Commondreams.org launches anti-Nader site

[wyldwolf]

At our new www.DontVoteRalph.net website, we’ll update the Poll Watch 04 study on the Nader Effect from now until the election. There you can also find the name, source, and URL for every poll featured in our study. And we’ll add any reputable poll we may have overlooked that compares the race with and without Nader. In short, if Nader is telling the truth and is helping beat Bush, you can find out there. If he’s not, you’ll know that too.

But after 37 polls, we believe the jury is in, and the verdict is clear. Sadly, Nader’s essential claim for 2004 is another of the big lies of the 2004 campaign.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0527-14.htm

http://www.dontvoteralph.net/

I'd seen this site before but didn't realize it was from commondream.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Excellent...some of the left understands

Of the 37 polls reviewed, 32 show Nader hurting Kerry, while 1 shows Nader hurting Bush (and that by a scant 1%). 4 show no effect.

Nader is not our friend in this election...he really thinks the next progrssive era needs to be brought about via violent revolution...because at this point...that is what he is advocating while harming the people he claims to help...I am not saying all his points are wrong..but his method for change is a dangerous one.

[Nlighten1]

3. Nader makes no bones about not being a friend of the Dems.

He is guilty as charged on just about everything you brought up. And that is why I like him...he understands that in order to break the grip of the status quo we may have to choke the Dems to death to do it.

Supporting the status quo will only prolong the inevitable. John Kerry is not the savior of the Dem party or America. Getting him into office, while a good idea, will not usher in an era of progressive ideals it will just bring about more of the same old same old.

That isn't necessarily a bad thing but we need to stamp out these Democrats who are just a bunch of "progressive" Republicans.

[wyldwolf]

5. You'll lead the charge in that determination, huh?

we need to stamp out these Democrats who are just a bunch of "progressive" Republicans.

[Nlighten1]

8. No...

their voting record speaks for itself.

[wyldwolf]

9. so...

...how does that equate with we need to stamp out these Democrats who are just a bunch of "progressive" Republicans.

Who are "we" and what will "we" do to "stamp out these democrats who are just a bunch of progressive Republicans?"

Will you lead that charge to stamp "them" (whoever "they" are) out?

[Nlighten1]

15. I'm sorry you are confused.

Do I need to spell it out for you? You seem like a bright person so either you don't understand or you are being deliberately asinine.

[wyldwolf]

16. I'm sorry, you are dodging

Did you not say, we need to stamp out these Democrats who are just a bunch of "progressive" Republicans.?

So all I want to know is who you are referring to and who will be doing the "stamping."

Is that so hard?

[Nlighten1]

28. I have already answered your question...

perhaps you need to take the time to re-read what I posted.

[wyldwolf]

34. no you haven't

you said "their voting record speaks for itself."

So who are they and who are the "we" you said will "stamp them out?"

[Nlighten1]

35. I'm sorry...

is this the five-minute argument or the full half-hour?

[wyldwolf]

50. however long it takes you to answer the simple questions

..or are you going to keep dodging them?

[RapidCreek]

59. Seeing as how you are incapable of anwering them yourself

it's odd you seem so insistant that everyone else answer yours.

RC

[wyldwolf]

61. Why should I answer questions I posed to someone?

Typically, when you ask someone questions, that someone is supposed to answer them. He made the statements, he should be able to field questions on them and not dodge them. Right? I mean, really.

Is it so hard for him to tell us who these progressive republicans are and how he proposes to "stamp them out?" Or should I just chalk it up as just more reationary rhetoric with no substance to it?

His dodge tactics would be more effective if he'd just state "I refuse to reveal the secrets of the glorious revolution I will lead to stamp out progressive republicans!"

Read the thread before jumping into the middle of it and making absurd assumptions.

[Nlighten1]

63. He already knows the answers.

His irrational hatred of Ralph has now jumped to me because I dare defend Nader. Once blind to what Nader is saying now he plays blind to what I am saying.

This is the sort of behavior you see at Free Republic when they are foaming at the mouth about the Clintons.


I guess both sides have their share of irrational people who must be taught to think for themselves.

[wyldwolf]

86. no I don't. How do you intend to "stamp out" what you called...

"progressive republicans."

Are you going to storm congress and shoot them?
Is a large part of the American population going to suddenly and magically begin thinking as you do and vote them out?

How do you intend to "stamp" out those you've yet to even identify?

[Nlighten1]

91. You know...

You really need to get out more often or something. I have already answered your question about who these Democrats are and now you are making some crazy remarks about storming Congress and shooting people.

This sort of extremist talk is not atypical of a Nader hater though so I guess I'm not surprised.

[wyldwolf]

93. show me the post where you identified these Democrats?

and since you keep dodging the question as to how you would "stamp out" these Democrats, I just ask if that was your plan. Is it? Or do you have another? If so what is your plan to stamp out these democrats?

[Nlighten1]

95. Read it for yourself.

Just follow the threads with my name next to them.

[wyldwolf]

96. I have and it isn't there

Why not humor me and repost it.

[Nlighten1]

97. Here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1687214&mesg_id=1687361&page=


Jesus. I guess I really do have to spell it out for you don't I?

[wyldwolf]

98. oh, that. Well, no, you didn't identify the Democrats

So, who are they?

Or do I have to ask what constitutes being a "progressive republican" and who decides that criteria?

[Nlighten1]

107. As far as I am concerned...

This conversation is over. I would like to entertain you further but you can't even take the time to read what I said and think about it for yourself. If you can't think for yourself there is no sense in this conversation going forward. You even made ridiculous comments about murdering people so it is difficult for me to take you seriously given the content of your posts so far.

[wyldwolf]

109. ahhh... you left without answering a single question. The only conclusion

is that you live in a fantasy world.

So to review: You claimed there were "progressive republicans" masquerading as democrats yet refused to name them (so there must not be any)...

and...

