot but

I wonder if it's related to http://gimp.org/">gimp.org ? In any case, yeah, that is the cutest godzilla evar.

[buddhamama]

54. if i told you

we'd be here all day. :D

[Forkboy]

57. Remember the gimp in Pulp Fiction?

Remember how no one did anything to help the poor guy and just left him there in that room? It's a statement on how society treats the weakest among us.Once we recognize the inner gimp within all of us we can become the society we dream of.

At least that was the conclusion a friend and I reached after a four hour marathon phone call. :freak:

[buddhamama]

60. the poor gimp

i am forever traumatized. :loveya:

[Forkboy]

64. Hey...speak of the devil!

:loveya:

We really need to stop those four hour phone calls.I say we shoot for five hours next time! Who knows what plans to save the world we can come up with!

Ok,we already know what kind of plans we'd come up with. :D

[mzmolly]

95. Cindy is positioining herself as a Democratic Political opponent.

And, she's basing her campaign on "threats." I dunno, she must expect some negativity?

[hiphopnation]

103. negativity?

i dunno, could you elaborate?

to me, she's first an activist. some this morning have suggested that in lieu of actions like cindy's the best way to achieve our collective (are they collective??) desired results is by creating a grassroots groundswell to move the party establishment further to the left. well isn't that what she's doing?!?!

she has not announced her campaign, she has not started seeking donations from party loyalists, she has not opened a campaign office in SF and started knocking on doors and making phone calls, she has simply made a public statement in which she has challenged pelosi to put impeachment back on the table or else...

to me this could be one of two things:

1. the outset of a serious campaign to run against pelosi
2. a tactic to put further pressure on a party establishment (consider the amount of media recognition this woman has, how far reaching her message is, how long before this is abuzz throughout the annals of the MSM) to reconsider their stance on impeachment.

which do you think is more likely? if 2, would you be the source of the negativity of which you speak? if so, methinks it foolish and misguided.

edit: grammar

[mzmolly]

107. Why not get "active" within the Democratic Party?

She must understand that political opponents will be treated as such, no?

to me this could be one of two things:

1. the outset of a serious campaign to run against pelosi
2. a (grassroots) tactic to put further pressure on a party establishment (consider the amount of media recognition this woman has, how far reaching her message is, how long before this is abuzz throughout the annals of the MSM) to reconsider their stance on impeachment.

which do you think is more likely? if 2, would you be the source of the negativity you speak of? if so, methinks it foolish and misguided.

I honestly think #2 is a ridiculous notion and yes, the tactic is open to critique. To suggest that Pelosi will do X because someone "threatens" to run against her as an Independent is mis-guided to say the least. As IF Pelosi will "suddenly" Impeach Bush simply because of this threat, is odd frankly.

Also, regarding #1. Democrats.com suggested today that Cindy is announcing a run on the 23rd. I just wish she'd run in the Primary races instead of giving an excuse to R's to pump money into possibly taking a district that Dems have safely held for years.

This July 23rd, a Monday, Cindy Sheehan will lead a march from Arlington National Cemetery (gather there at 10 a.m.) to Capitol Hill, to the office of Congressman John Conyers to ask him to move forward with impeachment. We will wear orange that day, a color that has come to stand for nonviolent revolution. We encourage as many people as possible to join us, and if you cannot, to phone Congressman Conyers' office that day asking him to move forward on impeachment: [phone].

Cindy Sheehan plans to announce her candidacy that day for Congress, challenging Speaker Nancy Pelosi to represent the 8th District of California. Sheehan's candidacy is motivated by Pelosi's actively blocking the impeachment of Cheney and Bush, but Sheehan won't run if Pelosi endorses impeachment. Please phone Pelosi's office right away and as often as you can to encourage her to support impeachment: [phone].

[hiphopnation]

110. well first, i never said the tactic wasn't open to critique

just suggested that I think it's misguided critique.

second, I never said that simply because sheehan challenges pelosi that this would directly lead to impeachment being back on the table. i merely suggested that by using this tactic, by using her name recognition by making such a statement, that it keeps the "I" word in the eyes, ears, and mouths of MSM pundits and the general public ergo keeps pressure on the party establishment.

this is the first that i've learned that she really does plan to make an announcement for a candidacy so I stand corrected there. But she has also staged many grandiose actions in the past, not all of which she has followed through on (hunger strike, etc.) but all of those tactics have been effective in creating a groundswell of support.

