Ralph Nader said Gore's and Kerry's picks would be no better than scALITO

[Proud2BAmurkin]

Who'm I to argue. I'm with you, Nader voters. There's no difference between Ginsburg and scALITO.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. How about Nader for Scotus instead of Alito?

[Kahuna]

2. Ralph Nader is an asswipe. Why does Nader hate America?

:shrug:

[Proud2BAmurkin]

5. Maybe you're not pure enough to appreciate Ralph Nader

Maybe that's it.

[xultar]

12. Purity...ahhh to be so, pure...I wish I could live up to the standards

but I'm only human. :cry:

[Kahuna]

13. Silly me...

:crazy:

[louis c]

82. Nader doesn't hate America

he just hates Democrats.

Ralph (egotist) Nader, the F*cking asshole who gave us Bush.

[FreedomAngel82]

92. Yep

He wrote books published by rightwing support publications and of course he was happy they gave him money. As far as Nader is concerned he can go and Cheney himself.

[Arkana]

3. Well, thanks to you, Saint Ralph, we'll NEVER KNOW, WILL WE?!

Egad, do I hate Ralph Nader.

[pbartch]

145. It is NADERS fault that Bush is President.

Ralph is not a mind reader....he has NO IDEA who Gore or Kerry would have nominated. I really dislike Nader more and more as the months go by.

[depakid]

4. When did he say that?

I'm calling you on that bullshit.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

When he mounted the USA and fucked it into oblivion in 2000

.

[mattclearing]

19. LOL! n/t

[mzmolly]

32. *snort*

I laughed so hard I literally snorted.

Thanks!

:rofl:

[Kahuna]

42. High Five!

:yourock:

[flygal]

83. crude

yet effective.

[Kahuna]

8. He said there wasn't a nickel's worth of difference. Same thing...

Even Ralph must realize that selection of supreme court justices is one of the most important duties of a president. Surely he knew when he ran that he would cause the USSC to be stacked with conservatives for a generation. I'm postitive he knew this.

[depakid]

58. Don't let facts confuse you

First of all, he never said that- the original post is flamebait.

What he DID say- which was, unfortunately VERY TRUE, is that the Dems voted to confirm Scalia, Thomas and Rhenquist- despite what they knew.

And they've now voted for Roberts (despite what they didn't know).

Will Harry Reid (or the rest of the party that up til now has giver the far right everthing that they've asked for) take a stand? Or will they end up selling us all out again?

Time will tell, but I woudn't put any money on it, because thus far, Nader's been right about the Dems (as a whole) every time.

<on edit- "that" being what said was in the original post>

[FreedomAngel82]

93. Anyone into politics knows that

So I put this blame a lot on him.

[Walt Starr]

6. Well, the Dems are getting close to proving Nader right

No filibuster = Nader's right, IMO.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

9. So Gore's and Kerry's nominees would be just like scALITO?

well I'll be

[LittleClarkie]

70. I wonder why Kerry's fixin' to vote against someone after his own heart

if that's the case. Scalito is just like what he woulda picked, doncha know.

Bah.

[wookie294]

16. True

And every Democrat in the Senate voted to confirm Scalia in 1986. :wtf:

[Walt Starr]

18. That one pissed me the hell off

and I nearly left then.

Looks like I should have gone.

[wookie294]

26. It's one big reason I gave $1,500 to Nader in 2004

Yes, 2004.

[Walt Starr]

28. The Democratic Senate is close to pushing me out

We'll see. If they filibuster, there is still hope.

[GreenPartyVoter]

34. I pray they filibuster. I really do. I was afraid we'd end up wishing for

Miers after all. :( But, the Repubs crucified her so it never went to an up or down vote. I think that was their plan along.

[Walt Starr]

37. That one was played wrong.

Wednesday last week would have been a perfect day for Pelosi and several Dem Senators to come to her defense declaring their undying support and demonding an up or down vote.

The Democrats have the strategic forethought of a baboon.

[FreedomAngel82]

95. I think with Miers

it was either, as another poster said, it was either played wrong and not really thought out or she was crucified. I think they were expecting the democrats to fight back on Miers and than they could swing through Alito and go around and claim they were going to smear him etc.
So I think this is why the democrats didn't say anything on Miers but supported her. I wonder if Reid knew.

[wookie294]

45. Agreed

Dems need to filibuster Scalia-lite. Go all the way for once. FIGHT IT. We have nothing to lose. And Bush is in the toilet in the opinion polls. No need to fear the asshole.

[Walt Starr]

47. Problem is, Alito isn't Scalia lite

He makes Scalia look like he's left of liberal!

[JJackFlash]

44. You gave $1,500 to Nader??

You made the repugs very happy with that investment - they gave him money, too.
So tell me, why was Ralphie not on the Green ticket in 2004?
What was his party?

[wookie294]

48. Yep !!

The current state of affairs was bound to happen with, or without, Nader. But Nader merely helped make it happen sooner. Nader lifted the carpet and exposed the maggots and slime underneath -- slime that the two party system wants you to ignore (e.g. legalized bribery). Nader should be commended for waking up alot of sleeping Democrats who don't vote.

[LittleClarkie]

72. Gee, then he had a choice of whether to use your money or the smear vets

How nice.

Hopefully if he has any of it left, he will seek a therapist and get help for his dellusions.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

29. Nearly every rePUKE voted to confirm Breyer and Ginsburg

what's the point?

[JJackFlash]

50. As I told you before ...

SO WHAT??
There would never have been a Scalia nomination with a Democratic president in 1986.

[wookie294]

64. Still waiting for your rebuttal

For 25 years, Democrats have been very accomodative to Republicans. Tip O'Neil used to have beer with Reagan. Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which created today's right wing media. All mainstream Democrats in the Congress voted for the Iraq war. They voted for Scalia and they voted for the recently-passed bankruptcy bill. It's time to send a message to the Dem leadership that the left-wing part of the Democratic Party isn't sitting still anymore. Now, YOU MUST LISTEN TO US ... or continue to be irrelevant in Washington and watch America go down into the shitter.

