Why is it OK to support Bloomberg on this forum but not OK to support Nader?

[LBJDemocrat]

I've noticed many posts here that have kind words to say about Bloomberg. I personally feel that Bloomberg is simply a corporatist who's socially liberal. Pro-labor, and pro-working and middle class economic policies are just as crucial; but given how Hagel's been rumored as a possible VP pick, I doubt that the laid-off Midwestern blue collar is part of Bloomberg's target demographic (Hagel enjoys a 92% rating by the in-China's-pocket, globalist think tank - the CATO Institute). Bloomberg also played a hand in turning New York City into a playground for the rich, where the poor are swept farther and farther from the center (even traditionally working class neighborhoods like Crown Heights and Fort Greene house their fair shares of yuppies these days).

We would hope that the formerly Republican mayor would get votes from moderate Republican-leaning voters who, for some reason, refuse to vote Democratic, the kind of voters to whom Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani will seem kooky or like another four years of Bush.

Unfortunately, there are many on this forum that are defending Mayor Bloomberg, setting him up to spoil the Democratic Party's chances.

Ralph Nader received a negligible percentage of the vote last election, and there is little to suggest that he would be a powerful force in 2008. Bloomberg, on the other hand, has his own fortune at his disposition, as well as a much less radical agenda.

Why is it, then, that Naderists are threatened with banning, while Bloomberg supporters are allowed to propagandize?

I'd prefer it, frankly, if both were allowed; but if we can't have one, we shouldn't have the other.

[vi5]

1. I'll agree, when Bloomberg starts attacking Dems.....

..like Nader did. To my mind that's the crucial difference. If Bloomberg starts doing that then he'll be in the same category as Nader. If his shtick is just being bipartisan or whatever the hell he ends up doing then it doesn't bother me personally. I'm sure many on here will disagree and that's fine. But Nader's entire raison d'aetre (sp?) was bashing democrats and presenting himself as an alternative to democrats.

Also, unless I've missed something here, Bloomberg has not announced his candidacy for president so until he does that it's all theoretical discussions that have no impact on anything even resembling real life. When he does that officially then all bets are off. But until then, just discussing him or discussing the possibility of him as a candidate has no influence on anything at all.

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. Where've ya been?

>>>I'll agree, when Bloomberg starts attacking Dems.....

..like Nader did.>>>

He ran against, *attacked* and defeated Democratic candidates for NYC Mayor in 2001 and 2005.

[papau]

29. I agree - saying nice things about someone not running is fine - if he runs against us the gloves

are off.

[hippiechick]

2. Because Nader supposedly divided the Dems = baaad

.... and Bloomberg is supposedly going to divide the GOP = gooooood.


:eyes:

[LBJDemocrat]

4. But

If this continues, Bloomberg will end up dividing the Dems. And actually, already, you'll see that he has much more support on DU than on FreeRepublic.

[grasswire]

3. Bloomberg hasn't lied to skew an election?

I don't know the answer to your question. I don't support either Nader or Bloomberg. But I don't have the same animosity to anyone else that I have for Nader. (Not a dime's worth of difference was a flat-out lie.)

[MadHound]

14. Question for you

If you feel as though you were lied to by Nader, and thus are pissed about it, why aren't you pissed at all the rest of the politicians who have lied to you, on both sides of the aisle? There are perhaps a handful of politicians at the national level who have not lied, that goes with the job. So why are you pissed at Nader for what you percieve as a lie, yet aren't pissed at the others?

[grasswire]

39. Question for you

You: "If you feel as though you were lied to by Nader, and thus are pissed about it, why aren't you pissed at all the rest of the politicians who have lied to you, on both sides of the aisle?"

Me: What makes you assume that I'm not pissed at all the rest of the politicians who have lied to us, on both sides of the aisle? Of course I am. You can regularly see me call them out, here. Not all of them have lied in a way that allowed a fascist cabal to seize control, however.

[bunny planet]

5. My problem with Nader is not that he runs as a third party but that he only

runs in Presidential elections and does nothing in between to build a third party or work towards its goals. He purely runs as a spoiler which as we've seen, has been fatally counter productive.

