What is the deal with the leftist Nader extremists? Why is this an issue?

It seems to me that the Democratic Party and the 3rd Party platforms are in agreement in more than half of the issues. Especially with someone with such a progressive record as Kerry has. Why can’t the Naderites focus more on what we do agree on instead of our differences?

How much of a voice are a small percentage entitled to in a majority platform anyway? Are they entitled to more of a voice in the platform than their votes in numbers would support?

The majority of Democratic voters do not care about the vote for the Iraqi war resolution. They only care about resolving the issue now.

I don’t see how a loss from the majority to support more voice from a small percentage can be seriously offered or contemplated.

Do we want to win this election or not?

My opinion is very firmly that no, a 3rd Party is not entitled to more of a voice in the platform than their votes in numbers would support.

And my resolve will only get stronger if this election should be lost again by attempts of 3rd Parties to take hostages.

..because the national Democratic party has taken some very conservative stances on issues. Candidates give more lip service to Jesus, guns, the death penalty and general jingoistic stances (like supporting the war) than ever before. Part of the strength of the Republican party is that it at least tosses its core constituency a bone now and then. Democrats, on the other hand, seemed scared to death of being labeled "liberal." That needs to change at the national level.

the Republican Party is revolting in great numbers now too.

Bush took a hard right and is paying for it in LOSS of support among some of his own. Some of them are furious!

they're campaigning for the same office. I'm sorry, but it's the nature of the process. It wouldn't make any sense for him to be campaigning by continually showing his agreement and/or complicity with Kerry's positions, especially in light of the major differences that do exist between these two candidates.

I understand the spirit of your question, but keep in mind that these two guys are not from the same party. Nader has no obligation, ethically or politically, to agree with Kerry or the mainstream Democratic Party.

And Nader is defeating that purpose by competing with the ONLY person who can realistically defeat Bush.

Nader has no chance of winning the office, and he knows that going in to this race. That is not even his purpose.

Nader's purpose is to make a point. And if he is successful, to make things worse in order to pick up the pieces.

WTF??

But that won't work anyway!

I believe in democracy. It might not always work as we would like it to (reference: Election 2000), but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternatives.

This controversy is a product of the media. Even people who supported Nader in 2000 (people like me), aren't going to go that route this time around, because they have a greater appreciation for the threat that Bush and the neocons pose to the world. I really and honestly believe that this is a bunch of heavy breathing and chest beating over nothing. Nader won't even "take away" as much from Kerry as he supposedly did from Gore.

Of course, most people overlook the fact that Al Gore really didn't need any help losing the past election. He didn't even win his home state, fer chrissakes!

I'm just wondering what would happen if the mainstream Democratic party started to embrace some of the liberal voters that it used to include. You might want to consider how the power of the Republicans has increased since it actually began responding to the "fringe" elements on the right. Instead of a guy like Nader needing to rise up and represent those people out on the "real" left of the spectrum, the Democrats might benefit from actually acting like LIBERALS!

But honestly, this whole Nader "crisis" is a fabrication. Ralph will make his point, which simply seems to terrify some people, but he WON'T prevent Kerry from becoming the next President.

As far as the hard right turn Bush has made in the Republican Party, I don't think he has done them any favors because they are revolting in great numbers.

Sure, the extremists are happy with the red meat Bush has thrown them but the rank and file are furious and Independents are turning away.

That's what happens when yo try to take a hard turn too fast. Such drastic change should take place more slowly over a longer period of time .....

I've seen damn few signs of any progress in that direction.

Senate or House in order for that progress to begin. Until then the Republicans are in charge.

it behooves the Naderites to keep their noses out of forums dedicated to the Democrat winning the election.

Democracy honors (and, in fact, requires) the contribution of ALL opinions....not only those that you agree with.

since this place is Democratic, not democratic.

It is undeniably partisan, and Nader should be no more welcome here than Buchanon or Forbes. The purpose of this forum is to elect Democrats, not waste time and energy on the trolling for minor characters who are mildly annoying at best and detrimental at worst.

