Since the DNC Allows Non-Dems in Debates, Ralph Nader Should Join In

[David Zephyr]

I'm very serious about this. It is not right that a non-Democrat simply be allowed to step onto the stage with long-time, dedicated Democrats and activists and then immediately be sanctioned as an equal participant. It is wrong.

If a non-Democrat, like Wesley Clark, who admits to having voted for Ronald Reagan, who is now been shown to have recently been videotaped speaking about being grateful that George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Condi Rice are running the country, is permitted to willy-nilly enter into the serious national debates with other long time, registered Democrats running for the Presidency, then I would suggest that Ralph Nader who got 3% of the popular vote nationwide consider asking to be allowed to debate along with the other 8 Democrats and 1 Indpendent.

At least, Ralph Nader has never praised George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condi Rice and publicly expressed his gratitude that they were running the country.

I've completely soured on Clark (I)* and feel that his not even troubling himself to register as a Democrat before seeking to run for the Presidency and titular head of our Party was deceptive and deserves scorn.

And before Nader-haters pile on, I have voted Democrat for 33 years without exception and worked for the Gore Campaign here in California in 2000. Ralph Nader would bring more to the debates than a General who we now learn is not even a Democrat and who seems to have been infatuated with the current Bush Administration.


*Khephra's recommendation of identifying (correctly) Wesley Clark with the (I) Independent notation.

[Padraig18]

1. Flame bait!

What? You couldn't find anywhere else to get into an verbal brawl, so you started you own thread, right?

[Terwilliger]

10. Padraig...David Zephyr has been at DU a long time

maybe you should cool it

[Padraig18]

I don't care how LONG he's been here

Flame bait is flame bait. This is flame bait.

[Ardee]

158. the beauty is in the eye of the beholder

as is your projection of David's intent with this thread. I believe that , had Nader been allowed to join Bush and Gore in the 2000 debates Gore would be President today! Nader would have forced the debates in a much better direction, would have not babied Bush as did Gore, Bush would undoubtedly have folded under the pressure of the brilliance of Naders political insight and Gore would have been freer to move to a more liberal and less imitative stance.

We also would not be subjected to endless demonizing of Naders comment re the similarities between the two parties as national exposure would have clarified and made onvious his claims.

[Julien Sorel]

187. I was having a long day.

Bush would undoubtedly have folded under the pressure of the brilliance of Naders political insight and Gore would have been freer to move to a more liberal and less imitative stance.


This shortened it considerably. Thanks!

[Iverson]

69. Yeah, it's turned out to be flame bait.

It didn't have to be, and few people are trying, but the overall direction is clear.

[Padraig18]

98. The very topic's wording was flame bait

It could have had a civil, non-inflammatory title, but he chose not to word it that way; he got what he asked for, IMO. *shrug*

On edit: Topics like this are why I voted 'yes' on the new rules.

[Rowdyboy]

111. Just more proof that the new rules were necessary

What a waste of band space

[Padraig18]

115. Yep

[onehandle]

2. Let's put them all under a microscope....

I bet there's not a Dem among them. How dare any of them be different!

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[diplomats]

5. I was just about to say that

The part about Nader, that is!

[StopTheMorans]

6. jeezus you don't mince words much

can you make points without calling everyone names? I've been on a bunch of threads where you've done nothing but call people by derogatory terms, if you want to make a point, that's fine, but what's with the "you're the worst kind of DUer" shit? It's not productive at all.

[Evil_Dewers]

9. I did not call anyone a name...

Naderite dissenters are the worst kind of DUers.

It is my opinion and a fact.

[StopTheMorans]

12. and stop stating your opinion as fact when it is

nothing of the sort. I'm not a fan of Nader at all, but I won't get into that too much (think he's a self-serving asshole). However, you'll make no friends by using the kind of inflammatory hate-speak you insist on spewing.

[Evil_Dewers]

23. Inflammatory hate speak...

You have me confused with drug addled Rush.

[Selwynn]

127. This guy is flame bait - just ignore him

I've read more than enough posts by him today to see that he is not a positive contriutor to the boards. Welcome to ingore.

[Evil_Dewers]

131. Who started this flame war?

It was not I.

[Terwilliger]

15. And Clark is an indie who praises Bush and votes Reagan and Bush I

and this is the person who some want to be the head of the party??? Nader was not far off.

[Evil_Dewers]

20. Thank God for Nader.

Jesus wanted Nader to run so His Dad (God) could have His favorite (Gee Dubya) in office.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[Evil_Dewers]

66. NO, slick, not a freeper...

Gee, next time I'll use an emoticon for sarcasm.

BTW, it is against the rules to accuse someone of being a freeper.

[Terwilliger]

78. I accused no one of anything

I asked if you were a Freeper, considering that you said god favors the Republicans

[Evil_Dewers]

88. I was being sarcastic.

Did you vote for Nader and help elect Gee Dubya? Karl Rove suckered you good.

[Old and In the Way]

152. Terwilliger................big difference

Clark is running as a Democrat.

If Nader wishes to run as a Democrat in the primaries, he is more than welcome. But, unfortunately, he has this theory that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, so what's the point of giving him bandwidth?

We know Ralph....he proved he has no great ideas or a movement that will offer an alternative. His running in 2004 is all about his need for ego stroking.

I applaud you guys for your ideals, but that and $1.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Dunkin' Donuts.

[Ardee]

161. sorry to butt into a private conversation...;-]

but do you understand the breadth of your comment above? This is not just a forum for democrats, nor is the political arena just for those who have your official sanction to participate.

Whether or not you wish to actually think about Naders commentary you certainly haven't the right to censor that commentary.You are as entitled to your opinion of Nader, his comments and his motivation as is everyone else but you go pretty darn far on the road to appearing way to autocratic..........

[Old and In the Way]

167. Sorry to burst your bubble Ardee

but if I wanted to promote a Republican enabler, I'd be supporting your position. :-)

[Ardee]

174. please change your avatar

to read "Anyone but Bush and Nader"........

[Terwilliger]

183. Republican enabler's? You mean the Democratic party?

[diplomats]

4. If Nader were running for the Dem nomination, OK

But he's not.

[Padraig18]

14. No, he takes his ball and goes home

Nader = "My way, or the highway" = elected * in 2000! thanks for NOTHING, asshole! :puke:

[Ardee]

206. the facts apparently escape you

so Ill recap 'cause I love to waste my time:

The Green Party exists due to the movement rightward of the Democrtaic Party.

