Nader's Message - Any Agreement?

I am a longtime admirer of Ralph Nader. He alone seems to see beyond the tip of the assberg (cheneybush) to address the underlying issue of corporate influence on our government and mass media. This message is essential to reclaiming government for the people and Kerry should clarify his stance on the issue. If he were to do this I believe Ralph, as an honorable person, would withdraw his candidacy, endorse Kerry and even actively campaign for him.

Of course it sounds good...how else to draw off enough votes from the left to keep the GOP in power? People who cannot see beyond the message to the true intention of his candidacy are the ones who cannot see beyond the tip of the iceberg.

What about the message?

Juvenile? Maybe. Justified? ABSOLUTELY.

"No matter how correct he is in his assessment of the political situtation, I feel perfectly justified in pitching a fit and consigning *everything* he says to the dustbin of history because I don't like him exercising his right to run for office."

You may kick my ass now. :D

and that is what history will show him to be.

endless problems for people with far less resources than he has, not the least of which are the deaths of so many young soldiers and thousands of innocent Iraqis. If he has any conscience, he would apologize to these people and their families and simply fade away from our sights. I detest the man.

Isn't this the essential quality of an honorable man?

for saying this. We need to have a campaign based upon positive ideas, not simply "I'm the same as Bush, but I'm not Bush" campaign. Kerry had a pretty decent record in Congress for years...then he started to get aspirations and sold his soul. He needs to go back to his progressive roots and soon.

Kucinich, who is far more honest than Nader

I'm looking forward to hearing him speak at the convention.

Care to even try and defend that lie, or will you just let it stand?

I said: "We need to have a campaign based upon positive ideas, not simply "I'm the same as Bush, but I'm not Bush" campaign. "

Note that this was in quotes. In other words, that is the message he is sending. I am not THE ONLY ONE here who has pointed out that Kerry has been swinging to the right since he became the presumtive nominee. Kerry is now saying that we need to keep the troops in Iraq. Kerry is now talking about a tax cut for middle class people. And so on.

I'm sorry if this offends you, but that's what he is doing. Like I said in another thread...deal with it or ban me. Don't care which one.

Making the tax system more progressive is not a "rightward swing". Kerry wants the poor and middle class to pay less, and the rich and corporations to pay more. Under what warped view of the world is that "rightward?"

Keeping troops in Iraq is not a "rightward swing." Kerry had been saying that for quite some time, as I recall, as have other Democrats. Nor is recognizing that more troops are needed a "rightward swing." Rumsfeld tried to use Iraq to demonstrate that wars could be fought on the cheap. As we've seen, it isn't true. Trying to fix what we've broken is not "rightward"... I'd argue it's downright progressive. Unfortunately, some progressives have this idea that making the best out of a bad situation is somehow immoral.

And has been making lame excuses ever since.

I can't get past that.

Voters like Nader for his message. You have to get past that also.

as a consumer advocate he was great. As a politician he's long on theory and short on actual experience. Go rot in hell Ralph.

Your telling him to rot in hell is entirely irrelevant.

It's fine to disagree with the man's motives, aspirations or actions. But telling the man to "rot in hell" seems to have crossed the line, in my book. That destination is reserved for the GOP :evilgrin: Just kidding, or am I???

Since when is "three voters" = "many voters"

...when you're not going to get elected.

Almost word for word what Dennis Kucinich has been saying for the last 2 years, or more. And Kucinich is a Democrat, someone with some actual influence to change things.

Translation, Nader isn't needed, nor is his plagerized message appreciated.

In my fondest dreams he would be elected president.

but everybody should listen to what he has to say.

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

Fighting to keep one of the most liberal members of the Senate out of the White House in preference of one of the worst administrations in American history is pretty damn lame, methinks.

and throwing Corporate lackeys out of Washington is a message that resonates with me.....

but that's just my ideological purity and inability to compromise.

Everybody should vote for Kerry.
Nobody should vote for Nader.
Everybody should listen to what Nader has to say.

I don't support a Bush-Nader ticket.

If he is so honorable why doesn't he spread his "message" in a House or Senate race? Let him run against Lieberman. He doesn't need to run for President to send that message: except if his ego needs to be stroked.