[FreedomAngel82]

96. Oh yes

All that proves so much that they're no different. :eyes: Oh and if you haven't noticed hon a lot of democrats, such as Kerry again, have come out against the Iraq war and said they were wrong etc. :eyes:

[bottomofthehill]

109. I don't think so

Although Speaker O'Neill may have shared an occasional drink and story with President Reagan, there was no more combative relationship between a President and Speaker than that relationship. Speaker O'Neill fought Reagan on everything

[JJackFlash]

138. All you're doing is helping elect repugnicans

Your earlier statement that "A Democratic president with a Republican Congress could have resulted in a Scalia nomination in 1986" shows an amazing amount of ignorance about politics.
By the time you are satified that the Democrats are doing the right thing we will be $20,000,000,000,000 in debt, we won't have a national park system, we won't have labor unions, and the judiciary will be so stuffed with true believing Federalist Society members that IT WILL NO LONGER BE POSSIBLE TO PASS PROGRESSIVE LEGISLATION.
Please just go away and leave the serious business of politics to people who have a clue.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

128. MUCH different era.

Back then, Congress was expected to be a rubber stamp. We are much, MUCH more partisan now, due entirely to the Republicans being assholes once they took power.

[mzmolly]

36. Gosh Walt, I'd much rather the REPUBLICANS HAD TO FILIBUSTER

OUR NOMINEE! WOULDN'T YOU?

Wake up man. There is A DIFFERENCE. We are either running the country or grasping at straws, and unfortunately, we are in the later position right now.

[Walt Starr]

41. Either we are an opposition party, or we collude with the enemy

The latter is what it appears to be to me, and that means Democrats = Republicans.

I'm being pushed over the edge here. I'm about done. This one will do me in, I'm sure, because the Democrats are cowards.

[mzmolly]

51. Either we are the majority party or the minority party.

Either we are at the mercy of this culture of corruption or we are in the position to change things.

I would expect that Dems WILL filibuster this fool Alito, BUT - it's quite ridiculous to say "If the Dems don't do X, I'll allow another Republican PNAC !@#% to pick more nominees in 4 years?" WTF kind of logic is that Walt?

Did you quit caring about ALL OF THE ISSUES we have to care about?

Jesus Kriste, it's no wonder we friggen lose elections when single issue voters get constipated over ONE issue and let OTHER people suffer because of it.

Support the good Dems and replace the wishy washy ones, but please don't threaten to allow more suffrage if you don't get your way on one issue.

[Walt Starr]

56. If the Democrats do not filibuster this nomination

in my opinion, there is no hope for the Democratic Party and it is time for me to move on.

I'm sorry if you don't like it, but everything I have had to do with the Democratic Party for the past quarter century has been a waste of time, IMO. This single nominee is the crux of everything that kept me voting for Democrats for 25 years. It's now or never. Even if Alito goes through, for that to happen without a fight is unacceptable and will mean that I was never a Democratto begin with because the party I have been loyal to my entire adult life cannot be loyal to me.

Everything, and I do mean everything, hinges ont his single event. To me, this is an up or down vote on whether the Democcratic Party is a viable option any longer. I will jump ship so fast if they do not filibuster it will make their heads spin and will NEVER cast another vote for another Democrtic candidate on any level, even if keeping that vow means showing up at every election and filing a completely blank ballot.

[mzmolly]

67. So Walt the answer is MORE Republicans picking our nominees?

It makes no sense!

Is this THE only reason you support Democrats?

F Poverty!

F PNAC!

F Roe!

F Children!

F Education!

F National Health Care!

F A balanced budget!

F People of Color!

F The minimum wage!

F Unions!


Might I ask to where you'll flee? I hope it's not the party who told you that Dems would choose the same supreme court nominees as Republicans? And, might I also ask if you'll hold the party you plan to flee to, to the same standard of absolute perfection?

Walt, your too good a person to shit on others for your purity. I know you are.

"The differences make a difference in the lives of ordinary people." ~ Paul Wellstone to Ralph Nader when Nader claimed "there is no difference."

Peace

[Walt Starr]

77. We're already there if they do not fight this!

Seriously, if they won't fight this one, they are ALREADY the REpublicans in everything but name.

[mzmolly]

105. You obviously know little about all the issues that make a difference Walt

Study the two platforms, look at history. NO they are NOT Republicans.

I can't believe anyone after the past 4 years would come to that conclusion, especially anyone who considers themselves politically educated.

[FreedomAngel82]

97. Look at reality hon

The democrats have no power. Hello duh. If you don't want to change things and you want the republicans to have power for the rest of our lives than sure. Support Nader for all I care. I'll have people like you to thank for ruining my rights and taking away women's equality in this country. I'm prepared to go and buy my burka now and be a good stepford wife. I'm sure that'll please you.

[Walt Starr]

103. Look at the reality, babe

The Democrats have some power and can use that power. Failure to use that power is to cede that power.

They can filibuster. If they do not, then they have ceded the filibuster to the Republicans.

[mzmolly]

108. Walt, you KNOW the court is ONE of many important issues.

Unless you don't care about anything else.

But, I have to take LocoZ's advice and not waste my time here bitching with people who aren't rational. At this point - I'm sorry, but I don't consider your position one of rationale.

[Walt Starr]

110. I DON'T

As I've been saying, the core reason as to why I have been a Democrat my entire life comes down to this single nomination. If the Democrats betray me on this, I'm done. It's that plain and simple.

[mzmolly]

FEMA, PNAC, SYRIA, IRAQ, IRAN, HEALTH CARE, EDUCATION, POVERTY

CIVIL RIGHTS, PRIVACY, SANITY FOR GAWD SAKES!

Do you want James Dobson having continued input on the nominees or a seperation of Church and state?

As I said, there are many issues to consider, and if Democrats have to think in lock step to please you, your long gone anyhow.

Perhaps you should consider the Republican Party, they are self centered as a whole and quite proud of it? Or maybe Nader will run again in 08? Same thing.

[Walt Starr]

112. All moot points if Alito gets on the court

Every last point you made is meaningless if the Dems don't fight on this one nomination.