Nader made a decision to support the growth of a third party, of which he is still not a member, because it is his opinion that the Democratic Party has failed in its obligation to the american people by refusing to actively engage Bush in his lies and distortions, refusing to alienate the corporate powers that it seeks to contribute to its coffers.

He feels, as do I and as do an increasing number of folks, that a third party is the only way to keep progressive agenas in front of the public. For exercising his rights in a free society he has been used as a tool by those who do not wish any close examination of the actions, or lack thereof, of the democrats. Rather than an attempt to puzzle out the fiascos of the last two elections, the defeats during latter of which had absolutely nothing to do with Nader or the Greens , Nader is demonised in a mostly ridiculous fashion , egged on by agendised right wing democrats who approve and support the turning of their party into a GOP-lite......

[Evil_Dewers]

7. President Gore wouldn't have started a BS war with Iraq.

The blood of 300+ US servicemen and thousands of dead Iraqi and Afghani civilians is on your hands Ralph, and on the hands of the Naderite enablers. Oh, don't forget the thousands of wounded, many of them missing limbs or paralyzed.

This is Democratic Underground, not Greenie Mamby Pamby Bedwetters.

[Terwilliger]

8. YEAH!!!

Yep...have to agree.

[Pastiche423]

11. Another way to look at it is

Since Nader was not allowed in the presidential debates of 2000, the DLC Production, clark (I) should not be allowed to participate in the presidential debates of 2003.

This IS, after all, a DEMOCRATIC primary.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. I Thought This Was A Free Country

and I thought the Democratic party was a "free" party....

[Terwilliger]

18. but Nader doesn't get the same consideration?

If Clark is allowed in, what's the criterion for keeping Nader out?

[Padraig18]

22. Clark says he's a Democrat.

Would you disqualify dick durbin, of Illinois, because IL doesn't require you to state a party affiliation when you register? Flame on, o' Clark haters... :eyes:

[Terwilliger]

24. you're kidding me, right?

Even **I** am a member of the Democratic party...Clark should shit or get off the pot on this one

[Padraig18]

36. Can you *prove* you're a Democrat?

My point is that none of us can *prove* how we voted, and neither can Clark. Clark *said* he voted for Clinton and Gore, and Clinton said he was a 'good guy'. Unless someone can *prove* otherwise, that's all the 'credentials' he needs, in my book.

[Terwilliger]

44. I can prove it...I have my Voter Reg card

and we KNOW that Clark voted Reagan twice and Bush, and we KNOW that he's not currently a Democrat.

So...what is it you're trying to debunk?

[Padraig18]

52. We 'know' that...

... he's an independent who says he's voted for both Clinton and Gore. I have a registration card, but there is NO party listed (there never is in IL); does that mean *I'm* not a Democrat, according to your theory? :wtf:

[Terwilliger]

58. oh for cripes sake...THE SPIN MEISTER

You are a pip :hi:

[Padraig18]

60. You're not half bad at it yourself

:hi:

[Pale Blue Dot]

55. Is Nader running for the DEMOCRATIC nomination?

Clark IS. No matter what his registration is, he is running for the DEMOCRATIC nomination. If Nader announces that he wants to seek the DEMOCRATIC nomination, then of course they should let him debate.

[Terwilliger]

75. Nader has been chastised for not being a member of the Green party

and he was kept out of the 2000 debates anyway


Here, Wesley Clark is a Democrat in no other way except proclaiming himself to be one (voted for Reagan and Bush I)...he's in the primary debates without having to make himself a Democrat? He's not running for president as an independent right?

Why should he be a part of the Democratic party debates?

[Pale Blue Dot]

81. Because he has announced his intentions to seek the DEMOCRATIC nomination

If Nader was kept out of the Green debates, that's a Green problem, and it's ridiculous.

Why shouldn't Bush participate in the Democratic debate? You know what? If Bush said he was seeking the Democratic nomination, then he should.

What a waste of web space.

[Terwilliger]

90. Stop posting then

wouldnt want you to waste webspace

Nader was kept out of the NATIONAL debate.

Try to keep up!

[Pale Blue Dot]

94. Again, not a Democratic problem

And I'll take your advice now.

[Terwilliger]

102. Sorry, the Dem party kept him out of the debates

I thought all you Nader-dislikers knew all the facts

[Evil_Dewers]

109. Why would a Green be allowed in a Dem debate?

Ralph should have tried his luck with the RNC and debate McCain and *.

[Terwilliger]

117. national debates

http://www.fair.org/articles/compromised-commission.html

[Old and In the Way]

162. So if I was to run as an Independent, I should be included?

Where would you draw the line Terwillinger? How many Independents do you need in a national debate before it becomes pure chaos.

Here's what you and Ralph should do....raise, say $50 million dollars and buy all the airtime you need to make your case. Heck, you could even invite all the other Independents and have your own hootenanny!

Or you and Ralph could do the hard work and build a party from the ground up....get elected to local, state, and then national offices and then become a player in national presidential politics.

You want to elect a person with no, zippo, none leverage in effecting policy. His agenda (whatever that might be) would be compromised on day one. He'd be relegated to the sidelines and beholden to the very parties that he can't differentiate between.

[Padraig18]

79. Nader is too busy...

.... working overtime to give us a second * term. :grr: :puke:

[Terwilliger]

92. He *IS*?

Has he been on the Bush campaign trail, or something??

OH I FORGOT!! It was CLARK praising Bush and the members of his team...trying to get him back in the Oval Office! :nuke:

[Padraig18]

104. They wouldn't BE in office, if Ralphie hadn't been such a narcissist!

:nuke:

[Pastiche423]

129. The theft had nothing to do w/"Ralphie"

[Padraig18]

138. The theft had EVERYTHING to do with "Ralphie"

If he hadn't had to do his little "Oh, look at me, i'm sooo different" thing and drained off votes that SHOULD have gone to Gore, FL results would have been irreleveant!

Nader is a narcissistic ASSHOLE, and I hope he's happy he saddled us with 4 years of crypto-fascism! :grr: :nuke:

[Pastiche423]

148. Nader's 3%

did diddly squat to "drain off" votes.

Have you forgotten the purged voter's names from the Florida voter registry? Have you forgotten the rigged voting machines? Have you forgotten the stopped ballot counting?

The rethugs were going to "win" no matter what. The theft of the 2000 election had NOTHING to do w/Nader.

Might I suggest you do a little research? You could start w/Vincent Bugliosi's book, The Betrayal of America.