Again he has an essential message with many voters that will lose the election for Kerry if he doesn't step up to the plate.

Again he has an essential message with many voters that will lose the election for Kerry if he doesn't step up to the plate.

I liked President Clinton overall and certainly enjoyed many of the benefits of his administration, but there were definite problems as well. He promised a health care plan and we didn't get one. We did get NAFTA though. He promised gays in the military and while they were always there, far as I know the military code hasn't changed. We did get a "reform of welfare as we know it" though. So, although President Clinton was so much better than the thing that's in office now, I think people have to admit that a lot of his progressive ideals got sidetracked and compromised.

We are seeing Kerry apparently making some compromises and softening his positions now in order to appeal to a broader base of voters. Already, it starts!

Now, the issue is whether or not the majority of American voters are ready to approve the message that Nader hopes will gain their support. If Nader is right, his input and influence can only help Kerry get those "independent" votes. If the country is not quite ready to clip the corporate wings, though, Nader's message could lose Kerry the election. Maybe there really are a lot of folks who really wanted Kucinich but (foolishly, IMO) believed he wasn't electable.

Currently, the Democrats have a slight lead in numbers of voters, but that "independent" block of voters is huge... easily a third of the electorate. Does anyone know which way they go?

I wish Kerry was too, but will vote for him even though it isn't. Emergency and all that.

Today, on Late Edition, Nader said unconditionally he would NOT with withdraw and endorse Kerry under any circumstances. It would be an insult to his volunteers.

Therefore, your scenario, while nice, cannot occur. Ralph has, unfortunately, declared himself the enemy and as such will get only my scorn, despite the many good works of his career.

All down the drain because of his ego.

Nader is meeting with Kerry to discuss their differences. I wouldn't rule anything out at this point.

I truly believe that with another four years of the criminal bush gang, the nation we love will be but a fond memory. Already, I look at what has happened in the last three and a half years, and I barely recognize her now.

Does he have a right to run - yes.
Does he have a moral and patriotic obligation to drop out, now - yes, for the good of our country, for the survival of our country, I believe he does.

Anything short of that only aids bush - thereby increasing the threat to America. And, regardless of whether he is right or wrong on any or all issues, that makes him as much a danger to the US as the current regime.

Its not a matter of whether I agree with him or not. His actions threaten efforts to rescue this nation, and that trumps anything he has to say.

Your assumptions about Nader are true. I don't believe they are. Ralph has given his take on what happened in FL and the 2k election. He didn't expect Gore to lose and Gore had it to win. I agree with him. Gore made several critical and fatal errors. He didn't ask Bill Clinton to campaign for him in critical states like Ak and Tn - Gore's own homestate.

Ralph Nader feels that his message is important enough to campaign at the presidential level - the only suitable platform to effectively make the reforms he advocates so well in his speaches.

You judge him too harshly. He said on Late Edition this morning that he wanted to meet with Kerry to determine what can be done to ensure that he is defeated. Don't cast aspersions on the character of a man who has served us so well in all of his advocacy roles. His message is to important this time.

"to ensure that bush is defeated"

I didn't make myself clear.

I'll exploit your earnestness to feed my outsized lust for power, enrich myself by buying mutual funds that hold shares the very companies I rail against, bust unions when my staff tries to organize. You'll look the other way, of course, becuase I tell you exactly what you want to hear. Suckers....."

Ralph has given his take on what happened in FL and the 2k election. He didn't expect Gore to lose and Gore had it to win. I agree with him. Gore made several critical and fatal errors. He didn't ask Bill Clinton to campaign for him in critical states like Ak and Tn - Gore's own homestate.

Ralph Nader feels that his message is important enough to campaign at the presidential level - the only suitable platform to effectively make the reforms he advocates so well in his speaches.

You judge him too harshly. He said on Late Edition this morning that he wanted to meet with Kerry to determine what can be done to ensure that bush is defeated. Don't cast aspersions on the character of a man who has served us so well in all of his advocacy roles. His message is to important this time.

since his running for president does nothing except dilute the anti-bush votes, which will help attain the opposite of what Naders message suggests should happen. Nader could deliver the message without running for president, methinks.