You said you were going to stamp them out but could not give any method as to how you would achieve that, which must mean either...

1. The country will magically come to feel as you do about the issues and these mystery "progressive republicans" will be swept away in a glorious American socialist revolution...

or..

2. You will lead an armed revolt and remove them, or "stamp them out" by force...

or...

3. You'll just continue to moan and whine and make up excuses for why your little bitty fringe group can't win.

[Nlighten1]

111. Predictable.

This is exactly why I wanted to end this conversation. Rather than discuss the matter you are only interesting in drawing wild irrational ideas about what I said or didn't say.

Thanks for proving me right. Now good day to you sir.

[wyldwolf]

113. yes, it is predictable

You said, "This conversation is over."

Of course, it isn't, as your reply shows.

Rather than discuss the matter you are only interesting in drawing wild irrational ideas about what I said or didn't say.

The problem is you haven't been discussing it. You make several absurd statements and refuse after repeated requests to clarify them.

Who are these "progressive republicans?" How will you "stamp them out?"

Your unwillingness to answer these two simple questions proves you're just blowing hot air and the fact you won't answer them lends itself to my own theories.

Here's another: YOU'LL be elected supreme socialist dictator and remove anyone you disagee with. Does that constitute "stamping out?"

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

6. You know, FDR was a member of the ruling class and was possibly

percieved as a centrist prior to election as JK is now...so history argues against you. In fact, as Secretary to the NAvy prior to being president, he certainly was a hawk in a sense...I am sure the leftists of his time used his relationship to Teddy to argue against him.

Oh...and one of the hallmarks of FDR's terms as governor was taxcuts...he also raised commodity prices by taking land OUT of production....so...we can have a revolution FDR style or a Bolshevik revolt...which do you prefer?

[wyldwolf]

7. You're right about FDR

He was definitely a centrist in his time. He had to fight off attacks from the left and the right.

[Nlighten1]

10. Certainly...

A FDR style revolution would be best but if the leadership doesn't take care of the people, the people need to take care of the leadership. Aligning ourselves with true progressive candidates and voting them into office is the best way.

The people are responsible for making them accountable. They do a piss poor job of policing themselves.

Are you comparing ANY of the current Democratic officials to FDR?

[wyldwolf]

13. why not compare current dems to FDR?

Roosevelt gets his "progressive" reputation because of the social programs he enacted.

Compare his other acts as president and you get a clearer view of his politics.

Would any current dems enact such social programs? I think so if the economy called for it. But I don't see a depression and unemployment figures at over 30% anytime soon.

[Sean Reynolds]

48. Did Clinton?

The economy boomed under Clinton, why didn't he enact social programs? Instead Clinton revamped welfare, a program that has its roots in the Roosevelt administration. Kerry also supported welfare reform.

Sorry, Kerry is NO FDR.

[wyldwolf]

51. did the Clinton economy call for such social programs?

No. Clinton had a booming economy. Roosevelt did not and had to enact radical social programs to get the nation on it's feet again. The 90s didn't need Roosevelt-style social programs but if it had, you can bet Clinton would have.

[Sean Reynolds]

52. It didnt?

What about the millions of Americans that still had no health care? What about the growing line between the middle and upper class?

Seems to me Clinton is partly to blame for our economy today, as well as our social situation.

[wyldwolf]

60. No. It didn't. If you think for one minute that the economy circa 1996..

..was anything like the economy circa 1932, then you're sadly misinformed or slept through history class or both.

This idea that those like you have that unless a president makes the country a socialist paradise he is a failure is stupid.

If you need a reminder of unemployment figures, for example, during Roosevelt's terms and Clinton's, here you go:

1932 23.6 %
1933 24.9 %
1934 21.7 %
1935 20.1 %
1936 16.9 %
1937 14.3 %
1938 19.0 %
1939 17.2 %
1940 14.6 %

... now, under Bill Clinton:

In 1992 - 7.5%. In 1999 - 4.2% - the lowest since 1969. For women the unemployment rate was 4.1 percent -- the lowest since 1953.

African American and Hispanic Unemployment Rates Were the Lowest on Record in 1999. The unemployment rate for African Americans fell from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 8.0 percent in 1999 – the lowest rate on record. The unemployment rate for Hispanics fell from 11.6 percent in 1992 to 6.4 percent in 1999 -- the lowest rate on record.

Still think Clinton needed to enact the radical social programs Roosevelt did? IF you say yes, you're dreaming.

Clinton's economic record was a startling success and the facts and figures show that to be so.

What about the growing line between the middle and upper class?

What about it? It is 2004 and Clinton hasn't been president for close to four years.

During Clinton's terms, everyone was better off than they were under Reagan and Bush I.

[Sean Reynolds]

64. But if the economy is good...is that not also a good time to enact prgms?

I think it would be. Of course, a better economy means more US money and more US money that could be spent on the social problems of this nation. Clinton didn't do it. He sat around during a boom period and didn't prepare the nation for its fall. Yes Bush deserves a lot of the blame for what happened past 2000, but Clinton built that up and created the monster that we're seeing today.

Just imagine if Clinton had brought universal healthcare to the nation; or strengthened social security, medicare, medicade and welfare. Don't you think Americans would have been better off today than they were 10 years ago?
Face it, Clinton was a hack that had so much promise, but didn't deliverer squat in the social realm.

[wyldwolf]

82. bwahahahahahaha...

We were disussing FDR and the social programs he enacted in response to the great depression - social programs he would not have enacted if it were not for the great depression.

Clinton had no reason to enact such programs because we weren't in as dire straights as we were in the great depression.


Clinton sat around during a boom period and didn't prepare the nation for its fall.

The most laughable statement I've ever read on DU. Yeah, Clinton didn't prepare us for Bush so it's all his fault. :eyes:

Face it, Clinton was a hack that had so much promise, but didn't deliverer squat in the social realm.