We appear to have a candidate, and it is not Nader.

I would imagine that if Nader, as well as Wolfowitz, Cheney, or O'Reilly, does something newsworthy, for better or worse, it can, and perhaps should, be mentioned here. Advocating for him, however, is hardly what this place is for.

Many states will have up to a dozen candidates on the ballot. Are we to be overwhelmed with appeals to support the Libertarians, Socialist Workers, Right-to-Lifers, Constitutionalists, and everyone else out there?

I hope not.

The purpose of this forum is to elect Democrats Really? I must have missed that directive when I signed up here. I thought that the "underground" part of the forum title implied that this was a place for discussion that was outside of the mainstream. I had no idea that this was an official Democratic Party campaign mobilization forum.

Come on, to suggest that Nader (who offers clear stands on issues that concern ALL liberal-minded people) is the same as Wolfowitz, Cheney, or Buchanan is really ridiculous. But then, I do realize that you only mentioned that he (and presumably his supporters) are as unwelcome here as those others.

Are we to be overwhelmed with appeals to support the Libertarians, Socialist Workers, Right-to-Lifers, Constitutionalists, and everyone else out there? I would hardly say that this forum is overwhelmed with such appeals or such support.

I would also like to ultimately mention that I personally do not support Nader's candidacy. I just can't help but get a little squeezy when I hear people talking about silencing dissident voices or alternative points of view. The guy doesn't pose a threat to Kerry, and IMHO, the mainstream Democratic Party would benefit from a healthy dose of the message that he brings to the fore. To cut off those who would discuss that message here does a disservice to all.

Edit: damned typo.

at least not as far as I'm concerned.

However, all through the divisive primary season the admins have talked about unity behind the eventual candidate, and I think the admins have the final say about what goes on here. That I agree with them simply means that I am happier here than some other places. Mileage varies, as usual.

While not an arm of the Democratic Party, this place is still fiercely partisan, and "dissent" does not necessarily include trolling Nader bait, or whining about "He Who Should Have Been the Nominee" among other annoying diversions from rational discussion.

While we are not overrun with appeals for the campaigns of other irrelevant, but occasionally interesting, candidates, we do seem to have a recent rash of Nader appeals. Perhaps this is a temporary phenomenon, but while many may be more sympathetic to Ralph than some of the others, it's still inappropriate to attempt to waste our time by campaigning for him here.

This is DU with a lowercase "d" in democratic.

who make sthe rules in this place.

And the mission statement.

So, if you don't believe me about how Nader fits in around here, perhaps you'll believe Skinner:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=120x15537

kerry voted to support the president in his effort to remove a threat to the u.s. as presented by the admin.

after 911 it would have been political suicide not to.

but now, how will the political winds guide him :shrug:

i hope that as more and more show up on the polls against this war he starts challenging bush on iraq but even more important the whole bush doctrine of PREVENTIVE WAR.

let's get it right, PRE-EMPTIVE war is LEGAL if there is a clear and presant danger, what bush and the neoCONs did and are trying to make defacto policy of the us is PREVENTIVE WAR and that is ILLEGAL and needs to be addressed.

i hope kerry is able to articulate the challenge and use it against the neoCONs.

peace

If polls constantly show a majority of Americans supporting: 1) a reduction in corporate influence and monopolism, 2) increased environmental protections, 3) government-run services such as universal healthcare, etc.

With few exceptions, Democratic elites have been part of a pattern of forcing both unpopular and wrong policies on the public.

Ask yourself if you think the Democratic party feels entitled to leftist votes. Also, what kind of a system would cause some people to obsess over the influence of a small 3rd party almost to the exclusion of dealing with the Republicans?

instead made up other issues.

My post was specifically addressed towards Kerry, who has a decidedly progressive record on the issues you have mentioned. Especially on environmental issues. Jeeze!

