Nader Accuses Dems of "Mini-Watergate"

[wicket]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125092,00.html

Democrats could be participating in a "mini-Watergate" effort to get Ralph Nader (search) out of the presidential picture, the consumer advocate charged Thursday.

"They're hiring lawyers to go up to technicalities in places like Arizona, they infiltrated our political convention," Nader, an independent candidate for president, told FOX News on Thursday. "I spoke to John Kerry and said 'you'd better look into it because it could be a mini-Watergate, possibly."

Nader said he hasn't yet heard back from the Democratic senator from Massachusetts, who is hoping to oust President Bush from the White House in the November elections.

-snip-

Although he's no fan of Republicans, the GOP "don't whine and carp like the Democrats," Nader said, adding that 10 times more Democrats "deserted the party" and voted for Bush in 2000 than voted for him.

---------------------------------------------

Yes, I know it's FoxNews, isn't it just CONVENIENT how they are the ones pushing this??

[Raster]

1. you mean "the ministry of propoganda"..?

[RobertSeattle]

2. It his latest talking point

He says it in just about every interview - he said it on Hardball last night as well.

[MsUnderstood]

5. He said it on the daily show too

In one breath he claims he will take the conservative vote from Bush, in the next he says the Dems are orchastrating efforts to keep him off of ballots.

He is mad at everyone.

[wicket]

8. He's a bitter, cranky old man

[cosmicone]

64. Can't blame him ...

the payment from Bushco to his Swiss bank account is in proportion to how many votes he draws. The less he draws, the less he gets paid!!

He is being hit in the pocketbook so he is cranky hahahahaha

[WhiteTara]

117. I think he is just plain mad - as in crazy

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. What a fucking asshole

"I'm going to help the Dems in this election"...isn't that what you said you forked tongued Bush enabling apparatchik? Really..there isn't a bird big enough to flip you.

[wicket]

6. It's just like your user name-

"Nothing shocks me anymore". He's such a prick!!! He didn't have the required amount of valid signatures, why should he get special treatment?? Grrr....

[mzmolly]

4. Maybe he should call a cop?

Nah, I don't think he's got a case. :hi:

[Dr Fate]

18. I'm reminded of Gene Wilder in Willy Wonka- "Help...police..."

n/t

[Quahog]

7. Man, I wish he would just crawl under a rock

Who in the USA needs fucking Ralph Nader anymore? Is he of ANY use to ANYONE whatsoever? His 15 minutes are SO over! Why doesn't he just sell his swanky real estate and his stock in evil corporations and go buy his own private island in Micronesia or someplace? Then he can be worshiped as lord and master of all as he wishes to be.

GO AWAY, RALPH!

[FlaGranny]

14. Yes, he is of use to republicans.

That's why they continue to contribute to his campaign.

If he meant what he said about helping get Bush out of office, he just might want to think about saying at least as many bad things about Republicas as he does about Democrats.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

9. Uh. History lesson for Ralph Nader.

The Watergate scandal had to do with breaking the law. Democrats in Arizona weren't breaking any laws. Nader's people were the ones who broke the law! Democrats merely mounted a legal challenge to throw out the illegal signatures.

[BillZBubb]

10. Dems accuse Nader of having "mini-brain".

And they are being generous.

Nader: Repug tool for brainless fools.

[Doosh]

11. stunned that FOX news is whoring the story

just shocking!

[wicket]

15. Hahahaha of course!

They are just so fair and balanced, eh? ;)

[PROGRESSIVE1]

12. Oh....you mean that "Texas Oil Millionaire Ralph Nader"!

[tandot]

13. Destroying his legacy...what a stupid f*ck

So many people admire him for the work he has done.

Go away, Ralph. You are a sad little man.

[The empressof all]

16. Nader has suceeded in making me even more cynical.

I use to have respect for him and his corporate raiders. As time has gone on he has just become a mean, nasty, publicity hound. I understand he does not treat his staff well which IMO is an important way you measure a man.

(edit-spelling)

[Cheneys_former_heart]

17. Gee Nadar, the Dems are making sure you doing this legally

and you call it a scandal? Isn't that what the Nader Raiders used to do--stop corruption? I think someone has injected Nadar with the neo-con Kool-aid; he's got the persecution complex down as well as the twisted logic.

[nolabels]

19. What would you do if you were CONVENIENTLY worried about.........

your job?. The Media Whores will step to any lever to save theirs

[Dr Fate]

20. Take your GOP money & go buy a fucking towel. n/t

n/t

[Parche]

21. WHINE RALPH WINE

And what were the Republicans doing in Oregon to help you out Ralph?

[prolesunited]

Well, perhaps if he keeps talking

his sycophants will finally see the light.

[mondo joe]

22. Funny - he doesn't care that the GOP infiltrate his campaign

I guess if they bring the $ it's okay.

[HuckleB]

32. Yup. You beat me to it.

That was my first thought.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

23. I Almost Hate Nader As Much As Bush Now

YOU'RE the one who's whining, you little fuck. Play by the rules or go home.

GOD I cannot STAND Nader.

DTH

[Liberal Veteran]

39. That makes two of us....all the respect I had for him has evaporated.

And quite honestly, I question his mental health at this point.

[geek tragedy]

24. Why does this image come to mind?

[lancdem]

25. The man's being helped by the GOP

and he's shocked Dems are pissed at him? He's the one who's whining and carping.

[testing123]

26. FU Nader

I am so sick of seeing Nader's face :puke:.

[neverforget]

27. Go Cheney yourself Nader!

[patricia92243]

28. Does Nader realize he is being used and doesn't care, or is he just so

befuddled that he doesn't really understand what is going on around him?

[wicket]

29. I think he just doesn't care

He's so bitter!

[NNN0LHI]

30. He knows. He likes the Republicans help. See the link below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=667680&mesg_id=667680

[HuckleB]

31. It's OK if the Republicans infiltrate, though.

Can you say Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

This man did great things for his country, but he's gone off his rocker the past four years.

[amber dog democrat]

33. Nader can go Cheney himself

The more contained he is the better. He is like an oppratunisitc disease.

[mstrsplinter326]

34. What is this, an I hate Ralph convention?

Are you all joking?

How would you all feel if the roles were reversed and Green Party inflitrated the democratic party and, lets say, embezzeled? You'd all be blaming ralph again all hot and bothered.

I am NOT a Ralph supporter, but this thread looks like a F-ing book burning convention.