I don't KNOW why she doesn't get active from within the party, maybe she feels the exact same frustration that I and many constituents who have consistently supported big d candidates are feeling with the staid complacency with which they have "dealt" with the current traitors that occupy the white house? it's just a guess, I can't speak for Ms. Sheehan, but she's done a hell of a job standing up to these bastards up to know, and I fully support her continuing to do so.

edit: grammar

[mzmolly]

115. She's becoming less effective because:

this is the first that i've learned that she really does plan to make an announcement for a candidacy so I stand corrected there. But she has also staged many grandiose actions in the past, not all of which she has followed through on (hunger strike, etc.) but all of those tactics have been effective in creating a groundswell of support.

I think she'd be more effective and credible by simply agitating without the grandiose shock value?

Peace hiphopnation. :hi:

Signing off for the day.

[hiphopnation]

118. peace to you

we're all on the same team!!

molly is my sister's name!!

peace peace peace

IMPEACH THE BASTARDS!!!

:hi::hug:

[mzmolly]

120. "IMPEACH THE BASTARDS!!!"

Indeed! :toast:

:hi:

[hiphopnation]

113. ...

sometimes activism outside a party establishment can be more effective at creating change within the party establsihment and there have been many examples of this in this country's history.

:shrug:

[mzmolly]

114. But running against Dems goes beyond "activism."

:shrug:

[hiphopnation]

116. when she announces her candidacy

and it's confirmed that she is indeed running against pelosi, i will be more inclined to share your indignation for the divisive nature of such a move

until then, however, i'm giving her the benefit of the doubt that i think she deserves, and assuming that this is a tactic to rattle cages. effective so far!

[mzmolly]

119. I respect your

position on this.

Again, peace

[nini]

117. My problem is not with her but her rabid supporters

You can't question or wonder about the smallest thing regarding her without her sheep jumping all the way down your throat and accusing you hating her and being a republican loving bush apologist.

My guess is many of the people perceived as anti Cindy feel the same as I do and get nasty because they're tired of being attacked by her followers. It's a shame really as there's so much to agree on that the few issues we don't become the focus of discussion and nothing gets accomplished.

[hiphopnation]

122. people are angry

and they get fiercely defensive of those who are speaking truth to power and standing up against these treasonous bastards in any and every way they know how. you should expect some degree of friction when taking a subordinate position against those who would stand and lead a charge against treason that occurs in broad daylight.

[nini]

125. I expect some disagreement on a board like this

what I don't expect is taking a minor disagreement on methods or whatever and blowing it up into a major fucking deal and being used a a basis to accuse one of being a Bush apologist etc..

That's what makes me crazy and causes me stop listening to them.

[robinlynne]

130. I think it is just a few very verbal people. when people start with "THE PARTY",

everyone else stops listening anyway.

[EFerrari]

45. K AND R

:hi:

[Individualist]

47. DLC detests Cindy, Michael Moore, and all things progressive.

"Without a doubt, the DLC is the most fundamentalist organization within the caucus, the most ideologically rigid, and the most destructive to the progressive cause."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/24/1712/23448

[RufusTFirefly]

62. Yup! You are correct.. They threaten the sacred status quo.

Besides, since our electoral system is entirely money driven, Cindy, Michael Moore, and all things progressive run the risk of alienating the corporations that finance campaigns. Most of the candidates literally can't afford to have that happen. Take money out of campaigns and you will see a resurgence of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, the fact that this will be the most expensive election in history and that the bulk of election "news stories" are about fundraising or poll numbers is ominous. It doesn't look good for democracy.

[Virginia Dare]

68. It's always been money driven..

it's just on a much larger scale now. We've never had a true democracy, candidates used to be chosen in smoke-filled rooms by the party bosses, now whoever raises the most money generally has the best shot.

[RufusTFirefly]

81. Hooray! Why try to change it, eh? That might be -- gasp -- progressive!

Congratulations. Here's your DLC membership card. And this is the secret handshake.

[Virginia Dare]

83. I'll match my progressive activism against yours any day...n/t

[RufusTFirefly]

87. And your fatalism too, I imagine.

"Some men see things as they are and say why. I see things that never were and say why not." -- RFK via GBS

I apologize for the DLC cheap shot though, although subservience to the status quo does seem to be a core tenet of theirs.