1) Voted against the Gulf War (not good)

2) Suppored the 2003 Iraq invasion (not good)

3) Makes Bush-like mumblings about addressing greenhouse gases... but won't support the Kyoto protocol (not good)

4) Will not reform or retire NAFTA (not good)

How much of a voice are a small percentage entitled to in a majority platform anyway? Are they entitled to more of a voice in the platform than their votes in numbers would support?

<SNIP>

And my resolve will only get stronger if this election should be lost again by attempts of 3rd Parties to take hostages.

So tell me, if these terrible third parties can LOSE the election for the Dems, shouldn't the Dems be APPEALING to them by COMPROMISING with them? Or should the Dems just continue to tell them to shut up and get in line and lose this election too?

If shifting to the right DOESN'T gain more votes than are lost on the left (and thus results in election defeat), then WHY keep shifting to the right?

In fact, isn't the rightward shift of the Dem party actually responsible for the Dems losing, and if so, why do the Dems keep doing it? Do they WANT Bush to win?

The stance to the center (not the right) does result in more votes than a shift to the left to pick up the supposed lost left votes.

Shifting to the far left would lose more votes from the majority than it would gain from the far left, as a matter of fact. That's why it is a losing proposition.

It is the far left, Naderites that wants Bush to win, not the majority of the Democratic Party.

whaddaya worried a bout :crazy:

peace

Firstly, it is "the right" not "the center", for the sheer fact that "the center" in the US is to the right of the rest of the world's ideas of "the center".

Secondly, if it results in more votes, then how did Nader cost Gore the election, and how could he cost Kerry the election? Pick one - either Nader can cause Kerry to lose the election by gaining more votes on the left than Kerry can gain in the center, or Nader is NOT to be blamed for Kerry losing.

It's a straight either/or logical question.

How can you keep contradicting yourself within only two sentences? Are you really that blind to what you are saying? For example:

Shifting to the far left would lose more votes from the majority than it would gain from the far left, as a matter of fact. That's why it is a losing proposition.

Fine. Ok then for the sake of argument, shifting to the center will win the election. So explain this sentence:

It is the far left, Naderites that wants Bush to win, not the majority of the Democratic Party.

If shifting to the center-right will win the election, then how can you say Nader wants Bush to win? You have already said that Nader will never gain more left wing voters than Kerry will gain center-right voters, so what is the beef? Kerry will win no matter what Nader does or says, and therefore all Nader can be said to be doing is giving voice to the "tiny minority" of lefties who are being ignored by Kerry.

Or are you actually saying that Nader can cost Kerry the election because there are more left wing votes to be won by Nader than center-right wing votes to be won by Kerry?

their views are greeted with :shrug:

NEWS FLASH: the neoCONs STOLE the election.

peace

And don't think that you are entitled to our votes. Many many of us, while holding many views in common with Dems, simply cannot abide the sight of a candidate whoring himself out to big business like both the Dems and 'Pugs do. We already have enough corporate corruption in our government, and it has badly damaged our society. Encouraging even more is an anethma to most of us.

We are fighting for a real change in this country, and it is apparent that that change will not come from either of the major parties. Therefore we went out and formed one of our own. Don't like it, too bad, because we're here to stay. And as the Democrats continue to morph into the Republicans, Greens will be placed well to take over the Dems position. It is simply a matter of time.

Of course, Nader's not a Green this time around, he's an Independent.

While I share your convictions about the directions of the respective parties, I also stand firm in my belief that Nader is a non-issue in this campaign.

Voter turnout throughout the primaries was WAY up. The voters are coming out in big, big numbers and their message appears clear to me. They are rallying around the one guy that they know can kick Lil' Georgie's ass in. Nader plays an important role in adding key liberal issues to the debate, but I don't think he has nearly the impact on the outcome that many sniveling Democrats claim he had in 2000 (the Socialist candidate in Florida also won more votes than decided the race there. Don't blame Nader...blame Gore and the DLC!)

the time "Greens" replace Dem's, we will have the culture wars firmly replacing economic thoughts or environmental thoughts or worker safety/pursuit of happiness thoughts.