[Padraig18]

153. How convenient

Your forget the OTHER states that he drained off votes from gore, that Gore lost by narrow margins; had Gore won ANY of them, FL would have been irrelevant! On MY 'enemies list', RN comes in #2, right after the BFEE! :nuke: :puke: :grr:

[Padraig18]

155. J'accuse!

Clark's giving a Lincoln Day speech at that fundraiser is 'jaywalking', compared to Nader's TREASON, in my political grand jury room! :grr:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. You Can't Reason With The Haters......

All you can do is pray for them....

[Terwilliger]

30. Why is Clark a Democrat?

because he says he is?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Exactly....

[Evil_Dewers]

43. RE: Why is Clark a Democrat?

Is Nader a Democrat? Does he even say he's a Democrat?

[Brian Sweat]

85. Yes, because he says he is.

That's all it takes.

[roughsatori]

141. Is Clark allowed to vote in the Democratic Primary?

If he is a registered as an Independent and not a Democrat. LOL I guess somebody thought it was about more then "saying" you are one.

[Evil_Dewers]

29. Nader needs to challenge Bush...

for the Republican nomination and change the party from within.

[Terwilliger]

32. he's further to the left than you are

but I guess that isn't saying much these days

[Evil_Dewers]

37. Ralph is as left as the right wing corporations he owns

pieces of.

[Terwilliger]

41. Does that apply to the Democrats that took Enron money?

or all the Democrats that own parts of GE, Raytheon, Occidental, Phillip Morris...HUH??????

[Evil_Dewers]

48. George W. Bush's biggest benefactor

was Ken Lay and Enron. Thank God for the Naderites!

Praise Jesus (St. Ralph). :puke:

[Terwilliger]

54. so you wont admit that the Democrats are more dirty than "Saint" Ralph?

How inspiring :eyes:

[Evil_Dewers]

63. The Dems are not more dirty than St. Ralph

This is Democratic Underground, not weeney mamby pamby "take my jumprope and go home" bedwetting Greenie Underground.

You should be posting at http://freerepublic.com if you believe your leader's crap about no difference between the two major parties.

Since you and St. Ralph cannot admit you were wrong, I hope the ghosts of those killed in Iraq haunt you forever.

[Iverson]

68. again, grow up, please

You add nothing to this discussion but shrill, juvenile insults.
Pocket your scripted sarcasm.

[Evil_Dewers]

73. A Naderista starts a flame war with an inflammatory post

and I get criticized for shrill, juvenile insults and scripted sarcasm.

Did Nader say there was no difference between the two parties?

Yes.

So why would he want to be allowed to debate in the Democratic debates?

[Terwilliger]

82. read the thread title

The poster suggested that Nader should join in since they allow non-Democrats into the debates.

Try to keep up.

[Evil_Dewers]

106. Why not allow * to debate in the Dem debates?

You can always write in Nader's name and claim you were right as the country falls apart.

[Terwilliger]

110. Bush is a registered Republican

Clark is like Raplh Nader...a registered independent

[Evil_Dewers]

116. You voted for a guy who wasn't even registered as a Green?

That would be like a Dem voting for Clark when Clark wasn't a registered DEM!

How foolish!

[Terwilliger]

154. oh my ^#&%#*#*^#*#&%#&%#(#)*#^%#*^%

does anyone else have a problem with the post above??

CLARK IS NOT A REGISTERED DEM

Ralph Nader ran for the benefit of the Green party...not because he wanted to be the Green party leader.

[Evil_Dewers]

172. Ralph Nader ran for the benefit of the Green party

No, he ran for the benefit of himself (with Karl Rove and Chimpy McCokespoon reaping the greatest of benefits).

Again, thanks a lot, Ralph. Ever notice that to ralph means to :puke:

[Padraig18]

179. Ralph Nader is the NARCISSIST who stuck us with *

Put that in your granola and eat if, Ralph! :puke:

[lastliberalintexas]

208. Actually, I think it would be foolish

"That would be like a Dem voting for Clark when Clark wasn't a registered DEM!"

But then call me picky about the people I want leading my party. Heaven forbid that I expect Clark to actually be a member of the Democratic Party before asking me for money and support. :eyes:

[Iverson]

83. reply

As far as I know, Nader does not want to be in the Democratic primary debates.

And you certainly have gone out of your way here to earn my critique. I think I put it mildly.

[Old and In the Way]

163. No more, no less dirty than Ralph, IMHO.

So that begs the question, why bother supporting a person that offers no better option than any of the candidates that support the Democratic Party?

Let Ralph run as a Democrat....I'd be happy to ignore him. Somehow, I doubt that the spanking he'd get in the primaries would stop him from running as a Independent, though. It's that insatiable ego thing, you know....

[Brian Sweat]

80. Um, how about Clark is running for the Democratic nomination

and Ralph isn't.

[Brian Sweat]

126. Nader can get the same consideration.

All he has to do is become a candidate for the Democratic nomination.

[roughsatori]

139. But Clark is not a member of the Democratic party NT

[Old and In the Way]

157. Clark has declared himself as a candidate for President as a

Democrat. Ralph hasn't.

It would be a tad bit hypocritical of Ralph to declare himself a Democrat at this point, wouldn't you agree? At the very least, if he can't tell the difference between a Republican and a Democrat, I'm not sure he'd be capable of leading this Party.

Much better that he runs as a Republican.....I'd be happy to donate and advocate his candidacy. :-)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. Nader Got 2.75% of The Vote

NT

[Terwilliger]

17. Clark has received 0.0% of the vote

get his ass out of the debates

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. "get his ass out of the debates"

wow....

Thanks for elevating the discourse....

<kisses>

Brian

[Terwilliger]

47. you have no interest in discourse

you have nothing but propaganda

By all means, REMOVE him from the debates. We don't know what party he's ultimately working for...he won't even register as a member of a party.

[Evil_Dewers]

51. Ralph Nader was a Rovian mole. Pass it on.

The Greenie sheeple were suckered by Rove.

[Terwilliger]

59. You can't blame your party's failures on anyone except Ralph

how pathetic

[Evil_Dewers]

84. Yes, it is my party...

Not yours. Go set up your own Green board and worship St. Ralph.

[Terwilliger]

89. sorry, jefe

I'm a Democrat too :hi:

[Old and In the Way]

165. Apparently from the splinter faction........

you know, the "Democrats haven't suffered enough pain and agongy yet, the flogging must continue" wing.

[Terwilliger]

191. yes, that's the wing that keeps voting in the Bush enablers

like you I guess...since you have more contempt for Nader than you do for the DLC (that does its best to give Bush what he wants) or the Pink Tutu four, who gave Bush a blank check to go to war KNOWING he was a lying fucknut.

Stick your holier-than-thou attitude wherever it's least convenient.