[mzmolly]

113. Bologna, Presidents, Congress and the Senate set policy and make

law. The Supreme court did not send our kids into Iraq. The Supreme court did not lie to the American people about why we went their.

I'm done. :hi:

Good luck in your pursuit of perfection. Let me know when you find it.

[Walt Starr]

114. I'm sorry the truth hurts you

but it's still the truth., If the Democrats cannot put up a simple fight against a single nominee, the Democrats will jnot fight for anything.

[mzmolly]

116. Wouldn't it be nice if THEY had to fight our nominees Walt?

That was my first question to you. I suggest you consider it before you pack your bags. I'd much rather Gore were selecting our nominees right now then Bush, you?

I fully expect Democrats will fight, and I expect the regular bitchers here will say "it's not enough." The same bitchers who claim to care so damn much about the supreme court they will risk another Republican Presidency to prove a f-d up point. :eyes:

[Walt Starr]

117. If the Democrats won't fight their nominee this time

then there will never come a time when they will have to fight Democratic nominees.

[mzmolly]

119. Lucky for you then, YOUR battle is over.

:eyes: I suggest your being a *bit* dramatic? If you work to elect Democrats and people like YOU do, we'll have another shot at chosing nominees down the road. If you pack your bags, quit bitching.

[Walt Starr]

120. Nope, not until this thing plays all teh way out

in fact, my battle has just begun after waiting for 25 years.

[mzmolly]

121. Well I'm certain given your hanging on by a thread, you'll have another

*condition* right behind this one.

[Walt Starr]

125. Nope, if they don't fight Alito all the way

I'll sing my opus on DU and be done with it.

[mzmolly]

126. And if they do, you'll find another condition in the near future.

:hi:

[Walt Starr]

129. Wrong again

If they don't fight it, I'm done.

[Don1]

130. I think Walt's point is better than yours.

FEMA -- Mike Brown was first approved in committee. A committee headed by ta-da, Joe Lieberman and with Democrats on board. They all agreed.
PNAC -- Al From is an honorary member.
Syria -- you may have a point. What are the Democrats saying against our reprimanding them for Hariri?
Health Care -- all democrats are not for universal, but most. it's a good point.
Education -- it will not matter if school vouchers are shown to be constitutional by the Supreme Court.
Civil Rights -- Dems voted for the PAtriot Act. Now, the ACLU is tied up in battles with the Court. This is a huge point against your argument, because surely Alito will declare the Act Constitutional in every point.
Privacy -- You gotta be joking, man. Privacy is what Walt is talking about. His point about the Supreme Court is completely relevant here.
Church and State -- Again, you must be joking. Walt is right on with this point, too.

I am certainly going to consider moving right along with Walt, just because his point is more rational than yours. Anyway, I think it is a moot point. I think the Democrats are now ready to filibuster.

[mzmolly]

133. Get your facts straight before you attempt to address my post.

I see you've got the Nader talking points down. Bravo to you! Too bad they don't hold up under rational scrutiny.

FEMA -- Mike Brown was a Bush appointee, and Democrats raised concerns at the time. My guess is you weren't in touch at that time either?

PNAC -- Al From is an honorary member. WTF is an *honorary* member of PNAC? And, WTF does Al From have to do with this conversation? From is a member of a think tank, he does not run the Democratic Party.

Syria -- you may have a point. What are the Democrats saying against our reprimanding them for Hariri? I'm talkin war not "reprimands!" Again, PNAC!

Health Care -- all democrats are not for universal, but most. it's a good point. Gee, thanks - please share which Dems do not support universal health care. :eyes:

Education -- it will not matter if school vouchers are shown to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. Education goes far beyond vouchers sir. It's a matter of funding and priority. Education has not gotten proper funding since Bush left kids behind to give corporate tax breaks. Additionally, student loans were just gutted *again.* So much for poor KIDS getting an equitable education. But, I guess that doesn't matter any more huh?

Civil Rights -- Dems voted for the PAtriot Act. Now, the ACLU is tied up in battles with the Court. This is a huge point against your argument, because surely Alito will declare the Act Constitutional in every point. AFTER 911, AND BEING LIED TO, AND *THEY* MADE SURE IT WAS TEMPORARY RATHER THAN PERMANENT.

Privacy -- You gotta be joking, man. Privacy is what Walt is talking about. His point about the Supreme Court is completely relevant here.
Church and State -- Again, you must be joking. Walt is right on with this point, too. ANYONE WHO CARES ABOUT PRIVACY BETTER BE CERTAIN THAT ANOTHER REPUBLICAN DOES NOT GET TO APPOINT ANY MORE SUPREME COURT NOMINEES.

I am certainly going to consider moving right along with Walt, just because his point is more rational than yours. Anyway, I think it is a moot point. I think the Democrats are now ready to filibuster.

Well, uhm, good riddance buddy. Don't let the door hit you in the ass as they say. I'm sure if the Dems are that close to losing your precious vote, you'll find an excuse to vote for a party who has never had to submit to a democracy before. That way you can be assured you won't disagree on any of their less than perfect votes, because THERE AREN'T ANY.

[Don1]

146. Thanks for being so rude.

Let's look at the facts. I will address the very first one, the Mike Brown issue. You completely made up the following:
"FEMA -- Mike Brown was a Bush appointee, and Democrats raised concerns at the time. My guess is you weren't in touch at that time either?"

It is completely obvious that Bush appointed Brown, but it is a lie to claim Democrats raised concerns at the time. One only needs to look at the rollcall votes to see that they confirmed him overwhelmingly. One also needs to only read the Committee's report on the nomination which good ole Joe Lieberman chaired to see that the Democrats let Bush's crony take charge of FEMA.

You owe me an apology for being wrong on FEMA. After you admit it, then we can get into the technicalities of the next issue.

Please be polite, too, and stop trying to kick me out of my party for thinking critically.

Thank you.

[mzmolly]

147. I was not wrong about Brown. 7 Democrats do not speak for the entire

Party.

Additionally, as we now know, Mike Brown LIED on his resume and he was already in the agency when he was promoted. He claimed to have experience that he did not, and that is what the Democrats on the committee, had at their disposal, at the time they voted.