So 20 years of GOP via "transition", 30 more years of GOP via culture war GOP control - feudal times return

yes - Nader is the solution - it is just a matter of time - no wonder the main source of Nader funding is the GOP.

"no wonder the main source of Nader funding is the GOP"

Can you back this up, or did you simply make it up? The GOP was a source of campaign funds for Nader's GP run in 2000-- that's sensible politics, since the GOP perceived that the Green candidate was more likely to divert left wing dem votes than centrist repub votes-- but I highly doubt the the GOP has ever been the main source of GP campaign funds. If they have, then I'll be the first to applaud them for helping to build a better liberal alternative! As for Nader's current run as an Independent, do you have any evidence that the GOP is funding him at all, let alone as his "main source?" Or is that just wishful thinking?

GOP funding of Nader is not a secret - as we both note - the 2000 election funding of Nader was "just good GOP politics"

As to whether the GOP support over the whole campaign was more than 50% - rather than just over 50% for a given month - I don't know and don't much care.

Do you really think the GOP is funding the building of a better liberal alternative, without also being certain that it is a joke on liberals and will never have power? As you - and I also - say - a GOP source of funding for Nader is just sensible pro-GOP politics.

And I guess that is the ONLY point that matters for 2004 as far as you - or I - are making decisions as to retaining, or ending enivironmental, worker safety, minimum wage, job creation, population health laws and the FDR/JFK/LBJ safety net of Social Security and Medicare.

Worse than the GOP con of "compassionate" conservative, is, in my personal opinion, the Nader con of helping my grandkids future by building a better liberal alternative.

In 2000 I saw Nader folks as fellow liberals who perhaps had a better idea. In 2004 Nader folks are just another group of GOP'ers trying to hurt my grandkids future.

and I supported and voted for Dennis Kucinich in the Wisconsin primary, a Democrat-plus I'll be voting for Kerry in the GE.

I know most Democrats aren't like you, I don't belong to any political party-are you a member of the Democratic Party?

I don't think you will find any members of the Democratic or Republican parties here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the Democratic Party is a membership organization, it's not that kind of a political party. The Green Party does actually have members who are admitted into the organization and can also be expelled from the organization.

Also I don't think the Democratic Party sponsors or endorses anti-war or other kinds of political demonstrations, or labor strikes, or union organizing drives or other progressive actions and activities . I'm not sure if that is forbidden by internal rules or if the national Democratic Party would just rather not get involved in such matters. I could be wrong on this so any correction would be appreciated. That's just my take based upon limited personal experience.

So no bashing now! I would just like to know the truth if I'm wrong.

I WILL vote for Kerry.

I support Kucinich, and believe that DK stand is very similar to Nader's, but DK's voice has been marginalized (ignored) in the Media. I support Nader's entry into the race because I want these issues restated in the Media, and want these issues to stay in play inside the Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party is allowed to ignore these issues, no REAL internal reform is possible.


Kerry supports NAFTA and Free Trade. It is not possible to support both Organized Labor and Free Trade.

Kerry will expand the War in Iraq. He has pledged to send 40,000 more troops.

Kerry supports the privatization of Social Security, and in general supports the privatization of essential services.

Kerry's healthCare plan diverts tax money to the HMOs, Insurance Cos, and Pharm industries.

Kerry said "Nothing can be done about outsourcing of American jobs (nonsense).

DK and Nader differ from Kerry (DLC) on these CRITICAL issues. These issues WILL determine what the Quality of Life in the USA will become.

You haven't accurately characterized even one of Kerry positions.

I don't know where you got the information you used to form your opinions, but it doesn't seem to have been accurate.

Check out http://www.johnkerry.com/issues

...an active study of the televised debates and his appearances on TV, radio, and print media.

John Kerry has stated unequivocally that he wants to:

1) Increase the size of the military by 40,000 men to supplement the occupation troops. (I don't doubt that he will be better at convincing allies to assist, but he has been evasive on giving authority to the UN.)