A truth that has stood the test of time: In the world of politics, the less someone knows about their 'opponents' the more they attack their character. You sound like a bunch of repukkklicans talking about Michael Moore: you all hate 'em, but you're really grasping at straws.

I don't want Nader to 'spoil' the election any more than you all, but for god's sake try to act like decent human beings about it...

[aden_nak]

36. I believe, in fact, that it is.

Because Ralphieboy is allowing his hubris to over-ride his otherwise revered logic and intelligence in this political campaign. A lot of folks used to have respect for him, even a lot of folks on this site, I'd wager. I doubt there's a regular poster on the DU that wouldn't sacrifice something they otherwise want to have in order to get Bush out of the White House. Nader is, for whatever reason, unwilling to make that obvious connection and the obvious decision NOT to run this year because he is hiding his pride behind a paper-thin layer of propped up principle.

[mstrsplinter326]

52. Response to you and others

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&foru

[Liberal Veteran]

37. I'll quit ragging on Nader when he stops acting like King Shit of Turd Mt

....his fucking whining and persecution/messianic complex is getting on my fucking nerves.

[mstrsplinter326]

51. Response to all...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&foru

[matcom]

38. tell you what. i'll make a deal with you

you get Ralphie to first ACKNOWLEDGE that he is taking GOP money and THEN stop taking it and I'LL in turn stop roasting his vile ass at the stake.

deal?

[Liberal Veteran]

41. I'll second that Matcom.

Preach on, bro!

[mstrsplinter326]

50. A response to all the responses...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&foru

[struggle4progress]

105. Link doesn't work. You need to copy the entire URL. eom

[jobycom]

43. Embezzlement?

When he shows us embezzlement, we'll listen. He's just complaining that the Democrats are spying on him and issuing legal challenges to keep him off the ballot, not to mention calling the whole party whiners. Notice he favors the Republicans even here.

Damn right people will speak out against that nonsense. Why not? We speak out against Bush, too.

BTW, Greens infiltrate and spy on Democratic conventions, too. I've even seen them run against Democrats in the primaries and pretend to be Democrats. And yes, I've seen them file the most frivilous lawsuits to block Democrats from ballots. We don't whine about it, we just handle it, since it's the way things go. Nader pretending he's above that is just ridiculous.

[mstrsplinter326]

48. Burn the books, bash the person, rinse and repeat....

I don't care that the democrats are fighting him. I don't care the greens run against democrats. whatever.

My point was that if you believe that ralphy has his ideals backward and is a bad person, then don't turn around and be a**holes about criticizing him.

That's just fighting fire with fire. You want to win back the old nader-greens and get the Criminal out of office together?

THEN FOCUS ON THE ISSUES! There's probably 50+ posts in this thread with out a mention of the larger national issues.

Why does any liberal ever support ralph?? Because, though his tactics may be wrong, his issues and stances are brilliant and right.

[jobycom]

63. Again, how is this not an issue?

Nader needs to learn this, too. It doesn't matter one damn bit whether a candidate has the right position on the majority of issues if he is fighting against any attempt to move towards his damn issues. The way a candidate runs is every bit as much an issue as a candidate's positions on any given subject. And often the way a candidate runs is MORE important than their purity on an issue. Purity usually makes bad leadership, for exactly the reasons Ralph is showing now. Purity makes one unwilling to work with others, and thus it prevents anything from being accomplished.

THAT is the issue. I watched Democrats support Reagan because Carter wasn't liberal enough. I watched Democrats support Bush because Ann Richards wasn't liberal enough. Purity costs us more than compromise ever has. Nader has cost us more than Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman combined. THAT is an issue, and I am sure going to focus on it as long as Nader makes it an issue.

When Nader stops whining against the Dems and for the Repubs, especially on something his guys do, too, then we can have a discussion on Nader's positions on other issues.

[mstrsplinter326]

67. An issue without solution

There is no good that can come out of fighting nader through curses and insults.

This gets really old but: If you want to defeat the liberal 3rd party movement (Green, Nader, whatever), STEAL THEIR ISSUES AND MAKE THEM YOUR OWN.

If you want to spend your time harassing Nader when you have it in your power to defeat him instead, that's fine. But don't expect the the "looney left" (as many DUers like to call us) to follow.

[Liberal Veteran]

71. Nader willfully allows himself to be used to divide the democrats...

...including taking money and signatures from them to get on the ballot.

They aren't doing it because they support his views. They aren't doing it because they plan to vote fore him.

Worse, he lashes out at previous real supporters for no longer supporting him as though he's ENTITLED to their support.

What can you say about that?

Is he really trying to do good anymore? If he allows himself to be used as a tool by the republicans, why do you defend him?

[mstrsplinter326]

76. I said liberals

I cannot claim to speak for conservatives who support Nader, since I am not one. Please don't ask me to represent them.

"he lashes out at previous real supporters for no longer supporting him as though he's ENTITLED to their support."

Sounds like every DUer I've ever told I am not voting for Kerry, as if Kerry is entitled to my vote, since he is not bush. Funny how, when the tables are turned things start to get a less black and white...

[Liberal Veteran]

81. It's your vote. You are entitled to use it as you will.

Don't expect me to respect you for your choice however. Knowing when to compromise and when to take a stand is a sign of maturity.

I think given the last 4 years the meme that the two parties are just alike has been all but shattered.

Your mileage may vary. I consider Nader to be an active opponent to my party and I refuse to play nice with his petulant persecution complex any longer.

[mstrsplinter326]

83. Then ignore nader, or better yet defeat him

By stealing his thunder! Take away the reason anyone votes for him at all. He raises issues that are ignored by the democratic party in the name of corporate funding and swing voters.

The majority of America is liberal, if the DLC would integrate the green party platform planks with resonable plans to implement those planks, Nader would be left on the side of the road with his jaw on the ground collecting Democratic Dust.

If that's not what you want, then do you just yearn for the thrill of the fight?

[Liberal Veteran]

87. Yawn....sweetheart, change in America is gradual, not instantaneous.

There is a certain kind of inertia to the political landscape of this country.

It's steering a ship through molasses. If you want change course you have to make change gradual. The notion that we can simply turn everything your way is in a matter of one election is the kind of thinking that one expects from Veruca Salt, not someone who truly seems to understand the political landscape of America.

We are not on opposite sides, but the fact is the republicans are steering our country to shores fascism and sadly, a good portion of the voting public (which is the minority of those eligible in the country) is oblivious to this.

Try to put someone gives the appearance of being too much one way or the other on the political spectrum is great way to turn off those who really can't be pigeonholed politically.

