Go Ralph Go

[orwell]

I just saw Ralph on a replay of Meet the Press. Even though I am against him running and will vote for whomever is the Dem candidate, I must say it was refreshing to hear somebody blast away at corporate control of the media, corrupt politics on both sides of the aisle, actually use the words impeachment with force.

I am starting to see how Ralph's run could be devastating for Bush. Ralph is "allowed" to get away with things that the Dem candidate would never be able to get away with. He could essentially form a pincer action, even if unintentioned, on BushCorp. If he levies anything like the extremely stinging rhetorical arguments against the Boy King that he just unloaded on Timmy Blusters lap, it will force the press to at least acknowledge that such charges are out there.

I don't believe he will be able to suck nearly as many votes away from the Dems as many here, including me, initially feared. In our desire to be ABB we may be overlooking the possibility that this may turn out to be a gift in disguise.

Go Ralph Go...

O

PS: Of course, all this is subject to change without notice if he pulls the same crap he did in 2000 where he essentially gave Boy George a free pass... :evilgrin:

[kalian]

1. He has the balls to do it....cause...

nobody on the dem side does...
Well...except maybe Kucinich...

[orwell]

8. Loose Canon

Actually I don't think it is a matter of "intestinal fortitude." Politics at this level is all strategy and tactics. The Cons understand this. This is why they are able to get people to vote for candidates who later screw them royally. Have you ever wondered why a blue collar southern factory worker would vote Repungnant when their job is getting outsourced?

The mainstream candidate has to speak to the swing voters while appeasing his base only when required. Both Edwards and Kerry understand this.

Ralphie on the other hand has been effectively shunned by all. He is a loose cannon and therefore quite unpredictable. Of course there is a possibility he is shilling for Niccolo Rove, but that should become apparent quite early on in the "Crusade." I think his attacks on either Edwards or Kerry will fall on deaf ears. Nobody has forgotten 2000. But his attacks on Bush tonight were some of the most brutal I have heard on mainstream TV. Russert was allowing him to unload without the "slapdown" that any other "serious" candidate would have received.

In essence, my assertion is that a "loose canon" may hurt the incumbent more than the challenger. In 2000 Gore was effectively the incumbent. Now Bush is "big gubmint."

Of course I could be totally wrong. It wouldn't be the first time...

O

[Isere]

2. "Go Ralph go....."

Go away.

Go stuff it!

Go **** yourself.

[ronnykmarshall]

42. or straight to hell.

[baby_bear]

3. I think you're right

I suspect that Nader might pull more votes from the Republican side this time, because there are a number of them who are disenchanted with Bush but might not be able to bring themselves to vote Dem.

On another note, I hope Nader is included in debates as opposed to 2000 when he was excluded, and Gore wanted it that way. Maybe it's different this time, but last time I felt sure in advance that if Nader had been allowed his place on the stage, Gore would have shone. As it turned out, Gore just looked like he was competing the the "center" with Bush. I was devastated by those debates...I had told all my friends, just wait, Gore will wipe the floor with Bush in the debates.

Maybe if Nader had been there to inadvertently keep Gore "honest" to his true Democratic beliefs, Gore would have displayed, instead of hidden, his potential.

I'm not sure if this is true this time around, but even though I would never vote for Nader, I think that as long as he is in the game, why not let him in the debate? If he makes the other candidates uncomfortable, good. They should be.

s_m

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[baby_bear]

17. I'm not a sucker, thank you very much

I am trying to look at this rationally, and I happen to know at least three Republicans who might vote for Nader because they dislike Bush so much.

Knock off the personal attacks, eh? I'm a Dem, after all.

s_m

[shooga]

4. your not thinking this through

... he bashes bush purposely ... that's part of his con-game ... bush people won't vote for him ... he will only absorb dem votes ... the bush bashing is well accepted by Rove and company ... it's all part of the con of splitting the Democratic vote.



http://www.explorenader04.org

[orwell]

10. Blow Up

If that is the game, and it may be, I believe it will backfire.

Bush has a carefully constructed image of "honesty" and "trustworthiness." The only way to chisel this off is with carefully crafted language that will break the coding. Repetition is critical—the kind of repetition that a candidate is forced to employ while campaigning.

Even if your assertion is true, Ralph daring to say the emperor has lied will help to break the image of honesty and trust so central to Bush's image. It needs to be said. Very few in the mainstream of the Dem party are saying it for strategic reasons.

Framing and language are critical to a successful campaign. Ralph is blowing up W's frame, whether he intends to or not. If Rove's tactics are as you suggest I think they are flat wrong. Boy George can not take the voters looking at his horrendous record and blatant deceit.

