Nader on Thom Hartmann doing - what else? - ranting on the Democrats

[LisaM]

Blames nothing on the Republicans. He seems to come from the school that it's okay to get away with murder as long as other people "let you".

[acmavm]

1. People still listen to old Ralphie Boy?

Why?

[LisaM]

2. I know, I feel like turning the radio off

But I'm curious to see if he'll take callers.

[MH1]

12. Why does Hartmann have him on?

Doesn't seem like it would do Thom much credit...unless he is working him over good...

[jgraz]

3. No he comes from the school where letting someone get away with murder is just as bad

Y'know, the school we Democrats are supposed to come from.

[redqueen]

4. Maybe a couple decades ago.

Not anymore.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. He is attacking BOTH SIDES

just it seems that right now he is attacking the Dems more, perhaps becuase they have not done what they should... something about it's off the table

And I am sorry to tell you this, but the Dems HAVE and CONTINUE TO BE a disapointment

Tell me why they have a LOWER popularity rate than George Bush?

[BrklynLib at work]

6. Nader is an asshole. Why does anyone give him a microphone?

[Tesha]

10. Because he is better spoken than you are?

And appears to have more important things to say?

Tesha

[WildEyedLiberal]

43. Yes, letting Republicans off the hook is very important

[jgraz]

11. Yeah, cuz being an asshole usually prevents you from getting airtime

:rofl:

[MikeDuffy]

7. Everything in your post is a lie.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

[LisaM]

8. Everthing in whose post?

Can you be a little more specific?

[LittleClarkie]

30. Maybe Ralph isn't on Hartmann?

You lying liar you :P

[The Stranger]

50. Cute post, but the original post was a complete smear job.

The sad fact is that Nader was right about the bootlicking, corporate fellating, GOP sycophant "Democrats" with which the true Democratic Party Base is unbelievably fucking enraged.

[HughMoran]

9. Sounds like several posts here on DU!

I had no idea that Nader posted here...

[Netbeavis]

13. Nader: "awe, come on guys, lemme in...please...please..."

[Cleita]

14. I'm listening and I have to agree with a lot of what he is saying.

However, my problem with Nader is not what he says, but what he does. He knows what the far left wants to hear and he says what they want to hear. Reagan did the same with right wing supporters. It's an old politician's trick. However, if you look at Nader's past you will find that many of his actions are very much from Republican ideology than liberal ideology mainly that when it comes to business, business is first and everything else secondary.

Just a note for those of you who haven't selected your candidate yet for the primaries, don't listen to what they say so much as to what they do especially those that are still holding office somewhere. There you will find out if their actions match their words. Oh, and go to Open Secrets and see whom they are taking campaign finances from. That will tell you whom they are beholden to once they take office.

[TomClash]

15. Lieberman + Nader

Two sides of the same coin.

[mmonk]

16. Can't agree with you there.

Lieberman gets elected and with way more democratic votes.

[TomClash]

31. LOL

[jgraz]

22. Hate to be picky, but Hillary's last name is spelled C-L-I-N-T-O-N

:evilgrin:

[jgraz]

17. Well, you've certainly made me curious as to what was said

I'll check out the podcast later today. I'm looking forward to Nader's explanation of his views on murder. ;)

[LisaM]

18. That is HARDLY what I said.

I said that he is blaming all the things the Republicans have done over the past few years on the Democrats.

[jgraz]

19. A caller put it well yesterday

Bush is the dog who comes and poops on your yard. Yes, you can blame the dog, but eventually the owners need to step up and prevent him from pooping on your yard.

Everyone on the planet knows that Bush is a lying, sociopathic mass killer. But for some reason the Dems keep trying to "negotiate" and "compromise" with him. Every time they do, they earn more and more of the blame for his actions.

The other benefit to blaming the Dems? They may actually listen.

[LisaM]

21. Then perhaps he should be blaming Bush's owners

I just don't like his tone, is all. Back in 2000, it seemed as if he was running against Gore, not Bush. In 2004, he took money from Republicans. Now, he just seems to be trying to splinter the Democrats again. And I think at this point, I think most of us would refute his assertion that Gore and Bush were just alike.

[jgraz]

24. I'm at a bit of a disadvantage here, as I can't listen to Thom just now

I'll grab the podcast later today. I'm certain I'll have a few more comments after that.