Bloomberg at least, has a record to run on, as a politician whose held office and gotten things done.

[bananas]

7. There is an official DU rule that you can't advocate non-Democrats

unless perhaps in an election where there are no Democrats running.
It's listed in the official rules somewhere.
If Nader runs as a (D), it will be ok to advocate him.
They made an exception to that rule when Lieberman became an Independent.

[LBJDemocrat]

8. So then...

Bloomberg's not a Democrat, so why are people allowed to advertise for him and make him look like he's a good alternative in case Clinton gets the nomination?

[Hart2008]

9. Clinton can't win in a two way race. n/t

[Adelante]

25. This is how it works

Bloomberg isn't running so far. Once there is a Dem nominee and if Bloomberg runs as an Indy for president, nobody will be allowed to advocate for Bloomberg (or anyone else) on DU.

I used to live in Fort Greene, by the way, before it was gentrified. Bloomberg was not in office yet when it changed.

[bananas]

30. Here's the specific rule and a link to the DU rules page

"Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

<snip>

Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.

<snip>

[Donald Ian Rankin]

44. My guess is that it's just that the moderators haven't started cracking down yet.

I would have thought that doing so is a violation of DU rules, although I'm not confident of that.

[Hart2008]

10. Right, Bloomberg is socially liberal, but not economically liberal.

He would fit right in with the DLC crowd.

[LBJDemocrat]

11. Definitely

Therefore he's a big problem.

I am hoping he'll help purify the party, but there's the risk that we will lose.

[Hart2008]

12. What is the difference between Clinton, Rudy or Bloomberg?

Anyone?

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

13. They represent different letters n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

38. Can you define what you mean by "purify the party"?

No, really. Specifically. Which specific constituencies and advocates of which specific positions on which specific issues do you think ought to be "purified"?

[senseandsensibility]

15. I am absolutely floored by any support

for him here on DU.

[Smarmie Doofus]

33. What gets me is the *rationalizations* where it comes ....

... to Bloomberg. "Well, he's not *really* a Republican" has now morphed to "Well, he *was* a DEM previously so he should be held to a different standard than Nader."

They ( Bloomberg apologists) make up their own rules as they go along. ( A lot like their warmongering hero, BTW) It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

BTW, during Bloomberg's Republican reelection campaign against the DEM mayoral nominee in 2005, his DU fan base advocated openly for him with out any interference from the moderators... far as I'm aware... enforcing DU rules.

[Capn Sunshine]

16. Because Bloomberg joined the Democratic Party and Nader didn't

:nuke:

[senseandsensibility]

19. He did?

What am I missing. Didn't they say he was not affiliated with any party. Did that change since yesterday? He used to be a Dem, but that was a couple of flipflops ago. I don't think he is now.

[Capn Sunshine]

21. ok. vague answer.

He WAS a Democrat. he joined the party. I got the impression he re-registered this week, maybe not.

But the point is valid: Nader was never a Democrat was he?

[senseandsensibility]

22. To me, the fact that Bloomburg was a Dem several years

ago, then switched to republik, which he remained until yesterday, and now is an independent does not make him a Dem . Far from it. I think the Nader comparison is valid, but of course you are entitled to your own opinion.

[Adelante]

He was a lifelong Dem until a few years ago

And never much of a Repuke. Independent suits him best, I think. But about DU, I think this is one of those three day stories which will wind down and out. It's a novelty for some people, but I doubt any serious support will come of it here.

[gravity]

17. Bloomberg will divide the repubs as much as the dems

Many traditional republicans are fed up with their own party, especially after the christian right and neocons took it over.

[hughee99]

18. Good question...

I'm not sure what the answer is, but it may be because Bloomberg hasn't announced yet so it's all just speculation, and it's fun to speculate.

[DuaneBidoux]

20. I don't support Bloomberg. But it's always nice to see anyone leave the Rethug party.

[rinsd]

23. Show me a Bloomberg supporter? I haven't seen any support for him.

I've seen people discuss his chances and his impact with various voters but few words of support. Perhaps his position on gay marriage but after that not much to like about the guy.