I take what I said above back. THAT was the most laughable statement I've seen on DU.

Tell you what. Do you want to debate Clinton's record using facts and figures?

[Sean Reynolds]

84. Uh, then I turned the focus over to Clinton.

While it's nice to enact programs in times of economic collapse. It's also nice to enact them when the budget allows it. Clinton had the means, he didn't deliver the product.

If Clinton had ran this country like FDR did we'd have every American insured; a welfare program that works and social security that actually HELPS the elderly.

[wyldwolf]

85. uh, no, you can't just turn the focus of a thread over...

If Clinton had ran this country like FDR did we'd have every American insured; a welfare program that works and social security that actually HELPS the elderly.

Again, FDR would not have enacted those programs without the great depression. Thus, Clinton had no need to.

But, anyway, ready to debate the Clinton record on economics?

[Sean Reynolds]

87. What is there to debate.

I'm not attacking Clinton's economics, rather his ability in the social realm. Problem here is that Clinton HAD the chance to make America stronger in the social realm; he did not.

[wyldwolf]

88. Problem you have is he didn't do it to your liking...

..and, based on your sig line, I know what you would have called for.

[Sean Reynolds]

94. Yup.

[silverpatronus]

114. you're right

clinton didn't do what he could have or should have socially with a booming economy and a budget surplus.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. Yes I am comparing Kerry to FDR

He is left of center..is proposing policies that the left is not fond of but were they to think them through better would realize there is plenty progressive in them (i.e. enforcing the labor and environmental clauses of NAFTA without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.... using community service to pay for college educations, giving tax cuts to the PRODUCTIVE side of the economy, i.e middle class and the working class)

There are plenty of parellels between JK and FDR given the times and all things being equal.

[Nlighten1]

27. "All things being equal"

All things are not equal though but let's suppose that "all things are equal" just for the sake of argument.

First off, you are comparing JK to FDR. FDR was a President, JK has never been a President.

You are comparing a depression with a time that is not a depression.

This list could go on forever.

I suppose, using your logic, that an apple is an orange. They both have an outer skin, seeds in the middle, they are both fruits and have a soft pulpy center. So, an apple is an orange and vice versa.


The problem with you Nader haters is your the irrational exuberance you have with placing blame on him. This obviously spills over into your love for Kerry because you are using the same pretzel logic to compare JK to FDR.

[Sean Reynolds]

65. Very well said.

Kerry aint no FDR.

Hasn't been a Democratic President thats been like FDR since FDR himself.

I can't believe people would even BELIEVE Kerry was close to FDR in terms of political standing. If Kerry were president in the 1930s we'd of not seen one damn social program develop because Kerry is all for smaller government; even if it hurts the little person. If FDR were to run for president today, he'd be attacked by Kerry and the like as being too liberal and too communistic in his ideology.

If Kerry is like FDR, the Pope is Protestant.

[Nlighten1]

66. Indeed.

When these Nader hating threads pop up you get to see a side of DU that is pretty embarrassing. The same sort of irrational hatred of Nader is akin to the Free Republic members hatred of anything Clinton.

This thread is by far the most extreme example I have seen of that hatred. Comparing JK to FDR goes beyond the pale of fruitful debate and decends into madness...which is exactly where I expect to find these sort of people.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

69. Read about the divided left in Germany prior to Hitler's ascent

then come back and tell me that people who can ADD electoral votes are the ones who are the embarassment.

[Nlighten1]

70. Why look back?

Why not look at Germany today? They seem to be doing pretty damned good right? Even with the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the influx of thousands of refugees.

The point being is they survived their fascist government and we can to...

I suppose you will make the argument that in order to get where they are today it cost them millions of lives. Well, no shit, sometimes that is what happens when you are up against a totalitarian regime.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpation's, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security" US Declaration of Independence,1776

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

71. And I suppose the point you are making is that in the long run Hitler

was good for Germany?

They didn't JUST survive their fascist government, they were bombed and he was forcibly removed...and you accuse ME of recontextualizing?

[Nlighten1]

73. Oy.

<sarcasm>Yeah, that is the point I was trying to make..</sarcasm>

Come back from la-la land and we might be able to finish this discussion.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

74. No...you cannot ignore history in order to make your point

I brought up the divided left in Germany, you said,"Look at Germany today." The points you made conveniently ignored half a decade of brutality to get there. If you want an intelligent discussion, then I would suggest one of the hallmarks of an intelligent discussion is reverence for facts and history.

I don't hate Nader, I simply think his method of ushering in a new progressive era lends itself to lots of unnecessary bloodshed...it's a risk I and many progressives don't deem to be needed.

Defending his faulty recipe doesn't make you more progressive than me.

[Nlighten1]

80. Wow...

You certainly take a lot of liberty with things I have said AND things I haven't said. I haven't ignored history I just asked you to look at it another way.

Your perception of history may not be the same as mine. And since you have not stated any "facts" I am left to assume.
Facts lead to perceptions, perceptions lead to decisions and from decisions we get to the next fact. There are natural links between facts that don't need to be hashed out but the other method is one that we humans use the most.

Reverence for history? History is your perception of the facts and that perception can be distorted. For example look at the people who deny the holocaust ever happened. To you and I this seems like a monumentally ignorant thing to believe...but there it is...

You say you are progressive and I understand your disagreement with Nader's method but why would a progressive support JK? Is JK a progressive candidate? And myself and many other progressives I know disagree with you and your approach to supporting the status quo in order to bring about progressive ideals.

Another hallmark of intelligent discussion is not putting words in the mouth of the person you are debating. Maybe you need to go back and re-read my statements before you press the "Post Message" button to avoid this faux pas in the future.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

68. You really should have spent more time studying and less time on DU

Kerry aint no FDR.