O

[VOX]

15. Possibly true, but Republicans will *not* vote for Nader...ever!

He only stands to siphon off Democratic votes. Which is why he id a detriment to our cause of ABB. Make that "AVBB" -- Anyone *Viable* But Bush.

[orwell]

26. Either Or

Actually I don't accept the premise that a Nader voter would always vote democratic. I think a considerable portion of them would not vote at all.

Also consider the possibility that as they vote for Nader, they may also vote "down ticket" for other liberal progressive candidates. In other words there may be spillover into the Congressional races.

Of course, other than some stories circulating after 2000 I have no data to buttress my arguments. I am however trying to put out the idea that this is not an either or position.

I also assert that Nader will receive far less total votes than he did four years ago.

O

[physaf]

31. I'm not so sure whether Nader will help or hurt Kerry.

It is pretty complicated. How can he hit corporations
without hitting Kerry and his connections?

[orwell]

35. Corporate KO

The "Corporate" tag is already associated with the Repugs in the public mind. Even if it is a truism that both parties have crawled into bed with corporate interests, what is important is the frame that already exists. Facts that don't fit the frame will be discarded by our minds. The frame always wins.

The Repugs have spent almost 2 billion dollars on think tanks and media operations to promote themselves as pro-business, even to the point of painting "the left" and progressive movements as "socialists." That is their frame, not mine. Let's use this meme against them and tap the growing worldwide anti-corporate sentiment on the left and the right. Ralph's surfacing of the coded language accomplishes this without Kerry or Edwards having to.

In other words, we land the punch without putting a glove on.

O

[MrPrax]

5. Saw the Soundbite...

Nader was attacking the corporate cabal running Washington and how nothing will change...

Sounds good...who knows how far Nader might go between now and November.

It will be amusing to see liberals defend one rich Yalie over another and argue about who best can run the military...

Hopefully democrats will still have time to put in a real contender in the ring to fire up supporters...

[orwell]

11. Groucho Government

Barring a Kerry blow up, he will be the candidate. Frankly, I would be happy with Groucho Marx if he had a D on his chest as I am decidedly ABB.

Once again, it isn't the Dem base that needs to be fired up. Voter turnout in the primaries show that they are. It is the swings and independents that will decide this race. They always do.

That is why candidates are so centrist, no matter what they truly believe. That is politics. The key is to get elected.

I am a pragmatist. You sound like an idealist. But we both have to work together to get Bush out. Politics needs both types to remain energized and relevant.

O

[LeahMira]

25. Please, no more lies.

That is why candidates are so centrist, no matter what they truly believe. That is politics. The key is to get elected.

That is why voters are so disgusted with politics in general. Candidates go for the center when they are running and then swing to either the left or the right after they get in power. The average voter feels lied to and concludes that all politicians are a bunch of crooks.

Bush is losing ground now because the folks who supported him in 2000 had no idea that he was so radically right wing. They are seeing their jobs sent overseas, and are beginning to realize that corporations are not benevolent institutions that provide jobs and prosperity for American workers. They are beginning to understand that it doesn't matter how much of their earned income they get to keep because even with tax cuts they can't possibly, as individuals, pay the rising costs of their own health care. They are finding out that the invasion of Iraq, which was supposed to be such a piece of cake, is demanding that their sons and daughters remain overseas indefinitely. IOW, Bush posed as a centrist-leaning conservative to get votes, and then let people down.

Now you want the Democratic candidate to pose as a centrist-leaning liberal to get votes?

[orwell]

28. Lie in State

Bush is losing ground now because the folks who supported him in 2000 had no idea that he was so radically right wing.

Your statement proves my assertion. Bush won because he ran as a right leaning centrist. This is what the compassionate conservative propaganda was all about. That got him enough votes to allow him to be selected over Gore. Even with that pack of blatant propaganda, he still needed to rig the game.

I want Bush out. I am trying to "strategerize" a way to accomplish this. By positioning to the left, you cede the swing to Bush. While you will probably pick up the 25-30% of the voting public that is hard core liberal, You will lose a significant portion of the swing.

I agree with you that politics has become a pack of lies. I agree with much that you say about the failures of the Con agenda. But the point is to get elected, not by lying, but by framing yourself as the candidate who is most inclusive of the greatest number of likely voters. Framing is not lying. It is using words to define yourself in your own terms, not the opposition's. This is not "posing". Leftist's and Progressives, especially the idealists, do not understand this. This is why they are becoming a minority in power.

Propaganda is lying. The Bushistas are masters of these because they have no morality when it comes to winning. They follow the Machiavellian playbook that it is the duty of "the Prince" to lie to hold power. Framing is not lying. It is effective communication. It is identity politics rather than issue politics. Identity must come before issues. Issues flow from identity and values we share as liberal progressives.