His candidacy forces Kerry to address a very important issue. An that, at least for me, he hasn't done so far. It's our democracy at its best. Have some faith in the integrity of the man.

gore led dumbya in the polls from the convention on because he took up a (phony) populist message to counter nader.

he lost his lead during the infamous "Oh I agree with my opponent on ______" debate and the margin became enough for the chimp to steal the election

nader can keep kerry focused on the grassroots and the left and keep him from running a blah, blah-new democrat campaign

that strategy only works for clinton and , let's face it, kerry is no WJC

..the far-left talking points of Nader; ie "there's no real difference between the Democratic party and the Republican party" (wrt pandering to corporate interests etc).
I'd be surprised to ever hear Kerry say as much as "yes the dem party to is pandering to much to corporate interests, and i will change this" or "corporations have way to much influence on the media, i will resurrect the Fairness Doctrine and The Rule of Sevens."
Also most voters wouldn't care to much, since this kind of corporatism we have today has become politically correct, and consider Nader to be a far-left nutcase.

So, how is it that Nader's candidacy helps prevent another term for Bush?
It may be that Bush is not reselected in spite of Nader, but it's not very likely to be thanks to Nader.

I'm in a staunchly republican state and I'm likely to vote for Nader unless there's even a remote chance that Kerry can win here. My gut feeling is that Kerry is prone to losing as many votes as he stands to gain by positioning himself as a "centrist".

I have no respect for him.

Your charge is a serious one.. please back it up.

to listen to and he has carried this message for years while the Democrats have been constantly playing up to the Republicans and ignoring him.

as you see, is too many can't get past nader to hear the message...because: it's too radical for most. not that it IS radical, but it is an attack on business as usual, and most of our dear comrades here are far too conventional to desire that. that's why kucinich didn't fare better, btw.

If all we had to go one was Naders' words, then the hostility would be unreasonable. However, just as Kerry is challenged when his actions collide with his words, it's fair game to note how Nader's actions contradict his words. Nader can talk all he wants about the corrupting power of corporations, but the fact remains that his actions made their theft of an election that much easier to get away with, and despite the fact that his 2000 run did not good and some harm, he continues to insist --against all of the available evidence-- that his running in 2004 will do some good.

it's much easier to focus on nader than to really accept that we experienced a coup, planned and executed by the republican party.
in fact ,it's so much easier because people can continue to pretend that it didn't really happen, and that it won't happen again.
and given that reality, the real question for me is: will it do any good for kerry to run?

Before going on, I just want to remind you that I'm one of those who have never said that it's Nader's fault. It's always been my position thawt there were numerous factors going into it with the most critical being the Repukes dishonesty.

However, the fact still remains that Naders' run, by making the race closer than it would otherwise has been, made the theft easier to pull off. I don't expect that Nader should have been able to see that in advance of the theft, but he really ought to see it by now.

And he runs anyway. I can judge that without losing sight of the Repukes crimes and what really happened. I can judge that, and it won't mean that I can't get past his message or his name. I can jduge it EXACTLY because I'm not stuck on his name or his message.

will it do any good for kerry to run?

Yes, even if they steal the election again because this time, it will be more obvious, and this time, the candidate won't concede defeat.

end of story. when it happens AGAIN, will people continue to bitch and moan about nader...or will they actually do something? hmmm...four years after the fact...nader is still tops. you have a lot more faith in our fellow citizens (and the democratic party) than i do.
i know you aren't one of the usual suspects, my dear :D this topic tends to get my goat.

Thank you for stating the obvious. The Repukes held a coup that Dems aren't even willing to admit happened. And because of this, it CAN happen again.

only makes me understand the importance of Dennis' and Ralph's message about corporations. If both sides are in a state of delusion the prospect of relief anytime soon is remote.

But I am hopeful that Nader's poll numbers actually go up forcing Kerry's hand. Some people play chess - some people play checkers.

:shrug: Nader will not ever get more than 2% of the vote so why bother?

He's not the only one who sees beyond the avalanche of shit, but he *is* one of the few people with any national recognition to talk about what he sees and offer solutions. I don't agree with the run this year, but the message is vital.

Good message, rotten messenger...