Democrats Fear Republicans, Republicans Mock Democrats: by Ralph Nader

[Itsthetruth]

June 13, 2005
CommonDreams.org

Call One for the Republicans
by Ralph Nader

The horrific Republicans had another two weeks of victories over the hapless Democrats. After seven Republican and seven Democratic Senators forged the compromise that averted a showdown against the filibuster, the Republicans moved the confirmation of the worst nominees for the federal circuit courts of appeals which the Democrats had vigorously opposed before they were gulled. Or frisked by Frist, the Senate Republican leader.

Then came the Howard Dean dustup over his comments saying that many Republicans leaders "have never made an honest living in their lives," and that Republicans are "pretty much a white Christian party." The "media circus", as Dean called it, erupted further when Senator Joe Biden, ex-Senator John Edwards, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson sharply distanced themselves from their Party Chairman. Republicans chortled and chuckled over their opponents' imbroglio.

Call one for the Republicans. They are neither squeamish about their off-the-wall declarations nor worried about their internal contradictions from the state to the national level. And they intimidate the Democrats so much that the national Democratic Party Platforms refuse to adopt any planks to reduce poverty, crack down on corporate crime and corporate subsidies, make the income tax less loopholed, stand for a living wage, and specifically push for environmentally efficient motor vehicles and other technologies - to list a few abdications.

The Democrats fear the Republicans, while the Republicans mock the gutless Democrats. Meanwhile the Democrats, largely on the defense against the most craven Republicans in a century, are busy trying to cool down the hot seat beneath Howard Dean.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0613-29.htm

[otohara]

1. Sad But True

[Frances]

2. Is there any difference between Nader and Bush?

I don't see it.

Both blame the Dems for their own shortcomings. And both are destructive, not constructive.

[Itsthetruth]

8. Yes: Much More Than Exists Between Kerry And Bush

For example:

Kerry agrees with Bush and supports NAFTA. Nader doesn't.

Kerry agrees with Bush and supports the Iraq occupation. Nader doesn't.

Kerry agrees with Bush and supports the Patriot Act. Nader doesn't.

Need more information on this so you can tell the difference between Ralph Nader and George Bush. And if you need advice on how to tell the difference between night and day just let me know! I'll try to help.

[Frances]

33. Did Nader coordinate his attack on the Dems with Bush?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

W.House launches second day of attacks on Democrats

[Media_Lies_Daily]

3. Baloney. I see Nader's still acting like a stealth-NeoCon.

[sui generis]

4. I don't like the guy when he's running for office

but I can agree with him on many of his points in this article - even if the style is a bit combative.

That's exactly why we need Dean - you don't have to be craven to make statements that get the other side in a spin; we just need to stop eating our own.

Dean speaks for me.

And Nader, we're not all gutless.

[LightningFlash]

5. Lots of democrats at the top are DINOs...

That might explain it...Democrats in name only problems.

[reality based]

6. And it hadn't been for your overweening ego, Ralph

this long national nightmare that we are currently enduring would not have occurred. Go away.

[WilliamPitt]

7. Itsthetruth: Question for you

How do you feel about David Cobb and Medea Benjamin?

[Itsthetruth]

9. In Regard To What?

eom

[WilliamPitt]

29. Nothing specific

I just wonder how you feel about them in general.

[WilliamPitt]

35. No answer?

[EC]

10. It seems Nader's new purpose in life is to make the

Dems out to look just as evil as the Repuges...He has gone from helping America be strong, to being just as destructive as the administration that is now ruining the country...

[LoZoccolo]

11. Nader tries to destroy the Democrats, the Democrats ignore Nader.

That's how it should be.

[Itsthetruth]

13. Democratic Leaders Are Ignoring All Progressives, Not Just Nader

Is it Nader's fault that the Democratic Party leadership has proven to be so weak in opposing Bush's policies?

Is it Nader's fault that Democratic Party leaders like Senator Harry Reid have supported Bush's appointments and right-wing legislation?

Perhaps you just don't like the fact that many progressives, inside and outside of the Democratic Party, have been critical of those Congressonal Democrats who have functioned as Bush enablers and collaborators.

[LoZoccolo]

15. The "progressives" you speak of ignore the difference between the parties.

And thus will never be satisfied, and thus will never be of use on election day, and thus invite the Democratic Party to ignore them. Why court a high-maintenance girlfriend?

[Itsthetruth]

19. Do You Also Think People Like Hayden/Kucinich Should Be Ignored?

I take it you haven't read, or simply choose to ignore, the open letters from Tom Hayden and Dennis Kucinich directed to Democratic Party chair Howard Dean.

