Nader posters on both sides: Nice timing!

[BurtWorm]

:sarcasm:

Nothing like a little wedge to drive between us all when things are getting just a little too unified, right?

[noiretextatique]

1. uniformity

is for fascists.

[BurtWorm]

2. Unity is not uniformity.

:eyes:

[Selatius]

10. It's the system that makes people fight

If a majority rule were in place in 2000 nationwide, there would have been a run-off election between Gore and Bush. No one got 50% and one more vote needed to claim outright victory.

It is a structural issue. Ditch the Electoral College and institute direct popular vote with a majority rule in effect. If you want it even more convenient, use IRV. (Instant Run-off Voting)

It seems people like to bash Nader, and there's a good reason for it, admittedly, but rarely have I ever seen people also attack the underlying reason, and that is the structure itself. Bashing Nader won't fix the election system.

[BurtWorm]

12. All right, but you're talking substance.

And election reform is always relevant.

But to argue that Nader owes us an apology? Fuck that shit. Let's talk about something that might actually happen and might actually accomplish something.

[noiretextatique]

28. really? on what issue are DUer's "unified?"

not a single one...
on occasion, some threads just highlight existing differences. but there are likely some shit-starters afoot, i'll grant you that.

[BurtWorm]

32. You don't think there's broad agreement here on certain issues?

Such as the necessity to reform the democracy so the votes are counted accurately? Such as the urgency to hold Bush accountable for various crimes and misdemeanours, beginning with the stolen election of 2000, the illegitimate war in Iraq, the contempt for the constitution, etc.?

Lately, some disagreements have been coming to the fore, on immigration and religion in particular. There was always some disagreement between the Greens and Dems. But we have a lot more to unite around usually than we don't. Don't we?

[noiretextatique]

36. no, i really don't think there is broad agreement

on those issues. i think there is agreement on the need to get rid of bush, but as to the rest...
one of the reasons why the nader debate is still happening is that some continue to blame him, and him alone for 2000. so, there isn't even broad agreement on the election theft.
one of the biggest rifts here is between those who recognize that the system is broken and those who believe everything will be just peachy when democrats regain power.

[BurtWorm]

38. Nader was one of the proximate causes. I don't think anyone can argue

against that. But it would be foolish to argue that he was the ultimate cause.

I don't know of anyone who has claimed things will be just peachy when Dems get back in power. Another way of putting it--a kinder way--is that many here believe it's far worse for the nation and the world to have Bush and Republicans in power than to have Democrats in power. Far worse. A lot of people who supported Nader in 2000 evidently agree with that assessment, because Nader didn't do anywhere near as well in 2004 as he did in 2000.

I think you will find braod agreement here that the system is broken. I think you'll also find broad agreement that the Democratic Party is broken too.

[noiretextatique]

40. burtworm, you are an optimist

:hi: thanks for that. i think you may be overly optimistic though, but i defer to it anyway.

[BurtWorm]

41. I try to be realistic.

I can understand your pessimism, though. I have just noticed how sensitive DUers tend to be to every movement the Dems make, good or bad. DUers are pretty unforgiving of bad behavior--until some good behavior come along to distract them. ;)

[knowbody0]

3. better now than at election time

[BurtWorm]

5. You forgot your

:sarcasm:

:rofl:

[knowbody0]

22. im not being sarcastic at all

we need to do our laundry now, not later. Nader is a force that we must deal with, some of his ideas should be incorporated into our platform. he's off his nut for sure, but has a lot of voters on his side.

[BurtWorm]

30. I think you're right.

I meant no disrespect. I was just remembering how "unified" we were in the last election. :eyes:

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

4. We are so long since any kind of victory

We start fighting over the spoils when we even catch a whiff of it, and then forget to win.

[BurtWorm]

7. You got that right!

:toast:

I have pretty high tolerance for disagreements, usually, but it was just striking me that there were an AWFUL lot of Nader threads considering Nader has been pretty scarce lately.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

14. Who knows

how deep up in "us" "they" are if you know what I mean...

But I think the spoils of victory is the correct interpretation in this case. "Forgetting to Win" could be a book about contemporary progressive strategy...

