Nader and Cindy...a Re-Think!

[Madspirit]

No, no, you don't need to lock the thread. I don't mean re-thinking voting for Nader. The truth is, I would rather hit myself in the head with a brick than vote for that man. I don't like him. I used to. He did some cool consumer advocacy stuff. I even had a friend who was a Nader Raider. That said, I haven't liked him for years. I think all politicians are fairly full of ego but Nader's is truly the size of Dallas.

I, however, have made some grievous errors in my reasoning. I have always jumped into "hate Nader" threads with both feet. I have ranted and raved about him and I have blamed him for the Gore loss. I have even blamed him for the war. If we blame him for the first, the second follows.

A short but pertinent digression. As someone with a mental illness, one that I have even been hospitalized for, I am acutely aware of condescension, of people patronizing me, even infantalizing me. "Don't pay any attention to poor Lee. She's just crazy." There is not much I hate worse than being condescended to. I am not an infant.

What was the digression about? It was about us infantalizing a whole group of voters. The truth is, it doesn't matter what Nader does. It doesn't matter if he runs for office. It doesn't matter if he dances with the Rockettes. He alone couldn't cost us any election. That required fully adult people, capable and able, voluntarily going and voting for him. I am fairly sure he did not go to any door and say, "If you don't vote for me I'm going to hurt your mama." Registered voters, adults, all by themselves, went to the polls and punched the Nader chad.

...and it's the same with Cindy and Pelosi. Cindy cannot do anything to Pelosi unless fully informed adults go and voluntarily vote for her.

So maybe we could address what WE are doing to send so many people packing. That's what adults would do. I think. : > Why are people so willing to flee and vote for someone even at the expense of helping to put a Republican in office? What ARE we doing wrong?

Lee

[Frances]

1. Your question What are we doing wrong? is a good one.

However, I think a certain number of people are genetically programmed to vote Republican.

I think a certain number of people are genetically programmed to be spoilers and not vote for their overall best interests in order to maintain that they are holier than everyone else.

[Madspirit]

2. In My Re-Think...Maybe they are holier than everyone else...n/t

[Frances]

6. Is a it holy to enable someone like Bush

to start a war and kill thousands of people? Not in my book.

[Madspirit]

10. No...

You're right, they certainly are not holier. Still, at some point, if people feel SO sold-out by a party, they are going to leave. ...but you have to blame the voters not Nader. He didn't twist their little arms. He just was.
Lee

[AndyTiedye]

3. That Isn't Actually True

Just by being on the ballot, Nader made the election easier to steal.
In addition to however many votes they could believably switch to Bush,
they could switch a few more to Nader.

Not to mention Nader actively campaigning against Gore in the swing states.

Senility is a terrible thing.

[Madspirit]

5. Wow...way to ENTIRELY miss a point

Nader made no one vote for him. People are responsible for their own votes. Real adult humans had a choice. They could have just as easily NOT voted for him.
Lee

[AndyTiedye]

28. Your Choice is Taken Away When Your Vote is Stolen

The election fraud aspect does not require anyone to actually vote for the 3rd party candidate,
nor does it imply that said candidate was in any way complicit in the election fraud.

It does increase the number of votes they can change before it becomes obvious.

[The Stranger]

8. But what Ralph Nader was saying was exactly right, and Cindy Sheehan is proving that.

The Democrats, by continuing to fund the illegal, torturous and murderous war, by falling into line and refusing to include legislation that prohibits more illegal action against Iran, and by taking impeachment "off the table" -- are making themselves seem an awful fucking lot like Republicans.

And that is what Ralph Nader told us all along.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. Well, he could have said it without being on the ballot. No? nt

[AndyTiedye]

21. No Difference Between Bush and Gore? That Is What He Was Saying

Could two people possibly be more different than Bush and Gore?

[The Stranger]

24. Actually, he said no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Not to mention the fact that Gore had a now-notorious running mate you are conveniently avoiding. And that running mate would have been Vice President.

[Madspirit]

25. Irrelevant

He still didn't make people vote for him. They did that all by themselves.
Lee

[jpgray]

4. Fully informed adults can recongize their valuable activism while criticizing their moronic strategy

Like me! Nader and Cindy have every right to run, but attacking and/or defeating Democrats seems less likely to do good than attacking and defeating Republicans. Maybe that's just me, but I think once we have a larger majority that has actual power it's -more- timely to offer the most serious challenges if they deviate from the wishes of their constituents.

Put out the fire first, then punish the people who started it, and -then- smack the people that let it burn or fought it too slowly.

[Madspirit]

7. The point is...they make NO one vote for them.

They're not punching the chads. People had a choice and could just as easily have chosen to not vote for Nader. Nader didn't make them. There must be a reason they were willing to abandon.
Lee

[jpgray]

9. They don't. But if they didn't run, they wouldn't split our electorate at all instead of just a bit

And to be honest, we don't need our electorate split even the tiniest bit right now. Too much is at stake (say, SCOTUS?). Yeah, Democrats are moving too slow, yeah, independent challengers are totally within their rights to run, but is it smart? Is it worthwhile? Nader's trotted out himself every four years for a few cycles now--what good has it done? Has it "held the Democrats accountable?" Nope. It just took a few votes away.