That's a fact of life I have learned.

[mstrsplinter326]

90. Fortune telling

I see the future:

Democrats to liberals:
2008: This year is too close to build a third party and/or adopt their issues.
2012: This year is too close to build a third party and/or adopt their issues.
2016: This year is too close to build a third party and/or adopt their issues.
2020: This year is too close to build a third party and/or adopt their issues.
2024: This year is too close to build a third party and/or adopt their issues.
2028: This year is too close to build a third party and/or adopt their issues.

2032: After decades of giving into the facists and trying to fight neo-cons by adopting their policies and pandering to swing voters, all mainstream opposition has been crushed. Martial Law is instituted to fight the war on nouns (drugs, terror, free thought). No one ever votes again.

Of course it takes time to turn the ship around, but when you're heading for an ice burg, you might yawn. I'm banking hard and pushing the engines full blast the other direction.

[Liberal Veteran]

94. As a wise man once said.....

You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes well you just might find
You get what you need

[mstrsplinter326]

95. That's all good and well

But you are fighting for what you need.
What do you get then?
Half of what you need?

[jobycom]

73. So, if we want to defeat Bush

quit complaining about him and become like him?

No thanks. Nader is the enemy. The more you give in to Nader, the more he'll demand. It's not about issues with him, it's about his ego, and that will never be satisfied.

I'll attack him just as I attack Bush. If we had all been running around making doe-eyes at Nader's maniacal rantings for the last three years he'd have more supporters, not fewer, and our goals-- some of which he CLAIMS are his goals-- would be further out of reach.

You don't defeat someone by agreeing with them or telling them how pretty they are.

[mstrsplinter326]

80. Your goal is not to win but to defeat nader - that's unbelievable

Nader is the enemy.
RED Terror Alert.
You are either with us or with them.
Every thing is in black and white.
Do not question the DLC, they are fighting the war.

Sounds like 1984

Your so deemed "Maniacle Ravings": http://www.gp.org/platform/2000/gpp2000.txt

Bet you've never read them with an open mind.

[belle]

92. No; our goal is to win, period. If Nader gets in the way, well,

that's his problem, or at least it should be. He's trying to fuck up the entire thing AGAIN for his own weird reasons, which become more and more apparently nothing to do with ideals and everything to do with his own ego. He's demonstrated that he can't lead; he won't follow; so he needs to get out of the way. Now.

[mstrsplinter326]

93. Again and again

You have the opportunity to defeat him, but your rage makes it impossible to see past the fight down the clear cut path the end goal: Quality of life up, Bush out.

It's not even that you can't see the path, it's that you wont even look.

[Liberal Veteran]

96. And voting for Nader is going to remove Bush from office?

Not hardly.

[mstrsplinter326]

98. Did I ever say I'd vote for Nader. Please stop me if I did

Pandering the quality of life issues of the 98% of americans who control less than 50% of this countries money will get Bush out of office, and will have added benefits as well.

But, as I imagine Kerry is about to prove, you can probably also beat Bush by pandering to the swingvoters (who usually make up about 6% or less of every poll) and by stepping lightly around big business.

Which one do you want, winning & quality of life or winning and stepping lightly?

[Liberal Veteran]

99. Oh, I'm sorry. Your active defense of him...

...coupled with you statement you would not vote for Kerry just kinda led me in that direction.

So basically, you are just looking for an argument?

[mstrsplinter326]

100. A real solution

Kerry's a temporary solution who's not exactly benign. It's time to take this country out of the hands of wealthy white males. They have common histories, priorities and sometimes ways of doing business.

Kerry's better than bush; You're willing settle for good enough. The problem is, when you always settle for good enough, is anything ever really good enough? Of course not.

"So basically, you are just looking for an argument?"

-Typical dem v. repuk thinking: 'there are only two choices' (in this instance: Kerry/Nader, as if Nader was the only 3rd party candidate). Wrong, there are many choices better than either one.

[jobycom]

107. So you want to win without defeating the people running against you?

Odd strategy. Do you feel that way about Bush? You want to win but not defeat Bush.

I ain't the one seeing things in black and white. Nader positions himself opposite the Demcorats. The Democrats have to defeat him to win, just as the have to defeat Bush to win. Does Nader want to make a positive contribution? Then drop out and back the Democrats. Or better yet, retire-- he's just a parody of himself, anyway. He's convinced himself he's right to the point where he doesn't notice the world outside his own mental constructs.

[mstrsplinter326]

115. If your goal is to beat the other guys

Based on their shortcomings instead of campaigning on your candidate's qualities then what does that say about your candidate?: They are just better than the other guys.

Shouldn't you send out a message that your candidate is the best and use that as a tool to beat the other guys. This just shows that Kerry's support is drawn from the fact that he isn't bush or Nader, not from his own qualifications.

"Nader positions himself opposite the Demcorats."

Not black and white? You just stated that there is either with the Democrats or opposite them, and no where else.

P.S. I am not defending Nader (read other posts, please), I am simply making a point that the way to beat Nader is not to bash him and his supporters. It makes us sound like a bunch of witch hunters.

[aden_nak]

35. Attention Ralph Nader:

You are now being quoted on FOX NEWS. Have you figured out that you're on the wrong side yet, you pompous son of a bitch?

[sniffa]

newsmax broke the story

[MadHound]

40. It is funny to see all of the nice, upstanding Democrats here

Proving Nader's point, and then some. "Although he's no fan of Republicans, the GOP "don't whine and carp like the Democrats," Nader said" Case in point: All the posts upthread, and probably the majority downthread(at least those not attacking me).

You folks agree with the man's platform, but attack like rabid pit bulls when he dares to exercise his right as an American to run for office. Hell, do you folks even realize that there are going to be 20-30 different tickets running for President this fall? Why aren't you going after them?

Instead of trashing the man with petty name calling and childish insults, try acting like grown-ups and attack him on the issues. Oh, that's right, you can't, you actually agree with his issues:eyes:

And he has a point about more Democrats voting for Bush in '00 than for him. In Florida, 198,000 registered Dems and 397,000 self described liberals were pissed as hell about Gore's backing of off-shore oil drilling in the Gulf, so they decided to double screw Gore and voted for Bush.

And even your vaunted DLC god Al From didn't blame Nader for Gore's loss in Florida. He sent out exit pollsters during the election, and found out that if you subtracted Nader out of the Florida equation, Bush wound up getting more votes! Things that make you go Hmmmm.