[Ardee]

207. So you feel comfortable in such company

as Evil_Dewers whose politics suggests duplicity?

The simple fact is that the "pain and agony" of which you write is self inflicted by the policies of the democratic leadership to remain silent for three years and not due to the only national figure speaking out against Bush consistently......if you spent some time attempting to correct the obvious flaws in the democratic strategies perhaps Nader would not be so important, and so necesary.

[sujan]

186. Since when did this board become 'yours'?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. Clark Is Leading In Several National Polls Of Democrats

and more than a couple of state polls. That indicates to me that there are a significant number of Dems who support him....

If you want to eliminate their choice by unilateral fiat you are not being a very good small (d) democrat but perhaps you don't want to be.....

[Terwilliger]

87. I'm sorry...anybody who attacks Nader cannot claim the small "d"

But how many of those people who are being polled KNOW that he isn't a Democrat?

Shouldn't that be somewhere near the top of his home page? "I am a Democrat* (* not a registered Democrat)"

[Evil_Dewers]

96. Nader is a registered Green.

So he isn't allowed to play in the big leagues. Try to keep up.

Would Bob Marley be sick to know Ralph was just a hypocrite who hated evil corporations but made millions from them?

Nah, Bob would just smoke some more weed and forget about it.

Sounds like the typical attitude of Naderistas re: the truth about Ralph.

[Iverson]

100. error of fact

Nader is not a registered Green.

[charlie]

101. Nader is not a registered Green n/t

[Terwilliger]

107. talk about ad hominem attacks

Bob Marley would condemn all politicians for playing games while Rome burns (especially American politicians)

[Evil_Dewers]

Does that include condemning St. Ralph? n/t

[Terwilliger]

146. Does that include condemning Bill Clinton?

or George Bush?

[Iverson]

26. The Bosporus suspension bridge is in Turkey.

NT

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. I Was Correcting The Historical Record.....

<kisses>

Brian

[Iverson]

38. my mistake

It looked like a non-sequitur.

Don't let my wife know about the kisses.

;-)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. K

-:)

The seminal poster said Nader got 3% of the vote... Actually, he got 2.75% of the vote....

[Evil_Dewers]

19. Is that quote in your signature line genuine?

The one from Lincoln? Or was it invented by Naderite Michael Moore?

As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of our country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." --Abraham Lincoln


Because I can't find it anywhere else.

Evil corporations were a concern when Lincoln was president? Evil corporations, some of which Ralph Nader owns thousands of shares in, were more of a concern to Lincoln than slavery?

[David Zephyr]

53. Indeed, They Are Abraham Lincoln's Very Words.

Indeed, They Are Abraham Lincoln's Very Words. Why does this surprize you? Why would you suggest they were words from Michael Moore?

Check out Tom Hartmann's superbly researched book, "Unequal Protection" at your local bookstore.

You'll find not only this quote there from President Lincoln, but it would answer the other question you asked, albeit somewhat with sarcasm and disbelief, whether President Lincon was concerned about coporations. He was very concerned, as was Thomas Jefferson who wrote in 1816 the following, "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

[Iverson]

21. a variation on your suggestion

In the interests of Democracy, it would be a good idea to have the Green nominee included in the Presidential debates, rather than working hand in hand with the Republicans to exclude the Green nominee, even threatening him with arrest.

Nader may not be the Green nominee this time, and in any case this issue should not turn on personalities.

If you are referring to the Democratic candidate debates, then I cannot agree that it makes sense to include aspiring candidates of other parties.

Also, your feelings about Gen. Clark should be a separate issue. His political affiliations in the past cannot be used to conclusively determine his political affiliations now.

In sum, I applaud your spirit of inclusion, but recommend revising some details.

[Terwilliger]

28. So, it's ok that Clark isn't a Democrat

he can particpate even so?

Nader may not be the Green nominee this time, and in any case this issue should not turn on personalities.

I really appreciate your diplomcay (you're like Az is with the god-p-- er, believers) but it will always turn on personalities...just like Freepers and their attitude toward the Democratic party...it all hinges on the mention of Bill Clinton's name. Same here. :eyes:

[Evil_Dewers]

34. Ralph Nader is God...

He's Yahweh in the Old Testament--just making us suffer to teach us a lesson.

[Iverson]

40. grow up, please

Your sarcasm is unremarkable and cliched, as is your manufactured outrage. I urge you instead to spend a little energy on the enemies of democracy.

[The Magistrate]

86. Viewed 'Objectively' Sir, In The Fine Old Leninist Style

Nader is indeed an enemy of democracy: the effect of his action was to deliver the country into the hands of the criminals of the '00 Coup. He did so for precisely the motive the gentleman above suggests: to punish the people for their sins, in the belief that only if things get worse could they get better.

[Iverson]

91. maybe not objective, but ...

... not giving into cheap name-calling either. We'll just have to disagree about whether the crime belonged to the Supreme Court and others or to the Green Party candidate. If you haven't figured it out by now, I doubt that you're open to the evidence.

[The Magistrate]

108. It Was A Combination Of Factors, Sir

The removal of any one of which would have broken the synergy. A middling campaign by Vice-President Gore and the antics of Nader combined to put the thing in reach of the theives and their corrupt court. Nader, however, was the most extraneous factor: remove him, and the theft could not have occured.

[charlie]

114. Correction

And the theft might not have occurred.

[Iverson]

118. maybe

And on this basis you object to my taking another poster to task for his ugly foaming at the mouth.

Perhaps Nader was the most extraneous factor, or perhaps it was Monica Moorehead. Perhaps in discussion we should give a free pass to those who actually committed a crime against the Consitution while condemning those who did not.

However, your offense at my "objective" writing style and nasty crack about Leninism in no way rehabilitates the poster to whom I directed my remarks. Defend him or her if you must.

[Pastiche423]

125. The theft would still have occured

Period

[The Magistrate]

140. No, Ma'am, It Would Not Have

Even half the votes of progressive and left persons siphoned by Nader, if cast instead for Vice President Gore, would have put the thing wholly beyond the capacity for chicanery enjoyed by the enemy.

If you were yourself a Naderte in those days, you have my sympathy, but you will have to wrestle with your conscience un-aided by that particular prop: the enemy is not all-powerful and sure to win no matter what we do.

[Pastiche423]

150. I disagree

and so does Vincent Bugliosi. Half of Nader's votes would equal 1.5%. No way would that have effected the count.

The election had everything to do w/thuggery of the part of the repug party. They set up the theft long before the 1st vote was cast.

P.S. I voted for Gore.