We must first promote our worldview so that voters see we stand for something. Ralph effectively did this last night, whether he intended to or not. He got our memes out there, which is critical.

I don't think many of us who still harbor great anger at Ralph for 2000 understand what happened yesterday that is positive. Ralph is running. We have to deal with it. Anger will get us nowhere. The trick is to use this fact to our advantage instead of crying over spilled milk.

We must redirect this energy to our advantage. The future course of history depends on it.

O

[Arugula Latte]

7. Finally, some thoughtful, intelligent commentary about Ralph Nader ...

My spirit has been lifted by your thoughts. Please read the thread "Why I think Nader is running" (scroll down) and check out my long reply post (number 18) to many of the idiotic commentary; respond if you wish. We need Nader to push Kerry to the progressive end of the spectrum (if that's possible).

[physaf]

32. It would be great if Kerry would manage to get a more

progressive message out. If Nader's being involved in this
election accomplishes only that, I will be so happy that
he has given us this problem to deal with.

[Eric J in MN]

9. If the concept is just for Nader to give anti-Bush speeches, then

If the concept is just for Nader to give anti-Bush speeches, then let him do that WITHOUT running for President.

Gore has given anti-Bush speeches this year and he isn't running.

Nader got more votes which would have gone to Gore last time, and there is no reason why that would be different this time.

[bvar22]

12. The real purpose is to force the Democratic Party to...

...acknowlege its historical base voters and not pander to the Corporate Big Money like 2000.

[G_j]

19. what of course would be nice

would be if Nader used his moment in the spot light to get his message out, and then threw his support to the Dems. I'm not expecting this to happen but that would be one way this situation might be a win-win.

Still, I was speaking to my brother who is on the exact opposite side of the political spectrum than me. We both agreed that his message about the corporate control of the system appeals to many across the board. He is a conservative Christian Republican and he agreed with him and liked his message. My brother is not in the Bush cult, so he has no particular allegiance to * and also thinks the war is a mess. He used to like Bush, but it sounds to me like he's become embarrassed by him.

Nader's recent statements seem to ring a bell with people regardless of political affiliation.
He is saying something people have been waiting to hear. Everybody knows the corprations own Washington.

Now if he would just make his points and endorse the Dem candidate? I'm not holding my breath.

But he may actually draw votes from Bush.
I don't know anyone who plans on supporting him and I know lots of people who voted Green in 2000. I don't see him syphoning Dem votes. After talking to my brother, I realise that his message has an appeal to some conservatives.

.. an interesting situation.

[physaf]

33. I don't think that it works to just "get out the message"

and then get out of the race "throwing your support" to a
different candidate. In many ways, that has been tried before,
and it only seems to discourage more voters permanently. No -
if Nader gets in, the only real way he can have a good impact
is to fight hard for what he believes in.

[cboy4]

13. Ralph sounds great, there is no question

about it. HOWEVER, I'm beginning to question
whether everything he's done in his life to
protect consumers is because of his massive ego
instead of his heart.

What a shame he's running for president. I certainly
feel a lot less of him (yet again).

[dbt]

14. Ralph E. Quixote

The deck is stacked hugely against Nader as an Independent. Just getting on the ballot state-by-state will be a Herculean undertaking. Deep in his heart, Nader must know he has less of a chance this time around than he did in 2000.

OTOH, he sure took the gloves off on Eat The Press, didn't he? He's absolutely right about corporations, the media and impeachment, for openers. If he can be a fair-and-balanced thorn in the sides of bu$h and Kerry, he might actually do some good this time!

:freak:
dbt

[Piperay]

16. Go Ralph

and get the hell out and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. :grr:

[Robin Hood]

18. One of the guys chanting "go ralph go' was wearing a Catholic University

sweat shirt. A Repub operative lending his support for Naders run.

[G_j]

20. and you know this, how? n/t

[orwell]

29. The Second Coming

I don't doubt that Repugs are gleeful about Ralph's run. A friend of mine used to say, "Whatever is finally true is finally wrong."

This statement alludes to the changing nature of the universe. I suspect, that since every Democrat sees Ralph's run as a detriment, and every Repug sees it as a godsend, there is a high likelihood that it will be the opposite on both counts.

Let the BushBots hoot and holler. It shows overconfidence and hubris. This Democratic fear is the beginning of passion and conviction. It will force the Democratic candidate to run a image rich purposeful campaign. It will extend and expand the public debate into important areas that members of both parties would rather abandon.

Who knows, that Ralph Repug may end up crying in his BushBeer. The second coming will have to be postponed.

