Ralph Nader talks about Impeachment and "high crimes and misdemeanors"

[welshTerrier2]

some DU'ers hate Ralph Nader ... they don't like anything Ralph Nader says ... if Ralph Nader says it, they automatically disagree with him ... to them, Ralph Nader is a bad guy and anything he says is of no consequence ... they refuse to "separate the message from the messenger" ... frankly, i don't care about Ralph Nader one way or the other ... he is not the issue; the issues are the issue ...

Nader just brought up the issue of impeachment and I commend him for doing so ... each voice that joins this chorus should be a welcomed voice ... Nader has stated the case against bush far better than our own Democratic Senators who seem unwilling to say that bush manufactured the evidence for the invasion of Iraq ... where's the outrage??? it is well past the time for Democrats to stop accepting the argument that bush was given faulty intelligence; he wasn't ... the truth is he CREATED the faulty intelligence and then used the republican noise machine to dessiminate the lies ...

Nader, regardless of what you think of him, is right to call for impeachment hearings ... Democrats in the Senate should be leading this charge; unfortunately, they're not ...

I highly recommend reading the full article linked below ... it provides excellent documentation of the trail of lies leading up to the invasion of Iraq ...

source: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0531-23.htm

The impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, should be part of mainstream political discourse.

Minutes from a summer 2002 meeting involving British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveal that the Bush administration was ''fixing" the intelligence to justify invading Iraq. US intelligence used to justify the war demonstrates repeatedly the truth of the meeting minutes -- evidence was thin and needed fixing. <skip>

The UN, IAEA, the State and Energy departments, the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center, US inspectors, and even the CIA concluded there was no basis for the Bush-Cheney public assertions. Yet, President Bush told the public in September 2002 that Iraq "could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given." And, just before the invasion, President Bush said: "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

The president and vice president have artfully dodged the central question: "Did the administration mislead us into war by manipulating and misstating intelligence concerning weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to Al Qaeda, suppressing contrary intelligence, and deliberately exaggerating the danger a contained, weakened Iraq posed to the United States and its neighbors?"

If this is answered affirmatively Bush and Cheney have committed "high crimes and misdemeanors." It is time for Congress to investigate the illegal Iraq war as we move toward the third year of the endless quagmire that many security experts believe jeopardizes US safety by recruiting and training more terrorists. A Resolution of Impeachment would be a first step. Based on the mountains of fabrications, deceptions, and lies, it is time to debate the "I" word.

******************************

[still_one]

1. fine, tell us how it will be done with a republican majority?

this has nothing to do with like or dislike ralph, it has to do with reality. 2004 was the election that could have stopped it, and we lost. It had nothing to do with nader, it was the democrats afraid to stand up and fight, now we are fighting but it doesn't matter because we are a minority

[rainy]

3. maybe the now famous 14 can get this done. That would put

Bush and his criminal cabal out of business.

[welshTerrier2]

9. fighting doesn't matter ???

is that your point? i think it matters plenty ...

if Democrats don't stand up and fight for what they believe in, what message does that send to Americans? you don't only fight if you can win in the short-term; you fight to educate more voters ... you fight to lead the country in the right direction even if you don't currently have any power ... you fight to show the American people that we are passionate about our beliefs and we have the courage to fight for them ...

let's not be so worried about the republican majority ... let's take our case to the American people and get the majority of them on our side ... the republicans in Congress will be much more conciliatory when we do ...

[still_one]

16. I agree, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure

how come NO ONE brings up the PNAC from the Democrats in Congress?

how come NO ONE brings up the Rudman/Hart report commisioned by Clinton that was flatly rejected by the * administration, that warned of the attacks on the world trade center

The fighting should have begun much sooner. Better late than never, but even now it is half-hearted. The filibuster compromise, the bankrupcy bill, national IDs, extremists judges getting confirmed, does not seem that we are putting up much of a fight

[Dr Fate]

29. the iraq war is a CURRENT EVENT and the lies need to be discussed.

DAILY. Everyday. By DEMOCRATS.

The Iraq war is a CURRENT EVENT and if there is evidence that bush lies, it needs to be discussed everyday on TV by DEMS in order to wear away at GOP political & moral capital.

[calimary]

43. The most important part of what you said is the harsh reality that

all of us can see.

Um... it's not like we haven't been up against some AWFULLY MIGHTY dark forces...

What's more important, however, is how YOU deal with that. There is another option available to you - to get discouraged and allow that discouragement to stall you - "oh, what's the use?" PLEASE don't let it. Don't EVER give up.

YES, it's a reality. Everything you said is true (HAH! Sure can't say that about the bushies). But if we let it get us down, then we lose. If we give up, he wins. Automatically. I, myself, am not okay with that, but I have to fight discouragement, too. Every little bit can be the exact trim-tab trigger movement we need to achieve critical mass. After that, it'll fly on its own. Don't give up!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. It's easy to do that when you're resigned to being the fringe.

Democrats don't "lead the charge" because impeachment hearings stand less than a snowball's chance in hell and there's absolutely nothing good that can come from it politically or from a P.R. standpoint.

[welshTerrier2]

4. 89 Democrats in the House are doing that ... are they "fringe" ???

it's not just about impeachment hearings ... it's about making the case that BUSH LIED AND MANUFACTURED THE CASE AGAINST IRAQ ... step one is to start telling the American people the truth ...

what I'm calling for is for Democratic Senators to start speaking out about the lies bush told to justify his long-held desire to invade Iraq ... if that case is made, and it is NOT being made by leading Democrats, then we can worry about how to bring public pressure for impeachment hearings ...

we're certainly not going to make any progress if Democrats don't go to the media to make the case ...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. Which 89 Democrats?

Unless it's one of them that has realistic hopes of moving up to Senator or ever possibly losing their seat, yeah, they're resigned to fringe.

[chelsea0011]

10. I agree. There needs to be at the very least a group that will

ask the questions to hold Bush accountable. And maybe, the press will report on it, not once, but daily. And keep asking the questions. The conference today could have been filled with questions about Iraq and not the "won't the U.S. look great in 30 years, kind of question. (who asked that one). And maybe it will all matter in 2006 and 2008.

[CityDem]

37. Dems can proceed with impeachment hearings

You need to be in the majority before you begin impeachment proceedings and Tom Delay is not going to whip enough repubs to join in this impeachment party. Our only hope is to arrest and convict AWOL after he leaves office.

[KnowerOfLogic]

50. You mean Dems *aren't* on the fringe? nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

60. Only if you believe Bush and Santorum.

[Inland]

90. Much like a Nader presidential campaign,

the impeachment effort would be a huge amount of hot air expended in a losing cause--or more precisely, a cause that is intended to lose.

Poor Ralph can't think of any strategy besides losing, so much so that his proposed cure for the loss in 2000 and 2004 allowing the instllment of Bush (to which his strategy of losing contributed) is to lose an impeachment drive, too.

[KoKo]

5. We need all the public voices we can find to speak out about this...until

there is an overwhelming focus on this Administrations constant lies and witholding of any evidence which would confirm their lies from the US Congress and the American people who are funding the lies.

It's an outrage that letters from Conyers go unanswered. It's an outrage that the American people can't waken from their sleep and understand if he lied about the reasons for going to war to the people and their representatives then what the Hell Else has he lied about.

He and Cheney are both compulsive liars and are being propped up by the very people who could not tolerate a lie about a former President's relationship with a White House Intern. At some point the concept of "hypocracy" has to be drummed into the brains of those who seem to have no shame or an understanding of the concept that if a "lie" is a "lie" then the person that tells it is no different whether they are Republican or Democrat, a President or your next door neighbor who repeats untruths to the point where you no longer believe anything they say.