[The Magistrate]

151. In Florida, Ma'am

Half the Nader vote would have provided a comfortable margin for our candidate. Check the numbers on a state by state basis.

[Padraig18]

160. The Nader vote in SEVERAL states

...would have given gore victory, rendering FL's fiasco irrelevant! Nader is a p-a-r-i-a-h-, and always will be! :grr:

[Pastiche423]

164. Bullshit

If you want to keep whining about Nader's measley 3%, then go right ahead. I prefer to put the blame, correctly, on the thugs that stole my country.

[The Magistrate]

168. No, Ma'am

It was not insignifigant; it was decisive.

The first need of politics is the ability to count.

Fifty-one is more than forty-eight.

[Pastiche423]

170. Tell it to the SCOTUS, not me

[The Magistrate]

171. Without Nader, Ma'am

They would have been mere spectators, as the numbers dictated.

[Padraig18]

169. You need to understand how Presidents are elected

51 separate elections determine who becomes President; that ASSHOLE TRAITOR NARCISSIST NADER cost Gore at LEAST 3 states' electoral votes; had gore won any ONE of the 3, what happened in FL would have been 'irrelevant'!

Ralph Nader made *s (s)election possible, and is as guilty as the driver of the getaway car is in a bank robbery! :nuke:

[Terwilliger]

188. yes, how many of those separate elections did Gore lose?

ALL ON HIS OWN?!?!?!

[Terwilliger]

185. Magistrate...you're wrong AND repeating falsities

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=3&kaid=86&subid=84&contentid=2919

The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. -- Al From

***

http://prorev.com/greenpages.htm

This fits in well with the liberal myth that Gore lost the 2001 election because of Ralph Nader. In fact, Gore lost the election because he was a poor candidate, ran a bad campaign, and failed to separate himself morally from Clinton. Further, not only the Democratic Party, but the liberals within it, made it absolutely clear over eight years that they had no interest in, nor would respond to, the sort of politics espoused by Greens.

A study by the Review of national and Florida polls during the 2000 election indicates that Ralph Nader's influence on the final results was minimal to non-existent. The Review tested the widely held Democratic assumption that Nader caused Gore's loss by checking changes in poll results. Presumably, if Nader was actually responsible for Gore's troubles, his tallies would change inversely to those of Gore: if Gore did better, Nader would do worse and vice versa. In fact, the only time any correlation could be found was when the changes were so small - 1 or 2 percentage points - that they were statistically insignificant. On the other hand when, in September of 2000, Gore's average poll result went up 7.5 points over August, Nader's only declined by 1 point. Similarly, in November, Gore's average poll tally declined 5.7 points but Nader's only went up 0.8 points. In the close Florida race, there were similar results: statistically insignificant correlation when the Gore tally changed by only one or two points, but dramatic non-correlation when the change was bigger.

During almost all of 2000, Bush led Gore with the major exception of a month-long period following the Democratic convention. During this high point for Gore, Nader was pulling a running average of 2-4% in the polls. While it is true that during October, Nader began pulling a running average of 6% at a time when Gore was fading, Gore continued to lose ground even as Nader's support dropped to its final 3%. In other words, despite the help of defectors from Nader, Gore did worse.

Further, as Michael Eisencher reported in Z Magazine, 20% of all Democratic voters, 12% of all self-identified liberal voters, 39% of all women voters, 44% of all seniors, one-third of all voters earning under $20,000 per year and 42% of those earning $20-30,000 annually, and 31% of all voting union members cast their ballots for Bush. In other words, Bush did better among these traditional liberal constituencies than did Nader.

So PLEASE stifle your misinformation.

[The Magistrate]

196. No, Sir, This Will Not Serve Your Turn At All

The self-exculpatory blather of these Green Party organs is understandable, but worthless.

You are commended to the actual vote totals in Florida, and should have no difficulty finding them, if actually interested in facts. The number of votes cast for Nader dwarfs the official margin seperating the major party candidates.

Every person who voted for Nader contributed mightily to the success of the criminals of the '00 Coup.

Any who proclaim intent to do so again can only be considered willing agents of reaction.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Terwilliger]

198. The "official" results are LIES...or did you not know that?

PLUS!!!!!

TWELVE TIMES THE NUMBER OF DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR BUSH THAN VOTED FOR NADER! Now, I know that screws the idea that Nader cost the election, yet there it is.

I know you folks NEED a scapegoat, but this is really pathetic. Nader had no access, no influence, no power...yet HE was the one that cost the weak Democrats the election.

OI!!

[The Magistrate]

199. What A World You Live In, Sir

You will find from internal polling data that a number of Republicans voted for Vice-President Gore. None of that makes any difference. Nader was wholly extraneous to the normal electoral process; a mere self-indulgence, on his part and on the part of the dilletants who cast ballots for him. Subtract him from the mix, and the situation today would be different. Your wrigglings around that are not so amusing as you suppose. If your concern is to remove from office the criminals of the '00 Coup, you will rally to the candidate of the Democratic Party. If you prefer to see the worst of reactionaries continued in power, you may choose another course.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Terwilliger]

203. Are you this persuasive in I/P?

:shrug:

[Ardee]

211. Far from extraneous

unless you use the meaning as 'coming from the outside'.....
It was Naders right to run if he saw fit to do so, this democracy of ours is so very messy isnt it? There was never a single guarrantee that many who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore or even voted at all in Nader's absence. Far more telling ,imo, is the 11% or so of registered democrats who voted for Bush, telling as to the slippage of the dmeocratic party from a position of validation by the electorate.

If Nader, or anyone else feels it is in the best interest of this nation to promote a third party then that is h/her right in a free society. Gore was never guarranteed a single vote excepting that of his wife and himself, my vote is my own property and will be cast in my self interest and for that candidate who earns the damned thing! If the democratic party wants me to dso any rallying then it damn well better get off its collective duff and start opposing the litany of Bushs malfeasance.....

[Evil_Dewers]

122. Enemies of democracy

George W. Bush
John Ashcroft
Richard "Dick" Cheney
Ralph Nader (I)

[Iverson]

35. not what I said

I made no assertion about Clark's goodness or badness. I said that past affiliations can't be used to conclusively determine the present.

If Clark says he's a Democrat and has sent in his $25 or his friendly letter or whatever to the DNC, then I guess that makes him a Democrat. If not, then no.

Besides, I'm not diplomatic. I am a Green here, as you know, and therefore an intransigent extremist.

;-)

[Terwilliger]

50. you ARE diplomatic

considering my retorts :D

[Padraig18]

42. *Prove* that he's not a Democrat, please.