This all sounds like some serious sour grapes that Nader is calling the current political situation for what it is, the two party/same corporate master system of government. Well perhaps it is time for you to wake up before it is too late. The time for being uber partisan is over, the time to stand up for what is right and decent in this country is here. Continuing to play the partisan game is simply going to give us a kinder gentler facism. Instead what we need to do is chuck both parties, since both are hopelessly corrupted with corporate lucre.

Nader speaks the truth, and I realize that the truth can be a hard thing to hear, especially when one has dedicated your life to a party or cause. But we had damn well better start listening, otherwise we WILL be serfs in a real one party facist government.

[Liberal Veteran]

42. Oh, please. Nader has been whining like spoiled brat for months.

Some of us are just sick and tired of his bullshit and aren't afraid to say it anymore.

Do I have to spell it out for you that Nader is becoming a fucking kook?

[MadHound]

54. And Democrats have been whining about Nader's two percent of the vote

Since December of '00. If I was Nader, I would be a little pissed off too. And how is Nader becoming a kook? Are you saying that he is promoting issues that are crazy? These are the same issues that are affirmed here on a daily basis, so obviously people agree with him. If anything, Nader's ongoing candidacy might force the Democratic party a bit further leftward, if the party bosses would pay attention. And from all appearances, the rank and file Democrats would like to see the party go a bit more left. This is the same strategy the Socialists used during FDR's first re-election, and it forced FDR to adapt Social Security and Unemployment Insurance. Are those bad things? Nader is just using an old play from the back of the play book. If you wish to neutralize Nader, stick a couple of his issues into the Democratic platform.

But noooo, we'd rather whine and carp and call him names, thus proving his point. Good job!

[chimpy the poopthrower]

61. That two percent of the vote...

...arguably turned the tide in more than one key state. Look at Wisconsin for one.

But that's not the issue here. He is falsely suggesting that Democrats have broken the law when it is his people who broke the law in AZ. Democrats merely sought to see that the law was upheld.

[MadHound]

69. Perhaps friend, but what was even more influential in those key states

Were the many, many Democrats who decided to vote for Bush instead of either Gore or Nader. Why aren't you taking them to task? Instead, the party feels they must be coddled and wooed, but God help the leftist who steps out of bounds:eyes: Sorry friend, but this insane ever rightward rush towards the center is a losing strategy, and will destroy the party that leaves it's base, it's core in the dust.

And you really really don't want to get into broken election laws, either for this campaign, or past campaigns. Remember the old adage about glass houses. The Democrat's walls are looking mighty transparent right now.

[Liberal Veteran]

62. Maybe when I decide to run for office, like Nader, I'll parse my words...

...and sugarcoat my opinions.

But that day ain't today.

This democrat has NEVER acused Nader of costing us the 2000 election.

However, lately has been ACTIVELY working against my party of choice and behaving like a spoiled petulant child about it recently, even going so far as to attack his former supporters for seeing him for the shrill, egotistical ANCHOR that he has become.

Not to put too fin a point on it, but he has become an enemy to my party and is working to undermine and I REFUSE to play nice anymore while he goes around playing into the hands of the Republicans to undermine our chances this November.

[jobycom]

45. How he conducts a campaign and what he says about us

IS an issue.

As for agreeing with his issues, I don't agree that Bush should be re-elected, I don't agree that the Democrats whine, I don't give props to the Republicans for ANYTHING, and not one damn person on this thread ASIDE FROM YOU said anything at all about the 2000 election.

No one is whining, we are flaming his Republican ass.

[MadHound]

60. What is he saying about you. The truth?

The truth hurts sometimes.

"No one is whining, we are flaming his Republican ass." Semantics friend, whining, flaming, same difference, you are using baseless insults and innuendo instead of debating the issues.

And no, hyperbole aside, Nader doesn't wish to see Bush re-elected. Besides, was it Nader who voted to support Bush's IWR? Or Bushe's Patriot Act? Or Bush's NCLB? No, that all falls on the shoulders of John Kerry friend.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

68. "Watergate" implies Dems broke the law. Nader's the one who broke the law.

In AZ. His people broke the law when collecting sigs. Democrats challenged that. And now Nader is lying.

[MadHound]

72. Sorry firend, those were alligations in AZ, not convictions

And the Democratic party, in fine democratic tradition:eyes:, is denying the man a place on the ballot, in a electoral system that is heavily weighted towards two parties and two parties only. Nader didn't contest the AZ lawsuit because quite frankly he can't afford to, once again money trumps all.

And yes, it sounds to me like the Democrats are pulling some shenanigans with old Ralph. But unlike some around here, I'll presume they're innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW, not an internet chat board.

[NNN0LHI]

86. What convictions are you talking about friend? This was no criminal case

A judge decided Nader had not qualified to be on the ballot in AZ. What part of not qualified do you not understand, friend?

Don

[MadHound]

88. It was stated in post 68 that Nader broke the law

I simply pointed out that Nader hadn't been convicted of breaking any laws. Nader withdrew from the lawsuit(since he didn't have endless corporate money like the Dems) brought by the AZ Democrats, and thus the judge decided he wasn't qualified to be on the ballot. It was a capitulation to the overwhelming Democratic money, not an admission of wrongdoing.

Being convicted is a pre-requisite to having broke the law. I was pointing out to the poster that Nader had been convicted of nothing.

[jobycom]

78. Nader is an issue

And THAT truth seems to escape his sycophants. He's an opponent of the Democrats and liberalism. Call it whining if that makes you hard, but then you have to call his ranting whining, too. THAT's not semantics.

And yes, for all practical purposes, Nader DID vote for IWR, and the Patriot Act, and to invade Iraq, and everything else Bush did, because he actively campaigned for Bush. Whether he cost Gore the election is a silly question without answer, but that he campaigned for Bush is simple truth. The man praised Bush's tax cuts and corporate giveaways in the Wall Street Journal after Bush wqas elected, for crying out loud (March 2001, look it up).

You can't get more pro-Bush than that. What Bush did, Nader voted for and encouraged others to vote for. Even if some people are too naive to understand a two party system, Nader gets it. He just doesn't care.

[MadHound]

85. You are funny friend, much too funny

An opponent of the Democratic party, yes, I'll give you that. Quite frankly I think the Democratic party needs a good challenge from the left, either to drive them back towards their liberal base, or onto the dustbin of history. However to say that the man is an opponent of liberalism is like 'Pugs accusing liberals of being enemies of the state! Have you read Ralph's platform? What the man wants to do? Hell, it is ten times more liberal than anything the Democrats have put out for decades.