Further, you are volunteering to leave the Party, I'm not trying to kick you out.

There is a difference between critical thinking and saying "if they don't do X tomorrow, I'm outta here."

Also, I think you had a tone first? But, I did get a bit miffed and you have my apologies. I tire of hearing Nader/Limbaugh talking points on a Democratic discussion board. I think in order to think critically one really has to look at the BIG picture. To few people do that.

[Don1]

151. Nader/Limbaugh?

Limbaugh is a lying sack of crap who by the way endorses Lieberman. In fact they sat next to each other at the 50th anniversary recently for the National Review. Yeah, that neo-con rag and the creators of the lie funded Lieberman's campaign to begin with. It was called BuckPAC. So the phrase should really be "I tire of knowing about Lieberman/Limbaugh apologies to Christo-Fascist right-wing ideologues."

Nader is the opposite of Limbaugh in two ways. (1) He is on the complete opposite side of the political spectrum and (2) he is not a lying pundit. (But apparently, the flamebait op does like lying). The problem with Nader is not that he "stole" some votes from Gore, but instead that Nader could never win in the first place. Nader is there to keep the leftist pressure up, the permanent revolution against the corrupt establishment. He will not win and that is the big picture that you say I do not see. Nader only took enough votes away from Gore such that Gore could barely win. And Gore did actually win. Katherine Harris, the powers that be, and the Supreme Court are really the ones who stole it.

As a Democrat, I see the big picture and I accept Nader's criticism and seek ways for constructive resolutions. Don't accuse me of being an ideological purist with no chance of ever winning and I will not accuse you of being a partisan purist with no chance of ever getting a good candidate. The truth is that we both seek truth, we are both fighters, and we both want economic and civil justice.

From my perspective as a leftist working within the Democratic Party, no, actually, from the perspective of any member of the Democratic Party, I must consider the benifit of membership and whether or not my activism pays off. From my perspective, since 9/11, the Democrats have been spineless on some occassions, like on the Patriot Act which violates the Constitution, and like on the war, which was illegal. You can claim all you want that they were lied to, but let's not be so binary about it. The fact is that it is their job to seek truth and debate and they did poorly at both. The truth was out there. The Pope spoke out against the war 56 times, declaring there was no evidence of WMDs and speaking out against a pre-emptive war. Even Howard Dean said that the WMD evidence was a crock. In addition to that, the Secretary General of the UN called the war illegal. So, some Democrats clearly cared more about truth than others, and those who did care, cared about it to different degrees, meaning to some degree there was a lack of due diligence. And that, while much better than the Christo-Fascist Republican Party, is still so mediocre as to at that point in time be part of the problem, not the solution. Can the Democrats operate better than that? Yes, Reid's behavior yesterday is proof of that. But it is important for every member of the Democratic Party to look at all the points (similar to the points you listed) and make their own assessment of whether or not the Party brings enough value to the table for the return on the investment to be worth it.

Now, this is the rational perspective that I was thinking of when I wrote that if the Democrats did not filibuster Alito, then I would consider leaving the Party. It is quite contrary to your claim that I wrote I am "volunteering to leave the Party." We should all always consider leaving when the establishment Democrats are not doing a good job. We have to be judicious and we have to weigh the consequences carefully in such a case. I applaud Walt Starr for insisting that we Democrats help to put the pressure on for filibuster, but like I said the point is moot. The Democrats will filibuster anyway, because right now it is both the moral and the pragmatic thing to do. If they choose not to filibuster, though, then something strange is amiss in the Party. I will do the typical research that I do to get to the bottom of it and if I see some corrupt names at the bottom of it, like Lieberman and Al From and a host of others from you know what organization, then yes, I will consider that the Democratic Party may be broken beyond repair. I will think carefully and rationally about it as is my right to do as a member of the Party. I will finally come to a conclusion. You can try to start offering me the door now, if you like, but that does not serve your own interests, especially when the elites in the Party are talking about a big tent to let the pro-lifers in. Big tent to let the pro-lifers in and kick out the leftists like me? What the heck is that, if not a move to the right? It's not in your interest. I am a better ally than enemy and we are on the same ideological side.

But let's get back to the first point: Brownie. You say he got promoted. Yes, it is true, but there is some history being overlooked. Let's examine it. Brownie was confirmed as Deputy Director first before the promotion overwhelmingly. And his boss, Joe Allbaugh, was also confirmed at that time. Allbaugh was another crony that the Democrats did not fight against. He was confirmed 91-0 with a random smattering of 9 Senators not present to vote. Some of the arguments used in support of Allbaugh's confirmation were the following:
"He is a very good friend of my wife's brother Steve." The Republican Senator from Oklahoma then goes on to say that they were in the same fraternity together. And while in Oklahoma, Allbaugh observed many natural disasters.
Please tell me you are doing a double-take here in reading this and the fact that he was approved 91-0 is making your head spin as it did mine, when I decided to research it in the Congressional record. So, Joe Allbaugh went to work for The Man, some distater relief contractor for Iraq or something like that and resigned his position. Yeah, the corporate revolving door of the establishment again...This is why Brownie was up for promotion to Director in the first place. Did the Democrats do their job in fact-checking the crony's resumee? No, apparently not. Would it have mattered, if they did? Not if they made the same type of decision as they did with Allbaugh. So, once again, the committee chaired by Lieberman approved Brownie. They were not diligent in confirming him to the position of Director. The committee while writing that gazillion page report lauding his qualifications (and not "voicing concerns" as you wrote) never checked his credentials that they were writing about?

Now, this lack of diligence is familiar. It was there with the Patriot Act. It was there with the war vote. We members of the Party would be much more effective, if we could find out why. Is it really that they are spineless as Nader proposes? Is it because of the corrupt, corporatist influence in the Party eminating from the DLC? Is it that they are incompetent? Or do they have a valid excuse for the multitude of mistakes?

Yes, this is thinking critically and it is my job to figure these things out as a member of the Democratic Party, as a leftist, and as a responsible voter.