[Madspirit]

13. The People I Know

The friends I have who voted for Nader were disaffected enough that if Nader had not run, they would not have voted or they would have written in a name. They were completely alienated by our party.
Lee

[jpgray]

15. The people you know are hardly a relevant sample in a national election

Like it or not, Gore and Nader competed for many of the same votes. It's true that many Nader voters would not have voted otherwise, but it's not true of all.

[Madspirit]

23. They're as relevant as any other sample

Do you know my friends or something?

Lee

[buddhamama]

11. i know only this...

there is no conceivable reason why the Democrats should be defeated by Republicans or a third party. on average 50% of the electorate doesn't vote. the votes are there to win every election, hands down. the Democrats need to find a way to make it happen.

[jpgray]

12. It's good to emphasize Democrats must take responsibility for losing voters in any case

It's not Cindy's or Nader's fault per se if they lose voters--the vote goes to the candidate who one thinks will do the best work. But strategically, I just don't see it being effective to hold a tiny majority accountable in this way. Six months with one shady vote ahead of the Republicans isn't a valid basis for such challenges in my opinion. At least, it isn't if you truly want the Republicans challenged or removed.

[AndyTiedye]

26. "Losing" Voters? WE GOT ROBBED!

Those "lost" voters got ripped right off the voting rolls by the Repiglickins.
Said they were felons and they weren't.
Tens of thousands of them. Enough of them to tip the whole election to the Repiglicans.

[buddhamama]

27. i don't disagree with you

i was merely stating that Democrats need to attract current non-voters and end the fear of losses to the Republicans and third parties all together. if they could tap into the non-voting populace they could/would win every time.

[EFerrari]

14. That's a great question, Lee.

:)

K&R

[jpgray]

16. Of course the Democrats bear responsibility for losing votes.

But why set up a situation for them to lose votes? Does that help the most people? If progressive challengers fail to win but succeed in splitting our vote (Nader, though he was a minor factor in 2000) it can have serious consequences. I don't believe threatening a tiny majority that hangs by a shred of a single vote in the Senate for not turning the world upside down in six months with independent candidacies makes any sense strategically. They have every right to do it, but isn't it best to fix the messes, get rid of the people who wanted so badly to -make- the messes, and then slap the people who just let it happen or didn't oppose it enough?

[EFerrari]

17. First, there is no chance a Republican will win in this district.

Second, third party candidates make YOUR vote more valuable to your party.

Third, maybe keeping the pressure on helps risk adverse politicians attend to their constituency.

That's what I'm seeing. What am I not seeing? :)

[mainegreen]

18. Now if only more people would get what you just 'got'.

[Madspirit]

22. Epiphanies can be a pain in the butt though.. : >...n/t

[hfojvt]

20. What Gore did wrong in 2000

was get attacked. Attacked by Bush, attacked by Limbaugh, attacked by the M$M, and finally, and key, attacked by Nader.

That's how adults often make the wrong decision. They are lied to. They are misinformed. They are not told how bad Bush is. I worked to defeat Bush in Iowa by informing any readers of my LTTEs of how bad his ideas were.

Nader worked to elect Bush (or defeat Gore, same difference) by informing voters of how bad Gore was, of how little difference there is between Bush and Gore, or between Scalia and Ginsberg.

He did not make anybody buy his lemon of an idea (Gore is as bad as Bush) but he apparently gave a good enough sales pitch to fool some people. In short, Nader lied, people died.

The people who got lied to should hate Nader even more than I do, but apparently "given a choice between changing their minds and proving that there is no need to do so, most people will get busy on the proof."

[Madspirit]

29. I Just Know

I just know that no one made them vote for Nader and the Democrats have to take responsibility for making that many people feel disenfranchised. There are so many ways Democrats, under the guise of cooperating, LICK Republican ass, are cowards, are wusses...

My own issue, as a lesbian, gay rights... I see us pushed to the back more often than not. No one wants to own us. (Hey, if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person.) ...and I have to "eat" it. Every time. Every time my right to live a full and protected life is brought to the fore, it's quickly shoved to the back. There will come a point, I will just say..."shit on you".

Lee

[Madspirit]

30. Self-Kick...n/t

[Madspirit]

31. Gee...funny

The anti-Cindy threads aren't sinking like a big ol' rock. What if no one ran for third party and we still lost. Who then to blame? Hmmm

Lee

[hfojvt]

32. I cannot say what will happen, only what did happen

Nader in fact helped us lose in 2000, giving us Bush, and he never apologised. He still attacked Democrats in 2004. Not the 'worst President ever'. No, he directed his attacks at Democrats.

"Nader and his runningmate Peter Camejo appeared in front of a packed auditorium of supporters ranging from the International Socialist Organization to various citizens' action committees at Mission High School in San Francisco Friday evening to deliver a scathing attack against the Democratic Party.