And how you can say that Nader voted for anything that came up in the Senate is simply put, pure baseless hyperbole. Nader wasn't in the Senate, he didn't vote for the issues, in fact he spoke out against the IWR, the Patriot Act, and Bush. Yet your man Kerry did the opposite, rolling over and peeing on himself like a dog, so anxious was he to get in line behind Bushco.

Your misrepresentaion of Nader's co-authored piece in the WSJ is laughable friend. He was measuredly praising Bush's proposed budget, one that offered a glimmer of hope of cutting back on corporate welfare(something the corporate whores at the DLC dare not touch). Even the Socialists found Nader's move to be a good, liberal move<http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/nad-m30.shtml> But hey, any misrepresentation of Ralph is a good one, eh.

And no, we do fully understand a two party system. That's the whole problem, we understand it all to well. Sad to say, it has devolved into the two party/same corporate master system of government. Wake up friend, we are in the Second Gilded Age. And much like the first one, it matters not what party you are in, but which corporation you whore yourself out to. Understand that?

[jobycom]

106. Learn to read

It was quite clear what I meant about Nader voting for war. To me, he is just as guilty as Bush. As for Kerry and the IWR, read that, too. Once past your inane hyperbole, what you'll discover is that the IWR was an attempt to limit Bush. Bush was claiming he had the authority to go to war in Iraq ithout consulting Congress of the UN. The IWR was an attempt to require him to go to the UN. It did. It also gave him Congressional approval if he followed certain steps, but he would have gotten that from the Republicans anyway. Learn a little-- no, learn a lot-- about politics, maybe you'll understand Nader a little better.

As for the two party system, you clearly don't understand it, if that's what you see. All systems are ultimately two party systems, ours just forms its coalitions in the primaries. The fact that Nader is too weak to even have a voice in that is his fault, not some divine corporate conspiracy against him and his three followers.

[MadHound]

118. Learn to comprehend friend.

Nader didn't campaign for Bush in '00, in fact he campaigned AGAINST both Bush and Gore. You blast me for using hyperbole, while using it yourself, virtually in the same sentence. Give me a break, please.

And you must be dizzy from all of that spinning if you truly think that the IWR was an attempt to limit Bush. Puhleeze friend, slow down and take a look at reality. IWR was pretty much a blank check for war. You knew it, I knew it, virtually everybody sending messages to the Hill knew, hell, millions upon millions both here and around the world knew it. You are being disingenous at best by trying to spin it as "an attempt to limit Bush". You set limits friend by saying NO. Of course I understand why you're doing this, after all, Kerry helped bring us the horror of the Iraqi war. But you would do your psyche good if you would look at the truth head on instead of trying to spin it out of partisan loyalties.

And yes, I understand the two party/same corporate master system of government that we have all to well. I have dealt with and lived in the belly of the beast for over thirty years. And I also understand how the two parties work together in order to shut out any other voices. Well, sooner or later, they too will go on the dustbin of history. Money can buy you a government, buy it cannot prevent the uprising of outraged citizens who want their government back.

[CWebster]

People never change

The mob nailed Christ to a cross too.

[jobycom]

53. They also hung Mussolini

Once they figured out he was full of shit.

[CWebster]

58. At least they figured it out for themselves

rather than having Fox news instruct them.

[jobycom]

66. Now you lost me

A minute ago you're comparing Nader to Christ, now you are claiming his opponents learn to dislike Nader because of FOX? FOX is propping the man, not cutting him down.

Like the crowd that hung Mussolini, one day everyone will catch on.

[CWebster]

113. Nader spent his entire life fighting and defending the citizen

against the likes of Fox news.

Today I heard that Kerry wants to broaden faith based charitable enterprise. Another day, another reason that makse it that more difficult to vote for Kerry...."one day everyone will catch on".

[bagnana]

59. ???

I believe Christ took the money changers to task -- he didn't pocket their cash and then get mad and accuse people of persecution for calling him on it.

[mstrsplinter326]

56. A shred of light among the clueless...

I don't agree with Nader running this year, but the man is for sure brilliant, and has many points that the democrats need to either encompass or expect to lose the liberal vote.

If they F me one more presidential term I am done voting for those swing vote courters.

Go ahead have your precious swing voters, see what they mean to you when you lose your base because you couldn't come up with enought balls to even consider Universal Health Care or any other piece of the liberal agenda.

[AndyTiedye]

102. We DID Try to do Universal Health Care Last Time We Were In Power

It was practically the first thing Clinton tried to do.
The boll weevils in Congress reamed him and pilloried Hillary for it.

Kerry has advocated the same thing, though there is no chance of
getting it through with a Republican House, let alone a Republican
Congress.

[mstrsplinter326]

116. Clinton did a lot of good things

Too bad most of them were on his last day in office.

The democrats need to grow a spine or the repukkks will ride rough-shot over them forever.

[MadHound]

119. Phpppt! A watered down, milque toast sop of a bill

That is what Clinton tried to do, and he didn't even put the full weight of his power and influence behind that! Instead trotted Hillary out to do the heavy lifting, and then hung her out to dry when the going got tough.

In fact, when the going got tough on a lot of things, Clinton folded. Gays in the military, UHC, hell, I think that the only thing he actually truly fought for was keeping his ass from getting impeached. On the bread and butter issues, like outsourcing, media conglomeration, welfare, the widening gap between the rich and the rest of us, Clinton was a good little corporate puppet.

Face it, if Clinton ran for office back in the sixties or earlier, he would have to do it as a moderate Republican. Do you think that a real Democrat would actually say that "the era of big government is over" and mean it?:eyes:

[Mithras61]

65. Normally I don't respond to Nader articles...

but this time I think it deserves a little bit of truth injected into it. Nader's complaint(s) are basically that the Dems are using illegal manouvers to keep him off the ballot in several states, and that the Dems are whining about his candidacy.

Basically, the challenges that have kept Nader off the ballots are legal challenges to his being on those ballots. If he doesn't like it, he's free to fight it out in court, but the courts have upheld the Dem charges (at least so far).

As to Dems whining about him being on the ballot, the only people I've heard say this outside of this board are a few point outs to some web sites and some news programs claiming that Dems are behind the effort to convince Nader to not run. I haven't seen any citations of anyone in the DNC or of the Dem candidates or anyone with any real pull in the Dem party that could be verified.