[mzmolly]

152. It is NOT responsible to lump all Democrats into one category when

it comes to anything you disagree with. You have the benefit of hind site, and that is an advantage that those who vote on a particular issue do not have. We'd not be discussing FEMA were it not for Katrina.

It's not thinking critically to expect every person in the Democratic Party to agree with you on every vote. Any Party would disappoint at times if they were in a position of power, and if they actually had to submit votes on the record that effected our Democracy.

Additionally, I am not surprised at your admiration for Nader:

Nader is the opposite of Limbaugh in two ways. (1) He is on the complete opposite side of the political spectrum and (2) he is not a lying pundit. (But apparently, the flame bait op does like lying). The problem with Nader is not that he "stole" some votes from Gore, but instead that Nader could never win in the first place. Nader is there to keep the leftist pressure up, the permanent revolution against the corrupt establishment. He will not win and that is the big picture that you say I do not see. Nader only took enough votes away from Gore such that Gore could barely win. And Gore did actually win. Katherine Harris, the powers that be, and the Supreme Court are really the ones who stole it.

Nader got aproximately 100K votes in Florida. Katherine Harris deemed Bush the winner by just over 500 votes. Nader lied and told his white ignorant youthful supporters that Bush = Gore. Nader played a role in the Bush Presidency. (See my questions below.)

Also, Nader is not the opposite of Limbaugh, he takes money from Republicans in order to defeat Democrats and Limbaugh does the same thing. Nader wants to see Democrats lose elections, so does Limbaugh. And he's a lying ass. One can argue that their ideology is different, but Nader doesn't have much in the way of ideology. His entire platform was plagiarized from other groups with statements like "I agree with X on X issue." His ideology consists of smearing Democrats for not opposing those who he claims are no different, and he always has the benefit of hind site. He rarely makes clear stands on any issue until the dust settles. :eyes:

The problem with Nader is not ONLY that he can't win, it's that he's never had to submit to Democracy and has never been in a position to be judged politically. He's a coward. If he were not simply a narcissist looking for an ego stroke, he'd run for lesser office and prove he's worthy of the Presidency. His goal is to lie about Democrats in order to snag the ignorant and self centered into his corner and get to hear himself bloviate at the same time. He almost fooled me in 2000. Thankfully I applied my critical thinking skills to his statements. Additionally, I saw Tucker Carlson on Crossfire talk Nader up on many occassions, they appeared very friendly. All your Limbaugh/Lieberman statements prove is that Republicans pit Democrats against one another. Zell Miller spoke at the RNC. He is not an example of the Democratic Party.

Regarding this:

Now, this lack of diligence is familiar. It was there with the Patriot Act. It was there with the war vote. We members of the Party would be much more effective, if we could find out why. Is it really that they are spineless as Nader proposes? Is it because of the corrupt, corporatist influence in the Party eminating from the DLC? Is it that they are incompetent? Or do they have a valid excuse for the multitude of mistakes?

Your remarks show that you take the worst vote by any one Democrat and apply it to the entire Party. Ralph Nader does the same thing.

However, in examining your question:

You asked what their excuses were? How bout the fact that they actually have to make difficult decisions on the record? How bout the fact that they are human beings? Does that ever enter the picture? How bout the climate after 911? How bout the fact that Bush lied? How bout the fact that in spite of all these things Democrats ensured the Pat Act was temporary - and 149 brave Democrats voted against the war?! I bet Nader followers would have trouble naming two of them - critical thinking skills and all.

Now let me ask youb some questions.

Why did Nader say that Gore would be essentially the same on Foreign Policy as Bush?

Why did he say that it doesn't matter who picks our supreme court nominees?

Why did he claim that Bush would not harm the environment?

Why do you consider someone who busted unions to the left of Democrats?

Why did Nader take money from the Swift Boat Vets and other Republican groups?

Why did Nader refuse to pay homeless people for their work on his campaign in Philly?

Just for starters.

[Don1]

153. I'll answer all your Nader questions after you admit you were wrong

on Brownie.

[mzmolly]

111. *

[jonnyblitz]

49. yup. the nader snarks sound pretty silly. nt

[FreedomAngel82]

94. Oh yes

That's a good factor to show he's right. :sarcasm:

Give me a freakin break.

[xultar]

7. Mr.Nader...I'm the one with the hammer...

[Yavin4]

10. Ralph Is Getting Desperate

He knows what he did. He knows that there's no comparison between a Gore admin and these criminals. His conscience is eating him alive. He knows that people are dead from N.O. to Baghdad because of his ego.

[dad]

14. Nader Haters Are Getting Desperate

Why don't you just start making up shit about him. Oh that's right, you already did.

[LandOLincoln]

30. Ralph + Grover, sittin' in a tree...

K-I-S-S-I-N-G.

Deal with it. They're good, good friends, and Ralph ain't nothin' but a stealth Neocon. Some of us have known that for at least 30 years now. I hate that son of a bitch. H-A-T-E. Deal with that, too.

[journalist3072]

35. We don't hate Nader...we hate what he's done to this country

I think he's done an extreme disservice to this country. He wants people to believe that there really are no fundamental differences between the 2 parties---that Democrats and Republicans are all the same.

And even though I've been extremely disappointed in the Democrats lately, and think they need to push back against the Bush agenda more, I think there are indeed fundamental differences between the 2 parties, from a policy perspective.

One party believes in protecting affirmative action until the playing fields have been leveled; the other does not.

One party believes in fiscal responsibility, and not pushing the lion's share of the tax burden on the poor and middle class. The other does not.

I could go on and on.

[malaise]

81. And what are the fundamental

differences between the two parties. If what they share in common is being in bed with the corporations, do these fundamental differences really matter?

[journalist3072]

143. Did you even read my post?

I talked about some of the fundamental differences between the 2 parties.

I talked about how one party believes in protecting affirmative action until the playing field has truly been leveled. The other does not.

One party (guess who?) is the party of TRUE fiscal responsibility, and believes that we don't place the lion's share of the tax burden on the working poor and the middle class. The other party believes we should do exactly that.