As far as 2000 goes, there was a sure-fire way that the Dems could have defused the Nader problem: they could have nominated a better candidate. Perhaps a candidate who could have actually carried his home state and wouldn't have picked a right-wing freak as his running mate. Oh, and someone who would have stood up and fought when the election was stolen.

[LisaM]

25. How can you say that? Gore fought as hard as he could.

I was proud of him, but I had many (supposedly liberal) friends who kept following the media line and saying that Gore should just give up. Gore was even on to vote switching in the machines, and people laughed at him for it (there were books out right afterwards by Jeffrey Toobin and Jake Tapper, and one of them thought that Gore's contention that votes could be switched with vote-counting software was "pathetic" - I'm sorry I can't remember offhand which of the two of them said it). And Ralph Nader, consumer advocate? Was he sticking up for the disenfranchised, for the consumers of the faulty voting machines, the people who used the faulty, un-tested butterfly ballot? Not he.

I have to agree on Lieberman, though. He is progressive in a few areas, but this Iraq thing has really brought out his hawkishness.

[jgraz]

26. No, he didn't

He knew the Supreme Court decision was a scam, yet he acquiesced to it, allowing a de facto coup d'etat. He refused to support the objections of the Congressional Black Caucus during the certification of the election.

Many of us wanted him to fight, not to give up "for the good of the country". Cuz in hindsight, it doesn't seem like his giving up did us a whole lot of good.

[LisaM]

32. Why don't you point the fingers at the other Senators?

The ones who could have objected to the Florida slate? I called both my Senators at the time. Did you?

[jgraz]

41. Of course I called them. The response was that Gore had conceded, game over.

I'm guessing that many of them would have had a different response had Gore tried to fight the decision.

[CreekDog]

46. jgraz you voted in the 2000 primaries for a better Dem candidate, correct?

Or do you think it's other people's responsiblity to get a Democrat that YOU THINK is better the nomination?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm?

[jgraz]

48. Were you even paying attention during the 2000 primaries?

There was a better Democrat running -- Bill Bradley -- and he got ZERO support from the Dem establishment. By the time the primaries got around to CA, my vote for Bradley was basically a protest vote against the DNC's choice of yet another wuss-ass centrist nominee.

In other words, it made no difference who I voted for in the primaries. None. The deal was done long before the voting started. More than anything, it was this corrupt nominating process that fueled support for Nader. Gore was a terrible choice, and the choice was made long before the voters had any say in the matter.

Kind of like what's happening this time, hmmmmmmm?

[CreekDog]

52. You were outnumbered in the party in your choice

Don't blame the 'establishment' for the choice of candidates. In fact, I hate that crap. The primary voters voted for Gore and we were not all sheep just following what we were told.

I liked Bill Bradley a lot and thought much of him and his thoughtful brand of politics, though I'd always liked Gore too.

But frankly, I voted for Gore, not because of the establishment, but because I thought Gore was immensely qualified, had good judgement and honestly, just seemed to have a hell of a lot more fire in the belly to run for President. And when Gore was working his heart out that last night in Florida, I knew we chose the strongest candidate.

And by the way, if to you Gore was the lesser candidate, how stupid is it that Nader was where the Bradley voters went when Nader was a far lesser candidate than Gore.

And what the hell was a primary for if the plurality of voters in the primary don't decide who gets the nod.

By the time Gore won California, it was because he had the most votes, but remember that in 1992, Brown nearly tied Clinton, in 1984 Hart beat Mondale --but in 2000, it wasn't even close, Gore trounced Bradley in the primary because he was the far stronger candidate who did a better job convincing primary voters that he was just that.

And anyone who thinks Bradley was a better choice than Gore I can deal with, but not if that same person thinks Nader was a better choice than Gore. That was BS and such a person cannot be reasoned with.

And by the way, I was sure as hell paying attention in the primaries and I vote my ideology which means that if my first choice doesn't win, the Democratic standard bearer is still my choice in the general election, because no third party or other party is going to do as much for the things I believe in as the Democrats. While that's not a guarantee forever and ever, it has been the case for decades and with the current choices is still the case whether it be Edwards, Hillary, Obama or Kucinich (whom I don't like but would vote for in the general if he could get himself the nomination).

[jgraz]

29. Let's try another analogy

Say every night your dad comes home, he gets drunk and beats the shit out of you. While this is happening, your mother cowers in the corner. After your dad passes out, mom cleans you up, tells you it's going to be all right, and puts you to bed.

