BUYING OFF NADER: looking for a win-win approach

[ulTRAX]

First of all I don't think Nader can be bought off for money. That would be insulting to even suggest. I still have immense respect for Nader even if many Democrats are furious with him for running. While I won't be voting for him as I did in 96 and 2000, until the Democratic Party can make a better case to Progressives... he SHOULD be hounding the Dems. I consider myself more of a Green than a Dem and it infuriates me that in 2004 our system is so backwards that I STILL do not have the ability to vote my conscience without supporting a spoiler.

I also realize our method of electing a president is both dysfunctional and anti-democratic. Dems should NEVER forget that none of the shenanigans in Florida or the USSC would have mattered EXCEPT for that unaccountable, anti-democratic star chamber called the EC. Unless Democrats understand this simple fact... all their anger is wasted blaming the OTHER victims of 2000: those Progressives who WOULD have voted Gore if there was a run-off system.

That being said I think the Democrats would be making a mistake NOT to try to offer Nader a carrot to pull out of the race in a face saving manner... a way that gives him what he wants, and his supporters a GOOD reason to vote for Kerry.

What is an issue Nader cares deeply about? I suspect it's political reform. I believe the Green 2000 platform included reforms such as proportional representation. Maybe it's corporate reform.

What if Nader could have a better chance of promoting his reform agenda by NOT running than if he did run? Imagine a good faith pledge from Kerry that his administration would investigate political reforms such as the EC... run-off voting... why 50% of the voting age population stays away from elections. What if Nader were offered the chairmanship? He would not have to taint himself by becoming a Democrat.

Of course if Kerry doesn't win... Bush certainly isn't going to call for reforms.

Now Nader might NOT go along with this commission and decide to run anyway... in which case some other outstanding Progressive would get the job. Such a move could alienate some of Nader's followers who then have a more vested interest in Kerry winning than a protest Nader vote.

[mike_c]

1. well said....

I agree with every one of your points.

[Terry_M]

2. Hmm

I agree, I can see Nader supporters voting Kerry if he promises politcal reform.

[ulTRAX]

3. Duh!!!!.... I forgot the last half of the post... it's there now

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Tinoire]

6. Such a vile post- but no surprise. n/t

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[still_one]

14. If you are running for president in 2008

I will support you trumad!!!

[trumad]

16. nah...

I'm a scandal a minute.... Plus..I'd advocate blowjobs in the White House.....

[Terry_M]

18. Problems don't get solved by being ignored.

And if Nader supporters aren't problems, why are you so upset?

[trumad]

22. Nader and his dipshit supporters are the opposition party

And I fuck with all oppostion parties.... That's my job...fuckin giving the oppostion parties hell!

[ulTRAX]

25. Greens were also victims of Election 2000

It's not the Greens that did in Gore.. it's our dysfunctional and anti-democratic election system. The simple fact is that liberal-progressives got some 3 million more votes than Bush. I bet most Greens would have preferred a system that allowed them to vote their conscience and also have a second choice if no one reached 50% of the vote.

[trumad]

27. BTW: I gotta ask

Why the fuck did the Greens run a non-Green?

[ulTRAX]

46. why do third parties in NY

Why do third parties in NY routinely endorse candidates that are not members of their party?

We have a dysfunctional election system that puts all third parties at a disadvantage. What do we have ONE independent each in the House and Senate? Color me impressed by the openness of our system.

Third parties all have to adapt as best they can.

[NNN0LHI]

11. Don't forget all the horses they rode in on too trumad n/t

[trumad]

15. Horses? Not! More like Jackasses!

Naders canidacy is turning into a joke and so are his dumbshit supporters.... Props to Mike Moore for ignoring these dipshits!