[Virginia Dare]

88. Apology accepted..

and I'm not fatalistic, just realistic, I've been in D.C. too long.

[EFerrari]

69. Bingo!

The numbers are nauseating. Why have an election, we should just have an outright auction.

[Warren DeMontague]

143. Michael Moore BEGGED Ralph Nader not to run in 2004. He did anyway.

Sorry, Nader can go fuck himself.

[Sparkly]

48. I do not want Republicans in power.

I do not want Republicans to win elections.

Does that make me a "party loyalist?" Fine.

Does it make me "blind?" If so, please explain what it is I'm not seeing.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

49. Core Democratic Values My Ass. Nader Represents His Own Ego, Not Democratic Values.

And they both deserve to be bashed, though Nader far more for his idiocy and complicity in the debacle we're now in. But even Cindy's latest move is beyond misguided and ineffective, so she deserves her share of criticism as well.

If Cindy can't see the obvious that it is the republican obstruction and influence widespread throughout our government that is the primary and overwhelmingly greater cause of our problems, then she is wide open for strong criticism.

Know what Cindy? Wanna keep fighting? Wanna try and help? How bout you don't try and take down one of our greatest house Dems and Speaker, and instead focus some of your friggin energy where it SHOULD be, which is right at the feet of the Republican locksteppers and Administration criminals.

Get a clue Cindy, please. I know you mean well, and have all the reasons in the world to fight, but for god's sake wake up.

[buddhamama]

52. a brief civics lesson

lest anyone else embarrass themself. :)

"Core Democratic Values"
http://www.misd.net/Socialstudies/coredemvalues.htm

[Bonobo]

77. Thanks Buddhamama!

[mzmolly]

67. So keeping Gore out of office was a "core progressive value?"

My freakin ass!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

72. The "moderates" who voted for Bush kept Gore out of office.

[mzmolly]

75. As did the so called progressives who supported Nader in the swing states

the fool promised not to campaign in.

[Old and In the Way]

124. Wasn't Nader's strategy to run in all close states?

who did that help?

Forget Florida, look at NH-


Republican 273,559 48.07%
Democratic 266,348 46.80%
Ralph Nader 22,198 3.90%

4 Electoral votes....Bush won 271-267.........

[buddhamama]

79. no one mentioned progressive values

certainly not the OP. democratic values! you know those pesky values summed up in those easily forgotten documents known as the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution.

[mzmolly]

84. Ah yes the Constitution. The document that mentions "WE The People."

The Constitution of the United States of America

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America......

Note the terms "a more perfect union," "justice," "domestic tranquility," and "general welfare?" That's what "Democratic/Progressive Values" are about. "WE The People." Mr. Nader is concerned about "ME" not "WE."

[buddhamama]

86. Representative government

Representative Government: People have the right to elect others to represent them in the government.

and people like Nader and Cindy have the Right to run for office if they so choose.

[mzmolly]

92. Sure they do, and I have a right to call out hypocrisy

when I see it.

[buddhamama]

94. we all do

we all have the Right to call out hypocrisy when we see it. this Right is also covered by one of those pesky documents...

[mzmolly]

98. Pesky for some to be sure.

Those who don't believe in a collectively responsible society for example.

[buddhamama]

100. that's a lot of people

about 49% of the electorate to be sure. :)

[mzmolly]

101. And a few who claim to feel

differently than the "obvious" 49%-erz as well. ;)

[buddhamama]

102. the 49% of the electorate that does not vote

can be compared to those who do? interesting.

i am at least willing to give credit to all voters for being an active citizen.

[mzmolly]

104. I was discussing the 49% of voters who vote R,

and the voters who enable them. ;)

[buddhamama]

105. you're mistaken then

on average 50% the electorate votes. there's no way any party is pulling in 49% of the electorate or even 49% of voting electorate.


edited for clarity.

[mzmolly]

109. I am not mistaken.

I misunderstood your original point to mean "voters" vs. the electorate.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

71. It looks like the 15 minutes of hate is now expanded to 30.

The party "loyalists" (aka slaves) have another Emmanuel Bernstein to dutifully rage at.

[Moochy]

78. Its so cute

Manufactured outrage for the win! Ooh and someone gave the court fool a paint program... see "Fuck Nader" icon.

:puke:

[mzmolly]

80. I'm a slave to the notion that politics is about "the people,"

not a feel good moment on voting day.