[lala_rawraw]

7. Listen and Read

Listen to Bonifaz explain it on Randi's Friday show and read my original article... he says that such a filing must be voted on, forcing members on the floor to explain their votes.

[welshTerrier2]

12. links ???

also, who is Bonifaz ??

[lala_rawraw]

13. okay

Last week an article came out, and AAR Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy discussed it at length. Bonifaz is in the article below:

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/alexandrovna/coalition_inquiry_downing_street_memo_526


The links to the shows are:

http://www.airamericaradio.com

Also, in response, John Conyers requested 100k signatures. And, Rainbow Push and many other groups signed on to the coalition.

[welshTerrier2]

15. thanks, lala ...

i'll check out the links you provided ...

[KoKo]

78. Thanks for links, lala, many of us missed this excellent article.

It's a hopeful sign.

[Frances]

8. If Ralph Nader

had put the interests of the country above his own ego in 2000, George Bush would not be in the White House today.

Of course, Ralph Nader had every right to run for President in 2000 and in 2004, but now almost no one--Democrat or Independent or Republican--takes him seriously. That is the shame.

[earthside]

14. Oh, Cut it Out About Nader ...

I'm a Green now, but I wasn't in 2000. I worked hard for Al Gore. And Al Gore won.

The simple truth is that the Bushites STOLE the 2000 election. So, we can cut it out about Nader ... the problem in 2000 and in 2004 was that Bush cheats. Period.

I've never liked Nader as a politician and I think some people give him way too much credit for being a spoiler in 2000. He was for the most part an irrelevant character in that campaign. What was critical were the lengths the Bush family mafia would go to to steal a presidential election.

That being said, however, sometimes it is not about being 'realistic' and 'practical' and 'winning'. Bush should be impeached for his lies. Nader is right to start harping on impeachment. And until elected Democrats stop worrying about the bad names radical Republicans call them, they're never going to even start taking back the country.

Back in the 1770s, "level headed" people said that Adams, and Franklin, and Revere, and the Sons of Liberty were crazy when they talked about revolting against the mighty British empire. But guess what, even though so many folks didn't think they could 'win' and that there was a 'snowball's chance in hell' of starting a new nation --- they went ahead anyway. That is the attitude progressives and real patriots need to take now.

[calimary]

38. What a MAGNIFICENT way to word it!

"Nader is right to start harping on impeachment."

That's what we need to do, and it's SO nicely-phrased: "...start harping on impeachment." Four widdle words that say so much. Easy to repeat. Sticks in the mind, and the more it's repeated (reinforced), the more permanent a part of the national psyche it'll become. It's how they planted that liberals = bad. Well, m'loves, here's what we can plant IN RETURN. And unlike their plantings, OURS, at least, are planted with truths. They lied. A LOT. About a LOT. And the result was a WHOLE LOT of needless death and destruction. NEEDLESS death and destruction. Horrendous!!!

YES. We. Do. Need. To. "Start. Harping. On. Impeachment."

"Harping" is a superior word, because it's so clear and colorful in its meaning. Plus, you can play with it and ellicit (sp?) some chuckles... which, in turn, makes it easier to remember and with a positive aura to it - because the notion of provoking chuckles is, by itself, a positive thing. You made 'em laugh - not cry. People instinctively like that which makes them laugh. The idea of harping about impeachment positive gets just the most subtle and almost imperceptible positive vibes. It gets a positive aroma around it. So that makes it easier to do. You're partaking! You're harping! Tee hee! They'd exploit this to high heaven if they had this card to play. They don't, because of their loads of lies. We do.

[Tinoire]

18. Oh blah blah blan. And if thousands of Democrats in Florida

had put the interest of their country above other loyalties and voted for Gore, George Bush would not be in the White House today.

Blaming Nader is such a pathetic, intellectually lazy cop-out. I'm embarrassed for DU and for the Party everytime someone pulls that out.

How about placing the blame where it belongs- on the Democratic Party for doing such a lame-assed job that Democrats, registered Democrats, went and voted for Bush? How about placing it on Democrat Party members who couldn't, if they even tried, convince 600 underpriviliged voters that Gore would throw them bigger crumbs?

[Inland]

30. Oh, its the voters fault, for voting in the way Nader told them.

How bizarre is that? Nader told them not to vote for Gore, and they didn't, and it's NOT Nader's fault?

Nader took 97,000 votes in Florida. That's not his fault?

It isn't that Gore didn't get 600 votes, it's that he needed 600 ADDITIONAL votes, and Nader was arguing until the polls closed that those voters shouldn't vote for Gore. And the fact his argument worked isn't his fault?

No, it's the democrat's fault, because they didn't do a good enough job of campaigning in proving that Nader had exactly the effect that the dems, and everyone else, predicted. Well, you're setting up Nader for another "run" for the presidency, campaigning against democrats and them blaming them for the loss.

But Nader and the democrats are trying to accomplish different things. Democrats are trying to win an election, and Nader is trying to be a spoiler. My feeling is, time to start being better campaigners by pointing out the truth about Nader.

[LittleClarkie]

31. I blame it on the media, not Nader

They were telling people Gore was already the winner. That's part of why people didn't vote.

Nader was trying to make it to the percentage that would get the Greens some Fed money. I could understand that.

Like I said, I don't have a problem with Nader 2000. It's Nader 2004 who is a fucking loony that I have trouble with.

[Tinoire]

44. Took? You can't "take" anything you don't "own".

Nader didn't hold a gun to people's heads and force them to vote for him. This is still a supposedly a democracy despite the best efforts of the two corporate-supporting parties to prevent any real choice at the ballot box.

It's not Nader's fault that Gore and/or his supporters couldn't energize 600 lousy votes. Was there no one out in the bayous of Florida for yuppie Democrats to go register? No retired Dems who voted for Bush because he promised to kick those Palestinian's ass whose conscience those yuppie Dems could have appealed to? No greedy rich Dems who preferred Bush's thieving tax cuts that Dems could have pleaded with? No lazy-assed voters too disillusioned to get out of bed and vote that Dems could have driven to the polls? No disenfranchised voters the Dems could have stuck up for? Where were all the Dems in the minority neighborhoods when the Florida Republicans were passing out Spanish and Creole signs telling people the vote was on a different day? Where were all the Yuppie Dems when minority voters were being turned away from their voting place and told to walk to some other place 6 miles away? I am so sick and tired of this bull-shit. It makes ME regret having voted for both Gore and Kerry when I see how presumptously Democrats think they "own" votes.

Nader didn't take anything away from Gore. He won those votes fair and square.

The more some people here spout on about "pointing out the truth about Nader", the more I regret my vote for Gore AND for Kerry because it's quite apparent this party takes votes for granted by thinking it owns votes.

Nothing personal in the rant but your talking point is extremely irritating to people who took the time to analyze why we really lost Florida. It had NOTHING to do with Nader and everything to do with election theft, disenfranchised voters and a SPINELESS Democratic Party that couldn't be bothered.

[Inland]

46. It's the voters fault they voted as Nader asked. Sure it is.

Why would it be Nader's fault that he actually convinced people to not vote for Gore, when nobody held a gun to their head? And why would it be Nader's fault that he convinced 97,000 people in Florida and Gore lost by 600 votes? After all, it's not like Nader told people to NOT vote for Gore. Oh yeah, he did.