[still_one]

12. I agree

Kerry can win this on his own. nader is so far out of the mainstream that the only thing he can do is help Kerry lose.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[still_one]

17. don't forget about people like me too

nader supporters are the reason our rights our now in danger. Who wants there support. If we lose we lose, but nader will NEVER be a legitimate force again, only a freak who will go down in history as a spoiler

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Terry_M]

23. If those 3 are in Florida

It might actually make a difference :P

[NNN0LHI]

24. Say what? The only Nader supporters I know personally are Republicans

And that is the truth. As for those claiming to be Nader supporters on an anonymous board, we don't really know what their true political leanings either. Might just be a bunch of rich Rethugs trying to protect their tax cut for the wealthy for all we know. Sounds plausible don't it?

Don

[mike_c]

33. jeez, Don-- you and I just keep crossing swords today....

I'm a 30 year registered Democrat and a strong supporter of Ralph Nader. I doubt that his 2004 candidacy will go anywhere and I'm not planning to vote for him, but I think he's been (and remains) an important voice in liberal politics. So now you know at least one Nader supporter who's decidedly not repiglican.

[NNN0LHI]

37. Brings us back to we are on an anonymous board. What else can I say? n/t

[mike_c]

41. despite our disagreements I've remained polite...

...but it's my impression that you just called me a liar and implied that I'm a "rich Rethug" hiding behind the anonymity of a discussion board. Would you please clarify your meaning? Is this what you meant to say?

[NNN0LHI]

47. I will post again for you to clarify

>>>Brings us back to we are on an anonymous board. What else can I say? n/t<<<

I implied we are on an anonymous board and none of us know what the reasons are for someone posting what they do. Didn't accuse you or anyone else of anything. I am only saying that myself and others could do well by keeping an open mind on such things. Do you find a problem with that? Or do you expect that we should all take at face value whatever is posted here? Because if you do think that way, count me out. I was born skeptical. Probably die skeptical too.

Don

[mike_c]

48. ok....

eom

[mike_c]

31. ok, now that you've gotten that off your chest...

...do you have anything substantive or coherent to add to this discussion?

[mzmolly]

4. Sounds good to me. But they say never to negotiate with terrorists.

Kidding of course...

I like the idea. I also am interested in political reform - so as you say - it's a win win...

[NNN0LHI]

7. That would work only if Nader was not intent on getting Bush elected

Nader has his chunk of the Bush tax cut for the wealthy to protect. So I think you can scratch this idea.

Don

[ulTRAX]

19. by your "logic"

NNN0LHI wrote: "That would work only if Nader was not intent on getting Bush elected. Nader has his chunk of the Bush tax cut for the wealthy to protect. So I think you can scratch this idea."

By your "logic" then even Kerry secretly wants Bush to be reelected.

[NNN0LHI]

28. Umm. Kerry wants to end the tax cut for the wealthy

So what you say does not make sense to me, unless I am missing something here?

Don

[ulTRAX]

34. what's nader's position on taxes?

So has Nader proposed keeping Bush's pro-rich tax cuts or making the tax system LESS progressive? I'm just wondering WTF info you're using to reach your conclusions.

[NNN0LHI]

39. Don't know. Don't care.

He can promise anything because he knows he wouldn't get elected no matter what happens. So why would I care what his positions are on anything? I got bigger fish to fry. Like removing Bush come November.

Don

[Terry_M]

21. Kerry's got nothing to lose by trying.

[ulTRAX]

36. BTW.....at least Nader has the balls to call for Bush's Impeachment

Where's our war hero Kerry on this issue? From www.votenader.org

Wednesday April 14, 2004
Join the Call for an Impeachment Inquiry of Bush and Cheney
Help us Get Congress to Take Action
You can help the call for an impeachment inquiry of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Sign our online Petition.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney should be impeached for two reasons:

They led the United States into an illegal, unconstitutional war in Iraq.
They misled the Congress and the American people with five falsehoods that led to war.
All it takes is one Member of the House of Representatives to call for an Impeachment Inquiry to start the process to investigate the two grounds. If the House then votes by a simple majority for Articles of Impeachment, the Senate would then undertake a trial of the President and Vice President. They would only be convicted, and impeached, if two-thirds of the Senate agrees.

[kiahzero]

38. What "high crime or misdemeanor" did either or both commit?

Of those calling for impeachment, I've never had this question answered.

[ulTRAX]

43. I'm so sorry you feel left out of the loop...

I'm so sorry you feel left out of the loop... but take some responsibility.

After being a regular here I'm sure you've seen PLENTY of threads discussing the legal basis for Bush's impeachment. Heck, even I started such a thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1236266

If not you easily could investigated this issue on your own. Doing a web search certainly isn't rocket science.

[kiahzero]

50. I have seen such arguments, and they are not valid.

The UN does not see the United State's invasion of Iraq as directly violating international law. Wes Clark actually spoke on this when asked about the differences between Kosovo and Iraq.

Following the logic in that post, Clinton should have been impeached for Kosovo, because it was an illegal action under international law; it was not authorized by the UNSC.

Bush is not "CLEARLY" guilty of violating international law, and therefore that argument is not valid.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[John_H]

9. Don't sell your buddy nader short--i bet 10K shares of Wal-Mart

to up his considerable investment in that company, or perhaps some free union-busting consulting will make Ralphie all atitter.

[TrueD]

26. Give him single payer health care too

And also the Kyoto protocol carbon tax. We need to do these things anyway. If we get Kerry to start campaigning with these goals, maybe we can get Nader to drop off.

But if Kerry doesn't make the campaign pledge to do all that and campaign that way, I don't trust him enough to vote for him.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[TrueD]

32. That was helpful

[robbedvoter]

29. Biig mirror, face on a huge TV screen for a week or two...Nader who?

[kiahzero]

35. Interesting.

I also realize our method of electing a president is both dysfunctional and anti-democratic. Dems should NEVER forget that none of the shenanigans in Florida or the USSC would have mattered EXCEPT for that unaccountable, anti-democratic star chamber called the EC. Unless Democrats understand this simple fact... all their anger is wasted blaming the OTHER victims of 2000: those Progressives who WOULD have voted Gore if there was a run-off system.

So the legal method - no matter how poorly concieved it is - is more to blame than illegal activities? Interesting.

[ulTRAX]

40. still can't learn the TRUE history of Election 2000?

kiahzero wrote: "So the legal method - no matter how poorly conceived it is - is more to blame than illegal activities? Interesting."

What you refuse to grasp is that in an anti-democratic system blessed with all the legality you can imagine... you can have 100% vote count accuracy... 100% voter age participation... 100% legal behavior by party operatives.... and the LOSER CAN STILL WIN. Gee.... that's why it's ANTI-democratic.

I regret that you still refuse to grasp that simple truth.

[kiahzero]

42. It's not that I "refuse to grasp that simple truth"

It's that I would not view the Bush administration with such contempt had they not broken the law to gain office.

Another thing: If you truly support the abolishment of the Electoral College, you should stop trying to claim that the reason it should be abolished is because Bush won in 2000. Such an argument will make it impossible for it to ever be reformed:
1) It'll take a Constitutional Amendment to do so, which requires Republican help.
2) It will be framed as Democrats being sore losers.

Neither of these outcomes are positive for reform. If you are looking for VALID arguments against the EC, look no further than:
http://www.electionmethods.org/college.htm

It does sell some arguments short (especially the recount argument), but is all in all a factual discussion of the flaws of the EC and why it needs to be removed.

Additionally: Your rhetoric ("Dems AWOL on Democracy") is simply ludicrious. Not calling for the abolishment of the EC, especially in the way you do it, does not make one "AWOL on Democracy."

[ulTRAX]

49. Thank You For Clarifying Your Values

kiahzero wrote: "It's not that I "refuse to grasp that simple truth. It's that I would not view the Bush administration with such contempt had they not broken the law to gain office."

TRANSLATION: you're quite willing to accept a President that was installed with a MINORITY of the vote by an anti-democractic abomination like the EC.... as long as you believe there were no shenanigans by party operatives.

I, on the other hand, see moral legitimacy coming from the consent of the governed.

Thank you for this chance to illustrate the differences in our views.

[kiahzero]

51. Wrong.

I must admit, your ability to misrepresent my statements is truly heroic.

I do not hold in contempt legitimate victory under the rules that were in place when the contest began. Hence, if Bush had won the Presidency without breaking the law, I would not hold him in contempt. Similarly, if Gore had won the Presidency via the Electoral College without taking the popular vote, I would not hold him in contempt.

My opposition to the Electoral College is not contingient on the outcome it provides.

I, on the other hand, see moral legitimacy coming from the consent of the governed.

Nice words. However, the vast majority of the governed do not care about the Electoral College. Those that do care are not all uniformly against it. Is it not dishonest, then, to insist that the Electoral College is morally illegitimate seeing as the governed continue to consent to it?

[bvar22]

44. No way!

Nader would never join a political party that is owned by wealthy special interests and large corporations.

I will vote for Kerry. No one should vote for Nader, but everyone should listen to what he has to say.

[Michael Costello]

45. Half of voters don't vote

0.7% percent of voters said they would have voted for Gore if Nader hadn't won. Compare that to the 49% of eligible voters who did not vote in 2000. A group that is collectively poorer than the 51% who do vote.

I really just see it as different class groups. Bush represents the super-wealthy, maybe Gore and Kerry represent the upper middle class or something along those lines. Kerry pledging to perhaps even increase troops in Iraq, voting for NAFTA, on down the line. Sharpton seemed to be talking to poor and working class people, the people who don't vote. The poorest half of the country, which contains most of the half that doesn't vote, is not represented by the Democratic party, and sure as hell doesn't run the Democratic party. I mean, if you look at even a rather tame for Europe group like the British labor party in the earliest 20th century, that was certainly not only representative but run by workers. Even an organization like the AFL-CIO, one of the most miserable labor federations in the world, is too radical for the Democrats and gets no respect from the Democrats even though the Democratic party would collapse without labor money and muscle.

It is much more of a tragedy that workers walk through picket lines, or that many picket lines have little solidarity than working people in the US, then that Kerry, an Iraq-committed NAFTA-signer might not win instead of Bush. And so much effort put into trying to kill the campaign of someone who represents the majority of Americans needs more than any candidate (Nader) instead of trying to modify the Democratic party so that it can represent and even be run more by working people. It's just a liberal upper middle class attack on blue collar workers and the poor. They want there to be only two choices: liberal upper middle class or super-wealthy. The important issues: withdrawing from Iraq, trade issues like NAFTA and CAFTA, have already been put beyond debate by the Republicrats. If no one rocks the boat, the hegemony is not challenged, and 26% of Americans eligible to vote will choose either Kerry or Bush as the next president. Nader's attempts to try to re-introduce these topics - Taft-Hartley, free trade agreements, Iraq withdrawal - when they have already been settled and put off the floor of debate by the Republicrats is seen as vulgar by them I suppose.

I read about how Matt Gonzalez almost beat the "Democrat" for the San Francisco Mayors race (A millionaire "Democrat" who supported Bush in 2000 and who got more votes from Republicans than Democrats). When the Democratic establishment like Bill Clinton, the DLC NAFTA-signing golden boy flew out and rallied for Newsom, as did the whole Democratic leadership. The Democratic leadership will do nothing if the Republicans want to take Florida, or anything else, but if there's a chance a candidate to their left might win, they will outspend 10-to-1 and fight like hell.

[creeksneakers2]

52. Kerry just announced a week ago

that, if elected, he would form a commission to look into cutting corporate welfare. He said he'd put John McCain in charge of it. I thought that might be of interest to Nader voters, but they didn't seem to notice. I wish they would take a look because corporate welfare has always been a big issue with Ralph.

Kerry could even promise to put Ralph in charge of a corporate welfare commission. That is, if Ralph would be willing to go away. Kerry needs to cut government spending somehow anyway.

I hate Nader but I think making a deal to get rid of him makes sense.

[rman]

53. Does Nader want Bush or someone else?

Does Nader think he has even the slightest chance to be that someone else?

Then why is Nader dividing the anti-Bush votes?