Why are the Democrats so incensed at Ralph Nader?

[IndianaGreen]

Why are the Democrats so incensed at Ralph Nader?
By Barry Grey
26 February 2004

In the eyes of the US ruling elite, Nader’s intervention threatens to raise disturbing questions that it had hoped to suppress with the quashing of Howard Dean’s bid for the Democratic nomination—first and foremost, the war in Iraq. Nader is calling for the rapid withdrawal of US troops and their replacement by UN forces, and has accused Bush of impeachable offenses in connection with his lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and Iraq-Al Qaeda connections.

With the Democratic race narrowed down to two candidates, John Kerry and John Edwards, both of whom voted to give Bush authorization to invade Iraq, the political and corporate establishment, Democratic as well as Republican, are looking to engineer an election in which the massive popular opposition to the war will be all but ignored, and potentially explosive issues such as corporate corruption and the widening gap between the financial elite and the working masses will be pushed to the side. Thus the Wall Street Journal, in an editorial gloating over the Democrats’ dismay at Nader’s intervention, declared: “We agree with the Democrats on at least one point”—namely, that Nader should be excluded from the presidential debates.

For the Democratic Party establishment, the prospect of a Nader campaign, even if limited in terms of ballot status, cuts across a campaign strategy aimed at preempting any serious mobilization of popular outrage against Bush’s foreign and domestic policies. The party leadership wants, once the nomination has been locked up, to shift the campaign further to the right. It would like to gain the presidency by winning the imprimatur of the ruling elite, and avoid needlessly raising expectations as to what a Democratic administration would do once in power.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/nade-f26.shtml

[liberalmike27]

1. Sounds about Right

I get a kick out of those here who still think we have a free and fair media, that no manipulation has gone on, and who still believe that there is a serious difference between Democrats and Republicans.

It's a process, and more are awakening to all of the BS surrounding us each and every day. I've never lived in a time where almost everything seems so choreographed. Since Bush took office, the script has been played to the tee, all things seem to benefit the chosen one in the White House. Well, that's what happens when you control the ministry of propaganda, and the CIA helps when it can.

[Skittles]

2. you get a kick, do you?

GORE WOULD NOT HAVE INVADED IRAQ BASED ON LIES AND HUNDREDS OF SOLDIERS AND THOUSANDS OF IRAQI CITIZENS WOULD STILL BE ALIVE. THAT ALONE IS DIFFERENCE ENOUGH.

[LoZoccolo]

3. I like how the organization that Ralph Nader founded, Public Citizen...

...claims that

John Kerry voted with them 27 out of 29 times AND HE STILL SAYS THERE IS LITTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS!

http://action.citizen.org/pc/officials/congress/?only_votes=1&lvl=C&azip=01003&bzip=&submit.x=8&submit.y=9

[Paschall]

4. The page you link to seems to have no relation to your claim...

...about "27 out of 29 times." What in the heck are you talking about?

Kerry seems to have voted only twice against a position supported by Public Citizen. You seem to be saying he voted only twice against the GOP. That's horse-pucky.

I think you need to take a look at that chart again.

[union_maid]

5. I think that's what LoZoccolo meant

Not the other way around.

[Red_Storm]

10. Kerry............

voted for Iraq War
voted for Patriot Act
voted for Corporate interests
is against Gay Marriage


So there is no difference then......ok

[KG]

6. Why are the Democrats so incensed at Ralph Nader?

coz beats taking a good look at what really happened.

they'll never want to admit that St Williams self indulgent dalliance cost al gore a slam dunk walk off victory.

[terryg11]

7. all true but apparently that means nothing

right now. Everyone is convinced that either of the top two dems is better than Bush (I agree but still think they have a long waY TO go)
and thats the most important thing.

[Charlls]

8. The moral reasons for Nader to run are the same for Kucinich to stay

on the run for the nomination to the very end; because their viewpoints are not anywhere near from being represented by the remaining candidates. Its sad that some so-self-called democrats yell at Nader because he wants to make an statement. There is only one person that is trying to enforce Kyoto agreements, and that one is neither of the above (Bush or Kerry)


I dont care replacing Bush by a Bush lite.

[Wiscmason]

9. Nader wasnt the real problem

Nader became the symbol of anger because he helped bring Shrub into the White House, but I blame the Republican controlled Supreme Court for the debacle which was the 2000 campaign.. and I sincerely hope that after 4 years of lies and destruction of this great country of ours that people can clearly see that there is a BIG difference between the two parties. I remind the readers that in a democracy it is good to hear all voices.. and we should always strive for that goal. We Democrats, Progressives, Populists and Liberals alike are NOT like the close mided, right wing, lock stepped, authoritarian Repubs and their far right cronies.. we believe in hearing and understand the diversity of ideas from people of all kinds.. this is why I am proud to be a democrat and why I blame the right wing for the failure of 2000 and not Ralph.

[glitch]

11. I believe you are correct

And welcome to DU!

[Warren Stuart]

12. My problem with Ralph Nadar

Is that I can't tell the difference between him and Howdy Dooty, they are both stupid looking puppets, who will say anything to get on TV. Regardless of the consquences.

Edited for typo.