2) Would support a program to offer partial privatization of SS by offering alternative investment programs through the private sector

3)Work through the private sector to reduce health care costs

4) Would work within NAFTA to make changes (This is impossible due to the structure of NAFTA)

5)That job loss through Free Trade was inevitable, but that he would implement a tax incentive program (to the corporate sector i.e. more corporate welfare) to attempt to keep some jobs from leaving.


Try studying the individual's stand on ISSUES, and not emotionally charged rhetoric.

Your characterizations are false.

It's just that simple.

I challenge you to cite anything that supports the interpretations you have presented.


You are also actively engaging in deceptive bait-and-switch rhetoric. :puke:

Let's try to be more civil. I believe that bavar22's statement on Kerry's positions are absolutely accurate. Sorry I don't have the links but I have read statements by Kerry on all of the above several times on internet news articles. I don't think that bavar22's comments should be treated as some viscious attack on Kerry. Just a simple statement of facts.

Because any discussion of Kerry's real positions would show these to be false characterizations.


Check out: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues

You know,I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Why don't you enlighten me by taking any one of the SPECIFIC issues I cited, and tell me where I am mistaken?


I am voting for Kerry. I will campaign for Kerry. I will strongly advise EVERYONE not to vote outside the Party (for Nader or anyone else)

The thread topic questioned the worth of having Nader running in the election. I stated my opinion because I feel it is essential to give voice to the issues that the Democratic Party would rather forget about.

That's different from 'raising issues'.


If you want to talk about Kerry's positions, you need to use Kerry's positions as a starting point, not your false characterizations.


I'm challenging you to cite something that actual backs up your assertions that those are Kerry's positions. Then, we can begin to have a discussion.


Check out: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues

critical and negative about the Democrats as of the Republicans. It might appear as if the Green Party has more in common with the Democrats, but he, at least, doesn't seem to think so, so he and his supporters wouldn't necessarily favor a Democratic victory in 2004. Those of us on DU might be desperate for a Democratic victory, but Nader has a completely different agenda. I wish he wouldn't run. Yesterday, on the news, I heard that Kerry and Bush* were tied, both at 48%, in the polls. However, if you throw Nader into the mix, Bush* emerges at two points ahead.:-(

I visited John Kerry's election website as you suggested and could find absolutely no mention of NAFTA or WTO!!!!!! Why do you think that is? This is a major issue for working people and the entire labor movement. Perhaps I just didn't look hard enough and you can provide the link for me.

I did manage to find this at Kerry's election website regarding his proposal to send 40,000 more troops to Iraq:

"40,000 Active-Duty Troops. Kerry is calling to add 40,000 troops to the active-duty Army. Under Kerry’s plan the United States should also add an additional 20,000 individuals to the active force with specialties in post-conflict skills, such as civil affairs and the military police in order to relieve the excessive burden on our reservists.

The buildup, which will require time to implement, will relieve the mismatch between active and reserve capabilities and also allow us to thank returning reservists when they rotate out of Iraq in 3 to 9 months—not just with our gratitude but with a reasonable assurance that they will not have to again deploy to Iraq in the immediate future."

By the way, for reasons known only to the editors, the LA Times went with that headline and that's what their story said as well, and that mischaracterization was also picked up by other media, but if you read the actual speech, (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0227.html ), that's not what Kerry said.

Kerry also addressed this in a debate:

KERRY: None of those troops are going to Iraq that I've talked about, that 40,000.

That is a reflection of the fact that our military is extraordinarily overextended. Our Guards and Reserves have been turned into almost active duty. When we bring the rotation of these four divisions back, over the course of the spring, we'll only have two divisions actively prepared to do what we need to do in our country.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16969-2004Feb29.html

John Kerry's position to address the Occupation in Iraq is to EXPAND the military. Parse it any way you want.

The issues I raised above are almost verbatim responses that Kerry gave to DIRECT questions during The last two debates. But maybe I made a mistake. Exactly where does Kerry stand on:

1) Social Security

2) NAFTA, WTO, FTAA

3) How does he plan on improving health care through the private sector?



Are you trying to argue that there is no difference between Kerry and Kucinich?