I didn't say he WAS FDR, I made a comparison. FDR's actions were based on the TIMES that he lived in, and again he was a HAWK..one of the biggest complaints lodged at Kerry.

FDR was actually a CENTRIST as is Kerry.

Both had experience with investigating government corruption but it ISN'T what FDR ran on.

Hasn't been a Democratic President thats been like FDR since FDR himself.

Guess you forgot about Johnson's Great Society and the development of Medicare...go do your homework, then mouth off to me.

[Sean Reynolds]

75. A centrist?

First you say he was left-leaning, NOW you say he's a centrist? Which is it?

Just because they have a few things in common doesn't mean they're a lot alike. I'm a HUGE FDR fan, I've researched his work as president over and over again.

Show me where Kerry is an FDR Democrat. Show me where he's for expanding government in the social realm. Show me where Kerry stands on beefing up welfare and other social programs. Kerry is a Clinton Democrat. NOT an FDR Democrat.

And as for Johnson, for all he did he still was no FDR.

I think it's pretty shitty you're putting Kerry in the same league as FDR.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

76. I siad he was left of center not left leaning..I didn't contradict myself

One can't compare across the board which is why I said "ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL."

FDR did not preside over a global economy, Kerry will.

As far as social programs, there is plenty of info available on his site...here's a few:

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/african_americans/sotu.html

http://www.johnkerry.com/states/mn/jobs.html

http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=poor&sp-a=sp1001847f&sp-f=ISO-8859-1&sp-x=all&x=16&y=12

[Sean Reynolds]

77. Typical political rhetoric

Why don't we ask John about his vote to reform welfare?

Oh and last I checked left of center and centrist were NOT the same thing. A centrist is someone DEAD center, one that doesn't lean to the left or the right. A left of center candidate is a candidate that is left leaning. Same for a right leaning candidate, except of coure they lean right.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

78. Why don't we ask Ralph about his blocking the union from his businesses?

Is he left or right for doing that?

[Sean Reynolds]

83. Why are you talking about Nader?

I'm not a Nader supporter.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

101. Gee..maybe because he is the subject of the thread?

[Sean Reynolds]

116. Gee.....but I wasn't tallking about him

And it's obvious he was the subject of YOUR reply to me.

[Touchdown]

22. Most times, revolutions don't turn out the way we hope.

Disable the system, destroy the main opposition party, and then there's nothing to stop the amending, or even elimination of the Constitution, or elections. Who will be in charge then? Nader's progressives? Falwell's theocrats? Duke's racists? Pearle's dominionists? Cheney's corporatists? It's all a toss up.

Only a fool would want a revolution when reform can accomplish the same goals over time. Revolutions are not pretty. There's strife, unemployment, famine, depotration, un-certainty, anarchy, "hot" fighting...and the outcome after all the dust settles is never certain.

The Communists, Marxists, Socialists, and Christian Democrats all wanted to control Germany in 1930-33. All thought they would end up on top, they were all wrong. The Bolsheviks destroyed the Czarist oligarchy, only to be destroyed themselves by Stalin's purge of the true communists. The French might have gotten it right, but Napoleon was also lurking in the shadows.

[Nlighten1]

39. Violent revolutions are not pretty...

and certainly to be avoided at most costs. Revolution can come from within the party system too and it need not involve bloodshed.

[Touchdown]

41. That's not what your advocating.

You are standing behind a man who is OUTSIDE the Party he wants to destroy. Please explain just how this will be as peaceful and utopian, with flower parades at victory as you believe. Better make it lengthy. Nader soundbites tell me nothing.

[Nlighten1]

44. I never said it would be peaceful or utopian...

I said there are differing methods of Revolution. Wipe the spittle from your lips for a second and take a deep breath. Your mind needs some oxygen.

Go back and re-read my statement and take your time because you missed a lot.

[Touchdown]

49. Re-read it, and you still haven't described anything.

Exactly how will this "revolution from within the party system" turnout the way you want, if all your revolutionaries are outside of the party you want to revolutionize?

[sendero]

40. yeah...

... you gotta drown the government in the bathtub.

No thanks, Ralph - when the time comes for the revolution we don't need a liar like you to lead us.

[RapidCreek]

58. What we need to do is identify the REAL THIRD PARTY!

It's called the DLC.

RC

[Nlighten1]

62. No no no...

Didn't you get the memo? It is ALL Ralph's fault not the DLC. The Democrats bear NO blame when it comes to Bush squating in the WH. It is all Nader's fault!

[RapidCreek]

79. The Democrats don't bear any blame for Bush squating in the WH

The DLC does.....I believe it's important that we start making the distinction...because it is one that must be made. We can also blame the DLC for Naders candidacy. One cannot blame the host for the insanity and weakness the parasite causes.

RC

[Nlighten1]

81. Very true...

I was being sarcastic in my post I'm sorry I left off the <sarcasm> tag.

The DLC is the problem and they need to be vanquished from our party.

[MessiahRp]

102. Not to interject more debate

but, even if Al Gore was a DLC bore as a candidate, he would have won Florida and thus the election if not for Ralph Nader or Katherine Harris.

You eliminate either of those people from the 2000 election and the Democrats win the Presidency.

That to me is the essence of the hatred towards Ralph, and hey he has no problem spurring the Dems hatred on by attacking them all the time either.

So yeah Ralph is as responsible as anyone for the last four years, regardless of whether or not people like the DLC, because we had the election if he was not a part of it. The numbers state as much.

I look at it like this. If you want to change the country and the party, we have to start winning from the bottom up. From local State governments, to House seats, to the Senate, and the Presidency. Go out there and support every Dem you can.

Most of the House candidates are NOT DLC, and the Senate ones these days are less and less likely to be. Get them into office. Give Kerry a Democratic majority so he can lean left, and when his policy leans left, the Congress leans left, the Media will start to do the same and some of the brainwashed sheep hooked on FAUX will come around.