[RufusTFirefly]

82. But, unfortunately, some "people" are more equal than others...

Long may it wave.

[mzmolly]

89. Indeed.

"Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious." ~ George Orwell ;)

[Matsubara]

85. Well, I'm not a huge fan of Cindy or Ralph, but...

...I hate the unreasonable hostility being directed at their supporters. Cindy is trying to effect change.

Ralph? Sometimes I wonder about his motivations. He often says the right thing, but does the wrong thing.

He promised not to campaign in swing states in 2000, but then did it anyway. He knew he wouldn't win - I respected his protest candidacy, but H he should have urged people strongly to vote dem in the swing states.

[mzmolly]

93. I don't think that Cindy has the same motives as Nader either.

However, I think the impact she has could be similar? I hope I'm wrong.

[rucky]

90. and their little dog, too! n/t

[RufusTFirefly]

97. Winners listen and learn. Losers belittle and blame. n/t

[mzmolly]

99. Indeed, Nader's candidacy in 2000 was a "learning experience"

for ME.

[CreekDog]

111. Sheehan won't run in primary against Pelosi, why not?

Second, Sheehan is living near Sacramento, not in SF which she proposes to represent in Congress.

Sheehan could mount a primary challenge to Tauscher whose district includes Vacaville (I think) where Sheehan has lived in recent years.

But I think an Independent run in SF against Pelosi is boneheaded.

First, Pelosi has voted right regarding Iraq.

Second, is impeachment the top priority or is dealing with Iraq? Both? Okayyyyyyyy.

Third, quite recently Sheehan bowed out of the antiwar movement and even Democratic Underground for a variety of reasons amounting to not being able to withstand the political "attacks". Only a few months later she expects to run against the speaker of the House in a district 75 miles away from where she lives and not via a primary challenge but via an Independent run (ala Lieberman).

You've got to admit her thinking is a bit suspect.

[CreekDog]

112. Regarding Nader in 2000

I phone banked for Gore in 2000 and noticed when speaking to many young, registered Democrats how many of them would say that Gore and Bush were no different.

First, I wonder where they got that idea?

Second, Is that idea true?

Three, Does Nader really share our values?

[bvar22]

121. K&R

I almost passed on this thread, but since its raining outside, I though I would check in for the feeding time at the Zoo.

:rofl:

[ellisonz]

126. They do not represent core Democratic values.

[The Count]

131. Nader? The guy praying for ecologic disaster for political gains of the Green party?

Are you trying to whitewash him by lumping him with Cindy?

[ulysses]

134. I was just thinking,

"Boy, DU really made a lot of progress on the Nader issue during my week away!"

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

135. There you go, thinking again.

:rofl:

[ulysses]

136. it's my downfall every time.

:D :hi:

[Forkboy]

148. Same as it ever was.

:)

[MonkeyFunk]

137. Sorry Bonobo

Sheehan does not represent core Democratic values.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3365802



Right now she's spouting pure right-wing talking points.

[LittleClarkie]

139. How can Cindy represent our core Democratic values

when she thinks we are the party of slavery.

And so those who disagree with you are "blind party loyalists"?

I see.

[stillcool]

140. Good job...

I couldn't stomach reading through the thread, but I should really bookmark this if I ever want to get serious about an ignore list.

[Warren DeMontague]

141. What "Core Democratic Value" was Ralph precisely representing in 2004 when he let Republicans run

his state campaigns and took money from them? When he worked with the right-wing nutjob, criminalize-the-pill, Christian Taliban crowd who were looking for a spoiler against Kerry?

Fucking BULLSHIT. Leaving Cindy and her many good works aside, as well as leaving aside what I believe would be a misguided run for her to undertake against Nancy Pelosi, Ralph Nader doesn't "represent" anything except Fucking Ralph Nader and his petulant ego. Fuck that guy. If he had wanted to "represent core Democratic Values" he would have gotten out of the 2000 race, certainly the 2004. He didn't. Like I said, he knowingly let Republicans run his state campaigns. He took their money.

Let me spell it out for you:

RALPH NADER IS AN ASSHOLE.

Deal with it.

[Zomby Woof]

145. GD is home of the stupid false dichotomy

Being critical of Sheehan or Nader has nothing to do with blind party loyalty, and everything to do with having a brain.

[EFerrari]

146. No it doesn't.

:rofl:

[DancingBear]

150. Well, at least SOMEBODY gets the irony

:rofl: