Does Nader owe the nation and the Democratic Party an apology?

[benburch]

I really think he does!

Especially his "no difference" statement.

Otherwise I think we should write him into the history books as a Quisling.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. No. While I have lost respect for him, he owes himself an apology

for being more committed to an idea than to the people he assisted all his life prior. Literally every accomplishmnent he created is coming undone.

[blondeatlast]

9. "Every accomplishment he created is coming undone."

You nailed it.

If that isn't suffering enough, I can't think of anything that could be.

[MSchreader]

2. No! Hell No! FUCK NO!

No one should have to apologize for exercising their democratic right to run for political office -- even if he is running against your preferred candidate. Or, has more than four years of Bush dulled your understanding of democracy, too?

You and all the other Nader bashers ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

Martin

[Boredtodeath]

3. They have no shame

Or they wouldn't settle for "Anybody but ________ <insert republican name>" as a reason to cast a ballot for someone.

[MSchreader]

10. It seems the Republicans aren't the only ones

That need to take a remedial civics class.

Martin

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

23. I don't think the OP is saying he should apologize for demonstrating

a right. I think the OP is saying he should apologize for the lies he told and the manipulations he pulled while demonstrating that right. Ralph claims to be above the fray..his actions prove he isn't.

[Telly Savalas]

26. They're pretty transparent lies, though.

There's no difference between Rick Santorum and Dennis Kucinich? Pack the one-hitter again, duuuuude.

[MSchreader]

27. I disagree

Why regard him as a "Quisling" unless you consider his candidacy an enabler for Bush? Why say he owes "the nation" an apology if all he did was insult Democrats?

Martin

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

37. I'm saying he insulted the nation and as an intellect, Ralph SHOULD

understand the law of unintended consequences. I do think he was an enabler for Bush. Not just in 00 but also in 04 and also with every TV appearance he has made and also with his breakfast meeting with Grover Nordquist. His ego stops him from seeing it. YOur deep desire to believe in who he was is probably stopping you. Are UNIONS better off as a result? I know that is something that matters to you.

[DFLer4edu]

28. What he's been doing can liberally called running for office , but...

if he really wanted to make a difference and build a 3rd party he'd run for Congress instead of spoiling the democrats chances for President. Don't get me wrong, what he says is great, he's got the right positions on the issues so I'm not going call for an apology, but running for president has been on his part incredibly selfish and egotistical. He has good ideas, but he knows damn well he can never become president. He isn't stupid. If he has a sense of honor, he'll stop running for president and do something worthwhile.

[MSchreader]

31. Not the point

You are welcome to counsel him on electoral tactics to your heart's content, but that does not negate his democratic right to run for the presidency. That's the issue here: democratic rights. Are you all so blinded by your own partisanship that you cannot see that?

Martin

[RaleighNCDUer]

51. Having a right, and being foolish enough to excercise that right

when the only possible result is the destruction of everything you've worked for over your lifetime - those are two very different things.

Certainly, he had the right.

Equally certainly, excercising that right was untimately self-
destructive, not to mention destructive to the entire country.

His overweening egotism has undone his life's work, and frankly, if he is not smart enough to see that he's got no business running for president.

[MSchreader]

91. Nader's ego did not lead to this nightmare

The cowardice of 50 Democratic senators -- including the guys you supported in 2004 -- are responsible for that. They failed the Constitutional obligation. Live with it like the rest of us have to.

Martin

[RaleighNCDUer]

140. "...you guys supported..."

Are you self-identifying as a non-Democrat? Are you here to only spur flame wars among democrats?

Are you a Rove protege?

[MSchreader]

147. "Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been,..."

Compared to me, you're a short-timer here. Use that star of yours and search the DU archives for my username. See how many hits come up. After you're done perusing the documents, the articles and statements, you can come back here and post your public apology for even THINKING of accusing me of being a "Rove protege", as a reply to this....

If you have the integrity to admit you're wrong, that is.

Martin

[RaleighNCDUer]

148. OK, using the 'R' word was a bit over the top, and for that I apologize,

but the fact remains that politics is the art of the possible -- and Nader's candidacy was a quest for the impossible, unless the intent was to split off the most unthinking progressives from the dems and throw the election to *. In that case, it may have worked (though I believe it had more to do with Diebold than Nader).

If the progressives are not kept in the party, then the party will inevitably slide to the right. If Nader wanted to REALLY oppose *, he should have joined with the left wing of our party, such as it is. As a candidate himself, he has always been hopeless and can only be regarded as a spoiler.

He may owe nothing to the dems, but he should apologize to the nation for his part in allowing * a second term. As an ally he could have helped. As it was, he was just a distraction.

[MSchreader]

149. It had more to do with Diebold than with Nader ... in 2004

Nader was a non-issue in 2004. As were Cobb, Badnarik, Peroutka, Brown and all the other "third party" candidates.

It had more to do with the cowardice of the Senate Democrats than with Nader in 2000. There is a Constitutional provision for situations when conscious acts of massive disenfranchisement take place. It could have been done; I went over this with people a thousand times on here. It was ... possible. Section 2 of the XIV Amendment was specifically written for situations like Florida in 2000 (and, I would add, Ohio in 2004!). Why it wasn't used ... well, ask the Senate Dems.

Martin

[DFLer4edu]

132. Of course he has a democratic right to run for office, but...

that doesn't mean he should exercise that right. Just because you have the right doesn't mean you should stand up and tell everyone to go F themselves. Because that is pretty much what he does every four years. He has the right to run for president, I would never take that away from him. That said his actions have been egotistical and selfish. If he wants to make a difference, like I said he should run for congress, I'd be happy to vote for him. Otherwise he is well within his rights to continue what he's been doing, not that it will get us anywhere.

[MSchreader]

133. What ridiculous logic!

"Of course you have the right, but that doesn't mean you should exercise that right." What is the point of having a right if you don't exercise it, or are actively discouraged from exercising it?!

Sounds like the Bush regime's attitude to me: You have freedom of speech, just watch what you say.

Martin

[DFLer4edu]

144. The right to run for public office

Anyone who can gather enough supporters has the right to run for public office under whatever political banner they please. Which is why Nader has every right to run for president. The right that he's exercising while running for president is the right to run for public office. To exercise his right to run for public office he DOES NOT have to run for president and screw the left. He could exercise his right by running for congress.

You ask:
What is the point of having a right if you don't exercise it?
Well I ask you, why doesn't everyone run for president, as a 3rd party candidate like Ralph Nader? After all, it's their right.

The anwser: Not everyone thinks it a could idea to exercise their right to run for president as a 3rd party candidate just because they can; not everyone has as big an ego as Ralph Nader.

[MSchreader]

151. But an individual's personal choice...

Is not what's being discussed here. It is the right of that individual to run, which is what you questioned.

Why doesn't everyone run for president? Some people don't want to. Others are willing to throw their support behind another candidate. Still others don't know how.

As someone who has worked on a "third party" presidential campaign, I can tell you that a person can burn out just trying to make it through all the hoops that the two parties set up to just get on the ballot in all 50 states. Then there is the money issue. Then there is travel, speaking engagements, etc., etc., etc., etc. Unless you're independently wealthy, or have some kind of huge financial pool to draw from, it is impossible to wage a serious presidential campaign. That, too, is a reason why not everyone exercises that right.

On the other hand, there are people who are completely disgusted by that reality, and choose to run a campaign to expose and build grassroots pressure to change, and ultimately overturn, it. It's not about winning, but about changing the whole situation. IIRC, that's why Nader ran.

I would suggest some reading about the role of "third parties" throughout history, and the effects they had on the U.S. I would specifically start with the Liberty Party in the elections of the 1840s.

Martin

[DFLer4edu]

152. It's not about winning, but about changing the situation?

Alright, I actually do know what you mean by saying "It's not about winning, but about changing the whole situation." I get where you're coming from, it doesn't matter if the Dems when if they're just as big a group of corporate whores (which I don't agree with, but I completely understand where people are coming from when they say that). Or on whatever issue you don't like what the dems have done. What's more important than winning is changing peoples minds on these issues.

But the fact of the matter is that although I don't feel like the dems are as liberal/progressive as I'd like them to be, there is plenty of room in the democratic party for liberal/progressive candidates. All it takes is enough people to vote for them in the primaries. I understand where you're coming from when you say "It's not about winning, but about changing the whole situation." but in the end, if the whole situation has changed, the situation must result in victory, otherwise the situation hasn't changed.
You evoked the history of third parties, so I'll ask you what will Nader go down in History for doing? you can't tell me it isn't going to be for throwing the election to Bush in 2000.

To play not to win, but to change the whole picture only works if you actually convince people and change the whole picture. Nader hasn't convinced anyone one of anything. All he has done has been to take votes away from Gore. Now I know that Nader supporters hate that phrase, but you can't tell me you preferred Bush over Gore. Assuming Nader wasn't in the picture would you really have just gone home and not voted with Bush sitting the republican ticket? If you say yes, I can't believe you, certainly not after what you have seen Bush do. And as for 2004, if DK wasn't a good enough candidate for you, who will be?

[MadHound]

4. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! No, he doesn't

If watching how the Dems have caved time and again over the past five years, if watching Clinton ship well paying manufacturing jobs overseas, while ripping out the social safety net, if all of this and much more that is to time consuming to mention doesn't convince you that we're living under the two party/same corporate master system of government, then nothing will, and you are too blinkered with partisan blinders to even bother with.

Wake the fuck up and smell the coffee. We're all being played here, by both sides. A nice little good cop/bad cop game going on, and we're the ones who lose, every. . . single. . . time.

And meanwhile, as we discuss the "differences" between the parties, the record breaking gap between the rich and the rest of us that opened under Clinton has continued to set records under Bush.

We're being played for fools in this two party system. I would suggest that you go do some reading to find out how. Kevin Phillips, Howard Zinn, Chomsky, Jim Hightower, these would all be good authors to start with. Wake up, look around, you're being played, and the ones who control the game are laughing at you all the way to the bank.

[IrateCitizen]

14. Well stated, friend!

There's not really much of anything I can add to your statement, outside of echoing bpilgrim's post below in saying that we should be instead demanding an apology from the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Their complicity and complete lack of conviction has done exponentially more to bring down our nation than anything Ralph Nader has done.

I swear, if people could remove their partisan blinders for just five fucking seconds and see that the Dems are hardly the saviors some people like to pretend they are, we wouldn't be engaging in this useless debate every few weeks....

:grr:

[RaleighNCDUer]

57. The corporatists are entrenched in the Democratic Party, but

the widening gap you mention began with Reagan, not Clinton. Clinton might have done more to stop it if he hadn't had a few distractions, like an impeachment, or he might not, but now we'll never know. Still, put the onus on Reagan and the republicans, where it belongs.

[MadHound]

62. Actually, amazingly enough, the gap was stable under Reagan

And even under Bush I. It didn't grow to record proportions until Clinton came to office, and the effects of globalization really started to kick in. Granted, many of the Reagan/Bush policies contributed, they did after all kick off the rush to a service economy. But Clinton's globalization policies such a NAFTA, China and others were absolutely devestating in these matters.

If you wish for more information in these matters, I would reccomend reading Kevin Phillip's book "Wealth and Democracy". He paints a very accurate picture of this history.

[IrateCitizen]

63. In all fairness, NAFTA was a Bush I creation...

Still, that doesn't excuse Clinton in the least for pushing it, along with other aspects of the dead-end path known as corporate globalization.

[JackDragna]

5. Absolutely not.

Obviously, you know little about Nader's beliefs about there being "no difference" between the Democrats and Republicans. To Nader, there is a difference in their beliefs, particularly among their constituents. What Nader referred to, and what I believe is pretty much correct, is that there is now little difference as to how the two parties operate at the highest level of power. Both are pro-corporate, pro-military apologists.

The Democratic Party, particularly those such as John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Joe Biden and everyone else at the highest levels of power who acted as pro-war Bush apologists, are the ones who owe activists such as Nader and anti-war Democrats the apologies. If these people had showed some backbone when Bush was demolishing our international reputation and didn't march in lock-step to the drumbeats of war to save themselves from charges of being unpatriotic, maybe we wouldn't be in the predicament we are now.

For the last time, DU: Nader didn't get the nation into the situation it now finds itself. If you want to look for fault, go find a picture of Gore, Kerry and the like and look at it for a while..

[blondeatlast]

6. No, and I don't want it. Let him wallow in his own sad demise.

I used to have so much respect for him, but he loves the green as much as anybody.

It's a loss, but oh, well.

[lateo]

7. Nope.

Nice flamebating though...

[gpandas]

8. fuck that quisling. n/t

[MSchreader]

11. "I think we should write him into the history books as a Quisling"

Thankfully, you don't write the history books.

Martin

[bpilgrim]

12. Does the DEMOCRATIC PARTY owe US an APOLOGY

I REALLY think they DO!

Especially their NOT FIGHTING for our VOTE (paper ballots)

Otherwise I think we should write them into the history books as a Quisling.

peace

[CBHagman]

13. He owes the nation an apology.

You don't claim you support a progressive agenda and then work to ensure that the agenda in question will be stalled or possibly even be undone.

The late Washington Post political cartoonist Herblock got it right when he drew a picture of Nader as a blinded Samson getting crushed by the pillars he was toppling.

[bpilgrim]

15. I think the Dems OWE Him an APOLOGY for LOCKING HIM OUT

and many other progressives.

I salute NADER for helping to WAKE this nation UP to how CORRUPT our GOV really is. (though the neoCONs get most of the credit)

Thank you St. Ralph :toast:

peace

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. How was he locked out?

I don't recall him ever seeking the Democratic nomination.

[IrateCitizen]

20. I believe that bpilgrim is referring to the bipartisan scam known as...

... the Commission on Presidential Debates. It's been well-documented how the two major parties have conspired to dumb down the discourse in Presidential debates (hell, calling them "debates" is a stretch anymore) and to keep third-party candidates out.

That's why, when the commission was created in 1992, the League of Women Voters withdrew their participation from the debates stating, "We will not be party to the hoodwinking of the American public."

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. Considering that there were dozens of declared candidates,

there is a need to draw the line somewhere.

[MSchreader]

32. So, draw it after the top two?

Riiiiight. How ... umm ... democratic of you.

Martin

[Freddie Stubbs]

40. They had specific criteria back in 2000

The candidate had to be polling at at least 15% in a national poll. It is mathematically possible for more than two candidates (such as Perot did in 1992) to reach this level.

[IrateCitizen]

44. Ahh... the "money primary" rears its head again!

The candidates have to be polling at least 15% prior to the debates, which requires MASSIVE amounts of cash. For those who don't have the cash, the only hope they have of having their ideas heard in order to boost their standing IS the debate, but they can't qualify for the debate in the first place.

Like I said below, you can justify the CPD's decisions however you want, but when you try to justify what they've done you're only demostrating a loyalty to partisanship -- or bipartisanship -- over democratic discourse.

[Freddie Stubbs]

49. So where exactly would you draw the line?

Anyone who simply says that they are running for President? You will have a stage with 200 publicity hounds and and a handful of serious candidates. During the recall election in California there were over 100 candidates running.

[IrateCitizen]

50. I've already answered that.

In my post below about the 2004 election. It's not necessarily a static number.

One thing is for certain, I would abolish the CPD control of the debates and make the cut-off at more than "2"!

[Freddie Stubbs]

68. Wherever the cutoff is

There will always be some crybaby belly-aching that they should be included.

[IrateCitizen]

76. I don't give a shit about bellyaching. I give a shit about discourse.

That's the whole argument in play here. The Democratic and Republican Parties are simply two sides of the narrow status quo. If the debate is simply between those two parties, then the debate is largely worthless, IMHO. But if they can be forced to address issues OUTSIDE of their narrow paradigm (and the only way they WILL address them is if they're forced to) through the inclusion of outside parties, then all of the American Public viewing the debate is better off in the process, because the democratic discourse is a bit better off.

You seem to be operating under the mistaken impression that I really care about individual candidates crying and complaining that they aren't involved. I couldn't care less about that. What I DO care about is the two major parties, in collusion through the CPD, narrowing and eliminating the political discourse in this country. No good can come of it.

[G_j]

33. he wasn't allowed to attend the Boston debates as an audience

member, though he had been given a ticket by a student. He was threatened with arrest when he tried to enter an alternative viewing site.


edit, link:
Nader tossed off grounds at debate site - October 3, 2000
... of the University of Massachusetts Boston debate site prior to the event. ...
with the Nader campaign said a student gave the candidate a ticket to view ...
www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/03/debate.protests.01/

[Freddie Stubbs]

41. Why wuold he need to attend?

He already knew who he was voting for.

[G_j]

43. I didn't realize

that not knowing who you are voting for was a prerequisite for attendance to a presidential debate.
Sounds just like the way Bush handles attendance for his rallies.
mmmm....

[GirlinContempt]

102. WHA....AAAT?

[IrateCitizen]

35. There were a total of four "second-tier" candidates who...

... received a rather significant amount of publicity and support:

Green Party -- Cobb
Reform Party -- Nader
Libertarian Party -- Badnarik
Constitution Party -- Peroutka

The only reason that the CPD refuses to allow any of these folks into the debates is that they don't want their conventional wisdom challenged from either the right or the left. It's the same reason that Clinton and Dole conspired in 1996 to keep Perot out of the debates, after he was allowed to participate in 1992.

Drawing the line at the Republican and Democratic nominees is part of the problem, not part of the solution. If you recommend staying with the present format, scripted and controlled by the two major parties, then you're part of the problem.

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. Perot's '96 campaign was very different that his '92 one

In 1992 he had virtually unlimited resources to spend on his campaign (and was polling much higher). In 1996 he accepted public financing, so he was unable to his use his large bank to finance his campaign.

[IrateCitizen]

42. You're sidestepping the point being addressed here

We're not talking about finances, we're talking about access to the debates. Perot's numbers took off in 1992 AFTER he appeared in the first Presidential debate, because he was the ONLY CANDIDATE who mentioned the term "NAFTA".

Also, you completely disregarded the quote from the LWV regarding the CPD. Frankly, I think it speaks VOLUMES as to where the true loyalties of the CPD lie, and they are NOT about elevating political discourse or talking about important issues -- they're about controlling the process within a tight script.

In 1992, GHW Bush was taken off message by a person's question about how the current economy had personally affected him. The CPD saw to it that such "unscreened" questions would not be used in the future, that there would be no genuine "back-and-forth" between candidates (I mean, I always thought THAT was the definition of a debate anyway), there would be no participation from outside candidates, and that nothing would be done to challenge the hegemony of the two major parties in our national political scene.

The CPD is patently undemocratic. You can try and justify its decisions however you want, but when you engage in such activities you demonstrate yourself only as someone who wishes to elevate blatant partisanship (or bipartisanship) over some true exercise in democratic discourse.

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. Perot actually polled higher in the Summer, before the debates

Clinton 33%
Perot 30%
Bush 29%

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/09f72a6b15a2f7ea?hl=en

After the debates and the General Election rolled around, Perot only got about 19% of the vote.

[IrateCitizen]

48. OK, I was incorrect on that point...

However, I still stand by my initial point that he should have been there in 1992, and he should also have been there in 1996.

In 1992, remember, he dropped out and then re-entered just weeks before the election. That caused his numbers to take a serious hit. So did having his "kookiness" exposed to the electorate, because let's face it, the dude is a few cards short of a full deck. Additionally, Stockwell (his VP nominee) didn't help matters with his rather "uneven" debate performance.

But none of this deals with the issue at hand, which is that the CPD controls the process to the benefit of the Republican and Democratic Parties.

[Freddie Stubbs]

52. The CPD does not have any legal monopoly on Presidential debates

Any organization (League of Woman Voters, Chamber of Commerce, CNN) is free to hold their own debates and invite whomever they choose.

[IrateCitizen]

55. Yeah, OK. Like the candidates would participate anyway!

You're telling me that the candidates would opt OUT of a system in which their parties control everything and which allows them to answer "questions" in the form of pre-prepared soundbites in favor of one that might actually put them in an uncertain environment?

Yeah, OK. Do you have any bridges to sell me while we're at it? :eyes:

[Freddie Stubbs]

67. Tim Russert has been pretty successful in luring Senate and Governor

candidates to debate on his show. And he doesn't ask easy questions.

[bpilgrim]

70. Tim Russert is a TOOL who wears his politics on his sleeve

as anyone in his position must be.

peace

[Freddie Stubbs]

75. What exactly are his politics?

:shrug:

[bpilgrim]

80. CONSERVATIVE and his duty is propping up the status quo of the elite

he wouldn't be there if he didn't and is why he gets paid the BIG $$$

peace

[Freddie Stubbs]

81. Why are Democrats so willing to go on his show?

:shrug:

[bpilgrim]

94. because they have no CHOICE

name me 1 M$M show that is PROGRESSIVE or INDEPENDENT.

there are NONE.

the ONLY progressive programming we got with a national reach are on the radio and they are very RARE.

it is a DISGRACE what are media have become under corporate ownership and abandonment of the principle of all sides must have a VOICE.

you may not see it because it is so pervasive it appears 'normal' but if you were around in the 70's and before or studied what scholars have written about the actual stats of the diversity of the M$M you would be astounded.

we live in a time where ANY voice for the people is ridiculed, threatened, deionized and mostly ignored. it is why we have the problems we do today and our children are growing up in a culture of crass consumerism and only care about satisfying their immediate programmed needs and thats it.

i am a self educated punk philly kid who has traveled and worked abroad and in corporate america and i am SHOCKED at the MANY know-NOTHINGS who have no shame or desire to learn or their lack of knowledge in fact they think they know everything and are dammed proud of themselves.

we are heading for a great fall and it is due to the cartoon world view promoted and broadcasted all across our great land by corporate america and their henchmen in our gov. bet.

when that day comes it will be more devastating then anything witnessed and suffered by man in history and it will be all our fault.

will our children EVER forgive us :cry:

peace

[IrateCitizen]

78. Apparently you missed his interview with Bush, then.

And he doesn't ask easy questions.

His interview with Bush proved that assertion to be false.

Furthermore, is Tim Russert to be anointed the gatekeeper to public discourse in this instance? All his show does, the times that I used to watch it (I don't much anymore) is reinforce the status quo as well.

I'm interested in seeing a true DEBATE. You know, candidates giving their views on issues and tearing each other's ideas apart through a back-and-forth argument. When Tim Russert does a show, it's all about TIM RUSSERT, not the candidates or ideas at hand.

[bpilgrim]

65. Crashing the Party: Taking on the Corporate Government in an Age of Surren

Crashing the Party: Taking on the Corporate Government in an Age of Surrender



"Must Read" Indictment of Both Major Parties, July 31, 2002


I was among those who thought Ralph Nader was a "spoiler" and deprived Al Gore of the election. After reading this book, I now realize that Nader is correct-the major premise of his book is that both the Democratic and Republican parties have become so corrupt and so removed from citizen interests as to be identically disqualified from putting forward viable candidates for the future. He puts forth a vision for a new democracy in which the citizens take back the power and demand that third party candidates be allowed to join the Presidential debates and be heard by America.

Some will accuse Nader of name-dropping and self-aggrandizing in this book, but that is an unfair charge. He has dedicated 40 years of his life to a quest for fairness in American life. As I went through the book and reflected on his very early efforts on everything from women's rights to product safety to the environment I could not help thinking that the breadth and substance of his accomplishments make the Democratic and Republican candidates look like Johnny-come-latelys who are also bluffing snake oil salesmen. This guy is "the real deal."

I recommend that two books be read prior to reading this one: Halstead & Lind's "The Radical Center: The Future of American Politics" and Ray & Anderson's "The Cultural Creatives: How 50 Million People are Changing the World". Two other books could add useful underpinnings to the points Nader makes that I summarize below: Lewis' "LOSERS: The Road to Everyplace but the White House" which immortalizes citizen-businessman Morry Taylor (the "Grizz"); and Williamson's "IMAGINE: What America Could be in the 21st Century."

A few points about Nader's book that I hope will dispel all the negative reviews and demonstrate that this is required reading:

1) This is the only book that addresses the totality of the challenges and threats to America in a sensible balanced way, without platitudes and upon a foundation of fact.

2) This is the only book representing the new political paradigm in which the citizen-voters take back the power by wiping out the ability of corporations to buy politicians.

3) This is the only book that thoughtfully and convincingly demonstrates that the Democrats have morphed into shadow Republicans, and both parties have completely lost their ethical and popular foundation.

4) This is the only book that bluntly confronts the fact that we get the government we deserve--democracy is hard work and demands citizen time and thought.

5) Among the useful details that should outrage and mobilize citizens, and all according to Nader:

a) the Commission on Presidential Debates is a fraud perpetrated upon the public--it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic and Republic parties created explicitly to displace the more honest League of Women Voters and to bar third party candidates from being visible to America in the crucial Presidential debates.

b) there is an incestuous relationship between the media, the polls (most funded by the media) and the Presidential debate and public policy process.

c) global threats are not well-understood by Americans, and a major effort spanning the next generation must be undertaken to restore global or foreign affairs and foreign trade understanding to the public.

d) public budgets are neither public nor honest. They are massively distorted with a "proliferating array of taxpayer subsidies, giveaways, and bailouts (known as corporate welfare) to corporations." A recurring theme in Nader's book, based on factual legally-viable documentation, is the manner in which corporations are looting the commonwealth with the active connivance of our elected officials. The people need to wise up.

e) the Internet has *not* has the anticipated leveling effect of bringing out citizen-voters to take back the power and stop corporate socialism.

f) the non-profit organizations and popular organizations (e.g. the Sierra Club, the AFL-CIO) consistently misrepresent their members by choosing the "lesser of two evils" in the two traditionalist corporate candidates, not realizing that a) a lesser evil is still evil and b) their members are smart enough to consider third party alternatives and could--if enough such organizations banded together, cause a third party to be instantly visible as a mainstream alternative.

g) the public commonwealth (the airwaves, land, water, etc.) has been taken away from the people. It is time to get it back and demand, as one small example, that those using the airwaves granted by the public provide for free political time for all viable candidates, ending the advertising rip-off that also deprives the people of clear access to all competing views.

h) community building from the neighborhood up is the place to start. We need to focus on empowering and exciting the young people and building a cadre of volunteer civic activists that will sustain progressive public interests for the decades to come.

I would make one personal observation that was inspired by reading this book: I do not believe that any one President, from any party, is viable as a "one click" choice for leading America. In my view, the next President should not be elected without two fundamental changes in how we elect Presidents: 1) instant run-off voting must be enacted, allowing second choice votes to play a role if a third party candidate is not elected (while qualifying the third party for funding in future elections based on the first choice vote); and 2) Cabinets must be announced in advance of the election and be the focus of at least one Presidential debate including at least three but ideally four parties. It is time for a third party candidate to pull together a Cabinet that includes the best choice for key posts irrespective of parties, and specifically including the Pat Buchanan's, Sam Nunns, Colin Powells, and key others like Ross Perot, Morry Taylor, even Jello Biafra (as new Minister of Culture!).

This is really a superb book, in the tradition the Committees of Correspondence that helped bring about the American revolution, and I recommend it to all.

source...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312302584/103-1920869-9283837?v=glance

peace

[rinsd]

79. DNC went after his ballot qualifications with great zeal....

...which to some of us struck us as hypocritical.

I didn't vote for the greem M&M But I think he has the right to get on the ballot same as anyone else.

[IrateCitizen]

18. It seems that the Dems should apologize then as well...

You don't claim you support a progressive agenda and then work to ensure that the agenda in question will be stalled or possibly even be undone.

It was national Democrats, not Nader, who voted in favor of the IWR, the stream of military appropriations, the Patriot Act, the Bankruptcy Bill, Fast Track trade negotiating authority, and so on.

None of those things are doing anything to advance a progressive agenda. They're working to roll it back. Yet, many Democrats in Congress voted in favor of these measures. Last time I checked, Ralph Nader didn't cast a vote in favor of any of these.

Now, I'm not going to argue that Nader is without fault. If anything, his fault is succumbing to his own ego in insisting on entering a realm (electoral politics) that only serves to minimize his effectiveness. But this shit of demanding apologies from him when there are plenty of Democrats who have done more to repeal anything approaching a progressive agenda is just beyond the pale.

Stop looking for scapegoats for your own party's shortcomings. It does nothing to solve the problem at hand.

[MadHound]

24. And what progressive agenda was stalled or undone?

The "progressive" agenda of Clinton, shipping well paying manufacturing jobs overseas, ripping out the social safety net, allowing increasing monopolization of the media, being pro-corporate all of the time. Or is it the progressive agenda of the current Dem leadership, the agenda that votes for the Patriot Act, the IWR, NCLB, the prescription drug bill, the bankruptcy bill, Real ID, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

If these are the "progressive" agendas you're talking about, they're better off dying, for they are not progressive, and they hurt the vast majority of Americans, while enriching the very few.

[mzmolly]

145. I'd love to see that cartoon.

Great analogy.

[Tinoire]

16. What for? For telling the truth about this crooked system

where both parties are out to protect corporate interests? Just who do you want Nader to apologize to? Lieberman? Kerry? Feinstein? The guys who vote Billions for war and for Israel while 1.5 million hungry, homeless American kids sleep on concrete each night? The guys who were complicit enough to vote for this war even though they knew FULL WELL there were no WMDs? Who do you want him to apologize to? The guys who were too chickenshit to face Galloway so they sent Levin to carry the imperial water?

Who? Who? Who?

If Dems are going to insist on an apology, I'm going to insist the apology be from the Dems to Nader.

Stoning the messenger doesn't make the message any less true.

[Rowdyboy]

17. He's a second rate, has been hack....Can't believe he didn't endorse

Bush/Cheney in 2004-he's the man who made it all possible.

A disgusting, pompous, piece of cow shit that should just shut up and retire into obscurity. What good he did in the past has been drowned in the waves of evil he has brought upon us.

Don't bother apologizing. Just go away.

[kansasblue]

21. his been warning about the dangers of corporations for years

Both the Dems and Reps were doing nothing. If the Dems took up his cause his would have dropped. Now look where we are! We are all working on the Nader issues of corporate media. He is a wise man. He began the fight we are fighting now.

[GreenPartyVoter]

22. No, it's too close to the truth. There are some GREAT dems and some good

things about the DEMs, but overall the party has been on a downward slide along with politics in general in this country. (Not all their fault; the RW is largely insane these days) Yes, I voted for Kerry this last time, though it broke my heart to so so because I figure even if life would be somewhat better under this Dem president or that Dem president as compared to **, who doesn't count as a real Repub but as a Christo-Fascist nut, I would still feel like we were so far away from getting it right.

Still too much not working on better energy sources, outsourcing and weakening of workers' rights, propping up of dicators, selling out to corporations, not securing decent health care or education for everyone from cradle to grave etc etc. (Refer to Michael Moore's chapter on Mr. Clinton for more on why I voted for Ralph in 2000.)

Right now all my hopes rest on Dr. Dean breathing new life into the party and everyone possible fighting for local election reforms so that more progressive dems or non-dems go into office instead of corporatists. It all comes down to that, really, for me. With a better election system we'll get better public officials, and better officials means better policies.

http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm

[Brian_Expat]

25. Um, no he doesn't

I didn't vote for him, but he exercised his constitutional right to run for office. NOBODY should "apologize" for exercising his democratic rights under the law.

Further, I don't see Bill Clinton apologizing to me for passing DOMA and DADT. I don't see John Kerry apologizing for his anti-gay remarks in Louisiana about the Democratic Platform in Massachusetts recently. Those politicians, both of whom I held my nose and voted for, did a lot more damage to me as a gay man than Ralph Nader ever did.

I'll demand a letter of apology from Nader AFTER I get several from the two Democrats I just mentioned.

[Cleita]

30. Rumor has it that prior to his Green Party gig, he was a Republican.

This can't be proven though. He is a very rich man and a union buster, not a very liberal act.

He is definitely a big foe of large corporate interests and this is where his strength lies. This is the honest Nadar. The dishonest Nadar was to pretend to be a liberal to get the Green Party to back his bid for the White House.

Read about it here:

http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm

The Libertarian Party probably would have been a better fit. I think he needs to apologize for being disingenuous about his political beliefs.

[comsymp]

34. No.

And according to my understanding of the term, I think that there are many more likely candidates for Quisling status among Dem members of Congress.

ON EDIT: F'rinstance






In the Rose Garden, President Bush along with bipartisan
leaders from the House and Senate (Congresswoman Harman
left of President) announced the Joint Resolution to
authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces
against Iraq.
White House photo by Paul Morse

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. An apology for what? Telling the truth about our one party state?

I think not.

[G_j]

39. does the Democratic party owe an apology to the Black Caucus?

we all saw F-9/11 didn't we?

does it owe an apology to ALL of us?

yes

[JanMichael]

61. They sure as hell do. Good point. eom

[G_j]

64. i would say there are a thousand apologies owed to the American ppl

for a thousand different betrayals. I'm not sure why a third party candidate apologizing to the Democratic party is worth sweating over.

If we wanted to list apologies owed, we would be here 24/7 for weeks.

[leesa]

45. No. The GOP does.

[BeTheChange]

47. No.

tsk tsk

[unsavedtrash]

53. yes

[stevedeshazer]

54. Of course not

He runs a campaign for President, and he's supposed to apologize?

Ben, if you ran, I wouldn't call on you to apologize. :)

[reality based]

56. On his knees with head bowed! n/t

[JanMichael]

58. Hell no. This isn't a Two Party State.

And the fact is that while Nader's numbers in Florida canned Gore the VOTER PURGE canned Gore and the Supreme Court canned Gore and eresa Lapore canned Gore.

Oh and losing Tennessee canned Gore.

How about an apology from fucking Tennessee???

As to the "they're the same" charge? They are on several points and beliefes.

That flip-side comment is fact not fiction and Nader, while I voted for GORE, doesn't owe any of us a fucking apology for exercising his rights.

Tennessee does though:-)

[frylock]

59. take a look at the roll call on the bankruptcy bill vote..

and then explain to me the difference between the two parties.

Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Not Voting
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00044

[WhiteTara]

60. Yes he does, but fat lot of good it will do

his "lesser of 2 evil" comment was beyond the pale.

[Q]

66. I'll remind again...

...that election fraud and the illegal Supreme Court decision were to blame.

And I'll say again: the Bush Regime won't have to rewrite history to cover up their crimes and corruption. DEMOCRATS ARE DOING IT FOR THEM.

If you're looking for apologies...then look to:

Jeb Bush

Harris

Baker

Supreme Court

Please stop the propaganda that leaves the Bush criminals out of the equation.

[noiretextatique]

69. an apology...for what, exactly?

being (mostly) right?

[bpilgrim]

71. doncha know St. Ralph rolled over on all the neoCONs criminal policies?!?

we must DEMAND accountability!

he gave all the Dem's special koolaide to drink that allows him to remotely control their voting behavior JUST LIKE his EVIL voting machines that don't provide a PAPER BALLOT that can be audited afterward to ensure a fair count.

he HATES America and tries to cover up his CRIMES by blaming innocent hardworking Dem's :argh:

i am SICK of his schemes and won't stop till he is in GITMO where he belongs in his underwear in a cell next to Saddam.

:argh:

psst... pass the word ;->

sup noiretblu, good to see ya :hi:

peace

[noiretextatique]

72. nah, i say we hang him and get it over with

and all his commie-loving, naive, college student supporters who vote their conscience at the expensive of poor people, blah, blah, blah...
did you know he voted for the the war? and the patriot act, and the bankruptcy bill too? and...he'd just love to privitize social security because he owns a lot of stock...that self-serving egomanic!!! :rofl:
who needs to apologize? how about all the democratic cowards in the senate who refused to support the CBC? didn't think it would be THIS BAD, my ASS!!!!!!!!!

:hi: bpilgrim...nice to see you too.

[LoZoccolo]

83. Nader dissed the CBC to their face after meeting with them personally.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5262963

[noiretextatique]

and? republicans routinely diss democrats and democracy

nader is not a democrat :shrug: why does anyone expect him to be nice to democrats? and which diss of the CBC cost america more...nader's of the democratic senators'?

[noiretextatique]

84. and? republicans routinely diss democrats and democracy

nader is not a democrat :shrug: why does anyone expect him to be nice to democrats? and which diss of the CBC cost america more...nader's of the democratic senators'?

[LoZoccolo]

86. Don't bring up the CBC at all again ever then in reference to Nader then.

Because Nader clearly showed that he doesn't really care about the CBC and by extension black people.

[noiretextatique]

89. BULLSHIT...that's utter and complete BULLSHIT

nader refused to do their bidding...that's not a diss to them or to black people in general, some of whom actually voted for nader. the CBC did get dissed by DEMOCRATIC SENATORS in 2000 who refused to protest the coup. add to that the DISENFRANCHISEMENT issue was largely INGORED by the gore team...
tell me who DISSED black people?

[LoZoccolo]

93. Nope.

There's a little thing called "responsibility", which Nader refused to take. If he was a drug addict parent who shot up heroin all day and his baby died and got all petrified like the one in Trainspotting, you would say he was an irresponsible parent. Well basically he is addicted to the drug of his own weird escapes from reality in the form of his ideas about running for president, and neglects his babies too, which are the things he's worked for in his years of activism. So he's the smack addict candidate.

[noiretextatique]

103. if clinton had taken responsibility

for his inability to keep his fly zipped...
if clinton had taken responsibility for getting caught...
if scotus had taken responsibility for their role as non-partisans...
if gore had taken responsibility for making the felon purge and issue...
a lot of people failed, and are still failing to take responsibility for the role they played in our current nightmare.

[bpilgrim]

122. excellent point - and our leaders to this very day STILL haven't fixed it

i for one will never forget it nor get over it till it is FIXED.

peace

[bpilgrim]

104. more of the EXTREMIST pov that has brought us to where we are...

you are either WITH US or AGAINST US, eh?

this BLACK&WHITE thinking is the real reason we are at where we are today and yes even DEMs support this way of thinking now-a-days, apparently.

:puke:

peace

[LoZoccolo]

111. I just think it's open-faced hypocrisy...

...to use the CBC as ammunition and then diss them in 2004. Being anti-hypocrisy isn't extremist.

[noiretextatique]

85. where was the diss?

that he wouldn't leave the race as they requested? while the meeting was taking place, the AZ democratic party was trying to get him off the ballot. sorry, i don't see the "diss."

[LoZoccolo]

88. Yes, that was the diss.

If he cared about what happened in 2000, you'd think he'd want to do what they wanted in 2004. But he didn't, because he supports institutional racism.

[noiretextatique]

92. ridiculous....where the fuck was the democratic party in FL?

the NAACP had to sue on behalf of DEMOCRATIC voters while the democratic party was trying to woo the very people who probably support disenfranchisement.

[LoZoccolo]

97. Wrong.

Gore wanted to count every vote. I remember seeing him say that.

[noiretextatique]

100. gore failed to make the voter purge an issue

when contesting FL...that's what i'm talking about.

[LoZoccolo]

105. That's way different from what you were saying.

The purge had already happened by the time the election was being contested.

Do you think the CBC is against the purge? Why would Nader diss them then?

[noiretextatique]

108. *sigh* what about THEIR OWN PARTY?!

would you say the democratic party's FAILURE to make the disenfranchisement of THEIR OWN VOTERS, many of whom were BLACK...woudl you say that qualifies as a DISS TO THE CBC?

[LoZoccolo]

109. They did.

There was a lot of effort to protect this election.

[noiretextatique]

116. and 2000? who had to sue the state fo FL?

hint: it wasn't the democratic party. too afraid of offending swing voters by appearing to give a damn about the disenfranshisement of blakc voters.
there was an improved effort in 2004, and still the republicans successfully targetted voting in certain communities. perhaps if less time was spent on challenging nader, more could have been spent on protecting voting rights.
it seems the democratic party had its priorities screwed up.

[LoZoccolo]

118. They might not have been able to.

There could have been a reason that they couldn't legally do that, or that it was better that the NAACP do it. If Nader makes that accusation, I wouldn't take his word alone for it, because he is the political version of a child molestor, and is in some ways like a smack addict.

[noiretextatique]

123. *i* make that accusation

it's been made before by many others, and as far as i know, not by nader, though i wouldn't be surprised if he did.
the reason the democrats didn't challenge the purge in court is the same reason it wasn't used to contest FL..."too divisive." that's code language for: it might not sit well with the people demcrats keep trying to woo who continue to vote republican.

[LoZoccolo]

126. You support Nader.

That's code language for "I want the Republicans to win".

[noiretextatique]

127. i see you are another democrat against democracy

unlike many of you here, especially some of the most vicious nader haters, i have never voted for a republican, and i actually didn't vote for nader. however, i do support democracy and participation in the democratic process, and that means i support nader's right to run, something some of you don't seem to grasp. i also think his legal actions, whatever the consequence, as far less a conceen than illegal, immoral and unethical actions of the GOP, especially in 2000. i can understand those who are disappointed in him for breaking his promise not to run in swing states, but i can't understand people like you, who truly have no coherent argument against nader. he "dissed" the CBC by not complying with their request for him to drop out the race, and you claim he's a racist :eyes: and yet, their own party truly dissed them and the rest of us by failing to formally protest the coup. we will never know if that action would have done any good, but we certainly know that it couldn't have possibly made things any worse. perhaps they were too racist to stand with the CBC :eyes:
only in america would so-called "liberals" detest the most liberal candidate in the race. only in america would so-called liberals claim that voting for the most liberal candidate means one *secretly* loves republicans.
as a black woman, my disgust for the republican party likely far outweighs even yours. they are the party of racism and disenfranchisement and sexism...they are against my very being. i would die before i'd ever support a republican.

[IrateCitizen]

90. A disagreement is not the same thing as a "diss"... (n/t)

[LoZoccolo]

95. Sure it is.

Listening to peoples' concerns for an hour or two or whatever and then just going "nope"? That's totally a diss. Anything the CBC wants to accomplish for the people they represent, Nader doesn't care about. Because as I say above, he is the smack addict candidate.

[bpilgrim]

107. to extremist with an ABSOLUTE world view it is.

and why he had to crash the party... their is a long history of being blocked from the discussion before 2004 and i say by everything that has gone on since 12-12-00 the dem leaders have still a LOT to learn.

peace

[LoZoccolo]

119. I'll show you an extremist world view.

That if you don't agree with some of the stuff a party does, you have to split from it even if it makes the party that more supports your views lose, and that that's the only way to get what you want.

[bpilgrim]

125. REFUSING to meet with PROGRESSIVES and letting their voice be heard

is the extremist policy that Ralph is fighting against and he had no control of the DLC/third-way's dictatorial policy.

hopefully they will change this disastrous policy.

peace

[bpilgrim]

101. "Independent refuses to quit presidential race" - he ain't a quitter

so now thats a diss?

the DLC and third-way extremest refused to meet with him throughout the 90's

they shut him out. they would not tolerate opposing views and now they are paying the price for their dogmatic and uncompromising policy.

they have NO ONE to blame but themselves.

remember what makes this country great is that we are entitled to our vies and the right to have them heard whether the party leadership agrees or not.

they made a BAD policy choice hopefully they will learn from this experience but up to now the DLC certainly hasn't. they are similar to the neoCONs it's their way or the highway 100% of the time.

well the world is a LOT bigger than just them as they are finding out and the little guy can fight back.

peace

[LoZoccolo]

106. That's right he's not a quitter.

Neither are racist KKK members who still think the confederacy is going to rise again. They also diss the CBC.

[noiretextatique]

112. you argument is simply ridiculous

surely you must know that. nader's effect on the 2004 outcome = ZERO.
nader's effect on the 2000 outcome = ZERO.
the lying, cheating, manpulative GOP's effect on the 2000 outcome = 100%. add in their enablers in the democratic party...and there lies all the blame for the mess that is bush, inc.

[LoZoccolo]

114. Nope.

He spoiled 2000, and then set things up so he might've done it again in 2004.

Please don't imply that our black members of congress shouldn't be listened to when they are concerned, because their concerns about 2004 based on the 2000 results are "ridiculous".

[bpilgrim]

113. that's right! i salute him continuing to fight the good fight to get his

and his constituencies voices heard and not compromising just like the minorities who never quit to get their heard in the face of many telling them to sit down and shut up, go along to get along.

cheers St. Ralph, keep up the good fight :toast:

peace

[leftofthedial]

73. big time

BIG time

he disgraced himself

[noiretextatique]

74. BUSH AND THE GOP OWE THIS NATION AN APOLOGY

for the outright election theft, and election-tampering, for 911...and for everythign else that's gone to HELL on their watch.
:wtf: good would come out of nader apologizing...and for WHAT? most here would be nitpicking over the apology anyway.

the people who should be ashamed of what they've done have no shame.
you folks need to put this nader nonsense to rest, finally, and figure out who the fuck your real enemies are. clue: they are the ones who control your government...and their DEMOCRATIC ENABLERS aren't helping either.
add THEM to the apology list, starting with zell miller.

[barb162]

96. you got this straight even though Nader really pissed me off in 2000

I can't blame him for running though. He had the right to run. Karl Rove and his team won the election through lies, vote theft, etc. Rove's candidate was a damned monkey and that monkey has won twice now.

[LoZoccolo]

77. He is the political version of a child molester, so yes.

He preys on impressionable youth such as college students and tries to make them feel special with all sorts of contrarian 31337 political talk that makes them feel like they are smarter than both parties, which could scar them for a long time and mess them up.

[IrateCitizen]

82. Oh yes. Those college kids would be much better served...

... by the current Democratic and Republican parties who seem only to breed APATHY and DISTRUST among their demographic. God forbid someone actually engage them directly, even if from a faulty position, and try and get them engaged and wanting to reform the process!

[bpilgrim]

115. lol - talk about extremist rhetoric

thanks for helping to illuminate the point more fully :toast:

peace

[LoZoccolo]

117. He's alienated a lot of his older acquaintences.

People who've worked with him back in the day. On the other hand, a lot of his supporters are people who've never voted before.

I'm not implying that I know if Michael Jackson is really a child molestor or not, because they are trying to decide that during the trial, but Martin Bashir said a similar thing about Michael Jackson - that he had trouble sustaining adult relationships and so he'd hang out with children.

[bpilgrim]

120. lol - Michael Jackson

It is really sad that you have now introduced Michael Jackson in this 'debate' as it again demonstrates how out of touch people are with what is wrong with our corporate gov.

St. Ralph is a man of conviction who has dedicated his life to weTHEpeople and is in a league all his own i don't expect many to understand him as mediocrity recognizes NOTHING higher than itself.

peace

[noiretextatique]

124. more of your nonsense

cornel west, a harvard professor, is a nader supporter. he is not white, young, or a college student. i am a green party member myself, and i am not young, or white or a college student either.
if you have some statistics to back up your opinion, i'd be happy to see them.

[CWebster]

87. What the hell for?

This is America, right, he is entitled to his opinion.

This is like saying Democrats should apologize to Republicans.

[Lilith Velkor]

98. Just what we need: more Nader hysteria

:eyes:

[bpilgrim]

121. a benburch drive-by special

he must be bored, poor thing.

it's tough retaining the moral superiority against the many unwashed masses who just don't get-it :evilgrin:

peace

[G_j]

99. do Nader haters owe an apology

to all those who have tried to educate their fellow Americans on how the Republicans stole the 200o election? Thankfully M Moore showed us all the shame of how the Black Caucus was left out in the cold for the lack on just ONE supporter, and thankfully Greg Palast exposed how tens of thousands of African American voters were disenfranchised.