[Pastiche423]

56. Wesley Clark: Still Not a Democrat

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2003/nf2003101_0874_db038.htm

[Terwilliger]

61. don't worry, Pastiche

none of that proves anything :eyes:

[Padraig18]

67. No, it doesn't

Like most command-level military, he didn't declare and affiliation. If he was from a state that didn't ask for affiliation, this would be what it is right now-- a non-issue. I want to decide on SUBSTANCE, not 'my family arrived in America before yours did' juvenile garbage that takes away from a discussion involving them.

Policy, anyone? Issues? :eyes:

[noiretextatique]

70. you'd think he'd 'declare a DEMOCRATIC affiliation' BEFORE

deciding to run as a DEMOCRATIC candidate for president. :shrug:
who in the hell is running his campaign?

[Pastiche423]

76. It is an issue

because he stated publically that he was a Dem, when he wasn't and isn't.

[Padraig18]

93. Question:

My state doesn't require you to declare a party when registering; does that make ME 'not a Democrat', since I don't have a piece of county-issued paper that say "I'm a Democrat" on it?

Grow up! :eyes:

[Pastiche423]

105. ARE YOU RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT ON THE DEMOCRATIC TICKET?

[Padraig18]

121. No

And since I'm not native-born, I never will, unless we amend the Constitution.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

74. If We Include The Greens

do we include the Liberterian Party, the Socialist Workers Party, the Populist Party,the Communist Party Of The United Sates Of America, the Natural Law Party, the scattered remnants of the Reform Party, et cetera....?

[Terwilliger]

95. well, if you allow in all the independents

you could have hundreds of thousands in the debates

like I said, Clark should declare his membership in the Democratic party or get out of the debates

[Brian Sweat]

120. Fine,

We'll include the Green candidate.

We'll also include candiates from all of the other parties.

The Reform Party
The Libertarian Party
The Natural Law Party
The Constitution Party
The Prohibition Party
The Socialist Party
The Socialist Workers Party
The Grassroots Party Candidate
The Workers World Party candidate

Plus all of the independant candidates who get their name on at least one state ballot.

[tjdee]

33. Let Nader run as a Democrat! That would be great!

That in fact would take care of my biggest problem with Nader.

I wish he would have run as a Democrat last time.

I think you'll be hard pressed to find too many DUers who would oppose Nader running as a Dem for pres.

Just because Clark is running doesn't mean he'll actually *get* the the nom. And if he does, it's because people voted for him, not because of Clenis or the DLC or whatever.

[Brian Sweat]

46. When Nader declares

that he is running for the Democratic nomination, then he can participate in Democratic debates.


Why do you Greens care who we invite to our debates. Why don't you have your own. I'm sure you can get them played on local access.

[Tinoire]

49. By ALL Means! Nader would make them address a few issues

they'd rather ignore (the exception being Kucinich)

[Terwilliger]

62. Hey Tinoire

man, these Clarkies ARE scary :scared:

[Evil_Dewers]

130. I am a Deanie.

But thanks for assuming I was a Clarkie because I think it is wrong that some Naderistas want to tear the party down from within.

[Brian Sweat]

134. Only the greens can decide who is worthy to be a Democratic candidate.

[LoneStarLiberal]

65. My Sole Interest Is The Best Candidate For The Party

My only interest in the primaries is to vote for who I think is the best candidate for the Democratic Party. Without getting into a bunch of tit-for-tat deconstructionist bullshit, if Clark is still in come primary time in my state, I'm voting for him unless there is some huge u-turn on the issues I've heard from him so far.

All this "he voted for Reagan" stuff has nothing to do with his candidacy. For those seeking to throw everyone out of the Democratic Party who ever voted for a Republican, voted in favor of a Republican initiative, or said something favorable about a Republican or a Republican-sponsored policy, congratulations. Go and find 10 new candidates now because you just disqualified every last one of our current crop. I thought we were supposed to be the party of diversity and not dogmatism...

I understand that we each have our minimum standards for identifying a candidate as viable in our minds. In my mind Wes Clark is a Democratic candidate for every reason that he said in the run-up to his declaration. That's enough for me. Regardless of whether that is good enough for you, all this dogmatism relating to who is going out-Democratic one another is not really a great institutional message.

May the best man or woman win. That's all I'm interested in for the primaries.

[Padraig18]

72. Some of these folks are so whacked out that...

... no one could survive whatever bullshit, contrived 'ideological pureness' test they use to judge 'Democrat-ness'. " :tinfoilhat: time"

[Terwilliger]

97. hmmmmm

I don't think any pureness test has been applied in this thread

OH WAIT!!! IDEOLOGICAL PURITY IS ASKING WHY A DEMOCRAT WONT DECLARE HIMSELF A DEMOCRAT?!?!?!?!??!

I guess the bar is getting pretty low these days :eyes:

[Padraig18]

113. Ummm...

What part of what he's said since the day he announced haven't you heard? Bash him for running a disorganized capaign, if you want, but you know damn well he'd be catching just as much crap FOR changing it to "Democrat", as he is for FAILING to change it!:eyes:

[Terwilliger]

123. not really

if he'd declared his being a Democrat AND registered way back when, it wouldn't even have come up

it's not just a disorganized campaign...it's lack of thinking on Clark's part

unless there's a REASON he doesn't want to be a Democrat :shrug:

[LoneStarLiberal]

128. Great Sig

Great signature, by the way. I remember a quote from an old Fenian (maybe it was Rossa) who said he only prayed in Irish because "God doesn't listen to prayers in English."

Although my ancestors got historically confused, I was named for Pearse and Collins...with a good Scots Black and Tan last name.

Unsafe in Ulster, unsafe in Cork.

[LoneStarLiberal]

119. For My Personal Tastes,

For my personal tastes, the fact that he declared himself a Democratic candidate to the entire nation is enough for me.

It's obvious that this is a sticking point for you and I would guess that you probably weren't ever going to vote for Clark anyway. Hey, that's fine by me.

You'll vote for your person, I'll vote for mine, hopefully for one of our guys (or gal) will win so that way one of us will at least be deeply invested in our party's candidate.

I'll be voting for whoever wins and leads our party into the elections next year.

[Brian Sweat]

132. Funny, I heard him declare that he was a Democrat and a liberal

Has you candidate said that he was a liberal? Has you candidate ever denied being a liberal?

[Old and In the Way]

166. So I assume you would logically exclude Nader

as he can tell the difference between the Republicans and Democrats.

Labels really mean nothing to me....Bush says he's a Republican, but he is really running as the candidate for the Criminal War-Profiteering Party.