Now Kucinich and Hayden are two long time Democratic Party progressives who have been working many years to change the Democratic Party. I don't think anyone can challenge their Democratic Party credentials. I may not agree with them on political strategy, however, I'm not questioning their determined opposition to the occupation of Iraq.

Howard Dean has apparently decided to ignore them and their genuine criticisms of Democratic Party policies. To my knowledge Howard Dean has refused to respond to their open letters. That's just not right. That's a clear sign of disrespect. Most of the progressives ignored and marginalized by the Democratic Party leadership are working inside, not outside, the Democratic Party. They don't discriminate against progressives. They ignore all of us!

[Inland]

16. Yes, it is Nader's fault: if not for Nader, there would be no Bush policy

because Gore would have won.

That's what Nader considers "not being a Bush enabler": asking people not to vote for democrats so that Bush wins. Sure looks like he "enabled" Bush more than any other single person, Bush included!

But I guess its not fair to bring THAT up, as Nader goes around bad mouthing Bush's only opposition as "weak"---as he gives a manly, robust opposition in a stinging essay on commondreams.org! Take that, Bush! Nader wrote a sternly worded piece on the internets!

[Touchdown]

34. Is it Nader's fault for taking GOP money last year?

Convenient that you omit this in your bullet poiints about Kerry=Bush. Nader and Bush get their money from the same coffers. I think that trumps any similarities to Kerry.

[Puregonzo1188]

40. The Democrats should ignore Nader?

Why, in your opinion should the Democrats ignore Nader? Is it because he “cost” Gore the election in 2000. If that truly is your belief, than the Democrats should do anything, but ignore Nader. Wouldn’t the smart thing to do, if Nader did cost Gore the election, be to look at how? How did Nader cost Gore the election? People voted for him instead of Gore. The next logical step would be not to shun Nader, but to ask, “Why would people rather vote for a candidate they know has no chance of winning, instead of a Democrat?” That would be the smart thing to do, to try win over the Nader voters, so they don’t “cost the Democrats another election.” After all, Nader can run for President all he wants, but unless people vote for him he can’t continue to “spoil” elections.

Also, if Nader didn’t run, how do you know the Nader voters would necessarily vote for a Democrat? After all, the Naderites have no problem voting for a losing candidate. What makes you think they won’t just vote for another third party candidate or not vote at all. A democratic exit poll showed that 37% of the people who voted for Nader would not have voted at all. In many states many of the Nader voters also voted for Democratic Senators, who won by narrow leads. This means the Nader voters in some cases decided the Senatorial elections. Had Nader not run, and some of the Nader voters not voted for Democratic Senators who knows what would have happened. :rant:

[dogday]

12. If We Have Anything To Fear From Republicans, It is Their Insane

desire to rip the constitution to pieces, to crown their King, and to throw all of us who don't believe into camps. Yes that is scary and I am afraid of that.

[Inland]

14. More sharp-eyed analysis from the guy who gave you Bush in 2000

the problem continues to point to everyone else for a cure: the man who risks nothing calls on others to stand bravely: the man who has only one plan to get good policies enacted, and that's for someone else to do the hard work while he runs against them in elections.


He either hasn't figured out how he injured America because he's the most clueless guy in the room, or has figured it out and would rather not mention it, because he's even more craven and chickenshit and irresponsible and ultimately self promoting than the most cowed democrat hanging on a senate seat in the south.

Let me know when Nader apologizes. Until then, he isn't to be taken as anything except a really crappy politician.

[The Magistrate]

17. Wrecker Nader Needs To Sit Down And Shut Up

He has done more than sufficient harm already....

[0rganism]

18. Looks like he found his "dime's-worth of difference"

'course, when the GOP policies hyperinflate the dollar, those differences will be worth a million bucks.

[Sewsojm]

22. Nader's trying to ease his own conscience

Nader knows if it wasn't for him Gore would have easily won over Douchebag but he'll never admit it. He never imagined just how horrible things would get with this Douchebag in charge, now he wants to put all the blame on the Dem's to ease his own guilt. Go To Hell Nader you worthless Fuck!!

[Pockets]

20. Maybe Democrats did not foresee

that the division in the U.S. would escalate to this point, while its emperor just looks on entertained and smiling. Maybe they were naive to think that bipartisanship meant cooperation on some level and non civil war. They apparently never thought the world would come to this.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Interesting the number of attacks on Nader rather than what he said.

The usual whines about Nader "enabling" Bush, while ignoring the Democratic "leaders" who constantly cave to him...er.."compromise".

[Itsthetruth]

24. Here Is Your Democratic "Leader" In The Senate: Defend Him!

If Senator Reid is not a Bush enabler and collaborator I'd like to know who is.