We need to do this step by step by getting our ideals into office.

Destroying the party by supporting Nader is only going to swing the country further Right and give the Neocons a four year run with no re-election to face. Thus Bush can take the country as far right as he can and should it become even slightly unpopular the next Republican can blame Bush and still take the office because of the country's now permanent slant.

Nader doesn't care about the country or his ideals because if he did he wouldn't run and thus hurt Kerry and the Dems' chances to take the Presidency and Government away from the very people who oppose his every issue. The four years of Bush we got because of the Nader factor in Florida was as disasterous to our country as any in our history.

Another four years and a permanent shift to the Right, would be apocalypse and World War III.

I would hope Nader fans would understand that if they want the party to change, they need to change the Government.

We can be Left throughout Congress, and that shift will bring Kerry to the same message we have without him having to pander so much to the enemy.

Rp

[mzmolly]

90. Actually this time he does make bones about it. He is claiming

on the one hand that he hopes "to defeat Bush," and "have a united front against Bush." While on the other hand he says apparently he want's to "choke the dems?"

There is only one person who can "defeat Bush" and as I said before, his name is not Ralph Nader.

[LeahMira]

104. As I see it...

Supporting the status quo will only prolong the inevitable.

Our Declaration of Independence points out that the people are reluctant to change and that it's only when the abuses pile up that the people feel they have no choice but to revolt.

I think Kerry is a serious liberal who intends to work within the system to pull the nation more to the liberal side over time. That may mean that compromises are made in some areas in order to achieve gains in others.

I think Nader is in some ways like Bush in the sense that you're either with him or against him. He isn't interested in making compromises because he seems to think that the abuses have already piled up to the point that there is no choice but to break out.

We had eight years of President Clinton, and he was forced to make compromises and failed to achieve all that he wanted to do. I really don't see that it's going to be any different with President Kerry.

It's absolutely vital that we get rid of Bush, but the neo-con Republicans, the fundamentalist Christian Republicans, and the fabulously wealthy corporate Republicans are still going to be around.

It would be nice to think that President Kerry would be able to make changes in such a way that in a year or so everyone realizes how much better off we all are and no one even imagines going back, but is that really going to happen? With all those far right Republicans still around kicking and screaming?

We may have reached the point where about all we can really choose is to try to keep it above water for a few more years with Kerry, to jump into the abyss now with Bush, or to start over.

[wyldwolf]

2. The Nader and Burns clip from the Simpsons is hysterical!

[Renew Deal]

4. That's a great presentation. Nader voters are Bush enablers.

Nicely done

[He loved Big Brother]

12. Bush voters are Bush enablers

Sorry, but more Dems voted for Bush than for Nader.

[Renew Deal]

17. More republicans voted for Gore than for Nader too.

Are you one of the Bushistas by proxy?

[He loved Big Brother]

20. No moreso than Nader voters

[noiretextatique]

11. i find this commondreams article far more relevant

since this was the real problem in 2000.

Florida Felon Purge: Here We Go Again

WASHINGTON - May 10 - In the wake of the Florida Secretary of State’s order to evaluate as many as 40,000 “potential felon matches” to determine if they should be removed from the voting rolls, People For the American Way Foundation (PFAWF) announced plans to contact county election officials to head off the massive voter disenfranchisement caused by a similar voter purge during the 2000 election fiasco.


“Here we go again. Why the rush to take more people off of the voting rolls when people who should not have been removed in 1999 and 2000 haven’t yet been reinstated?” asked Ralph G. Neas, President of the People For the American Way Foundation. “We want to make every effort to independently reach out to these voters, and do all we can to make sure that if they have the right to vote, they can vote in 2004.”

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0510-10.htm

[Forkboy]

18. No one cares

it'll happen again and still Nader will be the Dems boogeyman.I'm so sick of being in a party of shortsighted simpletons. :-(

[noiretextatique]

19. thank goodness people for the american way

and the NAACP and some others are paying attention. i hear jebco is about to scrub 40k from the rolls in preparation.

[Eric J in MN]

30. If you want us to focus on donating to PFAW or the NACCP, then

If you want us to focus on donating to PFAW or the NACCP, then you should start a thread on that topic.

[noiretextatique]

33. you could do that as well...if you wanted to

i wanted to comment here...if that's ok with you.

[Solidarity]

21. Time To Pass The Buck!

It's time to pass the buck. It John Kerry is not elected it's Naders fault, not Kerry's!

Perhaps John Kerry's operatives should spend more money and time going after Bush on the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, NAFTA, etc., than Ralph Nader who opposes all three.

I suppose that's difficult to do since Kerry supported and continues to support all of the above.

OK. Now it's time for all of us progressives to unite around Kerry and call everyone a Nazi who supports or supported the Green Party and Ralph Nader.

Ready? Here we go! Nader and Greens are FASCISTS!

Nothing beats democratic discussion and debate .... except name calling, slanders, insults and character assassination.

[FlaGranny]

23. Interesting that you believe it is

Kerry supporters going after Nader. It seems to be a certain few who keep posting these Nader threads and they aren't Kerry supporters or Democrats. You know it's going to create arguments and nasty Nader comments.

In case you haven't seen it, you might want to read Skinners explanation for the existence of this board. It is expressly anti-Bush and expressly to support the Democratic (capital D) candidate for president. Democrats live here. Stop trying to convert us. We don't like it any more than a salesman knocking on the door or ringing the phone while we're taking a bath.

Actually, I am a Nader convert. I used to like and respect him.

Edit: I realize this started as an anti-Nader thread.

[wyldwolf]

24. Believe 90% of what you said, but...

...I started this thread, I'm a Kerry supporter, and a democrat.

But, yeah, the rest of what your post said I agree with.