If Ralph can produce some evidence that the Dems are behind any sort of illegal sabotage of his campaign, I'd like to see it. If not, he should quit "whining and carping" and get his campaign in gear! I've heard at least 10 times as much from his so-called campaign about how Dems are sabotaging it than I have about what he stands for (other than that he stands for Dems & 'pukes being two sides of the same coin, I haven't heard a thing from Ralphie-boy). Maybe he ought to get a message...

[MadHound]

77. Gee, maybe if he was getting that fine corporate lucre

That the Democrats whore themselves out for, he could afford to both challenge those lawsuits AND get his message out into the media. But since he is running a shoestring budget, he cannot afford to do such. Thus, he gets his jabs in where he can, and takes what shots present themselves. And if you had been paying attention the past three years, you would see that not only is Nader going after Bush(even back when all the Dems, including Kerry, were rolling over for the boy-king), but he has a message, and it is quite a good one. In fact, it his message and issues are ones that most Democrats would agree with. But since it has Nader's name on it, it is verbotten. I guess the Democrats would rather play corporate whore for another four years.

[Mithras61]

89. Do you want to get nasty, or do you want to debate the "issue"

that this thread is supposedly about?

1) I HAVE been paying attention, and Nader hasn't said anything that I've been able to hear unless I specifically go looking for him.

2) I'm a Dem. I follow Dem politicians, and support those whose positions I agree with. Currently I have a 95% agreement rate with Kerry, so I support him. There are only a couple of things I don't agree with Kerry on, so during the primaries, I supported the candidates that I had a HIGHER agreement rating with. Kerry won. Now I'm working to get Kerry to move left. I don't have much time for listening to people whining about things like whose campaign took corporate money. The unfortunate fact is that as things currently stand, if you want to run a successful or even competetive campaign nationwide, you have to have big $. I don't particularly like it, but until we can get public financing of campaigns, it's the system we have. If you don't like it, you can either work from outside (like Nader & Buchanan), or you can work from inside, like Kucinich, Dean & Kerry. Which method seems to be working better right now?

3) I don't think the Dems are the be-all, end-all solution to everything bad in this country, since they seem to have their own fair share of issues. I work inside my party to try and correct the issues that I have with them, though, instead of abandoning them when they move away from positions I support.

4) Whining about getting kicked off the ballot for illegal activities while gathering signatures isn't one of the things I do, and I don't support ANYONE doing it. If this is how Nader wants to run his campaign, that's up to him, but I don't want to hear him carping & whining about it when he gets nailed for it. The dems didn't break into his headquarters to steal his plans. They sent a worker, who was welcomed into the Nader fold. When the worker found out about illegal activities, he took the info away with him. What's illegal about this? NOTHING! How does this compare to Watergate? IT DOESN'T!

5) Nader may or may not have a message, but the only news coverage he gets doesn't convey that, because all he ever talks to reporters about is how the Dems are at fault for his campaign not getting off the ground. I know more about the Libertarian positions than I do about Nader's because when they get news time, they talk up their position! Taking jabs at your opposition is fine, but maybe you ought to make sure there's some substance to your allegations before you start taking jabs...

6) Nader isn't the only one who didn't kowtow to Bush. Dennis Kucinich also refused to do so, and even worked within the party to try and get some other Dems to follow along or lead the parade themselves. He was my choice for this and other reasons. Nader isn't the only anti-Bush choice.


Now, if Nader wants to run a campaign, I'd be happy to listen and judge him by his policy positions. Since he seems mostly to grab the spotlight to bash Repubs & Dems alike, making no distinction between them, and not providing any useful information on his positions, I've been forced to judge him by that. If he isn't getting the news coverage that he thinks he ought, maybe he should focus on that instead of blaming the Dems for bashing him. Repubs, Dems, Greens & Libertarians all seem to get pretty good coverage of their positions. Maybe Ralph's problem is his method. Maybe he isn't effective at getting his message out. Maybe the media hates him. Maybe he's just a cranky, tired old man. I don't know, and don't pretend to have answers for him, but I can tell him that attacking Dems for playing by the current set of rules won't help him win, and may be actually costing him support.


And now we all know why don't usually waste my time posting in Nader threads. FWIW, you aren't going to change many minds by attacking folks for their beliefs, and you sure won't win any by accusing people here of not paying attention when it's YOUR candidate that has the problem. Most of us have problems/issues of our own that we follow and work on, and aren't here because we're Greens or Independants, but because we're Democrats (that IS part of the name, y'know), and would prefer to see the party support our positions a little more effectively.

[Liberal Veteran]

97. Bravo! Bravo!!!!

I bow humbly before your eloquence and logic on this.

I passed eloquent about a month ago and now have a visceral reaction to Nader's antics.

[MadHound]

101. Gee, I thought I was addressing the issues in the article

Let's go through them again, shall we.

1. Nader is stating that the Democrats are using obstructionist tactics to keep his name off of the ballot, both in AZ and elsewhere. Judging from both past performances(when the Dems teamed up with the 'Pugs to keep Nader out of the '00 debates) and current actions(having their lawyers challenge every single technicality, backed by limitless campaign cash, cash derived from corporate donations), I would say Nader has a point. What, the Dems can't stand a little competition from the left? I noticed that in '80 and '92 the Dems didn't challenge those third party campaigns. Why trample people's right to choose now? Because it threatens their precious, but neglected base.

2. Nader is stating that even though more Dems voted for Bush than for him in '00, even though he received only 2 percent of the vote, even though in the contested state of Florida he drew more 'Pug votes than Dems, he is being treated like the anti-Christ amongst Democrats. And judging by the posts here, and reports in the press, he has a valid point. And as I learned long ago in my debate classes, the last resort if you can't attack or debate the issues is to attack the person. The Democrats are applying that maxim here, and really, it looks very classless.

Now let me address your points:

1. Gee, you think that there might be a reason you can't find anything Nader is saying in the mainstream media? Democrats complain about how corporations control and censor the media everyday, yet you somehow expect a man who is the arch-enemy of corporate rule to somehow get his message through into mainstream, corporate media? Set the bar a little higher friend, Nader can still touch it using a pogo stick.

2. Good for you friend, I've been working, voting and contributing to Democratic candidates since I was a small child, up to and including the '00 campaign. And look what all of our work has wrought. A Democratic party drifting ever rightward, that is firmly in the pocket of big business, that had a president who pushed such fine Republican legislation as NAFTA, welfare "reform", the '96 Telecom Act, and ever increasing survailance of US citizens, amongst other atrocities. Now we are fielding a candidate who is for continuing the war in Iraq, is firmly behind the Patriot Act, who supported Bush by voting for NCLB(which is bankrupting not only my school district, but thousand of districts across the country), and yet still call himself a Democrat. See why I'm a little frustrated? A little pissed? If a party isn't going to represent me or my views, why should I continue to support them? I'm not asking for everything, I not even asking for a lot, I'm just asking for a bone or two every four years AND I'M NOT EVEN GETTING A SPLINTER!