House passes bankruptcy bill
Measure will deter borrowers from erasing debt
By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
MSNBC
April 14, 2005

Bipartisan accord

The political curiosity here is that both Reid and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay — who agree on very little else — were both enthusiastically taking credit for the bill Wednesday.

"We’ve done a good job this year. In spite of the so-called partisanship, we’ve moved two pieces of legislation that have been around for 15 years, class action (reform) and bankruptcy," Reid told reporters when asked whether partisan animosity was slowing the Senate's work. Alluding to the bankruptcy bill and other legislation, Reid said, "We’re moving along well."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7494698 /

And how about Senator Reid's filibuster "deal"? Now that's a real winner. Now all of Bush's nominations to the courts will be approved without the threat of a filibuster!

And some here dare call Ralph Nader a "Bush enabler" while they snuggle up to Senator Reid "the compromiser"! Shame on them!

[AlGore-08.com]

25. Because Nader said several times in 2000 he wanted Smirk to win

He worked very hard to keep progressives from voting for Gore.

One way he did that was by spending YEARS demonizing Gore for owning Occidental Petroleum stock, at a time Gore owned no stock at all (and that fact was a matter of public record), And all the time that Nader was bashing Gore, Nader himself owned stock in Occidental Petroleum, and in many, many, many other companies that he has demonized others for investing in.

Until he apologizes for those things, he doesn't deserve any more respect than Smirk or Frist have.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. So, you still won't address what he wrote?

Smirk won because Gore ran a lousy, timid, campaign. Focusing more on what to wear and how not to be "too liberal" along with his rightwing running mate. Just like Kerry did. And, now our "leaders" Edwards, Biden, and the Chamberlain Seven.

Nader is right in what he's saying.

BTW I voted for Gore and Kerry. So, I guess Nader's blandishments didn't work. At least not those times.

[AlGore-08.com]

38. Gore started his campaign in 1999, after 7 years of pseudo-scandals aimed

To take the Clinton/Gore admin down, and one month after the impeachment attempt failed.

When Gore began his campaign, he was polling 20 points behind "any Republican".

Before the convention in August 2000, Gore was trailing Smirk by 10 points.

Gore was outspent 2 to 1 (because he accepted campaign spending limits and refused PAC money).

Gore had the most hostile media coverage of any candidate in modern history - - probably of any candidate ever.

He had a party organization that not only did not support him, they spent the whole campaign complaining about him. The centrists complained that he was "too liberal", the leftists complained that he was "too conservative".

But he went on to win the popular vote by 1/2 million votes, which was a larger margin than Kennedy won in 1960 or Nixon in 1968. Gore won more votes than any other Vice President who ran for the office. Gore beat the guy who went on to win more votes than anybody else in history (Smirk). If this were college football, Gore would be the number one ranked team.

Of course, Gore won the electoral vote as well, and won it by turning Florida from a safe state for Bush to a swing state, a feet he accomplished in mid-October.

If Gore had truly run a "lousy" campaign, he would have stayed 20 points behind Smirk - - or slipped farther behind. Smirk would have won by a margin similar to the Reagan 1980 win. The Extreme Court would not have had to issue the most bogus decision in their history to give Smirk the White House.

Smirk was the one who really ran the lousy campaign, blowing a 20 point lead, despite having the media working 24/7 to smear his opponent as a psychopathic liar.

The fact that folks on progressive discussion forums repeat the meme that Gore ran a "lousy" campaign - - and other MSM groaners like Gore was obsessed with the color of his clothes - - is another sign of how much Gore had to fight against - - and yet he won.

Ralph W. NaderBush spent the entire 2000 campaign claiming that a Gore Presidency and a Bush Presidency would be identical - - but a Gore Presidency would be worse.

That doesn't make any logical sense. So it's either an outright lie in service of an anti-Democratic Party/anti-Gore agenda, or NaderBush is an idiot incapable of understanding that things cannot be both identical and different. Which do you think is most likely?

Gore's "lousy" campaign in 2000 included a plan for full public financing of elections - - something that would have benefited Ralph W. NaderBush and other third party candidates immensely. Gore opposed the war in Iraq, Gore opposed the Patriot Act, Gore opposed wasting the surplus on a tax cut for the obscenely wealthy. Gore has spent the Smirk admin blasting the GOP for the loss of our civil rights, their corporate corruption, their environmental abuses, their lying, their phony religiosity in the service of their far right agenda... if Smirk promoted it, Gore has opposed it. Most importantly, Gore has stated many times that he NEVER would have invaded Iraq. He has stated many times that if 9/11 had happened while he was President (it probably wouldn't have, but he's never claimed that), he would have used the national unity afterward to shift the nation off fossil fuels and tackle global warming in one huge lurch.