[noiretextatique]

31. trying to "convert" people is a waste of time

threads like this do little towards convincing anyone of anything...other than some people really, really hate ralph nader, and love to say it over and over and over and over and over again.
instead of speculating about what might happen if people don't vote for the proscribed candidate, i'm sure you'd agree, flagranny, that making sure people get to vote, and getting all the votes properly counted is the MOST important issue of 2004, as it was in 2000.
it would be great if everyone in america decided to vote for kerry, but it's not going to happen, and we all know that...no matter how many posts there are about it at DU. not every DEMOCRAT will vote for kerry, let alone every green, independent, socialist, natural law party member, reform party member, libertarian...and so on.
which is why conversion efforts (of all kinds) are a waste of time...if folks aren't on the team by now, they won't be.
i spent the week before the 2000 election in front of the BART station trying to convince some of my fellow green party members to vote for Gore because: i thought he was the best candidate, with the best chance of winning....and of course, the other guy was so much worse. i feel the same way about kerry. i wasn't very successful in 2000 convincing folks committed to voting for nader to change their minds in 2000, but like you, i suspect a lot of people have have made the decision to vote for the democratic candidate this time around own their own.
i don't feel duped by nader, nor do i think he has some sinister motive in running again, and as i mentioned, the only reason i didn't vote for him is because: i knew he had no chance of winning.
i agree with the view that had gore been allowed to win, nader would be viewed very differently by most, and probably not discussed at all here, actually.
i was tempted to vote for nader...just to help the greens get 5%, but i felt the election was going to be too close.
anyway...end of rant. this is not directed at you, btw....just a general rant about accepting the things you have no power over (who people will vote for when they go into that voting booth)...and being prepared for an attempted repeat of 2000 (stealing the election when the democratic candidate wins...again). good luck down there :D

[KC21304]

37. Who is trying to " convert " whom ?

The name of this site is Democratic Underground. We are trying to get a Democrat elected President. Are we Kerry supporters going out to the highways and byways and dragging Naderites here to argue with ? I don't think so.

The Nader people are coming here by their own free will which is fine with me. But I'm wondering what kind of reception they expect when they are dissing our candidate. Can they really be surprised to get some of it back at them, especially after what happened in 2000 ?

Just for the record this is the first time IN MY LIFE I have even mentioned Ralph Nader in a post.

[noiretextatique]

105. let's be realisitic for a moment, shall we?

this (the mess we are in now, and the upcoming election) is not about "our candidate," as if the election is some type of sports contest. this is about the best candidate, with the best chance of winning, given what's at stake. ALL of the partisan whining, no matter who is doing it, has NOTHING to do with what is at stake. And of course, this thread is an attempt to convince people not to vote for nader...that is the point of the article referenced. and i don't think it will convince anyone of anything.
kerry will get my vote, not because he is a Democrat...it's because he is the best candidate, with the best chance of winning. if someone chooses to vote for nader, that person is simply exercising his or her right as a citizen of this country, and i support his or her right to do that on Democratic Underground, because i believe democracy is a value that should be respected, even here. especially here, actually, because it's Democrats who got screwed the most by the voter purge in florida, which was orchestrated by the republican party, not the green party. i find it hard the believe THAT still isn't more of an issue to Democrats (disenfranchisement), given it will likely be a factor in 2004...again. perhaps i am missing something, but it seems to me that in a so-called participatory democracy, the fact that some people could not participate (by no fault of their own) SHOULD BE of more importance than those who actually did participate. especially since that (the coup) is the reason gore is not in the white house.

[JHBowden]

43. Nader is as bad as Bush.

Since we all know what Bush stands for, if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Anyone who wants to leave Asscroft, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove, etc. in power deserves nothing but contempt.

[LumitraC]

56. re: Time to pass the buck.

its time to pass the buck! if john kerry is not elected in a tight race, its not naders fault! surely he wont cost kerry votes!

if you support his views, you are going to get a LOT less of them realized if you vote for him, he cant win.

I agree with him on a LOT of issues and i admire his work, but he should work towards fixing the system, not running in it when it isnt.

You know he wont win the election.

and you know he costs kerry votes, thats undisputable.

look what happened last time. if nader didnt run, gore would be president. thats not to say gore couldnt have done more, he should have, but why should nader divide us when we have a chance?

he needs to start pushing for change in the system, and stop running on an unachievable principle.

if he EVER in a blue moon won, the democrats would be hard pressed to support him, the republicans would NEVER support him.. he wouldnt get anything accomplished.

it should tell you something when a hefty chunk of his fundings coming from republicans, he says hes against corporate politics.. why is he taking their money?

[Eric J in MN]

25. Thanks, I added a links at MoveLeft Media.

MoveLeft Media

MOVELEFT.COM

liberal songs and videos at:
http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_entertainment.asp

[Paragon]

26. Aren't/weren't Ralph's essays ON Common Dreams?

I'm glad to see this new site - but it's a bit odd if Ralph's essays are/were reproduced on CD.

[Eric J in MN]

29. The website can support his essays without supporting his candidacy (nt)

nt

[scarletwoman]

32. I stand with Granny D on this:

"There are many among us on the peace trail who will not support a candidate unless that candidate is perfect on every issue. Politics is about winning. For us, it is about winning to save lives and raise people up from poverty and illness and loneliness and injustice. Those posturing on the left sometimes forget that.

Don't tell me that you can't support a particular candidate because of this or that. This isn't about you and your precious political standards. It is about saving nature and our people. We are coming out to win, so please don't stand in our way. When we have reasonable people in power, let us start our arguments again, for we can not move forward unless we have a decent government underneath us and a Bill of Rights to let us speak freely.

Granny D

Of COURSE John Kerry is a "status quo" candidate! But at least he's not a damn psycopath! We've got an emergency situation here! We have people in control of our government who are out and out dangerous!

