Hey Ralph, where were you when Edwards was in the race?

[checks-n-balances]

His platform was closest to yours, so why didn't you support him when you could have?

1. If the GWB is as disastrous as you said it was this morning on Meet the Press, then why are you doing your best (again) to ensure that a 3rd party candidate throws the election to his political party?

2. If you cared that much about the public's right to choose a 3rd party candidate, why didn't you work in between these three elections to help change the rules that discriminate against 3rd party candidates?

3. Since you didn't do that, and you're surely intelligent enough to know that as long as the rules currently this way you won't actually win this race, what's the real reason you are running?

4. Aren't you intelligent and creative enough to try and make your point in a constructive way instead of doing the same thing over & over again and getting the same results (it's called 'insanity')?

5. If you can't recognize that re-electing Republicans will be one of the last nails in the coffin of what we have left of a democracy, then you are blinded by your inability to see the grey areas of life. Furthermore, your admission about this administration puts a lie to your old "Tweedledum-Tweedledee" meme.

Either Nader can only see our political situation in terms of black-and-white, or he is as corrupt and power-greedy as the remaining Republicans (with no real concern for the future of this country).

Or both.

HE TRIES TO DRESS THIS UP AS CONCERN FOR DEMOCRACY, BUT IT'S SO OBVIOUSLY ALL ABOUT RALPH. AND ONCE AGAIN HE IS ON DISPLAY AS A RIGHT-WING TOOL FOR ALL TO SEE.

AND HE'S HOPING THERE ARE STILL SOME POOR SAPS OUT THERE WHO ACTUALLY BELIEVE SOMETHING GOOD COULD COME OUT OF VOTING FOR HIM.

Does anyone else agree?

[John Q. Citizen]

1. Ralph endorsed Edwards. Of course they didn't invite him onto meet the press to talk about it.

But it did make the news, briefly.

[asdjrocky]

2. He endorsed Edwards.

Real question, where the hell were you?

[checks-n-balances]

3. Real question, did you read the rest of my OP? (I had other questions)

Or do you just enjoy being rude?

I hadn't heard that he endorsed Edwards.

BTW, "Where the hell" was I? I supported Edwards and voted for him.

All that being said, if Nader was serious about making a constructive difference, why isn't he running as a Democrat?

[asdjrocky]

4. Sorry if I was rude, but no I did not read the rest of the post.

When the OP starts with something totally nonfactual, I see no reason in reading further. Again, sorry for being rude. I too was, and am, a big Edwards Supporter, who worked in 3 different states for the campaign, and I just assumed everyone knew Nader supported Edwards. That, perhaps, was my mistake.

[checks-n-balances]

8. Thanks for the correction, albeit a little abrupt

No, I don't have as much time anymore to read DU or even my email that often anymore for personal reasons. Even if he did endorse Edwards, he really needs to go about this differently than he has in the past or else he'll end up enabling the Republicans again. As most of us can agree, we need a huge margin of victory this time because to avoid another election theft.

If they win this time, we can kiss our democracy good-bye for good. The stakes have never been higher.

[asdjrocky]

9. I absolutely agree with you.

And I'm not a fan of Nader at all. And I can understand about not having as much time, my dance card is starting to become very busy.

[JDPriestly]

5. Not only did he endorse Edwards, but he is picking up where

Edwards left off. I did not vote for Nader in 2000. I have never voted for a Republican in a national contest. I am a 100% Democratic voter, but I am disappointed that neither Obama nor Hillary is really focusing on the problems of corporate abuse of our system.

This is the issue on which Obama and Hillary are silent. Nader is raising those issues. Corporate greed and cheating, the financial incentives that drive corporations to goad us into never ending wars, unsafe work conditions, union bashing, cheating and abusing workers, the unfair playing field for small businesses, dishonest accounting practices, refusing to avoid and/or clean up pollution . . . . The list goes on and on. Obama's website does not address these many issues. And don't even think about Hillary addressing them.

Then there is the corruption that lobbyists bring with them to D.C. Neither Obama nor Hillary can address that issue because they are both on the take. I hope Nader's candidacy will put Obama and Hillary on notice that these are issues they cannot ignore.

We are all concerned about telecom immunity, about abuses of our civil rights. Behind these abuses are corporations and their desires to make us into obedient serfs. Obama and Hillary need to speak to the concerns that Nader raises.

I strongly disagree with Nader's stance on Israel as I am a strong supporter of the right of Israel to exist as an independent country within safe borders, so I will not be voting for Nader. But, I hope he is able to draw some attention to the issue of corporate domination of our system.

[checks-n-balances]

6. I understand, but I don't at all trust Nader's motives.

If he's doing this for the reasons you say and he's able to influence the other two, then good for him and us. So many of the Dems currently in office have blown it big-time in my book and do need to get with true Democratic values. However, as long as his intentions are not destructive and he's only in it to influence the others, I would expect him to do the honorable thing before the election and drop out - like Edwards did. Then he would need to be creative enough to could come up with a way to continue to influence whoever wins the election.

But since he has yet to approach it that way, and somehow has always had the funds to continue in each race through election time, I at least have every reason to be suspicious of him.

(Edited for grammar)

[checks-n-balances]

10. Actually, I just read another thread that lays out reasons he isn't credible

In a nutshell, it's because he's actually in cahoots with the GOP.

I just recommended it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4745993

[jackson_dem]

7. Nader endorsed Edwards. We could have prevented Nader by nominating Edwards

But Democrats quickly got rid of him in favor of two celebrities and we will have to deal with the consequences.

[LisaL]

11. It was Edwards' fault that he got eliminated.

When you are running "against poverty," it might help if you aren't building huge mansions for you to live in, or get 400$ haircuts.

[jackson_dem]

12. So you're saying you have to take a vow of poverty to care about poverty?

How many poor people run for president? See what the effect of what you and the corporate media has said is...