"The Democrats are running a campaign that's contrived, manipulated and paid for by people with more money than you can afford," Nader said. "You are the progressive movement."

In a campaign fund-raising event for Kerry across the bay Sunday at the Doubletree Hotel in Berkeley, the Democratic Party brought together its liberal base including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender supporters to declare themselves the "progressive movement of America."

Nader put forth his bid as independent presidential candidate earlier this year. This will be his fourth time running for president.

The 2000 Nader campaign came under fire by many liberals who blamed the then-Green Party presidential candidate for stealing votes from the Democratic Party and aiding in electing President Bush.

"We are on a mission to motivate and reassert the sovereignty of the people in this country from the grip of the two parties," Nader said at the rally.

Nader, who has historically aligned himself with movements outside of the two-party system, made no apologies to the Democratic Party Friday, instead denouncing the current electoral system which he said is clouded with corporate interests.

"They're laughing at us," Nader said about corporate America, which he claims drives the two major parties. "Both candidates are supported by large corporations. Both have no question that the interests of the conglomerates come before the people. And, they're laughing at us."

In a press conference following the rally, Nader emphasized his campaign's refusal to accept any corporate campaign contributions.

Contributions by political action committees, for the purpose of raising soft money, were also denounced during the Nader rally.

Nader instead called on his supporters for monetary contributions during the rally, sidestepping what he called the corrupting power of corporate money.

"Everyone should look in their pockets to see if they have any change. Then they should donate it. No one should leave this building with change in their pockets," Camejo said in his speech.

The attacks on Friday by Nader on the Democratic Party were ignored during the Sunday fund-raiser for Kerry. Participants of the event each paid $250 for admission and voiced their support of Kerry's opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment, which was stopped in the Senate by a 50-48 vote.

Pointed concerns from liberals have been directed toward the Nader campaign regarding the campaign's large pool of Republican monetary contributions, first publicized by the Democratic Party earlier this year.

Nader brushed aside these concerns in a press conference, assuring his audience that his campaign was not being controlled by Republicans.

"The contributions by Republicans in states such as Oregon are individual contributions. Individuals who support and agree that our country needs to be rescued from its current state," he said.

Nader saved his criticism for the Democratic Party."

http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=15667

Please note, which party stopped the Federal Marriage Amendment and which party was advancing it. GLBT issues are not advanced by electing Republicans, no matter how little Democrats may risk for you.

"Nader saved his criticism for the Democratic Party." And this was after 4 years of Bush. After the Iraqi war started. After huge tax cuts for the wealthy (including Nader). I try to divide my criticism equally between Bush and Nader. Fu$% them both.

[LWolf]

33. You've asked the right question.

If you want to earn those votes, that question is vital.

My thoughts:

What are Democrats doing wrong? Nominating the wrong people. Nominating the "top tier" candidates stained by corporate money and influence. Blatantly ignoring, deriding, and marginalizing the candidates with the platform and record most likely to earn those votes.

:shrug:

Those whose obsessive need to avoid accountability for nominating better candidates may have too much invested in the blame game to turn away from it.

The other thing done "wrong?" Not fighting, in court and in congress, for clean elections and accurate, verifiable vote counts.

[Madspirit]

35. ...but you're one of the few who wants to answer it...

..or who even owns that we are doing anything wrong. No one seems to care for the discourse, sadly.
Lee

[walldude]

36. It's not just the politicians Take a look at DU

we are supposed to be the "big tent", progressives of all shapes, sizes and ideas. But that's not really the case is it? You said yourself you jumped into "Nader" threads with both feet ranting and raving. I've been called many names for admitting I voted for Nader in 2000, I was even told in a thread that it's my own personal fault that we are in the mess we are in, because I voted for Nader. Now explain to me why I would want to stay on DU and why I would want to vote for a candidate supported by a person who called me a retard? That's Ann Coulter type of shit. Schoolyard name calling and games have no business here yet it's the most prevalent form of debate on DU, while I try to stay civil I am guilty of it myself, when attacked I attack back. Luckily there are a few here who still enjoy a reasonable debate and sharing of ideas, however, the majority of DU has become a playground of bullying and name calling and that is no way to get people to vote in their own best interest. So to answer your question we need to get civil. Sure, you can stand firm in your beliefs, but don't denigrate others for theirs, especially if their ideology comes close to yours.

[LWolf]

37. I'm sorry about that.

Truly.

I have some empathy. I know too well, too personally, how frustration with opposition can lead me down a path that doesn't recognize those opposing as anything but "the enemy."

It really doesn't matter if the conflict occurs between groups or within a group.

It's easy to forget that we're all people, doing the best we can to make choices based on our knowledge and experience. It's so much easier to polarize things into "right" and "wrong," "us" and "them," than it is to find common ground as a starting point to cooperation.

I know it's hard for me, and I recognize it when I see it happening with others.

It IS sad. :(

[phildo]

34. So does Cindy have her site/forum etc., for her political adventure?

Anybody know what it is, if so?

Thanks.

[Madspirit]

38. last kick...n/t