Nader Wasn't Right Then And He's Not Right Now. The Democrats Are Not The Same As The Republicans.

In fact, his narcissistic and deceitfully manipulative ignorant spouting is hugely in part responsible for the messes we find ourselves in today.

So I'm woefully discouraged at how much "Nader was right!!!" garbage we keep seeing here. For god's sake aren't we supposed to learn from history? Hasn't his ignorant narrow-minded deceit of the past, which significantly impacted the 2000 election, taught us anything?

Sure, many of us are disappointed and discouraged with our beloved Dems. But there's a huge difference between being angry or disappointed with them and claiming that the epitome of ignorance Nader was actually right. C'mon now.

No difference between the Dems and the Repubs? How laughable. Any member or lurker at this site has MORE than enough at their very fingertips to be able to conclude otherwise. So please, before you just knee jerk spout out something as naive as "Nader was right!", please peruse this site a bit and educate yourself to the reality of the situation first. It should be able to be deduced fairly quickly that there is a HUGE difference between the two parties. Huge. Fucking enormous.

So no, Nader wasn't right then. No, Nader's not right now. His words are every bit as ignorant and short sighted as they were then. That's an easily verifiable fact. So please, spare us the Nader was right shit. The goal of this site at the end of the day is to encourage the election of Democrats; not to disillusion people falsely by blurring the line between the political parties so that they are more apt to abandon the Democrats and rally for some useless misguided green candidate.

Most of us have our emotions a bit high for what we consider some disappointment with the Dems. But calling them the same as republicans is in line with calling a prius a hummer, cause they like both use gas and stuff.

No, Nader wasn't right. Not then, not now, not for any foreseeable reason in the future.

We need everyone to build a LARGER majority - one that can get things done.

Then probably there won't seem to be much difference to you. The fact that a Democratic-controlled government would change the lives of millions for the better probably doesn't even seem significant, if you have that narrow a focus.

has him reaching out to sane GOPers for a few sane results, the same way Labor does to GOPers it is forced to back in certain regions. But the overall tractability of either party on the whole and in the large issues Nader confronts is quite a different matter. He slams hope as impure and worse than tyranny with possible concessions and softening expected from what quarter???? From flowers blooming in the flooded ruins of America>

He should critique better and build a third party most people WOULD accept. Yet he antagonizes and disempowers a third party movement even more with a rant that builds nothing but cynicism. It is as if the Democratic Party is the last vestige of democracy that is in his way, not completely lawless tyranny.
That, or personal revenge.

But only like 45% of the Democratic party.

So yeah, there is a significant difference. Too bad that difference can't be brought to bear when it comes to making policy.

already. http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs...

Forgive me for not being able to keep a straight face in response.

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

that many don't like a political opponent who lied to voters?

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

Or like others, will you simply conjure up something about his narcissism and dark motives?

BTW, this "both parties are the same" is a one-liner, not an issue, so it doesn't count as criticizing his issues.

The thing is, Nader's platform, like the guy or not, was closer to what we all want in a Democrat (most of us anyway). That's all there is to it.

the same question. If I feel like it, maybe I'll go over there and take time to explain to you all the reasons why Nader is a friggin moron.

But check yourself pal. See, DU is not a platform to boost up nor encourage green party candidates. No; it is a site to encourage the election of Democrats. So I don't feel the slightest bit of fucking need to have to explain to you or debate with you why Nader's in fact a piece of shit or defend against a concept of him being good for this country somehow. See, that ain't what this fucking site is for. Much like I wouldn't invest my time here debating with some troll why Sam Brownback isn't really a good candidate. Wrong fucking site with that too. Get it? So if you want to debate all the lovely little positive points about that little ignorant fucker Nader, then feel free to start a Green Underground site, start a thread asking me the question, and maybe, just maybe (don't hold your breath pal), I'll answer you there instead.

But here? No. Not a damn reason in the world I have to debate the merits of that piece of shit here.

Is that so written in the governing documents of DU?

This is what I find in "About Democratic Underground, LLC":

Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas. Since then, DU has become one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards.

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole.
*
*
*

In my opinion, this is the reason DU is not only so large in membership, but such a GREAT virtual community, as well as a means of achieving our "shared goals".

Ralph Nader did NOT elect GW Bush in 2000; Karl Rove did. And also in my opinion, had Gore run as a DEMOCRAT in 2000 (as he seems to be doing now), his margin of victory would have been TOO LARGE TO STEAL!

pnorman

"Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

Fuck Nader.

An all too human failing, but far from fatal in a pluralist society as DU is to so many of us. Diversity is our STRENGTH. I for one am NOT a "Leninist" (Economic Left/Right: -7.50, Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.92), and I trust not too many here are.

So FUCK Joe Lieberman, and the horse he rode in on in 2000.

pnorman

stick to spewing vague unfocused venom, because that's always fun!

But we will get lots of smilies!

Thanks.

there's protein shrines to you over there i'm sure.

You mistake lots of swears,smilies,and attitude for actual discussion.

Or,you don't mistake it and are choose not to,or are simply unable to,hold any real discussion with people who don't see things your way 100% on any given issue.

Have a good night OPM.In your must have the last word reply be sure to include lots of and to let us know how much more intellectual and sophisticated you are than the rest of us.

yes i have.

We should adopt Ralph Nader's issues, because they are our issues.

My take is that we should ignore Ralph Nader except to credit him with many Republican policy achievements which would not have been possible without his run in 2000 and 2004.

criticising Our President. sarcasm, in case you didn't notice. but hey, if it works for DU, why not for the american govt? and btw, it's not a legal issue; it's a matter of principle and logic. if censoring well-intentioned, constructive criticism is good for DU and the democratic party, then it's good for the american govt.

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

I don't see anyone policing your thoughts but I sure as hell see you policing theirs by implying that, those who DO AGREE are somehow AGAINST YOU. Don't be so paranoid.

your friend can dish it out, but taking it is another matter.

But since you only came in here to cast nonsensical personal attack anyway, don't let truth stop ya from continuing.

Bye now!

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

I don't think he's any closer to what I want than Al Gore was, frankly.

First, many if not most Democrats were sympathetic if not in agreement with many ideas that he ran on (although he wouldn't support Green Party issues, actually).

Second, Nader ran hard in states where the election was close, thus siphoning votes towards himself from Democratic Candidates.

Third, he continually said there wasn't much difference (or worse "not a dime's worth of difference") between Democrats and Republicans, when in fact there was a great deal of difference.

For example, in the debates:

Gore pointed out that he is pro-choice and that moral exemplar Bush wouldn't take a position on Roe v. Wade

Gore pointed out that he supported affirmative action and Bush wouldn't take a position, except to defend his sorry record against hate crime leglislation in his own state.

Gore supported expansion of health care for needy children. Bush said he was proud of his state's record on the matter, despite ranking near last in what it provided.

When presented the opportunity, both Gore and Kerry, proudly displayed their liberal positions, be they on gay rights, being pro choice, being pro environment, being for expansion of health care for the uninsured, etc. etc.

Bush wasn't even brave enough to take positions on those matters, but his record showed and now shows he was 180 degrees opposite the Democrats he ran against.

And all the while Nader said there wasn't a dime's worth of difference.

Nader undermined liberal causes and simultaneously lied about doing so as well as lying about the difference between Democrats and Republicans. If that doesn't make him ill-suited to influence our candidates and our platform, then nothing else can.

(OK, it wasn't really that well-crafted...)

they are just posers who want to be against "the man". They can't handle having to admit that they support a party with a majority in Congress. They don't really believe in changing things for the better. They just want to think of themselves as being in a persectued minority. And now that things are starting to change, do they celebrate? Fuck no. They instead start attacking the party they used to support, for not giving them everything they want right away. They are so anxious to shoot down the Dems now that they even piss on legislation that may not be perfect but at least can make some difference.

I think you nailed it and are spot on in what's really happening.

But it's so frustrating to see the extremism. This is, at its core, still supposed to be a site for Democrats to gather and converse while not having to be exposed to the bullshit attacks from other parties. Sadly, the attacks from within our site have seemed to get worse than attacks I see outside of it.

Number 9 is my personal favorite.



TOP TEN REASONS WHY I'M NOT VOTING FOR NADER
(ANY ONE OF WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH)

by Gloria Steinem President, Voters For Choice

10. He's not running for President, he's running for federal matching funds for the Green Party!

9. He was able to take all those perfect progressive positions of the past because he never had to build an electoral coalition, earn a majority vote, or otherwise submit to democracy.

8. By condemning Gore for ever having taken a different position - for example, for voting against access to legal abortion when he was a Congressman from Tennessee - actually dissuades others from changing their minds and joining us.

7. Nader is rightly obsessed with economic and corporate control, yet he belittles a deeper form of control - control of reproduction, and the most intimate parts of our lives. For example, he calls the women's movement and the gay and lesbian movements "gonadal politics," and ridicules the use of the word "patriarchy," as if it were somehow less important than the World Trade Organization. As Congressman Barney Frank wrote Nader in an open letter, "your assertion that there are not important issue differences between Gore and Bush is either flatly inaccurate or reflects your view that...the issues are not important...since you have generally ignored these issues in your career."

6. The issues of corporate control can only be addressed by voting for candidates who will pass campaign-funding restrictions, and by conducting grassroots boycotts and consumer campaigns against sweatshops - not by voting for one man who will never become President.

5. Toby Moffett, a longtime Nader Raider who also served in Congress, wrote that Nader's "Tweedledum and Tweedledee assertion that there is no important difference between the major Presidential candidates would be laughable if it weren't so unsafe." We've been bamboozled by the media's practice of being even-handedly negative. There is a far greater gulf between Bush and Gore than between Nixon and Kennedy - and what did that mean to history?

4. Nader asked Winona LaDuke, an important Native American leader, to support and run with him, despite his likely contribution to the victory of George W. Bush, a man who has stated that "state law is supreme when it comes to Indians," a breathtakingly dangerous position that ignores hundreds of treaties with tribal governments, long-standing federal policy and federal law affirming tribal sovereignty.

3. If I were to run for President in the same symbolic way, I would hope my friends and colleagues would have the sense to vote against me, too, saving me from waking up to discover that I had helped send George W. Bush to the most powerful position in the world.

2. There are one, two, three, or even four lifetime Supreme Court Justices who are likely to be appointed by the next president. Bush has made clear, by his record as Governor and appeals to the ultra-right-wing, that his appointments would overturn Roe v. Wade and reproductive freedom, dismantle remedies for racial discrimination, oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians, oppose mandatory gun registration, oppose federal protections of endangered species, public lands, and water - and much more. Gore is the opposite on every one of these issues. Gore has made clear that his appointments would uphold our hard won progress in those areas, and he has outlined advances in each one.

1. The art of behaving ethically is behaving as if everything we do matters. If we want Gore and not Bush in the White House, we have to vote for Gore and not Bush - out of self-respect.

I'm not telling you how to vote by sharing these reasons. The essence of feminism is the power to decide for ourselves. It's also taking responsibility for our actions. Let's face it, Bush in the White House would have far more impact on the poor and vulnerable in this country, and on the subjects of our foreign policy and aid programs in other countries.

Just as Clinton saved women's lives by rescinding the Mexico City policy by executive order as his first act as President - thus ending the ban against even discussing abortion if one received U.S. aid - the next President will have enormous power over the lives of millions abroad who cannot vote, plus millions too disillusioned to vote here.

Perhaps there's a reason why Nader rallies seem so white, middle class, and disproportionately male; in short, so supported by those who wouldn't be hurt if Bush were in the White House.

Think self-respect. Think about the impact of our vote on the weakest among us. Then we can't go wrong.

Or a Conyers or a Hillary Clinton, please, stop, there are NO good Repukes. Nada, zero.

Nadar needs another pie to the face.

That's one beeg difference.

Yet another reason to lament the results of 2000.

Nader wasn't right, *I* was. Most of them see that, now.

The fact that back then, even though there were still monumentally huge differences, think of how much VASTLY wider that gap is now ever since the bush administration. Think of how much MORE evidence one has now to so blatantly deduce the ignorance of such a premise. It's exponentially more ignorant to believe that premise today then it was back then, considering what we've seen policy wise from the republicans ever since. That's what pisses me off. How could someone POSSIBLY have their head up their ass so deep as to be able to still say such shit currently? It's mind boggling.

He's everything you've said he is -- and worse.

****

Breyer and Roberts

Yes. I do get very frustrated at the Democrats because,...I don't believe they are fighting without fear and that they are queasily comfortable with corporacrats,....I correct myself,...SOME democrats fail my courage and corporate test, *LOL*, so to speak.

However, I STRONGLY OPPOSE the suggestion that the Democratic Party is EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE REPUBLICANS. That's,...false, a lie, bullshit, demagoguery crap.

On the left side are slightly more socially friendly ideas and more personal freedom - within the constraints of what corporations deem acceptable.

On the right side are more aggressive and militaristic ideas and less personal freedom within the constraints of what corporations deem acceptable.

Both parties are bought and paid for by wealthy private interests. The differences between the "far" left and the "far" right in America would make people from other parts of the world laugh their ass off.


In truth there is no true "left" in American politics. There is the Far Right called the Republican Party and then there is the Right called the Democratic Party.

And that's the truth.

Incidentally, while I agree that Nader is incorrect in saying the two parties are identical, I do find it funny that you use a lot of language to dismiss and mock Naders assertion without actually providing any counter-evidence to explain why his claim is actually incorrect.

However, I can (and anyone else who like - you know - READS can) show you an exhaustive list of examples of where both Democratic and Republican Parties have put the interests of Corporations ahead of the interests of ordinary people.

Both parties serve Big Business, first and foremost. Democrats secondary concern is the freedoms and needs of more ordinary people, which makes them moderately better than Republicans, whos second concern is hegemony and the expansion of the American empire for the sake of profit and power.

Instead of broad-stroking, why don't you actually identify the individuals you are talking about.

Otherwise, I'll just broadly paint you as another careless opportunist prepared to attack anyone for his/her own attention/opportunity.

...spanning enough history to include time periods where Democrats were in power and when republicans were in power.

We should look at POLICY and law passed to decide what we think about the two parties. The actions of all federal representatives in both parties have resulted in the country we have today - one that flagrantly benefits and subsidizes corporate business interests at the expense of ordinary americans. It is a country in which, according to a 2004 GAO report, 61% of all US Based corporations pay nothing in taxes.

It is a country in which an industry with record breaking, mind-boggling profits - the Oil Industry - continues to be heavily SUBSIDIZED by my tax dollars. I'm paying to help Big Oil stay afloat? Whatever happened to the free market? It is a country in which, for more than a half a century, the social service and welfare programs of this country have been continually eroded, with the allowance of both democratically controlled and republican controlled congresses during that time period - all at the behest of business interests.

When you look at the history of American in the last half century, you can only reasonably believe two things:

Either there are major differences between the Democrats and the Republicans, and it is entirely the Republicans fault for the last fifty years that we live in a society that is so exploitative of the working class and provides welfare to corporations....and thus the democratic party is the weakest most pathetic most ineffective political party ever to come into being....

Or, we acknowledge that we have the society that we have because both parties have allowed and/or encouraged it to happen at various points over the last fifty years.

And incidentally, what passes as a "liberal" idea in this country is LAUGHABLE in other parts of the world. The problem is that in America, we take about 10% of the entire spectrum of political ideas, and label one side "conservative" and Republican and the other side "liberal" and Democratic. But in the scheme of the full spectrum of political thought, there is not vast difference between the two ruling parties.

Are there some good individuals within the Democratic Party? Of course there are. But we need to be making institutional criticism, and looking at what the history of the democratic party as a whole has gotten us and how it compares with the history of the republican party.

There are differences between the parties. But there are not enough differences between the parties.

neither one of them will lift a finger to indict or impeach a Bushie.

Alberto - no impeachment
Condi Rice - no contempt for failing to honor subpoena (going on months)
Cheney - only 8 fringe members signing on to impeach, with national polls at 54% to impeach.
Bush - not even the faintest whiff of impeachment
Karl Rove - lets see how they let him off for deep sixing massive numbers of email.

and on and on

I expressed a similar frustration when the leadership, especially in the Senate,
caved on the Iraq Funding bill.

Yes the Democratic rank-and-file is different than the GOP stink-and-bile. But
the leadership? You tell me.

Until Nader-bashers stop beating a straw man for their failure to fight in
Florida (do you really think the Bush gang wouldn't have just stolen a few more
votes if Nader hadn't been in the race? they shaved their numbers to the bone
to avoid people looking at tampering.) and admit that the Democratic leadership
is way to the right of the bulk of the party, we will continue to have this futile
circular firing squad.

arendt

Dean is Democratic Leadership, he runs the DNC. You can't pick and choose what the criteria for measuring differences is and limit it to a narrow agenda.

And, I most certainly CAN pick the major topics that I listed above as criteria
for deciding if my vote is meaningful.

I know you have done a lot of good work for Dems, mzmolly. But...

This whole disenfranchisement scam works because people get told they can't
criticize the people who have appointed themselves "leaders". Its Bush's scam and
its the scam of "candidate X is inevitable, so we must now stop all criticism and
fall in line".

In case you hadn't noticed, it is over six months to the nearest primary. This
farce of a permanent campaign was started, just like Bush started his permanent
war, to keep the current leadership in power. In the Democratic Party, that means
that the same corporate money keeps flowing to the same corporate candidates
who continue to ignore the rampant looting of our middle class, and to run out
the clock on the criminal activity of the administration.

I submit that the corporate agenda is to let Bush leave office, thereby legitimating
the "unitary executive" as de facto, fait accompli - unchallenged by any legal
or constitutional proceedings. Then one of the Dem corporate candidates will
implement a kindler, gentler version of corporate dictatorship.

And, I am here to say that if that is the agenda of the de facto Democratic leadership,
then it is the same agenda as that of the GOP leadership.

Any questions?

arendt

The arguments for pseudo progressives like Nader always hinge on a strawman and a narrow list that will ever exist no matter what Democrats do. It's akin to having an abusive spouse that will never be pleased.

The rhetoric should at the very least change to reflect the facts.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/12/202451/386

As a fund-raiser--the first duty of a party chairman and Dean's claim to fame in '04--he isn't quite the disaster some critics suggest. Early in the last "cycle," in 2001, the Republican National Committee outraised the DNC by a 3-1 margin. So far this year, that ratio has been cut to 2-1. More important is the way it was raised. In the past the party relied on "soft money" from millionaires. But such donations are now illegal. Officials estimate that $12 million of the $14 million the Dean regime has collected so far this year has come from those who gave less than $250. "For people who really look hard at the numbers, he's wowing people," says Elaine Kamarck, a respected DNC member.

By the way, I haven't a problem with criticism, I have a problem being told we can't criticize a self described political opponent of Democrats, HERE.

I never liked Ralph; but at this point, I am grudgingly saying he had some part of the
truth, which is what I am trying to elucidate with my "leaders are the same" meme.

And, I am certainly not criticizing Dean! He is doing a great job. Its just that anytime
he does anything he might get CREDIT for, Rahm or some other "leader" slaps him
down for overstepping his mandate at the DNC.

Excuse me, but when did the DCCC replace the DNC as the center of the party?
Answer, when corporate money decided so.

I know there is a civil war inside the Democratic Party. I'm on Dean's side. Why do
you beat me up for bashing Rahm Emmanuel?

Are you calling me a psuedo-progressive?
Exactly what "strawman and narrow list" are you accusing me of promoting?

I really don't understand half of what you are saying. Educate me.

All I know is that the Dems have let me down, and the ridiculous permanent campaign
is siphoning energy away from impeaching Bush, all so we can crown someone else
king on almost the first day of primary season, which is currently back to December,
2007.

It matters more that we impeach Bush today and tell history that we reject dictatorship than
that we elect a Dem in 2008 and let Bush walk free and his crimes go on the books as
precedent. Go ahead, tell me that is heresy.

arendt

Not impeaching Bush is the end of the First Republic. And all the triangulating bullshit rhetoric
the media can spew can't hide that.

Bush has trampled all over its Constitution, and all you care about is winning an election
so Hillary or Barack can jump to do the corporations' bidding.

Well, I may not be a Democrat anymore if I have to swallow much more of this "you must"
get behind the corporate candidates that are busy being crammed down my throat.

The corporate dems are strong on the window dressing liberal issues, and weak on the
real power in America - the power to control corporations, the power to tax the rich,
the power to enforce the Separation of Church and State.

I do not see how electing Hillary is going to stop the war in Iraq. She has yet to apologize
for it. I do not see how letting Bush's crimes become precedents prevents us from becoming
"more of a dictatorship". I do not see that impeachment is "feel good". Every month we let
the current administration continue, it costs us tens of billions of dollars and hundreds of
casualties.

America can't wait another 18 months to change course. We can't wait until Bush nukes Iran,
because he wants to. Your resistance to impeachment is utterly without merit.

I used to respect your opinion. You just lost that respect.

arendt

People are what Paul Wellstone cared about as well. So, you go ahead and align yourself with Nader and I'll align myself with Paul Wellstone, deal?

You mentioned waiting to change course, we've already CHANGED COURSE. And, if we want a larger change, there's only one lasting solution - a Democratic President.

Frankly if this was about ME, I'd be bitching about impeachment too, but the office of President is larger than I. And, as such the coming election will have an impact far beyond my desire for a feel good measure that wont even pass the house/senate.

I don't care if you no longer respect my opinion. I, unlike you dont demand people think as I do in order to "respect" an "opinion." Further, as I've indicated I'm not involved in politics because of "me." If you are willing to elect another Republican in order to have an interesting few months, you no longer have my "respect" either. Personally, "I want my country back."

Peace

I am not responsible for what Nader said.

I refuse to accept your premise that doing the right thing (trying to impeach) guarantees that
the GOP will be elected.

This is just "opposition to Bush is betrayal of our troops" dressed up in Democratic clothes.
Whenever anyone tells me how selfless they are ("I'm not involved in politics because of me.")
I reach for my wallet. Where else in the Dem leadership do we see such sanctimoniousness?
I leave you to fill in the blank: Holy ___.

Your rhetoric is divisive - us vs them. All I ask is that the evidence be put in front of the people
before said evidence is shredded, or before the maniac starts a nuclear war. I frankly cannot
sleep at nights thinking my country will let this destructive gangster stay in the people's house
and murder our troops for his own delusional fantasies.

It is you who will have blood and sorrow on your conscience, not I.

arendt

We dont currently have the votes to impeach, that's my "premise." I operate under the premise of reality.

The "right thing" is not a dog and pony show, it's effecting change. I'm all for impeachment if it will actually bring about a positive end.

As for my conscience, it's fine as I did everything I could to prevent a Bush Presidency from the get go. On the other hand, I don't know how Nader sleeps at night.

Go find them.

You are bathed in ignorance for holding the Democrats to task for not impeaching Bush when they have nowhere near enough votes to even get close to impeaching him.

I think you are having trouble with the whole, the Democrats won the elections in 2006, why aren't they King now?!

to stop the Germans.

The point is TO TAKE A STAND. Draw a line. Say, we will fight. The British finally declared
war over Poland, and that was a very half-hearted affair. It took a Churchill to finally stand
up. America is waiting for its Churchill. And none of the corporate candidates need apply
for the job.

I repeat: are you willing to leave Bush in office so that he can start a nuclear war with Iran?
He has three carriers there now. His minions are spouting propaganda about Iran's funding
for terror in Iraq (not mentioning our arming Sunni insurgents, of course). The Israelis are
salivating to nuke Iran. Bush is putting more and more fundie whackjobs in high command
positions.

And you just want eighteen more months of these meaningless "debates" and campaigns
fueled by tens of millions of dollars of corporate cash. And this money primary is "democracy"
how? A lot of hot air on every topic except the ones that are vital to our survival.

Start by impeaching Gonzalez. You can get 17 GOP votes for that. The GOP is dying to
look like it defends democracy. Then, put some muscle behind Waxman's and Conyer's investigations.

I'm "bathed in ignorance"? Have you checked the polls lately? A 54% majority wants to impeach
Bush. I love how now Democrats do not give a rats ass about what the voters in this country
want if it interferes with their political game playing. (Gee, did you notice? We are back to
"the Democratic leadership is the same as the GOP leadership".)

The Dems aren't king because America doesn't have kings. If we put a corporate Dem in without
restoring the Constitution, that person and all after will have kingly powers.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

arendt

That margin is not large enough to count on it for more than a week. I agree with those who say we impeach Cheney, but I also see the reasoning behind worrying about getting the troops home first. Do you think we can get the troops home and impeach at the same time? I honestly dont.

And it takes 60% cloture to get a lot of other stuff done.

Dems have 51% but the majority on any issue depends on Lieberman's vote.

So, it's not right to call the Dems to task for not passing what they don't have the votes to pass.

So, why don't you get out there and help the Dems get to 67% in both houses of congress so that impeachment, and leglislation that cannot be vetoed can pass?

If you give up on Dems now because they aren't doing with 51% of the vote what they can only do with 67% of the vote, then you sir, have a problem with basic arithmetic.

And he was able to tap into that to a certain extent.And while political junkies like us should know better the vast majority of Americans are not into politics to the extent that they follow policy,votes,etc.Add to that the inevitable MSM spin and it's not hard to understand why a lot people think that there is little or no difference.

Our own frontrunners are very moderate,and one seems perfectly willing to court the right-leaning voters who vote for the Dems only when it suits them,who don't really have any beliefs outside of "What's in it for me?",instead of courting the people who have voted Dem all their lives.People who have stood for liberal/progressive/democratic (whatever label suits people) ideals consistently and strongly.I think we could gain far more votes by standing up strongly for these beliefs instead of trying to appeal to those who share those values only when it's convenient.

The more we're willing to flirt with those people in order to achieve power,the more that perception will stick,and the more it will become a factor,Nader or not.Nader just represented a growing sentiment,and let it go to his already big head.But whether it's him,or someone other guy,unless the Dems show a willingness to actually stand for the things they used to when I first became one a couple decades ago and not just pay them lip service,that sentiment will just continue to grow.

We need to make a choice about what groups of people and what set of ideals we want to be associated with.Regardless of whether the charge of there being no difference between Democrats and Republicans is true or not,the public perception is out there,and we won't convince anyone otherwise the more we flirt with the Right to win.Contrary to what some think,the people aren't sheeple,and I think we should try appealing to people's intelligence instead of dumbing ours down.

Yup, Wellstone. There has never been a Green party candidate in the history of the USA that has been fit to tie the shoes of a progressive like Wellstone.

And Nader campaigned against him.

And Nader campaigned against him.

And Nader campaigned against him.

What does this say about Nader and his positions? What outcome did he hasten? Who did he think would benefit from his campaign, Wellstone, the Green Candidate, or Norm Coleman?

Nader is a FRAUD. You vote for Nader or support him and you get a Republican in that office, plain and simple.

And Nader tells you that you're being a loyal progressive. Good boy, have a cookie and watch the Republican get inaugurated. You did such a good job for supporting the Green Party. You are no sellout, noooo, now you can brag to your children.

First off, the quote is "there is NOT ENOUGH difference" between the two parties - but don't let that get in the way of your sophomoric rant.

"Easily verifiable" - by who? Talk about argument via Fox News - you got it down pat, son.

Keep preaching to the ever-dwindling choir - most of us see through it.

Some, however (hint, hint) need the proverbial brick dropped on their head before they wake up.

Look out below.................

Sorry pal, but your opinion ain't even close to being that of 'the most of us'.

And I just looked below. I noticed proverbially that you're laying there unconscious with a brick shattered nearby.

You wouldn't know "most of us" if they bit you in the ass.

Or haven't you noticed how you and your ilk have to constantly defend the status quo?

Why do you think that is?

Your immature style of ranting and shouting does nothing for your supposed cause - actually, it does more harm than good, for people make judgments predicated on one's ability to articulate a position.

And pal you got miles to go before you even APPROACH articulation.

Keep trying, though - I LIKE playing with my food.

whu, whu, what was that? Oh, nader lover. *sprayyyyyyy* Phew. Got him. Back to sleep kids!

Sadly, though, you have gotten tiresome.

Goodbye.

I hope mom and dad get you that pony.

<fade to black>

so here's my sophomoric meta-rant. See its better because it's meta. :-P

This is what my screen looks like, lots of Ignoreds, with OMC agreeing with Ignored.

Ignored:
OMC: "I totally agree with your post"

Ignored:
OMC: "Golly you are swell, we are super duper dems arent we :hugs:"

Ignored:
OMC: "Oh my you are the greatest, could not have said it better"

I am cynical, and cynical me votes for Democrats and not Greens.

Greens running in 2000 and 2004 have not advanced our agenda one bit. In fact, the whole promise of the Green Party has been a fraud of late by essentially dividing the progressive votes.

Vote for Greens and get, well, get a Republican in that office.

Egads, even Oakland threw out the Green Party assemblywoman in favor of a real Democrat.

Even San Francisco, when given the choice between a Democrat and a Green Party candidate for mayor, voted Democrat. The Green might have won but for Ralph Nader's bad behavior in 2000 which turned many Democrats permanently against the Green Party (me included).

but there sure are some bad apples-harold ford,the whole macauliffe clinton connection etc etc ---creepy f@ckers

A small minority of the elected officials who call themselves "Democrat" are truly different from the GOP. But the others are held with a ball and chain to their corporate masters just like the Republicans. Nader is correct in that regard.

As someone who was born and raised in Canada, I can say from a truly objective viewpoint that Americans have a choice between a right wing party (The Democrats) and a farther right wing party (The Republicans). Where is the liberal representation in the United States of America? Dennis Kucinich, for one. But he polls at 2%, last I checked.

But sadly, it's not true now and short of divine intervention, Nader being 100% is not even close to being realized.

Sorry the man is human, and even running as a human, he manages enough mendacity to place him below most Democrats and beneath my vote.

Bill Clinton bombed an Aspirin factory. Bill Clinton bombed Iraq right before he was to be impeached. Innocent people died as a result of Mr. Clinton's actions. Difference between Clinton and George W. Bush? Scale.

Bill Clinton was responsible for the disgraceful "Don't ask don't tell" policy, a discriminatory and demeaning policy towards gay and lesbians in America. Difference? Scale.

Bill Clinton was the one who deregulated the media, resulting in the current laughing stock that is the right wing, corporate backed mainstream media in America today. Difference? Actually not that much of a difference on that one.

There are differences between the Republicans and the Democrats. One party is right of center, the other party is right of right of center. All Nader has ever said was that both parties are corrupted by corporate interests. He's right.

He said Gore and Bush would be essentially the same on foreign policy and the environment. He was full of shit.

Sure you can pluck out a couple Clinton mistakes, now compare that list to the Bush shit list and tell me we're even close? We're not.

Here are Bush's accomplishments according to Free Republic:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1096125/posts

And Clintons:

http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm

The AGENDAS/VALUES of the two major party's are vastly different. Yes, there are some errors on the part of Democrats but our entire view of the world differs and the effect we have on the population of the world is "worlds" apart.

Unfortunately.
Corporate and big money interests have a proven track record of infiltrating and subverting institutions and organizations.Even our own party,imo.

Fortunately,Howard Dean came along and reminded me,and apparently millions of others,that we have the power to take it back.
I plan on sticking with the Democratic Party for now.

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

you brought it up and refuse to actually debate on issues.... saying that belongs on green underground. so what was your point then? LOL.

nPS, no where here did I defend Nader, but don't let that stop you from making assumptions. LOL.

not a discussion. to get posts deleted when he baits people into calling him (rightly so) a dick.
standard operating procedure. Yet another mind crime.

You do realize that your attitude, posting style and general
rudeness hurts your cause instead of helps it right? That's assuming
that you want to bring people into the Democratic Party, maybe I'm
wrong and your general intent is give a giant middle finger to anyone
who might be disappointed with this current congress and be sympathetic
to many of the traditional liberal views Nader espouses. Either way
you can just give us all a BZZZZTTTTT and beat your chest about it
some more, its really making you look great

uses game show or video game noises as if they should actually be taken to mean something substantial.
I just don;t know any adults who behave that way and expect to be taken seriously,

that's from the person who started this thread. if you want to find the part where talking to Nader supporters "bores him" , you'll have to look yourself. Supposedly my ass, MzMolly.



OPERATIONMINDCRIME (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-18-07 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. Tell Ya What: Start A Site Called 'Green Underground'. Then Start A Thread Within That Site Asking

the same question. If I feel like it, maybe I'll go over there and take time to explain to you all the reasons why Nader is a friggin moron.

But check yourself pal. See, DU is not a platform to boost up nor encourage green party candidates. No; it is a site to encourage the election of Democrats. So I don't feel the slightest bit of fucking need to have to explain to you or debate with you why Nader's in fact a piece of shit or defend against a concept of him being good for this country somehow. See, that ain't what this fucking site is for. Much like I wouldn't invest my time here debating with some troll why Sam Brownback isn't really a good candidate. Wrong fucking site with that too. Get it? So if you want to debate all the lovely little positive points about that little ignorant fucker Nader, then feel free to start a Green Underground site, start a thread asking me the question, and maybe, just maybe (don't hold your breath pal), I'll answer you there instead.

But here? No. Not a damn reason in the world I have to debate the merits of that piece of shit here.

I saw the bore comment, and I saw the "dick" comment as well. However, I've seen the OP debate, here, in this thread.

i've seen the OP run away with his tail between his legs when faced with many questions n this thread.
and if you call vague insults "debating" well then he did that too. LOL.

Cuz that's what he said. That's just one thing he said that was drastically wrong.

He said there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between Bush and Gore. Ooopsy is that 100% correct?

Nader campaigned against Wellstone --was that 100% correct too?

Nader said Gore stole the election from him. 100% man still in effect?

Oh yes, and Nader's position on Israel. Sometimes I think this is where he really parts company with the Democratic Party which is generally supportive of Israel and Ralph Nader who is generally not.

I can't wait for your next fact filled, intelligent post...

How did I not see it before?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

masterful debate strategy you are burying me with your brilliance. Maybe next time you'll rail against something someone actually said instead of re-wording a quote to suit your argument. Boy won't that be a hoot.

I'm gonna paste a reply I had for someone earlier, who also wanted to ignorantly claim that the quote or intent is twisted somehow. Sorry pal, but saying it don't make it so. Care to explain the following?



Go for it pal. Let's see you try and convince people that the quote above doesn't come down to that. Ready? Set? GO!

I guess you win. Oh and where exactly did you see a personal attack? Funny I think all I did was compliment you on your command of the debate and the facts, then you called me an ignoramus. See the difference between you and me is I understand that no candidate is perfect, and I for one was ready to do whatever it took to make sure neither Bush, Cheney, nor Lieberman got into office in 2000. Too bad the rest of the country didn't agree with me. We might not be in this pile of shit to begin with. I spent years being berated on DU for voting for Nader in 2000, I was told I have blood on my hands and it's my fault that Gore lost. I was told it so much I actually began to believe it, that is until I met Gore, and the man apologized for his crappy campaign and for his kowtowing to his handlers and his advisor's. Maybe you should take your debate up with him. He seems to think Nader had nothing to do with his loss.

http://www.co-intelligence.org/CIPol_ConcordPrinciples....

"Hey, the Nazis and the Allies were exactly the same!"

But there are still Bush-lovers and Nader-lovers tucked away in the tiny little corners of MadLand. Pathetically. Oh God. Sophistry at its worst.

If you demonize ALL the GOP, not just the 30% of whackos, then you will keep Bush
in office, because the opportunists will feel that their best chance of survival is with keeping
Bushism in power.

OTOH, by focusing on the unwillingness of both parties' leaderships to impeach Bush,
in the face of a majority in the polls wanting it, in the face of massive evidence,
mounting higher every dead (today, Rove shredded emails, violating the official
records act), we can get rid of Bush in a UNITED manner, the same way we all
agree to "support the troops", even though they are clearly not angels.

I submit that the rank and file of both parties need to unite and impeach Bush and
his criminal gang; and get their like out of politics. If that means the Democrats
who stand in the way of impeaching Bush have to go, too bad. If that means GOP
enablers get some of the credit, well "only Nixon could go to China". Once we get rid of
Bush, we can turn back towards something resembling a legitimate political discussion
- assuming we can enforce the separation of Church and State, and keep the mullahs
out of the Congress and the Courts.

Much as I hate to admit it, the Iraq funding debacle went a long way towards convincing
a lot of Americans that there isn't any difference between the parties. And, its the
Dem leadership who rolled over on that vote. The rank and file of the Dems wanted
to fillibuster or at least attempt to fillibustert. It was the Dem leadership (largely DLC )
that stopped that.

So, maybe Nader used too broad a brush, but something is rotten in the Dem leadership
that all the Nader-bashing in the world can't cover up.

arendt

I bow to your inestimable wisdom; you are correct. But this thread reminded me of a party I went to right before the 2000 election, at a house full of Greens, all emphatic that Gore was 'just like Bush'. It drives me crazy when hyper-progressives and others smear good Democrats like Gore, Boxer, Waxman, Conyers, Waters, et al with the brush of corporatocracy; there are very many Democrats who successfully navigate the Very Difficult political waters between fundraising and doing the right thing, and yet reactionary progressives tend to reject the entire party out of hand, regardless of political reality. I know two friends that continue to hold these opinions to this day -- in their eyes, if you don't utterly fight the Republicans on every single point, to the death, you are one. And there is no forgiveness, or room for growth. It's maddening.

I came of age in Arizona, under the criminal governor Evan Meacham, and voted in his recall election. The extreme redness of Arizona led me to be appreciative of anything Democratic -- Lieberman currently excepted.

I'm scarred by the events of the last six years -- it seems clear to me that the Democratic Party is flawed, but that the Republican Party seems devoted to criminal malfeasance, and the difference is Life and Death for this nation. I felt strongly that the formerly respectable Nader descended into polemic at a critical moment, and led many, many otherwise well-meaning people off the damned cliff into This Reality.

Which sucks. Hard to forgive him for his role, especially as he appears unrecalcitrant, unlike Moore.

I agree that the war funding vote was catastrophic. We had a chance to make a stand. It hurt to watch.

Bush stole way more votes in Florida, by disenfranchisement, than Nader cost Gore.
And they would have stolen whatever it took without Nader in the race.

I'm not sure if "I bow to your inestimable wisdom" is sarcasm or not. So, this is
response is not directed at you personally. I am just sick of this whole Nader thing
being used as a club against anyone who disagrees with the Dem "leadership".

Bashing Nader (and I do not defend the man) is just the coward's way of dodging
the fact that the Dems rolled over. That Joe Lieberman torpedoed Al Gore (and
remember that no one really knew what a rat Joe was then - he was the Dem VP
candidate.)

But, we go on pretending that the system was working - except for that rat Nader.
Whistling past the graveyard.

arendt

'I am just sick of this whole Nader thing
being used as a club against anyone who disagrees with the Dem "leadership".'

You're right. It is somewhat of a canard.

And which party needs more votes to cause a successful impeachment?

More Democrats or fewer Democrats?

Gosh, I hope this isn't really Hannah Arendt, but even if so, this is not your greatest thinking.

but letting Bush run out his term accomplishes the same result.

The only difference is that your approach is silent and sneaky and manipulative.
Which is why it makes me sick.

Oh, and I see we are down to insulting my handle. That's about as low as you can
get here on DU. Pathetic.

arendt

Good Cop/Bad Cop

Nader never said that the two parties were the same. Just that they aren't different enough. You're making a straw man argument.

Just one example:

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/ralphnader16...

There are jillions of others. It's NOT a strawman.

and also have an appreciation for truth and accuracy. That side?

I've heard Nader at least four times in different interviews explain that he doesn't claim both parties are the same. Why does this meme continue? Perhaps because its easier than facing up to the times that the Democratic party doesn't live up to its potential? Did you notice in the quote you linked that he admits there are difference in the two parties but that both are inadequate? Yes, that is different than saying both are the same.

Except for that, its true. Sure.

And I guess Wellstone wasn't different enough for Nader either since he campaigned against him.

Nader's a jerk and has undermined progressive candidates time after time.

Actually fraud is a better word to describe Nader than jerk --more accurate.

Your energy would be much better spent opposing fascist Republicans, the ones who are actually in government.

Ralph Nader is no longer relevant.

Just in case you missed it, let me repeat: Ralph Nader is no longer relevant.

Beating up on Nader while ignoring the Bush Crime Family is like trashing the neighbors who moved away seven years ago while the new occupants are ransacking your house.

Ralph doesn't matter anymore.

Why are you wasting your time in the past? I know from reading your posts here that you're much better than that.

They must have taken that memory erasing medication that 60 Minutes was profiling last night.

issues, and I don't think US history can be denied in that area.