As far as corporate cash goes friend, that is THE issue in this country if we wish to survive as a free, democratic country. Do you realize that in the '00 election cycle, over forty large corporations donated at least $100,000 or more to both the Dems and 'Pugs? With Phillip Morris topping the list at 2 million plus apiece? This is to promote democracy friend, this is buying influence with both paries in order to insure their pet projects are addressed no matter who wins. Same thing goes on with large individual donors too, the Carnegies, Mellons, and Gates of our country. Our government is being sold to the highest bidder, while our democracy and freedoms are sold out from beneath us. That is why it is urgent that we work for and get publicly financed elections. This is an issue that I am working on in my state(Mo, and the initiative proposition was kept off the ballot in '00 due to a technicality, sound familiar), and one we should all be working on. Otherwise we can kiss government of the people, by the people and for the people goodbye, no matter who wins. Meanwhile, I'm not going to feed the beast, therefore I'm not voting, working for, or contributing to any candidate who takes corporate money. I was a firm Kucinich supporter, but since he is obviously not going to get the nod, I have decided to throw my weight behind the Greens.

3. Working to change things from the inside is a fine and noble course friend, one that I pursued for more than thirty years. Yet instead of my(and thousands upon thousands of others) efforts, the Democratic party continues it's sharp rightward course, all the while becoming ever more corrupted by corporate cash. There comes a time when you realize that nothing you do from the inside is going to make a damn bit of difference, and I have made that realization, and am acting on it. You sound like a fine, moral, intelligent person friend, and I think at some point, probably in the near future, you will come to the same realization. When you do, step outside of the Democratic party, where your views and efforts will be much more appreciated.

4. Sorry friend, but Nader has a point. The Democrats are resorting to underhanded tactics, sending operatives undercover to snitch on Nader's campaign. We didn't tolerate this when Nixon had his Plumbers, why should Nader tolerate this from the Democrats? Or do you endorse the win at all costs snitch culture that this manuever espouses? If so, then I feel sorry for you, for winning at all costs is a terrible frame of mind to be in.

5. Once again, you are blaming Nader for matters that are out of his control. He cannot choose what soundbites get aired, or whether or not the mainstream media is going to be kind to him. And we all know how kind that "liberal" media can be to fellow liberals.

6. Yes, I realize that Kucinich didn't kowtow to Bush, one of the few Dems who actually showed a spine, while Kerry and Edwards were singing halleluha with the amen chorus. That is why I worked for, dontated to, and voted for Kucinich in the primaries. But Kucinich was shut out early on, with the mainstream DLC/DNC Democrats slamming Dennis early and often. So since Dennis is out, I'm going to devote my efforts, money and vote to a party that is more in line with my views, the Greens. If you think that makes me a traitor to the Democratic party, oh well. The Dems stabbed me, you and millions of others in the back long ago. It is only now that some of us are starting to feel the pain, and doing something about it.

I find it rather funny, in a pathetic sort of way, that you wish Nader would run on his issues, that he would somehow, miraclously get his issues out to the public, when the "liberal" media won't air them, and the Democratic party won't allow him(won't even allow him to debate). So thus, we are stuck with sound bites that make him sound like a "cranky, tired old man" Well, with all of the shit that Ralph has put up with, I would be little cranky too.

And you might wish to go reread the rules here at DU. They specifically state that this board is for "progressives of all stripes". Until that changes, I guess we will have to tolerate each other, something that progressives are supposedly good at. Let us hope that it doesn't change friend, for the left doesn't need it's own version of an echo chamber.

And like I stated before, I'm voting Green, for Mr. Cobb. But I don't begrudge Ralph his run. After all, this is still a free country, supposedly, and I believe that getting issues and ideas out into the public is a vital part of a healthy democracy. Too many people are trying to shut that down though, which is a very scary thing.

[TankLV]

109. Your point # 2 is bullshit.

Refer to Dolstein's post #55 below.

So, basically, what you're saying, is that, the CONSERVATIVE, Zell Miller DINO's, who "voted for bush*, should have been courted by the Dems to NOT leave the party? And "Saint Ralphie" would have APPROVED of this?

I don't know of ANY progressive Democratc who voted for any repukes, ever. They just exist in your mind.

In what dream world are you living?

[MadHound]

120. I'm living in reality friend

And doing my research, I would suggest you do the same, and I'll give you a couple of places to get started.

First off, I'm not talking about "progressive Democrats", I'm talking about all Democrats. We are all part of the party, we all count, left, right, and center. Your efforts at trying to parse the meaning of who is a real Democrat is ridiculous on the face of it.

Now then, to a couple of facts. In Greg Palast's book "The Best Democracy That Money Can Buy" he tells of how in Florida, 198,000 registered Dems, and 390,000 self described liberals were so incensed about Gore's stance on off shore drilling in the Gulf, that they decided to double screw Gore by voting for Bush. That is a vastly greater number of Democrats voting for Bush than Democrats who voted for Nader. Go look it up.

In the January '01 issue of Blueprint magazine(the house mag of the DLC) Al From dissected the '00 election. In this article, From stated "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race." In other words, Nader actually HELPED Gore in the Florida race by siphoning off independent and Republican votes that would have otherwise gone to Bush. <http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2919>

So friend, I would suggest you go do some research, and come back with some real sources to back yourself up with. Spewing baseless accusactions and assertions when you have nothing to back your arguement up with is poor form, and only succeeds in making you look foolish

[TankLV]

123. And spewing nonsense as logic to make a point proves how foolish

your argument is.

What I stated is fact.

What you try to claim is absurd.

I suggest you take your own advice and see just who those "democrats" are who would vote for any repuke.

Sure aren't the pregressive, liberal ones, my "friend".

[MadHound]

124. Well friend, if what you stated is fact,

Then where, oh where, are your sources to back it up?

