Nader Traders, a blast from the past

[JackSwift]

http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/nader.htm

I was busy googling myself and found a published letter to an editor that predicted a month before the election that Nader would get 3% of the vote. I then googled to see if I was right. Yep. My prediction today for 2004? 2 to 3 percent.

[ErasureAcer]

1. If Kucinich isn't the Dem candidate

there is a 99.9% chance I'll vote for the green party candidate.

Move left or pay the consequences.

[JackSwift]

2. I will only vote for the Dem candidate

I work very hard to defeat Greens in every local election they run in. All of them. That is a direct consequence of 2000. The latest was my work for Newsom against Gonzales. And if you don't like it, then vote for whomever you please, but remember that the blood of everyone Bush kills is on Ralph Nader's head and the head of everyone that doesn't vote against Bush. Greens are personally responsible for their votes to elect Bush and the deaths he has caused for oil. Greens are murderers in their cause to enhance the contradictions. But Greens care nothing for life, only for their socialist and communist masters' commands. Peter Camejo called himself a communist in the 60s, and his positions haven't changed. Greens are communists, pure and simple. I will always work against the unjust redistribution of wealth sought by the communists.


And I will decide where on the political spectrum I will stand. Not you. And unlike a Green, I accept the consequences of my vote and take full responsibility for it.

And as much as I like Kucininch (and all the other 9), he isn't going to win the nomination. He won't win a single state. He won't win a single delegate. That's because his supporters have the slightest clue how to campaign.

[FDRrocks]

3. Okay...

but remember, the blood of everyone Bush kills is on the hands of all the Democrats that pass his bullshit and allow him to do what he does.

[JackSwift]

5. I agree with you there

Anyone who was paying attention would have known before the Iraq vote that the Junta was systematically lying about WMD. At the DU we were well aware of PNAC. Moreover, the members of Congress (and I include Republicans who voted for war in my condemnation too) are paid to pay attention to these things. Blood is on the hands of everyone who voted for it. It was, as Wolforitz now admits, an intentional violation of international law. In short, a war of aggression. Each and every member of Congress is at risk of a war crimes trial in the Hague. And I have heard damn few members of Congress tell the truth about their positions, or competently analyze the issue (Sen. Robert Byrd and Cong Barbara Lee notably and heroicly excepted).

The only way this war would have been legal (setting aside wise for a sentence or two) would have been with UN authorization, which was never seriously pursued, probably with the intent of destroying international law and starting arms races profitable to the Junta members. Would the UN have authorized a war eventually? Not without evidence of WMD, which doesn't exist and would not have been found.

[FlemingsGhost]

4. Oh... my! Congratulations, Jack.

One of the most mean-spritied, misdirected hostility pile-of-shit posts ever to waste DU bandwidth.

Sheesh.

[JackSwift]

6. Why thank you

Although I think it was directed in exactly the direction I intended it: against Ralph Nader, Greens, and anyone who might vote Green. Now I ask you, weren't you mistaken? Didn't I hit my mark?

[JailBush]

7. Let me see if I follow your logic.

1. "The blood of everyone Bush kills is on Ralph Nader's head and the head of everyone that doesn't vote against Bush."

2. I voted for Ralph Nader.

3. Therefore, the blood of Bush's victims is on my head.

4. Democrats never gave me any good reasons not to vote for Nader; I had to discover the truth myself after the election.

5. Therefore, Democrats also have blood on their hands.

Next...

1. Greens are communists.

2. I thought they were Republican operatives.

3. Therefore, Republicans are communists.

Next...

Elected Democrats have done very little to keep George W. Bush on a leash; they haven't even made a respectable effot. So whose fault is that - the Greens, the communists or mine?

[JackSwift]

8. A good start, but you lose it later.

Might I recommend Lewis Carroll's (yes, that Lewis Carroll) Symbolic Logic and Game of Logic.

Of the first part, I follow you up until point 3, and point 4 does not follow. Democrats don't have the obligation to convince you of anything. You are responsible for your own choices in this life, and for all of the consequences that flow from them, to you and to others. Democrats do not have blood on their hands for not convincing you. Democrats who voted for the war have blood on their hands for voting for the war as an independent act. Had Al Gore been President, he would not have gone to war against Iraq.


Second part

Greens are indeed a communist party. Some Greens may also be Republican operatives, the two are not mutually exclusive. The logical principle is best illustrated by a Venn diagram. Communists have long regarded liberals as far more of a danger to their revolution than pure capitalists because they view the liberals as capable of mitigating social conditions to the point where the masses may not want revolution. In the short term, communists will tactically ally with capitalists against liberals in order to hasten revolution. Nader and Lenin both used the exact same language to describe this: enhance the contradictions. No, Republicans are not communists.

