However Ralph Nader started out, he's all about POWER now -- and

[pnwmom]

proving how important he is.

He stated in 2000 that he would actually prefer Bush to win. This doesn't make any sense, unless you realize that he -- and his public interest group -- have a vested interest in the bigger boogeyman -- the Republicans -- staying in office. When the Rethugs are in power, and consumer interests are the most threatened, donations to his "public citizen" group go up. When the Dems are in office, people are less likely to feel that they need to contribute to Nader.

The best way for Nader to retain his bit of power is to help the Rethugs hold onto the Presidency. So his actions are completely rational from his warped, narcissistic perspective.

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Ralph Nader on the need for moral courage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQFG4Piwegs

[pnwmom]

3. Sorry, but I can't subject myself to him anymore. n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. No problemo

:)

[MadHound]

2. Yep, we're in full election mode now!

When questions arise about the close corporate ties exhibited by the Democratic party, when uncomfortable questions about the direction the party is going in come up, when people start pointing out legitimate problems with the party, out come the Nader posts!

God forbid that the party actually examines itself and tries to solve its own problems, not when they can blame everything on a convenient scapegoat like Nader. Run a horrible campaign? Blame Nader! Fail to investigate voter fraud? Blame Nader? Got a do nothing Congress? Blame Nader!.

God you folks are becoming as regular as clockwork:eyes:

[pnwmom]

4. The Nader posts came out because he's just sued the Democratic party.

God forbid that Dems should have acted against the Nader registrations that were full of fraudulent voters.

[MadHound]

5. Really? I distinctly remember the Nader haters working their "magic" last week,

And the week before, and the week before that, and, well you get the idea. There's a regular Nader hate post over in GD Politics for the past month, ever since the top three Dems came flat out and stated that they couldn't promise getting the troops out of Iraq during their first term. Hmmmm:think:

[pnwmom]

7. The three top Dems are being honest then. Anything could happen in the

next year, with our insane dictator running the show. No one can know exactly what the situation in Iraq will be as the next President takes office. But all of our candidates are committed to do what it takes to end the war as quickly as possible.

[MadHound]

8. Wow, just wow.

The fact that you would condone any Democrat saying that is just, utterly astounding. Let me guess, you know nobody who is over there, do you?

Do you really think that it we need to stay until 2013? Are you ready to accept that kind of carnage? Are you ready to accept the kind of damage to our economy, our society and our reputation around the world that such a stay would bring about? Are you really wanting a Dem to win so bad that you're willing to play politics with people's lives?

Gee, thanks. Next time I start to question my motivations for getting out of the Democratic party, it is bloodthirsty opinions like yours that will assure me I'm making the right decision. I most certainly don't belong in a party whose members condone these sorts of actions.

[pnwmom]

10. Oh yeah, I'm bloodthirsty and want the carnage to go on till 2013 or

maybe 3013. Why not?

:sarcasm:

[JVS]

9. Shuddup, Emmanuel Golds... I mean Ralph Nader is evil!

[TahitiNut]

11. Yup. That's the way it is, alright.

:eyes: Cheney/Bush have Osama and blindly partisan DUers have Nader. Gotta have a scapegoat.

[pnwmom]

13. Nader's an old goat all right,

but not a scapegoat.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Is that why the Democrats keep funding Bush's war? To keep it going so that

they will get more campaign contributions by appearing to be "anti-war"?

While bleating about "not having the votes".

[pnwmom]

14. They risk losing all their contributions if they don't back up their anti-war

speech with anti-war votes.

But Nader wins financially when the Rethugs are in control.

[Bonobo]

15. Yes, the man's sheer, raw power is STAGGERING! How can anyone stop this JUGGERNAUT?

[pnwmom]

17. Narcissists usually do have an inflated idea of their actual power.

Their reach greatly exceeds their grasp.

But Nader's few percent of the 2000 vote was enough to hand victory over to Bush -- as Nader wanted. He proved how much he could do with very little.

[Bonobo]

18. Oh, of course you're right, but why do you suppose a guy like that would want Bush to win?

[pnwmom]

19. He said that if he was forced to vote for one or the other, he'd vote for Bush.

And it makes sense. When the Dems are in office, people are less likely to feel that they need Nader and his public interest group to save them from the excesses of government. So he's better off when Rethugs are in office.

[Bonobo]

20. Aaah yes, it's all so clear now. Thanks. I like to know who I'm talking to.

[Canuckistanian]

16. Yeah, I can see that

It certainly would explain his actions.