But Ralph W. NaderBush still thinks that there is no difference between Bush and Gore. Or if there is, it's trivial.

This is America. Ralph W. NaderBush is entitled to his opinions. And I'm entitled to ignore him, just like I'm entitled to ignore Rush Limbaugh.

[gordianot]

23. We have Ralph's observation, what is his solution?

Other than sticking a sharp stick in Democrat's eye? Yes sir Ralph has a lot of credibility in influencing Democrats. There was a time they did listen to him. I wonder what happened?

[Itsthetruth]

26. Nader Presented His View On How To Take On Republicans In The Article

But, here's an excerpt and I hope you read the entire article.

"Meanwhile, down in Oklahoma, the state Republican Party was unveiling its 2005 platform. The editor of the Oklahoma Observer, Frosty Troy, described the document as "written for the greedy, not the needy; for special interests, not the people's interest."

It wants to privatize social security, eliminate the minimum wage, the income tax, all toll roads, institute a national sales tax, get rid of the U.S. Department of Education, and repeal much corporate regulation that protects consumers, workers and the environment.

The Oklahoma Republican Party wants to get the U.S. out of the UN, eliminate funding for PBS and National Public Radio, and repeal the state tax on business inventory. They want to post the Ten Commandments in all public schools, oppose monetary foreign aid, only credits with which to buy U.S. goods.

.... they want the U.S. out of the World Trade Organization, an end to the Office of Surgeon General, no limits on campaign contributions and no national health insurance. Lots of treaties they do not like, including the ones limiting nuclear proliferation and environmental devastation. They cannot stand the EPA, or the National Endowment for the Arts and the Endangered Species Act.

Similar to the 2002 Texas Republican Party platform, the latest Oklahoma version would make the Bush Republicans blush and run. That is, if the hapless Democrats would make an issue out of what the Republican Parties in several southern and mountain states stand for that the Washington Republicans cannot accept but also cannot openly reject.

A perfect political trap for the Republicans awaits the clueless Democrats if they had half of Karl Rove's brain and instinct for the jugular. Only this trap would be about substance and the livelihoods of the American people, not a Swift Boat maneuver."

[Itsthetruth]

27. Democratic Party Leaders Owe Voters And Ralph Nader An Apology ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3701786

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

32. a-fucking-men

ralph has been calling the dinos on their craveness for 5+ years and getting smeared for it. it's only now that some people in the leadership, like dr dean, are starting to take these critisms seriously

[gordianot]

30. OK so Nader's solution is to let the Republicans destroy themselves?

If things get bad enough everyone will see the light eventually? Gore and Bush represented the same thing so a vote for Gore was a wasted vote correct? War in Iraq will prove to everyone that War of exploitation is terrible and we will just end all wars and live in harmony. If deficit spending causes the economy to fail we will become fiscally responsible in the future.

The more radical Republicans become the more enlightened the electorate becomes. Then electing George Bush was the right thing to do and Mr. Nader's program is in place. We all get an education the hard way.

[Itsthetruth]

36. No. That Is The "Solution" Presented By Some Democrats

I've seen it presented here on DU by a few posters. Just sit back and watch the Republicans self-destruct! That's a silly idea. Don't you agree?

It looks like you just haven't read Ralph Nader's views over the past few years on how to take on George Bush and the Republicans. He has consistently urged the Democratic Party to do some things which up until now they have neglected to do. And what might those be? Five modest things:

1. Oppose Bush's policies!

2. Oppose Bush's appointments!

3. Stop Voting For Bush's Policies And Appointments!

4. Stop cutting deals and compromising with right-wingers in Congress!

5. Screw "bi-partisanship" and function like an opposition party.

Any chance the Democratic Party and its leadership much actually follow that good advice?

[gordianot]

39. I think there is a good chance Democrats are going that direction.

The last 3 weeks I agree completely with Howard Dean. John Conyers is awesome and is the man of the hour. The Black Congressional Caucus speaks for all Democrats (somewhat frustrated by Obama). Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd and John Kerry are making a stand. I am becoming increasingly impressed with Harry Reed even though I disagree with some of his votes.

The last two Presidential elections were stolen I am convinced. I do hope Ralph Nader is able to re-enter political discussion. Please understand there is wide spread resentment directed toward Mr. Nader.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

31. be sure to read the whole thing

it's very informative.

[Terran1212]

37. Stop standing up for the Democrats

Don't stand up for a party just because of its name.

Stand up for people and ideals -- not power parties and worthless titles.


Nader is ABSOLUTELY right, and we should heed his words.