I'd rather that Ralph declare as a Republican, I think he's more comfortable with the Norquist/Schfley crowd, anyway. Perhaps all of our Nader friends could then spend their time on FR getting the dark side to see the light.

[Pale Blue Dot]

71. I repeat: Is Nader running for the DEMOCRATIC nomination?

Clark has announced his intention to seek the Democratic nomination. That is why he is in the debates. It doesn't matter if he is a Democrat, Green, Communist, Independent, or Republican. He has announced his intention to seek the DEMOCRATIC nomination.

If Nader announces that he wants to run for the DEMOCRATIC nomination, by all means, he should be in the debates. Otherwise, this is the most ridiculous thread I have seen on DU lately.

[Iverson]

77. agreed

I made essentially the same point in note #21, but it is almost impossible to have a sober exchange on this topic.

[Terwilliger]

99. why do you think I favor inebriation so highly?

:shrug:

:beer:

:smoke:

:freak:

[Iverson]

103. that's your business, but ...

... you surely have ample reason.
:crazy:

[Terwilliger]

112. see, I told you you were diplomatic

Let's have Iverson in the debates!!!

[Iverson]

124. apparently I'm a Leninist

At least that's what others are getting out of my objections to rhetorical rabies.

Funny, I never thought I was a Leninist. Maybe a Lennonist, but not a Leninist.

Strange days indeed!

[JohnKleeb]

137. Lennonist lol

Good one Iverson. :hi: I know you arent a Leninist but even if you were that doesnt make you bad.

[The Magistrate]

142. You Might Want To Check Your In-Box, Sir

[w4rma]

133. This wouldn't be an issue if Clark's campaign wasn't so inept. (n/t)

[Padraig18]

144. No

It would still be an issue; some people see the fact that he is retired military as an 'issue'. :eyes: Like Rosanne Rosanada said, "If its not one thing, it's another." this just happens to be the 'toy' the children are most fascinated by at the moment... :eyes:

[David Zephyr]

135. A Little Perspective.

For the record, for over two years I have advocated here at the DU that if Ralph Nader was truly serious about a second try at the White House then he should enter the Democratic Primaries as a Democrat. Anyone here is free to check through the archives here to verify this. I am a Democrat who admires the Green Party and what they stand for. I have long advocated that the Democratic Party co-opt the Greens by moving towards their direction rather than that of the DLC. Most people who have known me here for these past 2-1/2 years know this.

I have long advocated this because I am a Democrat and because a very great deal of what Ralph Nader has stood for and has advocated has a rightful place within the Democratic Party. Certainly, by having Nader engaged within the Democratic Primaries, he would then have little excuse to criticize after the fact, would he? To those who are understandably upset with Nader, this would essentially be calling his bluff, wouldn't it? And to those who admire Nader, but are also radically opposed to the Bush Administration and are also committed to seeing a new occupant in the Executive Office, this would also go along way to building bridges.

Please notice that in my original post I wrote the following: "I would suggest that Ralph Nader...consider asking to be allowed to debate along with the other(s)...". That's what I think Nader should do rather than remain quiet until sometime next year and then announce that he will once again run for President under the Green or another banner, for to do that would be highly suspect in my opinion.

This would be my challenge to Nader. Nader should step up to the plate and enter the Democratic Primaries and articulate his vision with the others now --- or otherwise Nader should get behind Dennis Kucinich, who he has endorsed, and start working for him publicly.

I am not too proud to freely confess that I want that 3% of the national vote squarely with us this time. We will need it in 2004 to help battle the near $700 Million that the Bush Campaign and Republican Party have in their warchest.

Also, thanks to Terwilliger for understanding the intent of this thread and that it was not meant as flamebait. You are one of the DU's brightest bulbs on a string of many, many bright bulbs. Also, to Iverson, I think that your suggestion is pretty much what I am driving at and I also wanted to thank you for pointing out that Nader is not a registered Green. I also agree with Noiretblu in that Clark should have registered as a Democrat before jumping into the Primaries and would ask the same question, "who in the hell is running his campaign?" Tjdee and Tinoire, I see this the same way as you do. And finally, Pastiche423, I am sure glad you are on our side and not against us and admire you greatly.

[Evil_Dewers]

173. If Clark would have registered as a Dem before that debate

you would have slammed him for not registering as a Dem until just before the debate. A Green's argument: "See, he's not really a Dem--he just registered as a Dem last week. He voted for Reagan. He praised the Chimp administration 4 months before 9-11."

This whole thread is flame bait BS. St. Ralph isn't running for the Dem nomination for president. The title of this thread is based on a lie. I will not respond to hypothetical crapola anymore. Dr. Dean isn't registered as a Dem because he cannot register as a Dem in his home state. So according to your "rationale," he shouldn't be allowed to debate either.

[David Zephyr]

184. Have You "Verified" the Lincoln Quote You Disputed?

We've all noticed you dodged your foolish statements about Lincoln's quotation in your post #19 which I responded to in post #53. I can understand you not wanting to call attention to it, but in any event, I thought it was worth pointing out that you were wrong.

Just between us, not everything can be found on a search engine, yet. There is still a world of books which you might introduce yourself to sometime.

You wrote above the following, "I will not respond to hypothetical crapola anymore." I will take you at your word and expect you to try and restrain yourself from attempting to hijack my threads in the future. You can start your own.

By the way, the new rules clearly point out that using terms like "St. Ralph" are prohibited and your use of it was a violation of the code.

[roughsatori]

136. Clark should not have been allowed on that stage

But then again, no one thought that he was lying when he said he was a "proud democrat." Perhaps the party needs to start doing back-ground checks. But I think that Nader had just as much a right as an Independent (Clark) to be on that stage. Or else Nader and Clark both should have been banned.

I think that some of Clark's (I) DU supporters would approve if they found out he was a registered Republican. They have much more of an affinity with moderate Republicans then they do with Leftist Dems.

[Brian Sweat]

145. Dean should not have been allowed on that stage,

since he is not a registered Democrat.

There is NO PARTY REGISTRATION in Vermont

[Padraig18]

149. Not is there in IL

This is just the current 'play toy' for those who would never have voted for Clark any way. :eyes:

[LoneStarLiberal]

147. Particularly

As a liberal Democratic voter, I'd say you're partially right.

I know more than a few moderate Republicans who are interested in Wes Clark because Bush has so thoroughly betrayed the "left wing" of the Republican Party. Even though Clark is a little too "leftie" for their tastes on affirmative action and abortion, they want to give him a chance.