"Why is it, then, that Naderists are threatened with banning, while Bloomberg supporters are allowed to propagandize"

Because this is Democratic Underground and Naderites and other 3rd parties be they Lieberman's party of one,Bloomberg or Libertarains can take a fucking hike come election time.

[LBJDemocrat]

24. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1148137#1148245

See for yourself.

[rinsd]

26. That was as Al Gore's VP.

Though I was still a bit surprised.

Then again I couldn't believe hard core lefties swooning for Ron Paul in the past few weeks either.

[LBJDemocrat]

27. Paul doesn't threaten the Dems

Paul's supporters are little more than an internet cult.

I'm more surprised by Bloomberg because he actually has a chance of not just spoiling, but also winning.

[Warren DeMontague]

43. "He has a chance of not just spoiling, but winning". Maybe you should ask yourself why that IS.

And maybe you should ask yourself whether we, as a party, should reflect the viewpoints of a majority of Americans- The Majority, for instance, that is pro-choice.

Or whether we, as a party, should continue to listen to chowderheaded strategists who urge us to jettison core principles- like individual freedom, gay rights, the right to choose- in the interest of pursuing a narrow minority of voters that the GOP has pretty well locked up anyway.

[rucky]

28. THANK YOU

I thought I was in bizarro land.

[Perky]

31. I think its a good question but here is the right answer

Nader knew going in that his role wa s to stir things up and while not his intent he winds up being a spoiler.


Bloomberg is not in it to stir the nominees or to wind up being a spiler He is in it to win.

[NastyDiaper]

32. Bloomberg is Mayor of NYC. Nader is a...

<censured> and holds no office.

[Smarmie Doofus]

34. I agree. Bloomberg and his admirers here...

... have gotten away with this double standard long enough.

I say enforce the posting rules equitably.

[Orangepeel]

35. it won't be okay to advocate voting for Bloomberg over the Dem nominee

but if someone believes that he will take votes away from the republican nominee (a debatable point), it should be okay to hope that he runs.

[Smarmie Doofus]

36. See post 33. It *will be* ok. It *was* ok.

But it should NOT be OK.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. Why don't you ask a mod?

Sounds to me like you're having a problem with either the rules or their enforcement.

Frankly, I haven't seen anyone "supporting" Bloomberg. I've seen plenty of people openly support Ralph Nader, even after he took money from far right Republicans and let them run his 2004 state campaigns, and they didn't get "banned".

But, really, Jack. If you have a problem, take it up with the staff.

[illinoisprogressive]

40. he use to be a dem but, I do think if you want to support Nader that should be cool too.

[illinoisprogressive]

42. Is anyone aware that Gore likes Bloomberg and they are friendly?

I found that interesting. never would have suspected.
I am not a Bloomberg supporter, of course but, I just found this weird.
I don't know much about the guy and don't know if he is friend or foe.

[LittleClarkie]

41. Can you support Nader without denegrating Dems?

Perhaps that's the key.

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. In theory it is no more or less OK

Speaking from a user perspective and not site management: The major difference is that a lot of people already have a concrete reason to be mad as hell at Nader already, whereas any reason to be mad as hell with Bloomberg is still pending and speculative.

[OHdem10]

46. I do not know that anyone supports Boomberg--

Commenting is not necessarily support.

Regarding Nader--We saw Nader's few votes lose elections
for us in the past. This leaves a bitter taste in people's
mouths.

Let us be honest---If Nader runs, he might just enough votes
to put the Republicans in power again.

If Bloomberg decides to run, it will be because our candidates
and Republican Candidates are not seen as strong winners.

Commenting on Bloomberg does not equal supporting Bloomberg.

He is news and fun to guess about.

Ralph Nader has done wonderful things for this country and
is admired. He can also cause us to lose elections. No fun.

[churchofreality]

47. Neither is OK as far as I am concerned

This is DU not 3rd party underground.