Her family constantly tells her to get out, to take you with her, or to call someone for help. They offer to help her leave, to put her up at their place -- in short, they give her many options to remedy the situation.

Your mom does none of this, instead buying your dad's line that he's really sorry and THIS TIME he really really means it. He promises never to do it again, tells her he's really a nice guy deep down and she forgives him.



Now, the next time dad beats the shit out of you, who's fault is it?

[frylock]

33. the truth can be a bitter pill to swallow

[Cha]

35. I always blame the owner

if I nearly step in some shit while I'm running..a big owner of buSHIT is the corporatemediawhores.

The dinos are doin' shit to help our country.

[depakid]

44. Well, in case everyone has been asleep

Democrats share A LOT of the blame- and history isn't going to be kind to them.

[Bitwit1234]

20. What a different story on Bill Maher's show

he told the truth, he did not once blame democrats. He sounded like the old "Ralph". Guess it depends on whose show he is guest on.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KG]

28. for the loyalists, it is easier to lie about nader than face the truth about the dem party.

i used to be disgusted by it, but now i'm just amused. :eyes:

[frylock]

34. word up..

and as far as that goes (loyalists), Ralph was dead fucking nuts on the lack of difference between the two partys.

[Gold Metal Flake]

39. Well, I simply object to the nonfactual description.

One can object to Ralph Nader without attacking Thom Hartman and mischaracterizing the segment.

[The Stranger]

27. Was he ranting on TRUE DEMOCRATS or ranting on WAR PARTY "DEMOCRATS"?

Wake up regarding the distinction.

[Greyhound]

36. He didn't mention the Republiks, because they are doing exactly what they

have always said they would do. Do you talk about how the fish are constantly swimming? It's when something that claims to be a fish starts to fly that it is noteworthy. He's worked against the fascists for his entire life, it's when the people that are supposed to be fighting fascism turn out be fascists themselves that he calls them on it.

None of the shit that has happened in the last 30 years that has ruined this country could have happened without a large number of Democrats giving it their seal of approval.

Wake up and smell the money.

[Odin2005]

37. Fuck Nader. Shame on Thom for giving that bastard a soapbox.

He and his supporters remind me of the German Communists that refused to ally with the German Social Democrats and stand in the way of Hitler's rise to power because they thought that Nazi rule would make things so bad in Germany that it would lead to a Communist revolution.

[jgraz]

42. Hartmann has guests from Cato, Rand and Heritage every week, and you say SHAME for Nader?

What kind of logic is that?

[Odin2005]

51. I don't want Nader getting air time.

I hope nearly all progressives know CATO and the Heritage Foundation are full of shit, so them getting airtime on Hartmann doesn't hurt anything. Nader, unfortunately, still seems to get a lot of love from many progressives.

[jgraz]

53. So your solution is censorship?

Sheesh - and people wonder why Democrats have so much trouble winning elections. :banghead:

Here's an idea: how bout we make the Democratic Party more attractive to progressives so they don't have to go elsewhere for a candidate that represents their views?

[Gold Metal Flake]

38. The statement "Blames nothing on the Republicans" is grossly in error.

Why would you write it? I must assume you did not actually listen to the interview. I see other posters who did listen to it agree with me. So why make such a statement?

[libodem]

40. Anybody say

Fuck Nader, yet?

[jgraz]

45. Listening now...Nader opens by eviscerating *

He first talks about *'s politics of fear, Cheney's corruption. He also slams Congress for ceding its authority to declare war.

He tells the truth about the Democrats. They could have stopped many of *s excesses but they didn't.

His continual message: Bush and Cheney are the villains and the Democrats are letting them get away with it. How is that not blaming the Republicans? He's saying the Democrats should fulfull their constitutional duty and stop these monsters. I fail to see why anyone would have a problem with that.

[Gold Metal Flake]

47. Why bring facts into this?

Nicely done, jgraz. :toast:

[jgraz]

49. Lisa, I think you need to give Nader's segment a re-listen

I know some people hear his voice and just see red, but he made a lot of sense during that interview. He put the blame squarely where it belonged: mostly on Bush & Cheney and partly on the Dems for letting them do it. No fair-minded person could argue otherwise.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

54. I think blaming the GOP is a given, he's going to step two

Ralph is addressing the 'what the hell do the dems do about it" question

[burrowowl]

55. One rants on the Dems hoping that they will do SOMETHING!

No need to rant on Repukes we all know that that willcontinue into path of destruction.