Changing the status quo is NOT going to happen through a presidential election. People who are insisting otherwise are either naive, lazy or selfish -- or all three. Clamoring for instant gratification, "my way or nothing" -- well thanks alot.

How well did that Nader vote work in 2000? Did it "punish" the Democrats sufficiently? Did it pull the Democratic Party to the left? Did it advance the progressive agenda?

And now they want to do it again -- like the result is going to be anything different!?!?

The Naderites' supposed "idealism" helped bring about a NIGHTMARE for the rest of world. All the "idealism" in the world, all the lofty words about "progressivism" and "peace" and "social justice" don't mean SHIT when real peoples' lives are being made WORSE by "sticking to your ideals".

It's utterly blind and irresponsible recklessness to talk about "destroying the Democratic Party" when there's a tidal wave of fascism poised to rush into the vacuum.

Yeah, the status quo sucks. Yeah, the Dems are part of it. But it's a whole SYSTEM that needs dismantling and rebuilding. Take a good look at the forces who hold all the power in the system. What's going to sweep in and overwhelm it if you pull down just one piece of it? It AINT the Greens and the Lefties and the Progressives!

Right now, at this point in REALITY, those who advocate voting for Nader, who say that we have let things get even worse so that the "revolution" can come, are as morally and philosophically bankrupt and dangerous as the Christian Zionists who want the Middle East to erupt in flames in order to hurry Armageddon and the Second Coming.

Yeah, that's real "progressive" alright... :mad:

sw

[Solidarity]

36. Elections Won't Change Status Quo

"Changing the status quo is NOT going to happen through a presidential election."

If you truly believe that do you think it doesn't matter much if people vote for Nader, Kerry or Bush?

It seems you undercut your argument with the rest of your post.

And I haven't seen to many people here campaigning for Nader. I just think we need more civil discussion and would like to see an end to the constant slanders and outrageous claims made against Nader and Green Party supporters.

Does anyone really think they can win over people to John Kerry with such tactics?

[scarletwoman]

38. I think you missed my point.

I'm refering to the arguments I've seen that a vote for Nader is a vote AGAINST the status quo (represented by Kerry).

I'm saying that voting for Nader is not the way to change the sq. The choices we have before us are a status quo with "reasonable" people in charge, or a status quo with psycopaths in charge. Voting for Nader does not change this equation, it only makes the least desireable outcome more likely.

The former at least gives us some space to work in, the latter gives us less or none.

I'm not a Nader-basher or Nader-supporter-basher. In the 3 years I've been on DU I have steadfastly avoided all Nader threads until now. I had planned on voting for Nader in 2000, until it became obvious in my swing state that the election was getting too close. Then I did a "vote-swap" with someone in Texas where a Nader vote wouldn't matter.

I have, for some time, been giving due consideration to all the arguments I've seen people make FOR voting for Nader this year. I have come to the opinion that their arguments have no merit, and have decided to make my own counter-arguments.

I speak as someone who has been a dedicated leftist since the 60's, and have taken my own share of slander ("far left fringe") and incivility on these boards because of it. As a middle-aged hippie, I've got a pretty good idea of what happens when idealism smacks up against reality. I haven't lost my idealism, I just look for the most practical and effective ways to put it into action.

And, personally, I see the "idealism" behind voting for Nader as not just impractical, but downright destructive. I don't think it's "uncivil" to state this, any more than it's "uncivil" to yell "STOP" when you see someone about to walk in front of an oncoming truck.

sw

[Solidarity]

45. Not Much Open Support For Nader Here

"I have, for some time, been giving due consideration to all the arguments I've seen people make FOR voting for Nader this year."

I haven't seen any posts supporting Nader on DU. I'm sure some DU'ers support Ralph Nader and/or the Green Party. But, they express their opinions at their own risk and peril here! Anyone who wishes to present or defend Naders views will have to fight off an avalanche of nasty, name calling insults leveled by self-proclaimed liberals and progressives. And the unproven slanders and personal attacks directed against Nader here are truly amazing. The alleged progressives who primarily engage in character assassination and slanders can't stand democratic discussion because they seem incapable of defending their political views in an honest way. However, I think they are a very tiny but very vocal minority on DU.

I respect those who oppose Nader or the Green Party and express their views and disagreements in a fraternal and civil way just as you did.

[scarletwoman]

47. There's all kinds of "uncivil" debate on DU, not just about Nader.

Some peoples' style of argument is quite deplorable, imho, but it's probably unavoidable on such densely populated internet board. There are bound to be widely varying degrees of skill and dispassion in people's presentation of their opinions. It shows up in any number of discussion subjects.

sw

[Sparkly]

72. Not much open support for Bush here, either

Why should there be support for Nader? He's opposing the Democratic candidate and effectively supporting Bush's re-election.

As for "nasty, name-calling insults," I think such posts will be removed, if you mean the insults are directed toward people posting here. If you mean they're directed toward Nader, I don't believe that should be treated any differently than insults and names given to the Chimp. Just my opinion.

[He loved Big Brother]

121. You just made the point I've been saying

Why do Democrats feel this sense of entitlement to Nader's votes?

You EARN votes, they aren't just handed to you. If you want Nader's votes, you have to work for them. Bashing his supporters is a good place to start. ;-)

[union_maid]

42. Shouldn't even have to win them over

Anyone should be able to see that this administration is dangerous and reckless far, far beyond what we've seen before. Anyone running against the one person that can unseat them is definitely part of the problem. Anyone supporting such a person is part of the problem.

What I don't understand and never have understood is why Nader and his supporters think that preaching to the choir and getting them to throw their vote to a third party is a reasonable way to address their issues. There's a labor movement getting reborn out there, people. There are places where you can make a positive difference. The presidential election is not one of them. All I want from Nader and company is to leave that election alone and let us have some hope that our children and grandchildren will have a country to live in.