But it's still not Nader's fault, since only a pathetic loser like Gore could fail to energize voters enough to gain 600 votes. But wait a second: Gore didn't fail to get six hundred votes. That was only the difference between him and Bush in Florida. Ofthe two candidates, who energized more voters, gore or nader? Who got under three percent? Who energized voters? Who actually ran to win, rather than ran to, at most, spoil the election?

Since Nader's only relevance was to spoil Gore's run, Nader didn't do shit to stop the fraud in the votes, count the votes, file lawsuits, or protest voting irregularities. Where was Nader when the repubs were blocking minority precints? Why, nowhere, since his supporters didn't expect that from HIM. Polling places, vote counting, all that is something real candidates do, people who give a shit about who wins, not Nader, whose function is to articulate a pure vision unhampered by the secular woes of voter fraud. If he had cared who won, of course, he would have supported Gore in the first place rather than running a vanity campaign, so all we can expect from him is an after the fact letter telling those spineless people what to do about the mess he contributed to.

Say, how's the prevention of electoral fraud going, with republicans in power? Good? No, of course not: the continuing weakening of elections as a check on power elites is just another one of those results of Bush's win that Nader has absolutely, positively no responsibility for, and Gore does, for the simple reason that Gore was a candidate who cared who wins and Nader wasn't. It's all in the definition. Gore took responsibility for who became President, and Nader took responsibility for taking positions. At the end, Bush became president, so Gore failed. Nader took positions, so he didn't.

Bottom line is, I certainly wonder if I should care if you are less likely to support dem candidates. People who don't understand that elections matter and that at least one purpose of elections is to win aren't worth having as political allies. There's nothing that can be offered to get you on board, and nothing you can offer us to make it worth it, because we think the purpose of an election is to select the office holder and that such makes a difference. True blue Nader supporters (the ones who failed to drop him after the 2000 debacle) think that all that counts is airing differences and taking stands. We can't offer you all your positions and win, and you don't care to give up a position even if we all lose.

[bread_and_roses]

62. Amen to all that, brother, amen. (n/t)

[KoKo]

79. Thanks, Tinoire...you make EXCELLENT points.

I'm sick of hearing the Nader crap myself. Blaming him for our own failings is old and stale and it's time to put it to bed.

[LittleClarkie]

20. It isn't Nader 2000 who bugs me

It is the loony tunes he'd became by 2004 who bugs me.

[formernaderite]

21. That's ridiculous....

in your world people should have only two choices, and never be allowed to vote their conscience. Would you also have campaigned for Harry Brown to not have run as the Libertarian candidate? His votes swung a few states to the democrats too. If the democrats had a message that attracted ALL the voters who choose not to vote for ANYONE this would never have been an issue. BTW...I voted for Nader, in a safe blue state .

[Inland]

47. Go ahead and vote any way you want.

In fact, anyone can campaign any way they want, too.

But sometimes, votes and campaigns make a difference. Nader spoild 2000, and he has to bear his responsibility in bringing that about. Until that happens, his writing letters advising other politicians on how to rid ourselves of the problem he helped bring upon us is an insult.

[City Lights]

32. Nader kept saying there was no difference between bush and Gore.

:puke:

I considered voting for him in 2000 since I live in a red state and my vote didn't mean shit anyway, but I lost all respect for him when he spewed that "no difference" shit.

[sellitman]

35. It was about Ralph "the ego" Nader.

His own ego was more important than the needs of this country. He ruined everything he use to stand for. Those who still stand by him are either in a fog or working for the Repukes. couldn't be any other way.

[Inland]

11. God, Nader is a worthless selfserving lump of crap.

After making sure we got a president who needs impeaching, by arguing that there isn't any difference between Bush and the democrats, he now sends a letter to democrats telling them how to stop and cure the results of his own campaign.

It's bad enough he had his little campaign based on there being no differences; now he implicitly accepts the difference to get the dems to clean up what is in part his fault.

but of course, Nader knows that nothing can be done with an impeachment bill--except get his own name in the paper calling for one. Worked for DU, too.

And when it comes time for Nader to be big man candidate for President, he claim once again there isn't any difference between dems and a conservative republican. In the amazing irony, he is going to trot out the failure to get an impeachment resolution going. What a dick.

[gordianot]

22. Exactly right you hit the nail on the head.

"It's bad enough he had his little campaign based on there being no differences; now he implicitly accepts the difference to get the dems to clean up what is in part his fault."

Also Nader is the same asshole who was allowing covert/overt Republican support in 2004 in getting his name on the ballot. How much Republican money went his way. He was and as I see it continues to be part of the problem. History may judge someday what percentage was his fault in enabling Bush in destroying the Republic.

[LittleClarkie]

23. We know there was SBVT money going his way

that's what put the nail in the coffin for me.

He can't have it both ways. If Bush is so bad that he should be impeached, then he can't seriously think Kerry would have been just as bad. Mr. "Dime's Worth of Difference" can shove it and his smear vet money up his butt.

[debsianben]

24. What about 2004?

Never mind the silliness of the fact that some Dems think that Greens and Naderites are the only segment of the electorate whose votes they can effectively court by scolding them in the most inane and condescending fashion possible. How can you still keep on claiming that its Nader's fault Bush is President, when he didn't get anywhere near the difference between Bush's and Kerry's alleged totals in 2004?

Anyway, as others point out, at some fundamental level something isn't firing right up in the collective synapses of those who simultaneously believe that Gore won the election and that it's Nader's fault that he lost. Nader didn't spoil and couldn't have--Gore got more votes than Bush in Florida (and overall, of course.) Any one who's seen the opening scenes of Farenheit 911 knows that Kerry bore far more responsibility for the Florida coup than Nader, since he could have helped block Bush's electoral votes. Ancient history, I know, and not terribly relevant, but when people trot out this nonsense about Nader helping Bush "win" (when, in fact, Bush lost), it's important to remind them of these uncomfortable little realities.

Anyway, I've seen Nader speak more than once--I was a warmup speaker for him when he spoke at MSU--and I've never once heard him say that there was literally no difference between the Dems and Reps. That's a straw man. What he does say is that the leading DLC types currently running the show support Bush on way too many things where he deserves no support--a hard charge to refute these days.

Anyway, I guarantee you that if the Democratic leadership took a page from Nader (and his British equivelant, George Galloway), they would stand a much, much better chance of coming out of 2006 with a stronger position than they came in with. At this point, the majority of the public according to mainstream polling opposes the war in Iraq, opposes Bush's economic policies and is generally disenchanted with the course of things. A lot less attempt to find common ground with the forces of darkness and a little rhetoric about how Bush deserves to be impeached for lying about Iraq (which he does) would at this point probably actually help to energize that majority to vote for them.

[Inland]

27. By 2004, Bush was the incumbent

and had manipulated the US like crazy with 9/11 and his religious agenda, had rewarded all his friends, had a bully pulpit to lie to every American for four years, and had been running for reelection since day one. It's almost too ridiculously easy to say that if Gore had been elected in 2000, bush wouldn't have won in 2004. Bush, the man that Nader now admits is worse than any other person in the constitutional succession, since we should impeach him and bring up whoever the frick comes next. Oh, NOW he tells us that anyone would be better than Bush! Thanks for the letter, Ralph!

Of course, Nader was still around in 2004, doing as much damage as he was able to the Kerry campaign. It was because so many people had learned the lesson about the dead end of a Nader candidacy that he got so little result. But that doesn't say anything good about Nader. It simply proves that his self absorption puts him behind the voters.

How ridiculous is it that Nader's supporters defend him by saying that he has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the outcome? Oh, that's a huge recommendation for the man! He's not responsible--he's completely irrelevant! Well, it comes from the fact that nobody who backs Nader has any idea what they want to come from it.
Why did he run for president again? Why did he tell everyone to not vote for Gore and Kerry? Oh, yes, because if he isn't threatening to ruin the chances of a democratic candidate, he isn't worth the newsprint. Go figure. It's okay to be for Nader as long as it doesn't make any difference. Sounds like wishful thinking.

And please, don't try to absolve Nader's role in Florida and everywhere else. Aside from the effect of turning off enough people to Gore and Kerry, the votes for Nader would have put Florida BEYOND cheating. So they stole a few thousand votes in Florida. Nader got 97,000 votes in Florida. The Nader vote put Bush in charge by making the difference reachable by stealing a few thousand votes, and no whining changes that. They'll steal a few thousand next time, too. What do you think we should do about that? a) wrest political control of Florida and revamp their electoral process in the next year? or 2) Not have an irrelevant candidate with no particular purpose run for president? Hm, how about both, particularly since retaking Florida is hard and Nader curbing his self indulgence is easy?

I could argue all day about whether the voters would be more energized or not by a more aggressive agenda, but that has nothing to do with Nader, because Nader energized voters to vote against the democrats, not for them, and not all that many at that.

[MadHound]

55. Let me repeat this fact again for you friend

You scream about Nader's 97,000 vote that were somehow "stolen" from Gore. A few facts for you friend.

First off, I find it ironic that Dems are bitching about third party candidates, since it was another third party candidate, Ross Perot, who handed Clinton the '92 election. If you think that Perot's run was OK, then you've got to accept Nader. It was both men's Constitutionally guaranteed right to run, and they did.

Second, in poll after poll forty percent of Nader's supporters state that they wouldn't have voted at all if not for Nader's run.

Third, Gore screwed himself when he decided to please his corporate masters at BP, rather than listening to the folks of Florida. This is how it worked. Many many Florida residents were concerned about off shore oil drilling just off of Florida, and they wanted Gore to do something about it once in office. Rather than listen to the people, Gore listened to his corporate masters at BP Oil, and stated that he would support such off-shore drilling.

Well, 398,000 self described liberals, along with 196,000 registered Dems were so pissed at this Gore double cross that they decided to double cross Gore. Instead of voting for Gore, they voted for Bush, and there is your margin of victory friend. Think of it, if Gore had put the interest of the people ahead of those of his corporate master, he would have won by a margin large enough that it couldn't have been stolen. Instead, he squeaked by, and through ineptness, and the hand of the Supremem Court, Gore lost.

No Nader in sight. Cheers.

[Inland]

58. No, the facts are these. Nader said don't vote for Gore.

Did all 97,000 florida Nader votes represent someone who would have voted for Gore? Of course not. But anyone who thinks that Gore wouldn't have picked up 2000 more than Bush without Nader in the picture is living in a dream world. But of course, since Nader was running to lose, and Gore was running to win, it is Gore who is called inept for losing. Ralph accomplished all he dreamed of--spoiling the election.

Even you admit Nader ruined the election when you try to bring up the reason why Nader got 97,000 votes in Florida, when you say that it was environmentalists mad at off shore drilling. Assuming that's true, how many of those were Bush voters and how many were Gore voters anyway?

Oh, you could say that the voters really wanted Gore to lose, not just Nader to win. You say that there were a lot of voters who undertook to doublecross Gore. In fact, you sort of imply that you feel that way. Thanks a lot for your mature perspective on the matter. I would have liked to watch the look on your face when it finally dawned on you that hey, if Gore loses, then the presidnet isn't Nader, it's Bush.....But you got your revenge, all right! Hoo, boy, Gore isn't going to cross YOU again! Bush will, with impunity, at every single opportunity, but Gore won't, and nor will any other moderate, thanks in part to the fact that from lack of votes from the progressive left, they didn't get in office. How's that revenge thing working out for America? Is America better off with your strategy of NOT voting for the democrat?

And just to round out the completely self thwarting, pathetic nature of the loser, it's time to call for impeachment! Hey, there's a thought! Let Bush be president because we can always impeach him if he turns out to be half as bad as Gore said he would be! Nader will write a stern letter to the minority democrats, posturing for another vanity run in 2008. What a tool he is.

[MadHound]

61. Do you even read what is posted?

Or do you, upon seeing the facts posted, start frothing at the mouth and start banging the keyboard with abandon and without forethought? Geez, that is some of the most inane posting I've seen around here since the primaries friend, and that's saying something.

This is the main FACT I was posting, please read carefully, and then respond, OK. It works much better that way.

Now then, there were nearly six hundred thousand registered Dems, or self described liberals in Florida who were concerned about off shore drilling. Six hundred thousand potential Gore voters. They expressed their concerns about this proposed off shore drilling, and expressed these concerns to Gore. Gore, whose major corporate backer is BP Oil, couldn't be bothered what these voters wanted, his only concern was what BP wanted, since they are footing a good chunk of his election tab. Thus, Gore blew these voters off, and announced that he was in favor of the proposed off shore drilling.

These six hundred thousand potential Gore voters got pissed, and decided to act on their anger. They did so by voting for Bush instead of Gore. Think about it now, six hundred thousand pissed voters who went for Bush, over Gore, simply because Gore decided to listen to his corporate masters instead of the voters. Gee, don't you think that if Gore hadn't pissed these people off, he would have won? Even if he had gotten one percent of these usually Democratic voters, he would have put the election beyond a chance of theft. But nooooo, he had to please his corporate masters, and thus lost the election. Now do you understand what went down, or are you still in a state of denial? Nader's actions, Nader's votes didn't mean a damn thing, because GORE LOST THE ELECTION WHEN HE PISSED OFF THESE OTHERWISE DEMOCRATIC VOTERS IN FAVOR OF PLEASING BP OIL! Nader didn't matter, vote scam didn't matter, what mattered is that Gore pissed off otherwise Democratic voters so much that they voted for Bush instead, because they were pissed at Gore.

By the by, I noticed that you didn't take up my question concerning Perot, and how he helped out Clinton. What, third party candidates are only allowed when they help out Democrats:eyes: Thank you for your one sided view of the Constitution.

[Inland]

64. I read what you posted. I read this, too.

And it basically comes down to an abdication of any responnsibility for not voting for Gore. An environmentalist pissed at Gore and doesn't vote for him, for whatever reason, is okay with a Bush win. It's not consititutional law. It's not what his legal rights are. It's not whether Nader lied or stole votes. It's math. He exercised his franchise in a manner that got the country Bush instead of Gore. And he's a fool, since any two year old could have seen the danger in that. He put a pissy little revenge first and the country second. He cut off his nose to spite his face.

But you don't actually place any responsibility on either the voters, or Nader who talked the voters into that. It's almost as if these voters had absolutely no choice but to be single issue voters, and no choice but to vote against the most pro-enviroment candidate in history, no choice but to let the oil man win. Like all progressives, you confuse having a right to do something with whether it is a good idea. Yes, people have a right to vote for the worst of reasons.

And that's what you won't face. You blame Gore for being an inept candidate, but Gore didn't hold a gun to your head, either. Take some responsibility, for God's sake, and stop whining about how unfair it is that your votes affected the election. That's why we have votes, and next time think about the result of what you do.

[MadHound]

66. My goodness you make assumptions. And you know what assume does?

Yes, that tired old canard, assume makes an ass out of you and me. You are assuming that I live in Florida. I don't. You are assuming that I voted for Nader. I didn't. You are assuming that Nader told these 600,000 pissed off, otherwise mostly Dem Florida voters to vote for Bush. He didn't.

And talk about responsibilty, why don't you hold Gore responsible? Why don't you hold him responsible for not paying attention to his electorate instead of pandering to his corporate masters? That would have certainly gotten him enough votes to put the election beyond any chance of theft. But no, Gore had to pander to BP instead. Why don't you hold Gore responsible for running a horrible recount campaign. If he hadn't listened to his DLC handlers, and been more aggressive, pushed hard for a recount of the entire state, Gore would have won. Instead, he abdicated this responsiblity to his handlers, and they dropped the ball. But no, somehow, even though Gore squandered nearly 600,000 votes, ran an anemic campaign, and a disastorous recount, somehow it is all the fault of a man who got 97,000 votes, less than two percent of the total:eyes: You know, denail just isn't a river, yadda yadda yadda.

Look, I find arguing about this sort of shit rather stupid, since it is five year old news. I'm just trying to represent the facts of the matter here, but apparently you would rather deal in fiction and escapism. If it makes you sleep better at night to believe in the fiction, hey, who am I to deny you a good night's rest. But quite frankly, in my experience, it is always better to deal with the truth of the situation head on, for otherwise lies and misrepresentation will always gnaw at you, and could come back and bite you on the ass. Democrats usually pride themselves on being a fact based party. Why not try to live up to that standard, eh?

And I'm still waiting for an answer vis-a-vis my Perot question. But then again, your silence on the matter is speaking volumes:eyes:

So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. But if you wish at some point to find out the reality of the Gore campaign, I would suggest you check out two books. Greg Palast, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" and Jim Hightower's "If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote They'd Have Given Us Candidates" Both books have some great sections that back up the FACTS of the 2000 election debacle.

Oh, and if you don't believe me saying that Nader didn't cost Gore the election, perhaps you'll believe your DLC god, Al From. After all, he stated as much back in Jan '01<http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2919>
Cheers

[Inland]

80. I do hold Gore responsible. But a Naderite can't.

A Naderite had a choice. Vote for Gore and help beat Bush, or vote for Nader and not help beat Bush. They decided to not help beat Bush, and Bush got in. That's math. One decision, one less vote for Gore. As you put it, nobody a gun to their heads.

But it's so funny to watch Nader voters, rather than just admit to an enormous brain fart and their own cupability, try to weasel out of it. I couldn't HELP but vote for Nader, I was so angry at Gore. Oh, all those Nader votes wouldn't have gone to Gore anyway so my vote for Nader didn't really hurt Gore. Oh, the vote fraud was so immense, my vote wouldn't have counted anyway, those darn republicans. Problem is, the election was so close, it's clearly bullshit. The poor Naderites finally got a situation where their votes really could have made a difference, and it did. Gore didn't win, just as you wanted. I don't care what Al From says, or for that matter, who he is. Unless you've repealed mathematics, it doesn't matter.

Now, I can criticize Gore for losing the election, but how do YOU blame him, having voted for someone else? How do you blame Gore for all the faults Nader has in spades? How do YOU blame him, having aided the campaign of the man who couldn't win more than a spoiler's percentage, didn't contest the vote, didn't work the precint's? Isn't that what you wanted, Gore to lose? You mean you really wanted Gore to win? Then why didn't you vote for him? He was a bad candidate, ran an inept campaign---but it really still came down to a choice. You chose not to vote for Gore.

The only explanation for this hypocrisy in blaming Gore for losing when voting for Nader, and blaming Gore for doing better than Nader but not good enough, and blaming Gore for the recount that Nader did nothing to help, is quite simply this: you have a standard for Nader, and that standard is Blowhard Meant to Lose and Satisfied with Airing Positions. At the same time, you have a standard for Gore of Politician Meant to Win and Worthless If He Doesn't. Nader reached his goal of no results and a lot of hot air, so he can't be pilloried for running a bad campaign. He wasn't supposed to win, just talk. Gore and those dems are given the task of saving the republic, without your help, so suddently the Nader people are experts at running campaigns, with their 2.7% and all the press coverage. Golly, if you had only known that voting for Nader would make a difference---and now, Nader has another bright idea of an impeachment, which is destined to be an immense amount of hot air vented in a losing proposition. Sound familiar? It's basically his campaign all over again.

And Perot's run is irrelevant. Perot voters, like all voters, merely have to live with the results of their actions. It just so happens that a Perot vote only helped the US endd up with a great president, while any two year old could have told you what a Nader vote could bring--either no effect at all or an evil one. Bad luck, huh? Finally, progressives make a difference! All that talk and airing positions changed the result--to the worst president in modern times.

Really, go vote for Nader, unless you can figure out the causal connections between campaigns and votes and elections and government. You've nothing to offer except losing for it's own sake.

[MadHound]

81. Christ on a fucking pogo stick, please READ MY POST

BEFORE YOU START BLATHERING. You're wasting bandwidth scolding me about voting for Nader, when I've already told you once I FUCKING VOTED FOR GORE! CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? Damn I hope so.

So please, before you do your knee jerk response, go reread my post #66, in fact go reread all of my posts on this thread, and make sure you fucking read for comprehension this time. Then we can continue this discussion intelligently OK. Until then it will simply be a confused mess.

[Inland]

83. So change the pronoun, and stop being dense for Nader's sakes.

Everything else is right. Stop defending other people's mistakes, and encouraging them to do it again. Short of adding a vote to Nader, you waste as much air as he does.

Until you figure out the causal connection between campaigns, voting, elections and governance, you are worthless politically. Go think about it, before you engage in a kneejerk defense of the indefensible.

[MadHound]

85. Why do I get the feeling that you like living with blinders on

Oh yeah, that's right, it is because you're ignoring facts, preferring the fiction instead. Whatever.

It is quite obvious by now that despite being shown the facts, and sources for said facts, you will keep on believing what you wish. Fine, like I said before, if it helps you get through the night, fine. But don't be suprised if the facts come back and bite you.

But I do find it funny that you are saying that I am politically worthless, even though I live in the reality based world. That's a real laugher, and one I'll have to save to come back to when I need a lift.

I also find it very telling that you think Perort's run, which garnered him 19% of the vote in '92, much of which came from conservative voters, is just fine because it gave us Clinton. However when a liberal candidate runs, you demonize him, even though he got two percent of the vote. Gee, I guess you like your Constitution a little lop-sided, eh?

Look, I'm going to bow out of this one. You've got your head stuck in the sand, and are refusing to face reality even when it slaps you on the ass. You are obviously not reading my posts thoroughly, but are just ripping off knee-jerk responses in your blind hatred of all things not Democratic. So go ahead, make your little juvenile insulting reply to this post, and we'll be done. So go ahead, get the last knee-jerk word in, for it is obvious that you would rather insult people than learn from them. Cheers.

[Inland]

86. Sorry, but it's Nader whose going to have the last word, cuz he's a dick

whose point is to make headlines and posture, and run a vanity campaign, and the rest of us are just stuck with the results, not to mention the whining and the excuse making and lame justifications for bringing us the worst, president, ever.

Why you stand up for that sort of crap is beyond me, but my guess is, you'll be there in two years trying to tell us why voting for someone other than dems and losing to republican conservatives is a morally acceptable result. If Nader was defensible in 2000 and 2004, you'll love him even more in the future. Can't wait.

[MadHound]

87. Thanks friend, you've proved my point, congratulations! n/t

[Inland]

88. Well, that's one way to defend the indefensible--pretend that I did it

for you.

Whatever. Figure out what you think politics is for, first. Then you'll have a point.

[Lowell]

70. Only delayed the inevitable

I'm a native Floridian. The thought of drilling off our pristine coasts scared the hell out of us. But it has to be remembered that Florida does have some working oil wells in the Everglades. They have been in operation since the early 20th century, hidden from the public eye and not publicized. This is probably an indication that there is oil under our Gulf waters. Fast forward to today . . . the government is now trying to change the state borders in the Gulf. They could actually drill off the coast of the Florida panhandle now because the feds are trying to change the state lines in the Gulf. Off the coast of Pensacola, Florida would lie the waters of Louisiana. Figure it out.

About Nader. Screw him. Why kill the messenger? What he says is true, impeach the chimp. We have cause. But Nader, he is history and of no impact anymore.

[vince3]

33. Someone said on this board a couple weeks ago..

...that it isn't Nader's fault that Gore won in 2000. I agree. Without Nader in the race, it would have been harder for the right wing to steal the 2000 election, but they still would have stolen it. Gore won FL by tens of thousands of votes. 179,000 ballots were deemed to be "spoiled" and thrown in the garbage, regarding a vote for president. There was an illegal purge of African-American voters that began in the summer of 1999. This deprived Gore of thousands of votes. In spite of all the dirty tricks, with the spoiled ballots and disenfranchised voters, Gore still won FL by 120 votes. Florida's recount was called off by Fat Tony, though.

[Inland]

39. That doesn't make any sense.

No matter how many Gore votes were thrown out, and how many Bush votes were added it, the fact is that all the dirt that Bush could do only got him a count of 600 more than Gore. All Gore had to do is come up with 600 more unimpeachable votes. Of course he could have done that out of the 97,000 cast for Nader.

The bottom line is that Nader asked the country to not vote for Gore, and some listened. His campaign, his request, his fault. And then he turns around and does the same for Kerry. If I asked someone to vote a certain way, and they do, I would take some responsibility. I wouldn't have the gall to write them letters telling them how to fix the result of my electoral shennanigans. But not Nader. He's Saint Ralph, and the self-sanctified don't get irony. It's something he and Bush share.

[TankLV]

28. Thank you. That is the whole issue in a nutshell.

THAT is why I should give two flying fucks what that idiot egotistical bastard Nader NOW thinks.

Let's all check in later and see how the wind in blowing for old ralphie.

He's an idiot just like McCaine and all those ON THIS BOARD who were clamoring for THAT idiot to be "our" choice in '04.

Once and idiot, always an idiot.

He'll get NO quarter from me either.

[JHBowden]

34. A-men.

I'm sick of Nader's jihad against Democrats. When the Greens and the Republicans team up against us, it makes productive change that much harder.

[The_Casual_Observer]

42. I think that the proper description of nader is "Idiot Savant"

brilliant about a very narrow range of skills. He seems clueless about the tragic result of his irresponsible wh run in 2001

[KnowerOfLogic]

51. Nader-blamers are the problem, not Nader. Jeezus Christ, isn't that

obvious by now? The democratic party needs to seriously look in the mirror, grow a back-bone, and develop a strategy for winning that doesn't depend on their competition dropping out of the race.

[LittleClarkie]

52. I don't blame him

Completely separate from the 2000 issue, I consider him an asshat. He became thus when he took Smear Vet money.

He's entirely to irrelevant to blame.

[Sparkly]

53. Nader is hardly a fount of knowledge for "a strategy for winning." n/t

[Inland]

59. Nader and dems are looking for different things.

Nader is running to lose, dems are running to win. The irony comes when the people whose goal was to lose criticize the dems for an inept campaign. It's all a trick of definition: Nader's campaign never had a purpose of winning, so losing can't be used to criticize him. Gore gave a shit about winning, so losing is a reason to condemn him. All the Naderites do is wash their hands of the problem of winning, and then have the gall to complain that those who took on the task failed to accomplish a victory. It comes close to "why didn't you stop us?"

[Inland]

56. Nader said not to vote for Gore. They didn't. And the result was

one of the two that any two-year old could have predicted. Either Nader was going to make a difference in the election, or he wouldn't. He did. But nobody wants to take responsibility for the predictable results of his action.

No, the people who are being blamed for the Bush victory are the ones who took the responsibility of actually trying to defeat him, rather than run a vanity campaign, whose almost exclusive interest to the electorate was whether it would spoil the election.

How ironic that the people who had no strategy to win--merely a strategy to either lose small with a Gore election or lose huge with a Bush election--are blaming the Dems for an insufficient strategy for winning. It's all a matter of defintion. Nader's goal was to lose, and Gore's was to win, so Bush beating them both is Gore's fault.

Having adopted a goal of losing, you blame the dems for not thwarting it. Having adopted a goal of taking away votes from Gore, you blame him for not stopping you. That's why Nader is writing letters to the dems in Congress: he still considers the dems the solution to the problems he caused, in an amazing irony to the candidate who campaigned on their being not a dime's worth of difference between the parties. And it won't stop there, because he's going to run in 2008 on the platform of those "spineless" dems who didn't parlay their minorities in both house of congress into an impeachment, and run to lose again.

So my strategy for winning, in part, is to say what a dick Nader is and place part of the blame for dem defeats on liberals and progressives who run campaigns without a clear purpose of winning. People who aren't working towards winning will lose. I don't want to lose again.

[LittleClarkie]

17. That's nice.

Why did he take money from them then.

[Tinoire]

19. Good for Nader. Nader gives me hope,

hope that somewhere out there a few Dems are listening. Granted it's a small hope but one can always dream.

Democrats in the Senate should be leading this charge; unfortunately, they're not.

Dems are as complicit in this matter as Republicans and it's time we started holding them just as responsible.

[Independent_Liberal]

25. Check this out people!

www.recallthecongress.com

That's right. RECALL THE CONGRESS!

We're going to subject every member of Congress to recall if they don't do their job.

WE HAVE THE POWER TO DO IT! THE TIME IS NOW!

[Itsthetruth]

26. Check Out This Article On Impeachment

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3755814

[calimary]

36. Can't say I disagree with Ralph Nader here.

And it's good that you point this out, welshterrier2: "each voice that joins this chorus should be a welcomed voice."

It's very good. Very good indeed. Ol' Ralphie just might earn himself some redemption.

BTW: It's ALL good.

I don't even care that there's no hope for now - republi-CON congress and all that blah-blah-blah. IRRELEVANT. We have an election coming up in 2006. We have every chance to take back the House of Reps. I hope perhaps people might start budgeting a little bit NOW (and I still owe DU a contribution too) so that next year we can contribute to the campaigns of "somebody else's rep" if not to our own local races. Like, for example, it would be good to watch for another "Dean Dozen" who are targeted as likely Democratic winners, and give them our all. That's what I'm trying to do now, while we're still a year away.

And remember, if the polls keep going as they have, on issues AS WELL AS on the pResident's job approval, if Iraq stays in Hell (as it likely will), if more seniors become more angered and suspicious of these awful republi-CONS trying to strip and gut their Social Security - and its protections for their children and grandchildren, we may have a good shot.

PLEASE CONSIDER: It was the republi-CONS reading the unmistakable writing on the wall who finally pushed Nixon to resign. They're the ones who finally came around in the House Judiciary Committee and elsewhere. They finally saw the inevitable, unspinnable truth.

PLEASE ALSO CONSIDER: As bush sags, more and more of "lame duck" mentions and murmurs and whispers will come out. More and more we'll hear them in the media and among the pundits. More and more we'll hear and see mentions of bush having spent his "political capital" and slowly starting to steep in Loser Stench. At that point, as he has no further races to run, it will become clear to EVERY Senator and Congressperson that they still do, and if he's a millstone around their necks by the time they have to beg for their jobs, you watch how fast they'll turn. If their constituents, and the letters to the editor and the newspaper editorials and the momentum start turning, it'll be MOST fortuitous for US GOOD GUYS. And it will suddenly be A LOT more doable. Because if the crimes are bad enough to more of the general public (as they ALREADY ARE to us), NOBODY but the most marginalized, fringe-fundie nutcases (who nobody will want to be in bed with) will stay by him. Everyone else will be the fair-weather friends and allies they always will be, and desert. EVERY POSSIBILITY AND EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLOIT THIS, WE MUST USE. EVERY WEDGE. EVERY OPENING. EVERY CONVERSATION YOU MIGHT HAVE WITH THE GUY NEXT DOOR, OR IN LINE AT THE CHECKOUT COUNTER, OR AT THE POST OFFICE, OR THE AIRLINE TERMINAL TICKET COUNTER, OR THE CLEANERS OR PHARMACIST'S COUNTER, OR AT THE DOG PARK (where I just had a conversation like this with a discouraged woman - told her she must NOT just shake her head and tell herself it's no use) - EVERY OPPORTUNITY - USE IT.

The CODEPINK women just sent an email around talking about how their own efforts and the growing uproar over the Downing Street documents are all starting to gain traction. The "I" word is no longer taboo. It's being mentioned more and more. We just need to keep "catapulting that propaganga," as bush himself would say, so that this goes all the way to the top of the flag pole and STAYS THERE.

The MOMENTUM is with US now. The PERCEPTION is against bush. It needs to be stoked from many brightly-burning coals into a full-fledged fire. That won't happen if we get discouraged and give up.

PLEASE DON'T FORGET the advice of the Great Wayne Gretsky: "You miss 100% of the shots you never take."

Or of the Magnificent Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

[berni_mccoy]

40. Whenever We HAVE BUSH BY THE BALLS

They bring out Nader and have him talk about the subject so anyone else who tries to talk about it looks as crazy as Nader.

This is a standard Rove tactic. DON'T FALL FOR IT.

AND IT IS A SIGN THEY ARE REALLY SCARED!

[peacetalksforall]

41. My reply to you, welshTerrier2, is that Nader does not have foresight...

he gave 2000 to Bush along with the Supreme Court and the cabal.

His words are one thing, ALL of his actions are another.

I won't repeat all the actions that were a disaster for our country and disingenuous.

This means, I would probably agree with his words, but he blew his credibility with me, therefore I can't read the words.

[mac56]

93. A perfect response. Thank you.

The right message, but the wrong messenger.

[erpowers]

45. Book

One Democrat should write a book detailing why he should be impeached.

[Sparkly]

48. "Ralph Nader talks..."

With all due respect, that sums it up. "Ralph Nader TALKS."

Ralph Nader can't do anything BUT "talk." He has no power, no clout, no gravitas, no real influence, no position, no standing.

The whole problem with Ralph, as I see it, is that talk it EASY when there's no need (or even potential) to form consensus, reach a majority, and move those mountains in Congress. Pounding on the windows from the outside looking in, as he does, only serves to undermine our representatives who are fighting every day to make real progress.

Talk is cheap, talk is easy, and talk alone accomplishes nothing.

Same goes for Ralph Nader, imho.

[mac56]

67. Brilliantly stated.

I agree 100%.

[welshTerrier2]

68. "our representatives who are fighting every day to make real progress"???

but NO PROGRESS on publicizing bush's lies that led to the invasion of Iraq !!!

you used the phrase "with all due respect" which of course implies just the opposite ... let's take a more detailed look at the values your post seems to condone ...

you stated:

"Ralph Nader can't do anything BUT "talk." He has no power, no clout, no gravitas, no real influence, no position, no standing.

The whole problem with Ralph, as I see it, is that talk it (sic) EASY when there's no need (or even potential) to form consensus, reach a majority, and move those mountains in Congress. Pounding on the windows from the outside looking in, as he does, only serves to undermine our representatives who are fighting every day to make real progress."

one might call this an "establishment view" ... one might call this an "elitist view" ... one might say that you believe only those with power have a right to "talk" ... one might say that only those who are in Congress or in one of the two major parties should have a right to address the issues ...

well "with no due respect", that is just not what a democracy should be all about ... forget Nader (i know you're so filled with hatred for him that you won't be able to) ... Nader is not at all the issue ... i am not writing this to defend or compliment Nader ... the point is that every citizen should always have a right to speak out on the issues ... and every citizen has a right to criticize or applaud those in Congress ...

it's bullshit to say that he is "undermining our representatives" ... Nader made two references to "our representatives" in this article ... please feel free to help me understand why you think his allegations about bush are "undermining our representatives" ... your point is based only on your hatred and is totally without merit !!! here are the two references to the Congress Nader made:
1. "Eighty-nine members of Congress have asked the president whether intelligence was manipulated to lead the United States to war." ... Sounds like an acknowledgement that he agrees with these members of Congress who signed on to the Conyers letter ... he was condoning, not undermining, their actions ... and
2. "It is time for Congress to investigate the illegal Iraq war as we move toward the third year of the endless quagmire that many security experts believe jeopardizes US safety by recruiting and training more terrorists." ... Nader is not criticizing the Congress in this statement; he's calling them to begin an investigation on bush's lies ... DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT ??? most DU'ers want to see bush's lies investigated further ... are we "undermining our representatives" ???

Nader didn't criticize "our representatives" but I will ... to what extent does the Democratic Party represent your views when it comes to the specific issues Nader raised in the article? ... the reality is that most DU'ers do NOT believe the Party, especially the Senate Democrats, has done a damned thing to raise the issue of lies documented by the Downing Street minutes ... or do you think i've missed the Party's calls for more investigation? do you think they've been outspoken on this issue? do you think they should remain silent and not talk about the fact that tens of thousands have died, hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted, and the country has been made less secure because of bush's lie ????? no, no need to answer ... it doesn't matter what you have to say on these issues because all you want to talk about is Ralph Nader ...

when will you understand that you can agree and support something that someone says without liking them or their past actions? i don't give a damn how critical you are about Ralph Nader but you didn't even take the time to discuss bush's lies and his possible impeachment ... you're so filled with hatred that you're not fighting the right enemy ... when you throw the baby out with the bath water, you just don't deserve any "due respect" ...

[KnowerOfLogic]

49. You are correct. Dems should seriously start listening to Ralph. nt

[mac56]

69. Screw Ralph.

Ralph is first, last, and always all about Ralph.

Sorry so many have been sucked into his cult of personality.

[Hippo_Tron]

54. Devil's advocate: without Nader we wouldn't have Bush in the first place

Notice I said devil's advocate. I agree with this sentiment but I'm more pissed at Gore for running a shitty campaign and losing the debates to chimnp.

[CWebster]

57. Why they hate Nader

They are well indoctrinated by the Right and by Right-leaning Dems.

[Robin Hood]

63. Nader has no message.

Except for the usual "I hate democrats". Oh yeah, and some nonsense about Oligarchy's. He's a dumbass.

[Q]

65. Amazing kneejerk responses...

...about Nader saying what the Democratic leadership SHOULD BE SAYING.

It's sad when a has-been like Nader is more honest about Bush than the so-called leaders of the Democratic party.

Perhaps it's because Nader has nothing to lose and the 'leadership' of the Dem party fears losing favor with King George and his corporate lobbyists?

Democrats can't have it both ways. Either Bush is a crook and a war criminal and needs to be impeached...or he's just a misguided 'president' that needs nothing more than a scolding.

[mac56]

71. It's precisely because Ralph has "nothing to lose"

that he's become so irrelevent. He doesn't have a dog in this fight, and never has. He never campaigned to win, only to be a spoiler. He never meant to be anything more than a shit-disturber in 2000 and 2004. So forgive me all to hell if I don't give him any goddamn credibility now.

[CWebster]

72. Ah yes, what Nader says is irrelevant

because he is Nader, meanwhile Hillary posturing as a Republican is embraced by those who are so well-trained they don't even know it.

[mac56]

73. Say what you will abot Hillary.

At least she ran to win, with the intention of building consensus. Any jackass can kick down a barn, as Sam Rayburn said. Ralph take seems to be: "All you Dems ought to take steps to clean up the mess I created, and never had any plan to clean up."

[CWebster]

74. Consensus with who and at what price?

With Hillary, it is all about Hillary.

[mac56]

75. You don't get it, do you?

The difference between Ralph and a real candidate is that Ralph never actually intended to win. My god, he would have been scared shitless if he had accidentally won. And so would I have been.

[welshTerrier2]

82. well, thanks for hijacking this thread ...

this thread was supposed to be about impeachment and bush's lies that led up to the invasion of Iraq ... you see, that's the best issue we have right now to fight against our REAL ENEMY ...

by focussing on Nader, all you've done is dilute the power of the battle against bush ... while you're busy criticizing Nader, some of us are busy criticizing bush ...

[mac56]

91. I am quite capable of criticizing both, thankyouverymuch.

Each is culpable in his own way.

[Inland]

89. Even worse......

Nader never intended to change the result. So all these Naderites flip out and try to explain why it is that Nader did not spoil the election, and that he was merely irrelevant to the outcome.

What kind of goal is that, to be irrelevant to the outcome? Do I really want true blue Nader supporters for political allies, if they don't understand what elections are for?

[LittleClarkie]

99. No, not what Nader says, just Nader himself

He wasn't in 2000. He became thus by 2004. Hope he enjoyed the Smear Vet money.

[welshTerrier2]

76. shit disturber??? i prefer to view him as a citizen exercising his rights

gosh, my copy of the Constitution doesn't say anything about only allowing two parties to run for office ... you have a totally elitist view if you are suggesting that Nader, or anyone else, does not have every right to run for office ...

what kind of bullshit are you peddling calling a candidate for national office irrelevant? did he have a real chance "to win"? of course not ... but he, and many other third party candidates had a message they wanted Americans to hear and we should honor, not criticize, their right to make their case ... in fact, part of that message was that neanderthals in the two major parties would not allow them to appear in the debates ...

and just to be clear about my own position, i voted for Gore and did NOT think Nader should have run in 2000 (or 2004 for that matter) ... but i think he had every right to do so and i abhor the control the two major parties have over our national dialog and our electoral process ... it's elitist to try to stifle opposing views ...

[mac56]

77. Checking my post to see where I said "he had no right to run".

Checking again. Hmmm, don't see it.

Guess I never actually said that, huh?!

[welshTerrier2]

84. and checking my post to see that i never said that !!

you see, the word "if" acknowledges that an unknown condition may exist ...

here is what i said (bold added for emphasis): "you have a totally elitist view if you are suggesting that Nader, or anyone else, does not have every right to run for office ..."

my phrasing was acknowleding that you didn't explicitly say that but i had concerns you might be thinking that ... that's why i didn't say: "you have a totally elitist view because ...

of course, you still haven't responded to the primary focus of this thread which was not about Nader or whether he was a spoiler 4 years ago ... this thread is about bush's lies and their tragic consequences ... this thread is about impeaching bush ... this thread is about the evidence Nader cited in his article ... but you've identified Nader as the great threat to the republic rather than focussing on bush ...

the battle is here and the battle is now ... i don't care how much you want to criticize Nader; i'm not here to defend him ... i do care when bush has been caught in a lie on a major issue and people like you choose to distract us with your hatred for Nader ...

[mac56]

92. ".... but i had concerns you might be thinking that..."

Please limit your responses to things I actually said. Thank you. Sheesh.

[welshTerrier2]

95. and please limit yours ...

please limit your responses on threads i start to the main focus of the thread ... the focus of this thread was about allegations made about bush's lies that led up to the Iraq war ...

if you reread the BP, you'll have trouble finding any positive remarks about Ralph Nader other than supporting his calls to investigate bush ... your entire participation in this thread was not responsive to the base post ... in fact the BP when out of its way to encocurage a focus on the allegations against bush rather than on Nader ...

so, if you would prefer that i not "think" about things you say and not try to interpret your meaning and instead narrowly restrict my comments only to the exact words you type, you have a deal IF i do ...

[mac56]

97. When the initial post starts with these words:

"some DU'ers hate Ralph Nader ... they don't like anything Ralph Nader says ... "

it's apparent that criticism of Nader is fair game, even solicited, in the discussion to follow.

But whatever. Yes, Ralph is groovy. Let's hold hands and sing "Kum-Ba-Yah", shall we?

[LittleClarkie]

98. Two things about that statement as well.

It almost makes those who have "issues" with Ralph sound like they're kneejerking and irrational. That rather does a disservice to those with legitimate gripes. I could give a flying fuck about Ralph as a person. I don't hate him. I don't know him. It's not a personal thing.

And Ralph might have some good things to say. So I don't hate everything that comes out of his mouth. That would be absurd.

However, rather like Pat Buchannan, he has abdicated his right to criticize Bush. Pat, despite his bitching and moaning against the war, voted for the sob anyway, for the sake of the judiciary. And Ralph, in taking smear vet money and stating for the second election in a row that there was a dime's worth of difference between Bush and his opponent, has likewise made his bed. He can't have it both ways. Either Bush is that bad, or Bush, Kerry and Gore are all that bad and it doesn't really matter much which you go after. Would he have been calling for the impeachment of a President Gore or Kerry? I think not.

There was more than a dime's worth of difference. He can't have it both ways.

Some have said "The election's over. Can we get of our Nader hate now?" Maybe, if it was about the election. Rather in the same way that winning didn't make Bush right, the end of the election didn't change Ralph from an asshat back into someone relevant.

He was relevant in 2000 and came close to getting the Greens some federal funding. By 2004, he had become an egotistical joke, attacking the Dems more than the Repubs, though he HAD to know which was the worse of the two.

Rather like Pat, he may talk a good game, but he is NOT our friend.

[me b zola]

94. >>>>CAN YOU HEAR ME?

Sorry, but I had to yell above the noise.

Thanks for posting, I'm glad to hear every single voice that calls for the impeachment of * and his criminal cabal.

[bvar22]

96. Nobody should vote for Nader!

EVERYONE who calls themselves a Democrat SHOULD read his books and listen to what he has to say!

I WELCOME ALL voices that condemn bush*.

[Disturbed]

100. Hold Bush and Cheney RESPONSIBLE!!!!

Tinoire

"Oh blah blah blan. And if thousands of Democrats in Florida
had put the interest of their country above other loyalties and voted for Gore, George Bush would not be in the White House today.

Blaming Nader is such a pathetic, intellectually lazy cop-out. I'm embarrassed for DU and for the Party everytime someone pulls that out.

How about placing the blame where it belongs- on the Democratic Party for doing such a lame-assed job that Democrats, registered Democrats, went and voted for Bush? How about placing it on Democrat Party members who couldn't, if they even tried, convince 600 underpriviliged voters that Gore would throw them bigger crumbs?"

Exactly correct.

Whether or not Impeachment is viable is not the issue. The issue is the crimes of the Bush Regime.