It appears Nader hatred continues to be one terrific smokescreen and distraction for stolen elections.

[UdoKier]

110. No, sorry Ben. Don't think so.

If democratic politicians would fucking act like democrats and show some spine, Nader would have been a NON-FACTOR.

I'm not a Nader fan, but the thing that pisses me off about him most is that everything he says about our elected democrats is TRUE.

[benburch]

128. Here is my huge beef with Nader.

For those who have asked;

Here is my huge beef with him;

He didn't lose us that election, but he COULD have delivered it to us.

And 130,000 people are dead as a direct result.

The electoral system is so weighted against a third party that all a third party can do is destroy the chances of the major party that is closer to their own opinions. And Nader knows this full well though he denies it.

If he wanted to be an insurgent candidate, he should have done what Kucinich did, then I would still respect him. (I was local chair for Kucinich.)

And "no difference"? I think we have clearly seen the differences! The Democratic Party is not perfect, but we don't torture people and run rape rooms!

[bpilgrim]

131. that is a skewed view of reality

"And 130,000 people are dead as a direct result.

that is shifting responsibility from the people who are actually responsible and only serves their purposes by covering up the crime with a patsy.

"the major party that is closer to their own opinions"

they - dlc and third-way elitist leaders of the party - shut him out throughout the 90s so it doesn't seem like they shared any of his opinions.

"If he wanted to be an insurgent candidate, he should have done what Kucinich did"

the party shut him out, hello... read "crashing the party" for the details.

And "no difference"? I think we have clearly seen the differences! The Democratic Party is not perfect, but we don't torture people and run rape rooms!

republican lite is a more accurate charge, i agree, but our party leaders saw no problem with the Iraq war any many other neoCON initiatives now did they?

burying your head in the sand about the clear party deficiencies serves no one but the elite and the neoCONs and will only prolong reform.

if we ever hope to take our party back we need to confront our problems directly instead of treating just the symptoms.

let's knock off this irrational hatred of a single man, that only serves to divide and distract us further, as there are MANY in this country dissatisfied with the status quo and start listening and acting.

if we don't pull our head out of our collective a$$es and face reality we will never be strong enough to fight them. lets give people a reason to vote for our party so folks stop splintering off or worse stay at home.

thanks for replying :toast:

peace

[bigwillq]

129. No (nt)

[bpilgrim]

130. Does Mr. Galloway owe the Dem party an apology for speaking TRUTH2POWER?

and exposing their quisling ways?

inquiring minds want to know...

MP3... 4 min
http://news.globalfreepress.com/mp3/George_Galloway.mp3

Real Video... 47 min
http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/Galloway/Galloway.rm

Transcript...
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0517-35.htm

his political party website ....
http://www.respectcoalition.org

his email
[email protected]

psst... pass the word :bounce:

BTW: found an error in the gov website link to the whole (3 hr) real media file. here is the correct link to the real file...
http://hsgac.senate.gov/audio_video/051705video.ram start at 1:51:26

peace

[elshiva]

134. Nope.

[IndianaGreen]

135. Nader didn't vote for PATRIOT, Homeland Security, or the war

plus he is not a member of Congress.

Seems to me that if anyone owes anyone an apology it is those individuals in elective office that have done nothing to stop Bush's rape of the Constitution and his military aggression abroad.

More significant than an apology, which is nothing more than empty words, is to take corrective action. The most important thing our political leaders can do is to file Articles of Impeachment in the House based on the UK memo that revealed that Bush and Blair conspired to sell the WMD-in-Iraq lies in order to occupy Iraq's oil resources.

[bpilgrim]

136. "take corrective action." agreed

"The most important thing our political leaders can do is to file Articles of Impeachment in the House based on the UK memo that revealed that Bush and Blair conspired to sell the WMD-in-Iraq lies in order to occupy Iraq's oil resources."

i understand when folks say it will never get enough votes, true as that MAY be, we can at least take the action and make this a national debate, win or lose, and slow these criminals DOWN and put them on notice that can't get away with CRIMES committed in our name against innocent civilians.

WHY won't they do this? WHY do they refuse to challenge this administration in a significant way?

even if we lose the case, as the reTHUGs did with Clinton, it will have at least tied them up and got the debate out there and possibly prevent future bungling and illegal wars.

peace

[Lindacooks]

137. Yes, he sure as hell does.

That's what infuriated me the most about him - the 'no difference' between Repukes and Democrats; one of the BIGGEST lies of the century.

[Itsthetruth]

138. More Anti-Nader Nonsense

"Rumor has it that prior to his Green Party gig, he was a Republican."
Edited on Fri May-20-05 03:29 PM by Cleita
"This can't be proven though."

That's because it's not true!

"He is a very rich man and a union buster, not a very liberal act.
He is definitely a big foe of large corporate interests ...."

So this bi foe of large corporate interests is also union buster??!!!! Next I would imagine someone will write that Nader is a big friend of corporate interests and is also a union organizer and strike leader! That would make just as much sense.

"The dishonest Nadar was to pretend to be a liberal to get the Green Party to back his bid for the White House."

Really? And I suppose his running mate for Vice-President, Peter Camejo, was also pretending to be some kind of liberal and progressive to get the endorsement of the Green Party.

Where do people find such nonsense for posting on DU?

[Lindacooks]

143. BS

He said there was no difference between Democrats and Repukes. If you think that's okay, then you had better take a good long look at yourself.

[La Coliniere]

139. Never!

I've forgiven him for what I consider some pretty petty transgressions. It's sad that so many can't see it in their hearts to do so likewise.
I consider Ralph to be one of the Great Americans. There are far too few.

[Darranar]

141. No. The people of this country owe him an apology...

for not listening to him and those agreeing with him a long, long time ago, and perhaps avoiding the mess in which we now are.

[KnowerOfLogic]

142. The Democratic party owes the nation and Ralph Nader an apology.

As far as the difference between the two parties, i'm still waiting to see it. The Dems ran a pro-war candidate, for christ's sake. They had been rolling over for the repukes for 4 straight years by the time the election came around, and then they whined about Nader running. Sheesh.

[Hippo_Tron]

146. Why are we talking about that insignificant senile fool?

[IdaBriggs]

150. No. He was the ONLY one who stood up for recounting New Hampshire --

The Democrats were NO WHERE to be found. He also helped us hook up with Badnerik and Cobb to get Ohio recounted, and in my book, is an American Hero.

I don't agree that "there aren't any differences between Republicans and Democrats" -- I think Republicans are corrupt, and Democrats are ineffective.

Ralph Nader owes NO ONE any apologies; apologies are owed to America for letting TREASON become a Washington Way of Life, however, and I want my pound of flesh from the perpetrators of those foul deeds before I'd even THINK about asking Nader for a nickel's worth.