[ProudDad]

134. I love it when you people re-write history

* STOLE the election of 2000 with his 5 accomplices on SCOTUS and the thugs of the repuke party...

Nader didn't have a fuckin' thing to do with it!!!

[journalist3072]

144. I think he did

I think that if he had not thrown his hat into the ring, the election would not have been even close enough for them to steal.

It's very hard to steal an election that is a landslide.

That's all I'm saying. He did a disservice by saying that there were no differences between the 2 parties.

I believe wholeheartedly that Al Gore won in 2000, but I also think it was a close race. And the election would not have been close had it not been for Nader.

[Kahuna]

40. Stop making excuses for that cadaver. He's is directly responsible

for wrecking our beautiful country.

[journalist3072]

85. Absolutely right.....

Couldn't agree more

[JJackFlash]

53. He said he hoped bush would win in 2000

He helped him get selected, he got his wish, and now we hate him.

[FreedomAngel82]

98. I think Nader is doing fine on his own hon

:eyes: The facts and reality speak for themselves.

[zulchzulu]

11. OK Ralph...so Gore or Kerry would choose anti-choice right-wing fuckwads?

Really?

Ralph, it's meds time...

[undeterred]

15. Who asked?

:P

[sandnsea]

17. Zell & Ralph, hate to say

Old age has been cruel to the both of them. :crazy:

[Faygo Kid]

22. Ralph better than wingnut Zell, but even sadder

Has done so much to unravel an important legacy. He has lost it, indeed.

[BattyDem]

20. After five years he's still spouting the same old ...

"there's no difference between them" shit??? Are you f**king kidding me?!?!?

Take a good look at this country, Ralph! If you don't see the difference between what it is now and what it was under Bill Clinton, then you are either blind, nuts or just plain stupid! :grr:

[wookie294]

38. American voters have flirted with fascism for 25 years

The current state of affairs was bound to happen with, or without, Nader. But Nader merely helped make it happen sooner. Nader lifted the carpet and exposed the maggots and slime underneath -- slime that the two party system wants you to ignore. He should be commended for waking up alot of sleeping Democrats who don't vote.

[BattyDem]

54. Not one word in my post blames Nader for the current state of affairs ...

but I am angry with him for continuing to claim that the Dems are no different than the Repugs. I know there is a huge problem with corporate money and influence in the party - we all know that - but all anyone has to do is look at Clinton's record and then look at Bush's to see that there are many MAJOR differences in how each party treats the people of this country. The fact that Nader refuses to acknowledge that simple fact has made me lose all respect for him.

[Thom Little]

21. Ole Ralph sure knows how to push peoples' buttons.

[Touchdown]

23. Scenile old crank.

Still pissed off about not being famous or considered worthy...Oh' wait! People do think he made a difference for the common good. Eh' who knows what his problem is, except old, bitter town crank.

[Wilms]

24. Linky???

:shrug:

[GreenPartyVoter]

27. I would be surprised if there is one. I don't think he actually said this

but rather it's being drawn from his comments back in 2000 about there being no/not enough difference between the parties.

[jaxx]

25. My gawd is Nader still alive?

[wisteria]

31. Nader is wrong. He actually trying to say Alito is a liberal or even

moderate. Unfortunately, based on the enthusiasm of the religious faction of the repub party, its almost certain that he is very dangerous to our freedoms and rights.

[bottomofthehill]

33. Earth to Ralph

FUCK OFF, YOU GAVE US THIS ASSHOLE NOW SHUT UP WITH YOUR STUPID COMMENTS. YOUR FIFTEEN MINUTES ARE OVER SO SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[mzmolly]

39. RECOMMENDED!

:toast:

[bigwillq]

43. You're not going to use (!)

to indicate the nomination? I kind of liked that idea. :hi:

[mzmolly]

57. LOL, I gave up on that. I was the only one using it. I feel I should

have considered the (+) sign as was suggested, but perhaps we'll come to a quick consensus sometime soon? ;)


:hi:

[bigwillq]

61. I used it (!)

I thought it was such a cool idea. Maybe (+) would be better though, cause it's like we're adding to the nominations by using the (+).
:hi:

[mzmolly]

65. I'll try that!

(+) it is!

:)

[JJackFlash]

46. Nader National Forest

[mzmolly]

60. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

That's priceless.

Welcome, I've not had a chance to say hello. :hi:

[Webster Green]

52. Who cares?

Nader is entitled to his opinion. For the most part, he is correct about the dems being under the thumb of corporate fascists, just like the repukes.

BTW, Gore and Kerry both won, but weren't allowed to serve. Unless we fix the rigged elections, it will happen again.

Nader doesn't fit into the equation at all.

[melody]

55. Nader's absolutism gave us 8 years of this monster

Small wonder he's now shilling for George.

I used to adore Ralph Nader. I had a poster of him up in my dorm room. But you grow up and you understand that living in peace is about compromise, and you "get that" the problem is in the extremes. And you learn that people are what they are due to their behaviors, not their images.

In the words of Arianna Huffington, you don't remodel when the house is on fire. Nader wants to remodel when the entire structure is fully involved. HE is the best friend of the status quo who know that view will never reach a wider audience.

[wookie294]

59. Jeb's deletion of 50,000 Florida black voters gave us 8 years of Bush

The corrupt campaign finance system gave us 8 years of Bush, a finance system supported, in large part, by DEMOCRATS.

Gore's failure to win his own state of Tennessee gave us 8 years of Bush.

[mzmolly]

62. Jeb would have had to delete another 600 in order to win had it not been

for Nader. I personally expect corrupt Republican pigs to be uhm, pigs but I did not expect it of people like Ralph - ho calls himself a progressive.

Had he run saying "I'm an alternative to both party's and here is why" we'd not be discussing him today. But Ralph didn't do that. He said "there is no difference" "Gore = Bush on foreign policy" "Roe V Wade will never be overturned" and then some.

He needs to answer for his words as any POLITICIAN should. He ran for the highest office of this land and he is accountable for what he told people.

[wookie294]

66. 600 ?

Where do you get "600" from ?

Link please.