[crispini]

6. Would somebody please explain to me why

unity on a discussion board matters? It's just a discussion board. It's not even one officially affiliated with the Democratic party. Now, unity among local activists, YES. Unity among a county party, unity among campaign staffers, unity among our folks on the Hill, etc etc.... YES.

But why do people think that getting into arguments here matters all that much? :shrug:

[BurtWorm]

9. As as I was just saying, I can tolerate disunity on DU

in fact, do tolerate it usually. But now it's getting to the point when people aren't even bothering to keep it in one thread. And they're littering the page with their little snarky answer threads that are all getting locked.

Was Nader in the news today or something? It just seems like people are digging up a corpse and trying to make it dance.

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. I dunno. I just walked in here and got told to apologize for voting for

Nader in 2000. :shrug:

[BurtWorm]

13. I think it's the anti-Nader people who are the worst offenders.

Maybe I shouldn't have included the Nader defenders in the mix. Someone is picking at old scabs.

[GreenPartyVoter]

15. It's our feeling of helplessness right now. I swear that we are going

to see a rise in road rage, school and workplace shootings, and domestic terrorism in this country because we feel we have no control over our destinies.

[BurtWorm]

18. I think a little unity might be a good thing for American progressives

at a time such as this.

[GreenPartyVoter]

20. I think so too. How can we bring this about?

[BurtWorm]

21. I have to think about it.

Alas, I've got to leave.

Have a good weekend, gpv! :toast:

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. You too! *hugs*

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

19. It's not a problem but a symptom.

We have a billion cards to play against the REAL enemy right now; it's one of them hot-iron times. I meant not even to do DU today, but I saw Commander CB stuttering and smirking about Iraq and I came online to cheer this appearance that his days are numbered. This in the midst a flurry of cc's of impeachment e-mails that I started "real live" friends on.

What do I find here? Democrats fighting with each other. Or is it liberals fighting progressives fighting moderates not over what is right but what will sell to a public they think is very, very stupid.

Everyone likes a good fight on the internet. I think that smaller political minds see the president fucking up, want to blame somebody, want to blame someone they can access through DU, and then the flaming starts. You know the same thing happened to the anti-Vietnam movement late in the game; fighting the war became less important than infighting amongst various forms of Marxist, feminist, and ethnic activist. This time, we forgot to win first.

A lot of my personal identity is staked on Bush being sent home to Texas before he finishes this term of office. I don't want to be hated for him everywhere in the world for the rest of my life. I'd like us to develop a little more "nudge-nudge" like the racists on the other side use and be a little less brutally honest about our opinions. What I find here is a balance tipped way in favor of the idealists over the pragmatists. That's the problem, not the fact that there are fights.

[crispini]

24. I like this part.

"What I find here is a balance tipped way in favor of the idealists over the pragmatists."

Totally agree with that. But the thing is that I think that not an awful lot that's REAL gets accomplished solely on the internet (note that I said SOLELY) so a lot of this stuff just sort of gets shed off my back. I don't think DU is going to save the world, in other words, nor do I expect it to.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

26. The solely is important

I stopped getting riled up on the 'net a while back. Sometimes an individual angers me, but it's one of those things like road rage a person can conquer. So we have that in common.

I don't think I DO anything at DU other than learn, kill time, and hone my political writing skills. It's when I take that knowledge down to the bars, etc. that DU really does its damage.

[cestpaspossible]

8. I must have them all on ignore cuz I don't know what you're talking about.

[Taxloss]

16. As an outside observer, I find the Nader issue curious.

He is a wedge party, but not as damaging as Perot. And the big problem with the 2000 and 2004 elections is that they were stolen, not Nader's influence. He's considered a marginal figure in the UK, but understandably you're rather more passionate about him.

To be honest, and I do not want to double the flame potential of this post, the Nader controversy is very similar to the Galloway controversy. The UK left don't see the harm in Nader and like a lot of what he says. And similarly with Gorgeous in the US.

[BurtWorm]

17. There was a LOT of bad blood between Dems and Greens in 2000.

It doesn't have so much to do with what Nader said, except for his insistence that there was barely any difference between Bush and Gore. If I think about that, I can still get angry. But I've forgiven the Greens because of their stance in 2004. Nader was irrelevant in 2004. Also, the Dems can be pretty infuriating all on their own.