Love is blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. God is love. Stevie Wonder is God. A freshman philosphy course is in order.

[JailBush]

9. Not so quick...

You wrote, "Democrats don't have the obligation to convince you of anything."

That's a cop-out. The fact is, Democrats versus Greens is one of the biggest political battles of our time. Given the passion and hostility, one would think that three four Democrats out of the millions of Dems would have taken the time to track down some hard facts about Ralph Nader - the kind of facts that would convince people to not vote for him.

By the same token, Democrats had a responsibility to field a good candidate and make sure he discussed the issues. I watched the debates during Campaign 2000; they were an abomination.

"Had Al Gore been President, he would not have gone to war against Iraq."

We'll never know for sure.

But the classic Democratic argument that Ralph Nader deserves all the blame for Campaign 2000 is a classic cop-out. There are SO many ways Democrats contributed to their own downfall - and they repeated their pathetic performance during Campaign 2002 and Campaign 2003, with no help from Ralph Nader.

As Chief Sealth said, "All things are connected."

"A freshman philosphy course is in order."

Right back at ya.

[JackSwift]

12. At the risk of arguing with the author of

http://www.geobop.com/education/2000/Issues /

I'd like to introduce the DU public to the issue of concurrent causation. Example: Had the Democrats garnered more votes all on their own from people on the left, it would not have mattered that Nader attracted some of those votes. However, Nader did attract some of those votes and the Democrats did not attract more. If either one had occurred differently, the outcome would have been different. Democrats did attempt to get all the votes they could with the intention of winning and running the executive branch. Nader and Greens, on the other hand, ran knowing full well that they could not capture the executive branch but that they would assist Bush in doing so and with that stated goal, is also a cause of the defeat. The Democratic failure is not a morally repugnant failure, while the Green actions are despicable.

Thus endeth our lesson on concurrent causation. A lesson that a former candidate for Superintendent of Public Instruction should have already learned. It's not a subtle point at all.

[JailBush]

13. Concurrent Causation? I LOVE it!

"I'd like to introduce the DU public to the issue of concurrent causation. Example: Had the Democrats garnered more votes all on their own from people on the left, it would not have mattered that Nader attracted some of those votes."

Hey, this is fun! Lemme see...

Had the Democrats fielded someone who could have outdebated George Dumbass Bush, it would not have mattered that Nader attracted some of those votes.

If Democrats weren't up to their eyeballs in corporate corruption, it would not have mattered that Nader attracted some of those votes.

If Ralph Nader's claim that there's little or no difference between Republicans and Democrats hadn't run so true, it would not have mattered that Nader attracted some of those votes.

Though I'm not nearly as horrified by Clinton's BIG DEED as conservatives were, I have to say it - had Bill Clinton kept his manhood in his pants, it would not have mattered that Nader attracted some of those votes.

If Al Gore had done better in his home state, it would not have mattered that Nader attracted some of those votes.

If the Democrats had made an honest effort to reform public education, millions of Americans wouldn't be clamoring for charter schools and vouchers. And oh, yes - it would not have mattered that Nader attracted some of those votes.

"Thus endeth our lesson on concurrent causation. A lesson that a former candidate for Superintendent of Public Instruction should have already learned. It's not a subtle point at all."

Amen. Sounds more like propaganda to me.

[Iverson]

14. concurrency fallacy

It is always a logical fallacy to establish causality by concurrency, since a cause must always precede an effect.

[JailBush]

15. Amen!

In other words, Jack Swift's "concurrent causation" is kind of like "military intelligence" or "compassionate conservatism."

[Iverson]

16. possibly

It may not be a problem of clear thinking; it might just be a problem of clear writing. Generally, I find the two to be intimately connected.

[JackSwift]

18. You mean closely connected

initmate is used with people, not ideas.

[Iverson]

25. recalling Winston Churchill

That's the kind of errant pedantry up with which I shall not put.

[JackSwift]

26. And if I were your husband, Lady Astor, I should drink it!

It may not be a problem of clear thinking; it might just be a problem of clear writing.


So within the space of two posts, you are no longer for clear writing? You didn't realize that I was mocking you for not writing clearly?

One of my favorite Churchill quotes, by the way.

[JackSwift]

17. Wow, you guys didn't understand concurrent causation

did you? Nor moral responsibility? Instead you whip out the non-sequitar of an effect must precede a cause.

It sounds to me like the Washington school system was in deep, deep trouble long before Al Gore first went to Congress.

Not only do you apparently not understand the concept, but my effort to introduce it to you was a failure. I'd feel so inadequate, but I have to remember that I'm not a teacher by trade, and my students are unwilling to learn or face reality.

[FlemingsGhost]

10. Proof?

"Greens are indeed a communist party."

Take your time...