I've given you two QUITE credible sources, yet all you are relying on is whatever fantasy you think should be. " Liberals only vote third party or Democrat. Conservatives always vote for Republicans or third party. Never the twain shal meet." Simplistic, black and white thinking leaving out a whole scope of people who cross over to vote for the opposite party because they VOTE FOR THAT PERSON, NOT THE PARTY! I myself, who is far to the left end of the registered Democratic spectrum, voted for a Republican Congressman. Why, because the Democrat was a corrupt good old boy who had been in the House way too long. Same principle applies with my step-father, a hard shell Baptist, dyed in the wool registered Republican, who is going to vote for Kerry for the simple reason that he feels Bush is too much of a borrow and spend President.

How much work have you done in politics? How many campaigns have you worked in? Do you really have any clue as to what causes people to vote how they do? Or are you simply one of those persons who think they know what goes on in this world simply sitting in front of a TV or computer screen and sucking up pap like it was manna? I've worked on political campaigns(mostly Dem, some Green), for thirty plus years. And the one thing I've noticed is that it is a minority of people, even people who are affiliated with one party or another, who vote a straight party ticket each and every single election. By far, the vast majority of voters take a look at the person running, and how well that person's issues resonate with their own personal vision of government, and cast their vote accordingly.

A stark, glaring example, the Reagan Democrats. A monumental shift of demographics that is still affecting politics today. Likewise with the massive abandoning of the Democratic party by the Dixicrats. Not only did that swing the Democrats to the left in the '60s, it swung the Republicans to the right, hence, they wound up with a string of much more conservative leaders, starting with Barry Goldwater in '64.

Then there is the fact that corporate America is tying both parties tighter to it's business suit through the massive corruption of rampant campaign donations. Instead of a particular party representing a particular set of issues and constituents, corporate corruption of the election process has led both major parties to put the wishes of big business and big money ahead of all of us, D or R. Thus the moniker of Dem or 'Pug is becoming ever less meaningful, as candidates of both parties bow down to the will of corporate lucre. If you wish too read more about this subject, check out "Wealth and Democracy" by Kevin Phillips, it is a real eye opener.

Politics isn't black or white, either or proposition. It is flowing, dynamic, who is your friend today will be your foe tomorrow, and we will wait and see what next week brings. People will turn fickle on the least little thing, and Lord knows, now that any candidate running for an office above dog-catcher is put under a media microscope, and any little thing will become a big thing. Read you history, learn from it. And when you find some real live bona fided sources that are credible and back up your position, look me up. Until then, you're just blowing smoke. I know the answer friend, I've even given you some places where you can find the truth for yourself. But I'm not going to spoon feed you because you are too lazy to go digging. This isn't TV friend, its real life.

[KissMyAsscroft]

44. Gee Ralph, Wonder WHY!!!!!!

"Although he's no fan of Republicans, the GOP "don't whine and carp like the Democrats,"


> Maybe they aren't whining because they are funding your campaugn you dipshit!

[swag]

46. said it before and i'll say it again

fuck that guy

[Liberal Veteran]

47. I seriously believe Nader has a messianic/persecution complex.

And his rants and lashing out at people who used to support him (including Michael Moore) are becoming more shrill by the day.

He's a needs a psychologist, not a campaign.

[jobycom]

49. "it could be a mini-Watergate, possibly."-- actual quote

Man, he's either lost his certainty, his assertiveness, or his belief that he's immune from a libel suit.

[dolstein]

55. So you're blaming us for not getting Zell Miller's vote?

Could Ralph POSSIBLY be as stupid as that remark suggests? The number of Democrats who abandoned in the ticket because they thought it was too liberal was much larger than the number who defected because they thought it was too conservative.

It's awfully rich of Nader to blame Gore's loss of conservative Democrats I'd be willing to bet that any effort by Gore to placate these conservative Democrats would not have met with Nader's approval.

[WI_DEM]

57. but he doesn't acknowledge how the GOP is funneling money

and workers to help get him on ballot. I'm fast losing respect for St. Ralph.

[NJmaverick]

70. Nader is complete an utter slime

Nothing but another employee of bush!

[fertilizeonarbusto]

74. Aw, shut the fuck up, already

n/t

[Neshanic]

84. Can't Ralph just go to his happy place?

[laylah]

75. Although I couldn't get past

the first few lines, all I can say is CHENEY HIM...loser, unAmerican cheneying loser! :mad:

Jenn

[robbedvoter]

79. Starting to sound like the crazy person we know he is

Why is he getting so much more attention than the other fringe candidates?

[GoddessOfGuinness]

82. Speaking of whining...

How much $ is he getting from the repigs to whine about Democrats?

Jackass.

[FredScuttle]

91. The funny thing is...

I can't even get angry at St. Ralph anymore....he's regressed into such a pathetic figure, I almost feel sorry for him.

My ire is directed, though, at the potential Nader voter.

Hey Nader voters - are you fucking stupid or insane? Which is it?

[gatlingforme]

103. We should have done this in 2000. If Nader can't stand the heat

he should ...... blah blah blah, I wonder what kind of Pres he would make if he is whinning about this?

[struggle4progress]

104. Ok. Nader's nuts. Now can we get back to beating on Boy George? eom

[ronnykmarshall]

108. Ralph, go take a drive in a Covair.

[w4rma]

110. Nader is just nuts. (nt)

[gulliver]

111. Nutty. The man is cracked.

I saw Nader on hardball. The guy acts like he knows he is losing. Desperate, shrill, hollow-eyed freak.

[AlFrankenFan]

112. Ralph Nader, I am saying this to you...

You are a liar, you are a fake, and you are the biggest douche, ever!


***South Park I sincerely apologize for stealing your bit :P

[CWebster]

114. See all the progressives marching in lockstep

championing the centrist Senator(s) who voted to support Republican policies, sought a Republican for a unity ticket and lust after swing voters while shrinking from a liberal identity. Hear them regurgitating all the DLC talking points that target the Left and accuse Nader of being a Republican backed trader.

Hopeless.

[tom_paine]

121. Sweet Christ St. Ralph is a P-I-G- PIG! A Re-Pig to be exact

I believe Ralphie has contempt for the Filthy Little Nobodies he pretends to represent.

Maybe at one time he cared (though I have heard anectodal evidence that he ALWAYS had sneering contempt for those he purported to help), but NOT NOW.

Fuck you, Ralph, I wonder what YOUR CUT of that GOP Dough is?

I am now convinced you are getting it.

[Zorra]

122. Yes.

"I believe Ralphie has contempt for the Filthy Little Nobodies he pretends to represent".

Seems that way to me.

Any "liberal" dumb enough to vote for Ralph almost deserves 4 more years of Bu$h. The thugs are financing Ralph. People work for the company that pays them.