O

[dand]

21. Go Ralph go........

All the little war criminals in the Bush administration are chanting right along with you.

[peekaloo]

22. On GMA this a.m. Diane Sawyer-bot was ragging him about

the Florida outcome and Ralphie shot back with the Jeb/Katherine Harris disenfranchising the black vote (scrubbed lists).....Diane momentarily short circuited then when right back into the mantra that Ralph lost the election for Gore.

Ralph may indeed do the Dems a BIG favor this time 'round.

[Stuckinthebush]

23. Ralph's running won't have an effect on those issues

His agenda would be better served if he worked with the Kerry or Edwards campaign (whichever wins) to elect the Dem nominee. Once the Dem is in, Ralph can work within the administration to affect change. As it is now, he is nothing but a potential spoiler.

[physaf]

36. Have there been any polls taken yet

as to how Nader will affect this race?

[RememberWellstone]

24. He showed passion.

I was glued to my seat, listening to Ralph's entry speech on MTP. I don't think he will get even half of the votes he recieved last go around. I just wish Kerry would hint at Ralph being in his administration..Attorney General would be nice. He could clean up the corporate influence in D.C.

He made a great impact on my thinking about the corporate take-over of Washington..he is right.Too bad he cannot be involved in the governing process.

[ArkDem]

27. Ralph who?

.

[DiverDave]

30. The rupukes

BANKROLLED his run in '00. I have no doubt he is/will get more $$ from them.

So tell me again, you rocket scientist, how this helps to get the fascist out of power?

Jeez, lay off the hemp, open your eyes, nader can only HURT US!

Or is that O.K. with you?

Rovian gambit, see it for what is.

[orwell]

41. Gambit

I am aware that the Repukes financed some of Ralph's campaign. That is not the point of the thread.

Ad hominem attacks do not advance your logical argument. In fact, they weaken it.

It may be a Rovian gambit. It may also be a poor one. This is all up for discussion. I would agree with you that Rove is probably happy that Nader is running. Where I disagree is that it will definitely help Bushie.

Discussion is great with me. That is why I started this thread. It's great that you are passionate about victory. We need that. What isn't great is attacking/alienating someone who is looking for the same result you are.

That my friend IS a Rovian gambit.

O

[primavera]

34. Depends upon where he directs his fire

I've actually really enjoyed watching the broad field of candidates arrayed against der Führer, even though only a few of them could expect to garner any statistically significant levels of support. My thinking is: the more people who stand up and educate the country about just exactly how evil the shrub is, the better. But of course the proviso is that, at the end of the day, everyone comes together (bringing their supporters with them) in a unified front against W. My complaint with Nader is that he attacks Dems as eagerly as he attacks repukes. If he were interested in using a presidential campaign as a platform from which to illuminate the evils of the GOP, I'd say the more the merrier. If he perseveres in his past habits of doing his damndest to ruin Dem credibility along with repuke credibility, well, that's a different story.

[orwell]

37. I Agree

Well said.

O

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

38. I'm not sure I agree

but it's nice to see you posting

[orwell]

39. Thanks

Thanks nsma. I needed an extended break to live my life...so I sent myself to the orwell underground...

Good to hear from you as well. :hi:

O

[loudsue]

40. Orwell, I've really appreciated your analysis on this thread....

I, too, strongly believe that Ralph won't carry any of the Dem votes, and very few of the Green votes, if any. I don't know ANY Greens, personally, who will vote for him...but they're glad he's out there taking swings at what's happened to our country. The vast majority of them, like the rest of us, have seen the consequences of bush being in office. I think it's even worse than Nader himself thought it would be.

Thanks for your posts. I think you're spot on about what could happen. I've missed having so many good Dem candidates taking up press time, getting the truth out. I wish NONE of them (except Holy Joe) had dropped out. Nader's voice is SHAMELESS in calling a spade 'a spade'.

:kick::kick::kick:

[orwell]

43. The Luxury of Hate

Thanks.

I heard Nader on Democracy Now this morning and he said something very interesting. He said that liberals/progressives should wait and see his campaign unfold before they leap to attack him.

He also flatly stated that either Kerry or Edwards are preferable to Bush. This is a radical change from Ralph2000. He said again that Bush should be impeached.

The fact of the matter is there is nothing we can do about it, he is running. Effective tactics demand turning what appears to be a disadvantage into an advantage. That is the kind of discussion I am trying to foster here.

How can we take Ralph's campaign and turn it into an advantage for the Dems? What latitude does it afford either of the Dem nominees? How can it hurt Bushie?

Nothing is written in stone. What is required is creative energy instead of blind rage. When things are as dire as they are now, we don't have the luxury of hate.

Don't get mad, get even...

O