[mzmolly]

68. The vote was decided by about 500 votes in Florida, Nader got

over 10K in that state.

There are numerous links. If you google and have a difficult time finding one, lemme know, I'll be glad to provide it.

[wookie294]

71. The Libertarian Party got more than 500 votes, too

Where's your outrage at Libertarians?

Nader is NOT a Democrat. The Democratic Party, for the most part, does not represent his views.

[mzmolly]

74. Did the Libertarians claim what Nader did?

No, they claimed to be an alternative to the two party's and left it at that.

Nader lied and he's to be held accountable, just like Mr. Bush.

[bowens43]

79. over 10,000?

Nader got 97,000 votes. He is the primary reason bush is in office today.

[mzmolly]

107. That's right, it was close to 100K !!!

I don't know what I was thinking. I must have been thinking about 04? Though I think he got about 10K total the last time? ;)

[melody]

63. Ralph Nader betrayed us all

Ralph Nader revealed himself to be every bit the two-faced shill his detractors always said he was. To think I once donated time to the bastard.

That said, I know too well his supporters are religious in their zeal, so this will be my last post to this thread. :eyes: There's no point in dialogue about this person.

[FreedomAngel82]

100. LOL

*Snicker* Oh yes. Tennessee played such a huge role in that. Hmm I think I remember a little state called Florida. Nah? Don't ring any bells? :eyes:

[noahmijo]

69. Who is that squeaking do I hear someone squeaking?

Tell me again what Nader has done in order to push this country forward?

I don't blame him for costing Al Gore the election I blame the criminals who rigged the election.

As for Nader he matters about as much as a fly on the wall of Congress if even that.

[ProudDad]

135. How about safer cars and Cafe Standards

for a start.

Ralph has done a hell of a lot more for the PEOPLE of the U.S. than any politician has...

[ticapnews]

73. Yes, Gore would have nominated Alito, Miers and Roberts for SCOTUS

Gore's AG would have sanctioned (encouraged) torture.
Gore's EPA would have stripped the regulatory teeth from the agency. Gore's EPA would have given away our national parks.
Gore's FDA would be headed up by veterinarians.
Gore's Secretary of Education would say teachers are terrorists.
Gore Secretary of Defense would fire or silence generals who disagreed with his politicized strategies.
Gore's Vice President would leak the identity of a CIA agent in an act of political retribution.
Gore's Secretary of State would have gone to the UN and delivered a lie-infested presentation designed to get us into an unjust war.
Gore would have us IN an unjust war.

Yes, you're right, Ralph. No difference at all.

[mzmolly]

75. Great post!

:toast:

[noahmijo]

76. You forgot one important thing

Gore would've told the Quakers in PA that God told him to invade Iraq.

It's one thing to say that X candidate isn't in lockstep with all of your beliefs-NO candidate is or ever will be.

But to say there is no difference....Nader shaddup and retire already you have ceased any form of usefulness long ago.

BTW have you given your money back to the pukes yet?

[FreedomAngel82]

102. Don't forget 9/11

Gore would've stopped it from happening. He was working with Clinton on this for eight years.

[bowens43]

78. Nader is a jackass and HE is responible

for putting bush in the white house. Ultimately, Alito is Naders pick.

[BiggJawn]

80. Nader? What, he's finished counting the money Rove gave him?

And Ralfie would have been no better than all 3 of them together.
Oh-so PURE! So incapable of being TOUCHED!

Did he tell his corporate donors that he'd bite their asses if elected?

STFU, Ralf, your 15 minutes are LONG gone. Doesn't GM have a small car Ford is paying you to write a book about again?

[Zodiak]

84. This is flame bait

It is a sad day when DUers make up quotes and the rest of DU doesn't even bother to look it up because it is what they want to believe. And of course, the mods do nothing about it because hey, it's fun to make up quotes and have everyone collectively masturbate all over them.

Nader did not say this....quit dragging up his corpse every time Bush does something to piss us off.

And start serving the truth....we should be better than this.

[Kolesar]

86. Google only came up with one link in FreakRepublic on this

It looked like two unrelated posts, and I did not click on it. So my hunch is that the original poster is a liar.

[Touchdown]

104. No it's not. This isn't a Ralph worshipping temple. It's DU!

...which stands for DEMOCRATIC Underground, and St. Ralph is fair game, because he chose to apply his non-sequiturs and spiteful bitterness from the outside. He makes shit up about our candidates all the time, so you've got no place to cry foul.

All Dems voted against torture, 9 Pugs voted for it. That difference trumps EVERYTHING else, and renders Nadir's words to the rantings of a bitter old crumudgeon in desperate need of some Milk of Magnesia. Too bad he thinks it's chemical poison.:eyes:

[Zodiak]

141. I am not a Nader supporter

despite your assumption that I am.

There is plenty of real fact to use against Nader....this OP serves only for DUers who don't mind being like freepers to spew their bile over a pack of lies.

The OP is not true...and that trumps all the crap you are trying to say. What's more, is the OP immediately went after "Nader voters" using a lie to justify the attack. A lot of "Nader voters" from 2000 busted their asses for the Dems in 2004, and I welcome them in our ranks. Some still want to shit on them, justifying their leaving the party once again. I won't do it, and I encourage others who wish for party unity to not do it, either.

Party unity INCLUDES liberals, ex-Greens, and progressives.

So save the bile for Nader voters and quit making yourselves into liars just to hate on someone and high-five afterwards. That is a freep tactic, and I, for one, do not appreciate or condone it.

[Touchdown]

149. I didn't assume anything. Reading comprehension is important.

I am not saying anything, so you can't trump me. I'm just pointing out what this site is all about.

Save your sanctimonious lectures for someone who thinks you are important enough to take seriously, much less guilty of which you accuse.

[we can do it]

87. Hey Ralph SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY

n/t

[Darranar]

88. Nader never said this.

You did not quote him, you merely paraphrased.

You have provided no link, nor has any link been provided by any of the others engaging in this prolonged "Two Minute Hate." One has been asked for at least once, with no reply.