Then they see how other Democratic voters trash Clark. I can tell you in a time when we ought to be trying to show our best institutional face to those very people, the jilted Republican moderates, we're showing our institutional ass instead.

Mods (non-Democratic mods) see the way Clark is attacked in places like DU and in liberal Democratic blogs and lose any interest in supporting anyone else. These are people who will vote Democratic if it means voting for Clark but probably will not if it means voting for someone else. Edit: Wouldn't it make more sense to just stick to who has better issues and put a better face on our party than thoroughly discourage people who we just might bring over into the Democratic Party?

As far as background checks go, I'll leave that up to Herr Ashcroft and his data Nazis. Like I said elsewhere on this thread, either Clark's word is good enough for you or it isn't. It's good enough for me. It's not for you. Let's both move on.

[Brian Sweat]

143. Since Dean is not a registered Democrat, he should not be allowed

to participate in any future Democratic dabates.

There is NO PARTY REGISTRATION in Vermont

[Terwilliger]

159. so then you'll admit

that party leaders choose nominees based on certain factors, or is it ok that Lyndon LaRouche is not included while Clark is?

[Brian Sweat]

204. You say that like the two choices are mutually exclusive.

You say that like the two choices are mutually exclusive.

The party leaders do not choose the nominees period. The voters do, but then I am just making fun of your poorly worded question.

I think what you are trying to ask is, do I admit that the party leaders decide which candidates will be allowed to participate in the debates based on certain criteria? Of course I admit this. I just deny that YOU have the right to set that criteria.

I also think that it is good that LaRouche is not allowed to participate while Clark is.

[Terwilliger]

209. SHEESH

You didn't say why it was OK to exclude LaRouche, since up until the other day, LaRouche was ACTUALLY a Democrat, so he had more right to be there than Clark did.

So, guess what homes!! The people do not vote for the candidates...party leaders decide who's in and who's out.

And I never asked to set the criteria. I called hypocritical bullshit on the Democratic party (but I don't know why I shouldn't expect this as standard practice from the Democrats)

[Brian Sweat]

210. The people do vote for the nominee

That fact that the party decides who attends its debates has nothing to do with who is on the ballot.

As far as why it is ok to exclude LaRouche from the debates, I think the fact that he is a convicted fellon might have something to do with that.

[Cheswick2.0]

156. sure just as soon as he runs for the democratic nomination

he can be in the democratic debates and register as a democrat as I expect Clark will soon enough. Of course if Clark does not, then I would expect him to drop out.

[Starpass]

175. I have a whole bunch of shit to say and I DEMAND that they

let me address them. Let's see, they should get done hearing speakers in about the year 2050 by my calculation. Sorry---go form your own damn party, raise your own damn money, buy your own damn ads, have your own damn convention and basically stop being a whining parasite on others. Grow up---because if you can't, than you should not be put in charge of this government or any other. God damn we have enough halfwits running this nation!!!!!!!

[drfemoe]

176. FEC - He hasn't declared Democratic Party

:bounce:
http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?P40002792

Presented by the Federal Election Commission
CLARK, WESLEY GENERAL ID: P40002792

Office Sought: President
Election Year: 2004
State: Presidential Candidate
District: 02
Party: UNK (Unknown)

[incapsulated]

177. TIRED TIRED TIRED

GIVE IT A REST!

[wyldwolf]

178. As soon as Nader declares himself a dem candidate...

... let 'em in.

[Terwilliger]

182. Lyndon LaRouche is a Dem candidate

why hasn't he been invited to the debates?

[wyldwolf]

194. If he is a dem candidate, he should be...

... right? Democrats participate in Democratic debates. Not Greens. Not Republicans.

[John_H]

180. I agree 100 percent--invite Ralph!!!!!

provided, of course, he releases his personal financial information like all the other candidates.

Then we can ask him:

1) how much money he's made from the tactics of the companies he vilifies

2) to repeat and defend his 2000 assertion that dems and rethugs are "indistinguishable"

3)why he personally and ruthlessly busts unions.

4)what he thinks about his party's platform of income capping and nationalizing the fortune 500.

Hey if we can get rid of Ralph and the Green party with him by inviting him to lie his ass off on stage, I'm all for it. INVITE RALPH! INVITE RALPH! INVITE RALPH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[Terwilliger]

181. What an unbelievable amalgam of misinformation

what are you, the Rethug media :shrug:

[John_H]

200. 100 percent true, and you know it.

Refuses to release financial records, holds stocks in Merk, Wal-mart, and Viacom through his Fidelity Fund, repeated Dems and Rethugs were indistinguishable dozens of times, and anyone who wants to look at the Green platform can do it.

C'mon Dems, invite Ralph!!!! Ask him to get up in front of a Dem audience and tell us we're indistingushable from Bush. Ask him point blank if he'll release his financial holdings. Ask him point by point what he thinks of his party's platform: income capping, asking people to "voluntarily" give up their small businesses for "public ownership," the whole thing.

Would Ralph accept? He'd run away as fast as his hypocritical legs could carry him.

[gully]

189. Not unless Bush does...N/T

[Loyal]

190. Why would I want Nader in the debate?

His entrance into the 2000 campaign let Bush win the presidency. :puke: Nader will never be able to redeem himself in my eyes. Greenie, greenie, greenie.

[Terwilliger]

192. and you have Zinn in your sig line?

Do you know what Zinn thinks about current electoral politics? Do you know what Zinn thinks about all the Democrats who make war?

[Loyal]

193. I was anti-war myself, buddy,

and FYI, graham was anti-war too. How soon they forget...

[Terwilliger]

197. anti IRAQ war...very different

[David Zephyr]

195. Your Points About Zinn Are On the Mark.

I think it would be very safe to say that Zinn would agree with you, Terwilliger. :hi:

[eileen_d]

201. What does Zinn think about flame wars?

If Nader was running for the Democratic Party, he could participate in the debates. He's not, so get over it.

[Terwilliger]

202. I belive that you are mistaken

nowhere in this thread did I say that Nader should be included in the Democratic debates

In fact, most of the discussion revolved around Mr. Clark's qualifications to participate in the debates, since his party affiliation is in question.

[Booberdawg]

205. Absolutely NOT to Nader. GET LOST!

Your issue with Clark is petty and doesn't belong in this topic. He is running as a Democratic candidate.

I would oppose Nader being in the Dem Debates under any circumstances whatsoever. He's not a Democrat. Go ride someone elses coat-tails. Try the Republicans. Nor would I support ANY Green candidate being invited or allowed to participate in the Dem Debates.

I'm fed up with Green sabatoge today so I'll just leave it at that.