[Taxloss]

25. The divisions in the UK left a similarly vicious and difficult.

The Iraq War opened a deep and lasting fissure that I sometimes think American leftists can't understand. I'm sorry to say that, but it's true, and Galloway has thrived on that split. Respect presently doesn't pose an electoral threat to Labour, but the moral hurt caused by the war is expressing itself in dozens of ways, expected and unexpected. As an example, here are three blogs:

Anti-war, pro-GG:

http://deadmenleft.blogspot.com/
http://leninology.blogspot.com/

Pro-war, anti-GG:

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/

These blogs are all socialist and should be friends. DML and Lenin LOATHE Harry and vice versa.

PS my sympathies lie with the first two.

[BurtWorm]

34. I don't understand how a socialist or leftist could support the war.

Especially knowing what we do now.

[ToeBot]

27. I left this board a few years back...

There was some guy, Jacinto or Carlos, always carping on the Greens and Nader. I got sick of it. I come back and almost to the day its the same shit all over again. It's uncanny.

[Fovea]

29. I think it is a lot more rewarding to

kick the muktuk out of the pukes, don't you?

[LittleClarkie]

31. I ask again, why now?

What happened to start it again now? Or was it spontaneous?

[BurtWorm]

33. I don't know.

I just looked up and saw a little war going on around me.

[PopSixSquish]

37. I Asked the Same Question

But then I looked at a calendar. It's been six months since the election and we're knee deep in the big muddy.

So it's time to throw some blame around again for both sides, I guess. :shrug:

[Lexingtonian]

35. Okay

I'll plead guilty to being one of the troublemakers.

Sure, the Gore/Daschle/Gephardt Democrats of the 2000 election were a compromised, all too conservative, bunch.

Naderism is also a compromised, all too conservative, position in its own right. It just has virtues and defects complementary to those of the 2000 Democrats.

That exhausted moderate-to-conservative Democratic Party got destroyed in domestic politics by the Florida 2000 business and in foreign politics by '9/11'. The 2003/2004 primaries (and in the case of Daschle, the general election result) were, to my reading of it, a referendum on whether the Party realized the moderate-to-conservate wing of the Party is inviable and the liberal wing is the new center. Nader's general election result says that voters decided he was also obsolete.

We've recently done some refighting of the 2004 primaries around here, with all the supporters of the people who didn't get the nomination more or less using their candidates to talk about reviving the socially moderate-to-conservative wing, in part employing the old conceit that being Left can substitute for being liberal. The people who tried this found, as I see it, that something was settled by the primaries and people won't flock to their candidates and cause of moderacy (even if/when it's militant moderacy).

Now someone's back raising Nader up again. I'll raise the objection I see key to him- that he only pretends to being socially progressive, that all he does is focus people on being Left and economically reactionary or economically progressive, whichever way you choose to see it. Naderism, and traditional Leftism, has a intrinsice naivite about how things work in American history, that the core social justice issues have to be settled- won- before reforming economic rights becomes possible.

Is this 'wedging', to add Nader to the list of people whose political stance is an argument that belongs in 1996 and 2000 and, like Perot's, runs out of pertinence? We'll get to the issues he was "right" about in ten years, or fifteen, no doubt- but in the meantime there's a pile of gritty other work and issues to settle before The People is willing and feels it necessary to get to all the environment and corporate reform stuff.

[mzmolly]

39. I have made my last post in this board about Ralph Nader BW.

Unless he draws more blood, or runs again ... I won't waste another ounce of energy on him.

Thanks for some perspective. :hi:

Remind me if I forget, okey dokey? ;)

[JackDragna]

42. The people who don't think Nader deserves to be crucified..

..aren't the ones, by and large, who keep complaining about how their side is treated unfairly. The rabid anti-Naderites can't keep their yaps shut, so if they persist in villifying Nader for the 2000 election loss, what are those of us who know the real causes for our loss that year supposed to do?

I will never, ever be "unified" with people who blame the members of other political parties for our shortcomings.

[mzmolly]

43. I actually have a great deal of admiration for Cobb.

He is a true progressive who understands that progressives have a responsibility to work together against the facists elements of our Government.