Are you trying to argue that there is no difference between Kerry and Nader?

Kerry's campaign website is of little help on these specific issues.


NOTE: There are many issues that I agree with Kerry on, and I believe he will make an adequate president. The issues I presented are those on which he radically differs from Kucinich and Nader. I don't want to be misinterpreted as being opposed to a Kerry presidency, or opposed to the Democratic Party. I believe these issues are of TANTAMOUNT IMPORTANCE in that they will determine the quality of life for the Labor Class and Middle Class over the next few decades. I believe in reform within the party, and for reform to occur, an open dialog must be encouraged. For that reason, I support the continued campaigns of Kucinich and Sharpton and Nader. I wish Mosely-Braun and Graham were still actively campaigning.

I will vote for Kerry. No one should vote for Nader, but everyone should listen to what he has to say!!

And that's my only point.

That what you are saying is false, and not backed up by the facts.

As I have demonstrated.

:shrug:

This statement: "Kerry Does Propose Sending More Troops To Iraq" is absolutely false, as I showed in post 41.

Also, all the characterizations of Kerry's positions in post 29 are wrong - distortions, mis-statments, falsehoods, mischaracterizations and deceptions.

Kerry really DOES want to expand the military!! HOO RAY!!

Same team here fellas....


:think:

that the Party has gone to far Right. I think that's quite silly, but that seems to be their concern.

In all public politeness, Mr. Nader.

This is a warning from my buddhist sect: Mister Nader, if you
fuck up this election, you will experience a downward evolution of
your future lifetimes that you spend an eternity exploring the
deepest canyons of hell. Pardon any insult unintended.

If this message is not clear, then call 1-800-GET-A-CLU.

In case you're deaf Mr. Nader: If you take ANY responsibility in
"the possibility" of a bush re-election, there will be no place on
earth where you, or any member of your clan is EVER safe, *in this or
any other lifetime*, from the retribution of justice. This ain't
personal, its the will of forces in this universe far larger than I
this writer posesssed... Mr. Nader, stand down and be rewarded for
embracing victory against bush.

You're suggesting that somehow we (the voters in America and the other residents of this planet) are somehow better served (thus the greater reward for Ralph in his post-dirt nap experiences) if the field of acceptable issues is NARROWED during this political campaign? I think that even Buddha considers that to be complete horseshit! The only way that John Kerry is going to become the leader that America and the world need him to be is if he's confronted with the tough issues. Ralph and others are bringing issues to the campaign that Kerry needs to address.

Of course, most everyone believes that he will be able to address them; Bush will stare blankly into the camera...pause...smirk...then mutter something brilliant like "Bring it On!" Kerry can and should and ultimately will rise to the occasion. But to suggest or to even state that those questions and issues shouldn't be a part of the campaign, and that Nader or f***ing anyone else shouldn't bring them out into the public square for discussion or debate is a spineless, jackass, know-nothing, fraidy cat position that only the DLC and the RNC would honestly stand here and suggest. This is a marketplace of ideas, and it's all out there on the table.

Of course, this is a democracy, and that's just me talking....

Edit: typo and language....sorry, Sauza Sunday!!

Nader is not doing what you say. He's running for bush. Its his free
choice to run for bush. Good you point that out.

Kerry voted for the Patriot Act.
Kerry voted for NCLB.
Kerry voted for the Homeland Security Bill.
Kerry voted for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Kerry has said that as President he will keep the troops in Iraq. (In other words, under President Kerry, more working-class kids in uniform will die for Iraq's oil.)
Kerry is a lifelong supporter of "free trade" who voted for NAFTA, supports the WTO, FTAA, etc.
He was an early proponent of "welfare reform."
He has said in campaign speeches that the federal government has no legal "right" to stop companies from shutting down factories by expropriating them, even in industries vital to "national security."

It says something terrifying about the state of the country that with those positions some people still consider him to be some kind of "liberal." He's not. He's a banally typical pro-corporate DLC Democrat. Since he voted for almost all of the most evil initiatives of the Bush administration (USA-PATRIOT, IWR, etc.), at best he can only campaign against Bush by saying that Bush's policies (most of which he voted for) were badly administered or were wrong in details.