Nor does it strike me as something Nader would say; he focuses on corporate and foreign policy issues.

My conclusion is that you are either making it up entirely, or drawing a far-fetched conclusion from the supposed implications of Nader's actions, then exaggerating its veracity.

[Zodiak]

142. Apparently it is okay for Dems to lie

about Nader, but not for Repukes to lie about Dems.

The kind of crowd that likes to circle around Naders long-politically-decapitated head really make me wonder. The last timeit happened, I put the person on ignore, despite the fact that I agree that Nader is bad news.

He isn't the problem. Bush and his cabal are the problem.

[LynneSin]

89. Lynne Sin says Ralph Nadar is an asshole that can disappear into obscurity

That is all

[FreedomAngel82]

90. And he knows this how??

I love how dear old Nader is a mind reader and can read alternative universes. Give me a freakin break.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

91. So would Nader's.

Oh yeah. It's all Nader's fault that Gore and Kerry ran lousy campaigns that pandered to the right and alienated the left.

[ComerPerro]

99. Well, that stands to reason, considering his previous assertion

that Bush, Gore, and Kerry are all pretty much the same.

[Nikki Stone 1]

101. Ralphie is just another egoist trying to get attention. Like a toddler.

....

[rmgustaf]

106. Instead of mindlessly parroting Nader-bashing...

why not try and run a better campaign next time?

Quit bitching about Nader. Gore lost because he couldn't convince people to vote for him. Same with Kerry. If they ran better campaigns and fought harder against the Republican spin machine, they would have won (especially Kerry).

Focusing so much time and energy on Nader is ridiculous and disappointing. Instead of fighting the Republicans, you all focus on hating Nader? Please. Get your priorities straight.

If your candidate's campaign is so weak he needs to actually worry about a third-party candidate like Nader (or Buchanan, or whoever), then your candidate is already sunk anyways.

You want to win? Do a better job of convincing people the Democrats matter. Get more people like Howard Dean in there instead of John Kerry and you'll rally your base and draw the Nader people back.

[ProudDad]

136. Here, Here!

Get over it folks.

Your guys ran SHITTY campaigns and were up against much bigger crooks than they are. That's why that bastard shrub is residing in the white house.

[dback]

115. Ralph can gargle my balls

Idelogical purity is nice in theory, but this is politics. We are dealing with cretins, robber barons, and religious nutjobs who want a theocracy in place of our Constitution.

Don't tell me because Green and Orange are both colors with some Yellow in them, they might as well be the same thing.

[mzmolly]

118. LOL.

:rofl:

[Totally Committed]

122. Mario Cuomo for SCOTUS! eom

[Ladyhawk]

123. And Gore would be just as bad as *... n/t

[Norquist Nemesis]

124. Ralph Nader said ....

<going for coffee> :boring:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

127. I think you forgot your sarcasm smiley.

Or at least I hope so.

[ShaneGR]

131. I think Nader is like Rip Van Winkle

He falls asleep, misses a few years of history, then wakes up screaming about something he's clearly lost track of.

[SeanQ]

132. As many of us become more and more disillusioned with

the democratic party, I'd like to take a moment to bring up a couple things, as a brief break in the midst of this lovely, and unfortunately common, flame fest.

First, I think most of us have issues with the party "leadership" in DC, not with the party as an ideal. I still reserve some hope that Dean will be able to reshape the party by running it from the party's center. But it may be a day late and a dollar short, particularly when he is fighting the "bigwigs" in DC in his own party who slander him and ignore the party chairman! Why _wouldn't_ the Democrats in the Senate fight this nomination, using the filibuster if needed? They have just rolled over on so many important issues, why should I continue to support them?

Second, like many here I've got one foot out the door. If I do leave I'll stop supporting the party, and will be looking for a viable alternative. That does not mean I wont support certain specific Democratic candidates, and of course I would still vote for a Dem in most elections. So please stop yelling at me that if I don't continue to go with the 'they (Senate Dem's) must know best' and support them it's the same as if I voted for republicans directly. That's almost as dumb as Nader saying there is no difference between who a GOP and Dem would nominate.

The problem is we aren't getting the option to make the nomination, and I don't think we will again anytime soon as long as the DLC/Pilosi camp is calling the shots. And in the meantime they aren't even fighting for the things that really count. Winning little victories is nice, but if they give up the house, what will it matter if we got to pick the type of grass on the lawn they make us sleep on and beg for scraps from?

So if the direction of the party doesn't change, do you just give up caring or voting altogether? NO! You vote Dem when it's the best you have. But we look for a new party that does fit our ideals and does offer candidates willing to fight. You work and support them with your money and sweat. You only run those candidates in places they can be seriously competitive, which generally means local and state level elections at first (which is one of the big reasons why I don't think the Green party is a viable option IMHO), carefully picking your first few congressional or senate battles. Once you have some success, you try to lure candidates that fit the bill (Conyers for example) to switch parties when they go for re-election. IMHO

Here's an example of an alternate party I could learn to love:
http://progressiveparty.org/about/

My family in VT has been working to support them. While yes, still voting for Dem's in other competitions. And for the record, until and unless another party I liked more had effectively replaced it, the Democratic party could always win me back. Any party, any candidate has to EARN my vote!

[Vinnie From Indy]

137. Ralph has lost his marbles

The only thing grander than his dementia is his ego.

[AntiCoup2K4]

139. The way some people talk about Ralph Nader around here....

...you might think he was the chair of the DLC or some other traitor who actually DAMAGED the Democratic Party from within.

[WI_DEM]

140. Amazing! How does he know that, Gore nor Kerry ever had the chance

in part because of Nader (especially in 2000).

[Hekate]

148. Ralphie go home, it's time for your nap.

Sheesh. The man has stopped making sense. He completely lost me when he said it would make no difference whether we got Al Gore or GW Bush as president.

Apparently he still thinks so.

Hekate

[Pacifist Patriot]

150. I used to think like that. I once believed the name on the Oval office

door meant little to nothing.

Then I grew up.

[JerseygirlCT]

154. Ralph Nader doesn't know what he's talking about.

He's happy so long as he's talking, though.