Nader supporters are completely missing the point

[php1949]

The year is not 2000, or 1992 or 1980. We are in a state-of-emergency.
You are disgusted with the Democrats for being too much like Republicans - they are like Republicans-lite. I resigned from the Democratic Party when they supported the War Powers Act. But before we can begin to change things for the better, we have to go back to the way things were before Bush took office. If George Bush is re-elected, there may not even BE an election in 2008! We must get rid of Bush now. He is like one of those horror movie monsters that gets more powerful with each victim he devours. If he gets re-elected, he will be the most arrogant dictator this country has ever seen. We must elect a Democrat first. Then we can begin attacking the Dems for all their past failures.

[Terry_M]

1. What I'm afraid of

Is that there will never be a "good" time for change. I have a feeling that those who will criticize the incumbent democrat, and most probably the candidate for 2008 will again be told they're only helping republicans.

[php1949]

2. One thing I'm absolutely sure of...

...this is the wrong time.

[cprise]

4. If people are so disgusted with Bush

...then now is the time to present a leftist alternative. They will only listen in an election year.

If Kerry is going to be elected, he has to start sounding like a liberal NOW in order for there to be any meaningful change. This will not happen unless the Democrats' feet are held to the fire.

Otherwise, when Kerry gets into office it will be an endless series of "shut up!" moments from centrists... Kerry will always have that touchy issue to surmount, that nasty media scandal to deal with... "Not Now."

"Shut Up!!!"

[OneBlueSky]

5. no he doesn't . . . he needs to start sounding like a CONSERVATIVE . . .

to point out in no uncertain terms that the neocons in power are NOT conservative by any stretch of the imagination . . .

Credo of a conservative
by Mark Oberzil (letter to the editor)
The Oregonian
02/26/04

I am a conservative. I believe in staying solvent and out of debt.

I am a conservative. I believe in keeping my nose out of other people's business, their nations and their bedrooms.

I am a conservative. I believe in conserving our assets and our resources -- our air, our land, our water. Accordingly, I don't support or engage in wastefulness, inefficiency or lavish excesses.

I am a conservative. I think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Therefore I support appropriate government spending on such things as infrastructure, schools, social welfare and crime prevention, because in the long run it's cheaper and more effective.

I am a conservative. I don't sign on to risky schemes. I think if you give Bob a dollar, it helps Bob, but it may not necessarily help Oscar, Fred or Maria.

I am a conservative. If I am attacked, I respond appropriately and conservatively. I do not swat mosquitoes with dynamite.

I am a conservative. I don't deal falsely or prematurely with facts.

I am a conservative. I understand the purposes of various institutions. It is the job of government to govern, the job of religion to address spiritual needs, and the job of business to secure profits by producing needed goods and services. I do not confuse these institutions.

I am a conservative. I understand my position in the world and that my opinions are not the only valid ones.

I do not have an exclusive claim on what is right, good or patriotic, and those who disagree with me are not automatically evil traitors.

What's really weird, though, is that I've always thought these things, but now everyone calls me a "liberal"!

note to mods . . . as a letter to the editor, this is actually one big paragraph broken up for readability . . .


"This machine kills fascists . . ." Woody Guthrie

[cprise]

3. The point is

...the system as it stands now is BROKEN, and there are no indications from prominent Democrats as to how it is going to be fixed.

The media and Clinton/DLC completely shut out leftists in the 90s. It was rare that Clinton ever got through an interview with an outfit like Democracy Now without telling them to shut up or some other nasty put-down. (OK, those sorts of interviews were rare to begin with.)

How do you attack an elected Clintonite? You will not be heard. At all.

Bearing down on them in an election year is the only way to affect change in a civil manner.

[WitchWay]

6. If things are so bad...

It tells me that I have to bail ship. (btw, I can't tell if you are being sarcastic)

If things have really gotten as bad as you say, I must wonder why the democratic party has been so ineffective in stopping things from getting so bad, I cannot trust the Democratic Party. They are not representing progressive values and they are not stopping Bush. They are not winning elections.

Why aren't Democrats winning elections? At the end of the day, you can't go around blaming all the lost elections on Ralph Nader.

I think that there is a lot of overexaggeration about how evil Bush is. It sounds just like the Freepers who complained of the Clinton evil empire. But the fact remains, that Bush and Clinton are BOTH evil empires. Both are scare tactics and fearmongering propaganda that are used by each party to coerce the members to "buy" into the party and FOLLOW THE RULES. Personally, I think it is fascist and patronizing and I would prefer real debate about real issues and trust in my right to make an informed decision and cast a vote.

[Michael Costello]

7. Fear

I am always suspicious of people who appeal to my fears to try to get me to do something. You could almost say it would be how I sense the difference between people who are on my side, and people who are not. Bush's campaign will certainly be based on people's fears (is it an accident that the convention will be on 9/11 in New York City, the first time the Republicans have ever had a convention in New York?) One half of the US eligible population will not vote, and about one quarter will vote for Bush, so I really wonder how scary it will be if that thought is even entertained by one quarter of the population.

I just look at what the Democrats did in San Francisco - a Green looks like he's going to beat the Democrat (a millionaire who ran on a campaign to throw the homeless out of downtown). In fact, the majority of registered Republicans voted for the Democrat there, and the majority of registered Democrats voted for the Green. And what happens? Gore flies in, Bill Clinton flies in to beat off this insurgency from the left, the camapign is outspent 10-to-1. I wish the Democrats would fight this hard when they are in contests against the right. They may have won the San Francisco mayor's race (in fact, in an attempt to appeal to the left he OK'd gay marriages which might help bring down the national party in this election), but they sure soured me on voting Democrat this election.

If you look at where Nader draws his votes from, <1% of them in 2000 were from people who would have voted Democratic. Why are the Democrats, who are ever becoming more undemocratic, dominated by big business, and moving to the right, so concerned with killing off this left wing movement that will pull less than 1% of voters from them, instead of appealing to the 49% of eligible voters who do not vote, who are, as a group, poorer than the 51% of voters who do vote? I have never gotten a satisfactory answer for any of this. I am not as committed to the two-party system as some Democrats apparently are, I prefer a European model with many parties.