I haven't decided yet how I'll vote in November, but it makes me laugh that some people call Ralph Nader (a primary author of the Clean Water Act) a "left-wing extremist." Nader's platform is basically a watered down version of what Democrats used to stand for in the New Deal era. I guess the vitriol against Nader (and, for that matter, against Kucinich) proves that in the current climate any one who stands for something qualitatively different from and counterposed to the "free market" and colonialist agenda of the Bush administration is considered a "left-wing extremist."

on most of the 2 platforms and instead choose to emphasize the areas of difference - for which Kerry was not single handedly responsible for anyway.

And I disagree with your assessment that Kerry is not a "liberal". He is by any sense of the word. It's ironic - the fact that he IS a Mass liberal is what Bush plans to use AGAINST him, and now what you as a member of the opposite side of the opposition insist that he's not.

It's just not possible for Kerry to fight both ends of this battle, and why it makes better sense to appeal the the greater numbers of moderates and the center than to try to satisfy the arbitrary re-definitions as determined by someone on the far left.

Also, I still maintain the point of having an election is to WIN the election. The only ones that have a chance of winning the election in November are the Republican and Democratic nominees, which was the point of my original post. Ralph has no chance of winning, but could by chance siphon off liberal votes in swing states. Possibly. I frankly think he's an idiot, but I have to ask myself why he is even an issue for rationally thinking people.

Do we want to win this election or not?

I think a lot of Republicans are hammering DemocraticUnderground with anti-Nader propaganda. Why? In order to take the heat off Bush!

They would certainly prefer progressives attacking Nader while easing up on Bush.

Nader is not a friend of the Democratic Party, so it's not as you suggested as misplaced attacks against Nader.

Nader is not a Democrat. Nader is running AGAINST the Democrat. Nader is not a friend of the Democrats. So it's not as if it were a Democrat attacking a Democrat - NO. Nader is an enemy.

Republicans don't have any reason to attack Nader. They like him! They know Nader can only help them win! They're not stupid, they're probably financing him!

Cough up some credible evidence, or apologize.

Anyway, remember that there were some states (includes New Hampshire) where more registered Republicans than Democrats voted for him. And that the Republicans collaborated with the Democrats to keep him out of the debates. I'm actually not a big Ralph fan on several issues and I honestly have no idea what I'll do in the privacy of my own ballot box come November :) , but all that's beside the point, which is basic honesty.

The fact that you resort to insane, bizzare and offensive conspiracy theories like the GOP financing Nader is proof that you have no response to the substance of the issue--that Nader is far from being a "left-wing extremist," that Kerry's overall record in the Senate is not exactly inspiringly progressive and that his voting record since Bush took office is frankly Republican-lite. He has voted for most of the worst Bush administration policy initiatives, from the IWR to USA-PATRIOT to NCLB (not to mention NAFTA and all that beforehand). And, as has been pointed out, earlier I forgot all about Kerry's enthusiastic support for Plan Columbia and his apologetics for the West Bank "land grab wall."

If you want to say, "sure, Kerry isn't much of a liberal(what kind of liberal supports the kind of all-out assault on civil liberties contained in the crap that he's voted for?), despite what the Republicans claim. (If Joe Liebermann had won the nomination, the GOP hacks woudl be going on about what an extreme New England liberal he was.) Sure he voted for all of the most evil initiatives of the Bush administration. But, despite all that, as President, he won't be as bad...so we should all hold our noses and vote for him.", that's fine. You can agree or disagree tactically, but at least it would be honest.

The fact is that every one understood while the primaries were going on that Kerry was the DLC favorite and was solidly on the right wing of the field of contenders. Those who voted for him made their bed and they'll have to sleep on it in terms of lack of progressive enthusiasm for the guy. Re-writing history to make him sound like some great liberal is desperate and silly.

but yeah you are right nader aint a radical

Divide and conquer.