[depakid]

46. Something I hope everyone notices about Common Dreams

First of all it's a great site and has been around a long time, webwise.

Second, they post a lot of Nader's writings on topics that he expertise in which are usually right on the mark. Common Dreams has an ability that too many at DU lack- and that is the they understand how to separate the source from the message.

I wish I had a buck for every time I've seen excellent arguments dismissed or uncontrovertable facts denied simply because "Oh, well it's coming from Nader and he's an egomaniac," or some such thing.

Common Dreams shows us that it's possible to oppose Nader's candidacy without short circuiting our reasoning process or losing sight of our progressive values. Hats off to them.

[GreenPartyVoter]

89. Hear, hear!

[wtmusic]

53. There's something very small about an anti-anyone site

while Kerry is busy moving center he better watch his ass.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[wtmusic]

55. agree beaumandy

and welcome to DU!

:bounce: :toast: :bounce:

[beaumandy]

67. Thanks for the welcome!! but

where did my post go??

[LumitraC]

57. hes gotta win the disenchanted

im sure hed lose swingers playing immediate withdrawal, he has to play on the fence for to appeal to disenchanted cons.

im sure his tone will change alot once hes in office.. this isnt anything out of the ordinary, hes gotta walk the line, he knows what hes doing.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[union_maid]

99. I am offended

I'm deeply offended that someone on DU would refer to people who actually want to defeat Bush as neocons. You can spin it any way you want. Nader supporters absolutely are Bush enablers and that's the way it is and Nader knows it, which makes him no better than Bush. As to blaming the candidate for not winning despite having to fight two battles at once..bullshit. I'm so sick of that warmed over crap. The way you defeat Bush is to support his opponent, not to tear him down or support someone who is doing that. Of course, I partially blame Nader for Gore's loss. It was partially due to Nader. What is so hard to understand about that? The Republicans sure understand it and are bring up Nader's name at every opportunity. People like you are not helping anyone with your rhetoric.

[neverborn]

100. This is the kind of stuff...

that shouldn't be on DU.

"For thjose of you whose minds are actually open please go here:
http://www.votenader.org /"

That's an active effort to undermine the candidacy of John Kerry.

[LumitraC]

103. ya... the bottom line is..

nader will hurt kerry.

you want progressive ideals? vote for kerry, nader isnt going to win. naders being intillectually dishonest and saying hes taking bush votes, he isnt.

if you vote nader you will get NO progressive changes.

you will get four more years of BUSH.

thats the way it is, I liked nader, i like his ideas, and i like the man.. but hes not helping things.. "the status quo" will get us a lot further then a wasted vote of principle that will keep shrub donating our environment to the highest campaign contributers.

[Ardee]

117. you people are amazing

amazingly close minded, amazingly unfit to live in a democratic society, amazingly easy for the neocons to manipulate as well.

Your party is doomed because you refuse to allow a broad spectrum of political thought within it, in fact you refuse to think very much at all.

Why on earth some mouth breather would think that a request to read the political thoughts of anyone is an attempt to undermine anything or anyone is beyond my comprehension.

If you actually bothered to read what is written at that web site, which of course you will not, to your own everlasting shame, you might be amazed at the democratic values seen there. But no, live in the dark, and continue to eat neocon shit, you are,after all, nothing but mushrooms anyway.

[Cheswick2.0]

119. you lost it at "your party is doomed"

and exactly how well is your party doing?

You assume that anyone rejecting Nader has to be unthinking and mouthbreathers. What shit.

[noiretextatique]

123. apparently, nader's party is doing well enough to inspire

LOTS of posts about it on DU, and most of them aren't exactly rational, let alone thoughtful. unless you think "nader is an asshole" is searing political analysis. i think Ardee has a point, and i understand his frustration with some folks here.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

106. Why not a "Don'tVoteDLC" site?

Why bash the left?

[Sparkly]

108. Nader is not a Democrat.

Nader is running *against* the Democratic candidate.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

112. So, why not try to get the leftwing voters by appealing to them.

Rather than trying to get the so called "moderates" of the right?

You also failed to note that Nader is also running against Bush.

[Sparkly]

115. Many of us on the left are already supporting Kerry

because we've experienced the alternative, we know no candidate will agree with us 100% on every issue, and we know the first step toward *any* progress is removing this dangerous rightwing regime.

I don't see how a "DontVoteDLC" would help Kerry win.

I do see how calming the fears of moderates that Kerry's a Radical Massachussetts Liberal can help him win.

Technically, Nader is running "against" Bush, but in effect, he is supporting him. Nearly every poll shows him taking more votes from Kerry than from Bush, and often tipping the majority over to Bush.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

118. Nader "supporting Bush"?

In what area?

The war in Iraq? Kerry voted for it and continues to support the occupation.

NAFTA? Free trade? Kerry voted for them. Nader is opposed.

Tell me again, who, between the two supports Bush's policies more.

I only wish that Kerry was a "Radical Massachussetts Liberal", then I could vote for him.

[Zuni]

122. bash the left? like Nader?

He takes money from the Rep. Leadership Council to do this.

[Dying Eagle]

110. yep

that is right on thew money

[He loved Big Brother]

120. If you can only win

because the field of candidates is narrowed, then you have a problem. If you can only win by taking away America's choices (some Americans are not D or R, but they still have a right to have a candidate), then you have a problem. Like someone wiser than me once said-

"Let the people decide".

Alienating the base just to snag middle-of-the-road voters backfired last time, it might backfire again. I'd love to see who the Nader haters would blame if Kerry lost without Ralph in the race. Because of course Democrats can do no wrong, so it can't be the fault of Kerry. How convenient.

[noiretextatique]

124. if we have a repeat of 2000

a close race in florida, nader in the race...and voter "purges," refusals to recount, a supreme court intervention, so on...will nader still be to blame?
if so...we will have earned another bush term.