[JackSwift]

11. Peter Camejo is a leading Green, if not the leading Green

other than occasional Green Ralph Nader

Peter Camejo was a leading Communist when he called himself a Communist. Peter Camejo will cheerfully tell you (and did in a recent debate for Cal governor) that his basic positions have not changed.

Q.E.D.



I apologize for only taking about 2 minutes to type it. Were you really unaware that the Green leadership simply ran away from a name with a bad connotation? All the attacks on corporatism (which would have been a bit longer a proof, but's it's 3:00 a.m. here and a proof is a proof) are straight outta the old comintern playbook. Not being a commie, I do want to mention that I don't think that there is anything illegal about it. But if the Greens are really going to be ashamed of calling themselves what they are, well, that is worth mentioning from time to time. As a liberal democrat, I don't go around hiding behind the name "progressive" whatever that means. If some Bush supporter wants to mock me as a liberal, I can spit out "fascist" (and do) with a smile right quick.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

20. Where were you when Clinton was bombing Iraq?

Just curious? I won't vote for Nader, but blaming him for Iraq is complete garbage.

[JackSwift]

28. I was in California

Clinton bombed specific military sites in retaliation for attacks on military targets, all in support of the no-fly zone, approved by the UN, and therefore an unfortunate but necessary and legal use of force.

If the electorate and candidates are not responsible for the consequences of their actions (Nader stated he wanted Bush to win rather than Gore, let's not forget that), whether those consequences are direct or indirect, foreseen or merely thought possible, then there is no point in not having a dictator, now is there? When we go into the voting both we make choices that affect people's lives. Those choices are not always pleasant, and usually the lesser of evils. To suggest that the electorate is not responsible for the decisions of the "elected" (or selected in this case) is to disregard that the people are sovereign. Increasingly, people don't seem to understand that what they and others do has effects

[Clark Can WIN]

23. STANDS AND CHEERS

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

19. What consequences?

If, as those voted for Nader last time maintain, he didn't cost Gore the election (and I don't believe he did), then what are the consequences? There are none that I can see. Vote for whoever you want, it's a free country.

[dansolo]

24. ABB *IS* moving to the left

I'm sorry, but this is the most assinine assertion. Any Democratic candidate* is going to be a dramatic turn to the left from Bush. This demand for ideological purity is counter productive.

*except Joe Lieberman, of course

[LoZoccolo]

31. You'll pay the consequences too.

Is it good for the environment to have a president that doubts global warming?

Or spread depleted uranium?

And the ground's not cold
And if the ground's not cold,
Everyone is gonna burn.
We'll all take turns.
I'll get mine too.
- The Pixies, "Monkey Gone to Heaven", Dolittle, 1988

[snoochie]

21. Did you mean to say 'Nader Traitors'?

If not, what were the Nader Traders? What were they trading?

I can't blame progressives for voting Green. Democrats keep proving themselves to be either cowardly or complicit. Not a great way to win loyal voters.

[JackSwift]

29. Good question, they were supposedly trading votes

Nader voters were asking people who lived in safe Gore states to commit to voting for Nader, and they promised, in turn, to vote for Gore in the state that might be close.

Their stated goal was to get Nader over 5 percent of the vote nationally so that he could qualify for matching campaign funds. Apparently there were some Democrats who trusted their counterparts to keep their word in a secret ballot and held up their end. I say apparently, because I've never actually met a Dem or Green who claims that they participated in this scheme.

[Clark Can WIN]

22. I Nader traded because I live in NE

And it was SOLID *. It was the best way I had available to get my vote to someplace where it might matter.

[John_H]

27. Cool....an excuse for a little Nader Math

Nader's effect on the election= 2.7% minus the many Nader voters who won't (and have publicly stated they won't) repeat their 2000 mistake minus the huge number of Nader voters in states dems will win handily minus the nader voters who live in states we'll lose handily.

My guess is he'll get less than 2 percent nationwide and less than 1 percent in swing states like WV and FL.

Unfortunately, since I want Ralph to run and take the Green Party down with him., I don't think the Greens will nominate him.

[sleipnir]

30. Less than 1% cost us FL last time

I don't want to chance it. If he's not even on the ballot, we at least might get .5% of those people to vote Dem. The rest will probably stay home or just write in Nader. Me thinks that Nader won't get in again. He publically supports Kucinich, but he's stated that he could live with a Dean nomination. He has not publically supported any other candidate, and based on the remaining 7 candidates' ideals and policies, I seriously doubt he will. As much as everyone touts Dean as a Centrist, right now he's the farthest Left on paper (outside of K-man. He's pretty far out there if you really study his positions. The most centrist of all is CMB (really, she is), but this isn't a thread for that.


That said (my prediction!), as long as Dean gets the nod, Nader stays out. Anyone else, I almost certainly fear Nader may re-emerge from the rock he's been hiding under.