As I listening to Gore speak now, I wonder does anyone still believe ...

"there is no difference" between Gore and Bush?! :crazy:

I sure hope they don't any longer.

...so firmly so that they're prepared to reprise their folly, this autumn.

to the Dems at the Federal level like I am.

And many others. Thank YOU!

I would have still voted Green to build my party, because I still would have been laboring under the "misunderesitmation" that there was no way Gore could lose to such an IDIOT!

But, eventually (living in a swing state) I decided against. :hi:

but I say what good is it ro build an party if you tear down the world?

Will definitely vote Green at the lower levels. It's a risk of sending more Repubs to the state legislature, but ya know, I live in a fairly heavy Repub town anyway.

in with another 4 of *. :(

:hi:

sarcasm.

:)

Yes, quotes please.

http://www.gp.org/press/pr_01_14_02.html

Nader added that a Gore presidency "wouldn't have been any different in terms of military and foreign policy, soft on corporate crime. It wouldn't have been any different in ignoring the need to transfer our country to renewable energy and organic agriculture and protecting the small farmer. And it wouldn't have been any different on GATT and NAFTA and the increasing trade deficits and exporting American jobs."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0304-02.htm

"He is not coy about his motives. Just as he ran for president to punish Gore and the Democrats for allegedly betraying their progressive traditions and currying favor with global corporate power, now he wants to knock off congressional Democrats who have committed the same sins. As he put it, "The Democrats are going to have to lose more elections. They didn't get the message last time."

...

In any case, Nader still believes there are scant differences between President Bush and the Democrats: "OK, there are differences on gun control, tobacco, and abortion. But if you stack up the similarities, they just tower..."

Only Gun control, tobacco and abortion????

Lastly,

...

"Borosage has fenced with Nader over all this. He recalled: "I saw Ralph at a political dinner not long ago. Nobody was talking to him. I went over to say hi. I told him that I was 'fighting the new crowd.' He said, 'They're no different from the last crowd.' I finally said, 'Ralph, I think they're gonna show us just how different they are,' and I walked away."

Indeed *they* have shown us "just how different they are."

Justa coupla quotes to chew on. ;)

Found another article of interest? Note the profetic statements made here.

http://eserver.org/bs/editors/2000-11-8.html

"Nader's campaign has for months repeated a mantra that there was no difference between Bush and Gore. In the long and still-continuing wait for a final outcome, the nature and extent of that difference has become apparent to all except those invested in a belief that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Difference, unlike beauty, does not reside solely in the eye of the beholder. Political difference here is a logical distinction with real human effects. The policy differences between Bush and Gore can spell life and death. Will many elderly will get the drugs they need? Will women will have a Supreme Court majority protecting women's autonomy over their own bodies? Will critical environmental problems will receive effective answers?

Beyond these sorts of differences, just plain disgust wells up at the idea of the next four years spent wincing at George W. Bush, a man of awsomely profound shallowness. Bush is dangerously sophomoric, whereas Gore can be just plain soporific."

The article closes:

"Politics are about getting along with opposing opinions in order to create civil discourse in a complex society. Politics that preach uncompromising righteousness and New Moral Orders are diversions into misery. George Bush ran a campaign to "restore decency" and clean out the supposed moral cesspool of the Clinton White House. Ralph Nader ran a campaign to clean up the moral corruptions of power in Washington. Theirs was the rhetoric of totalistic social demand and moral cleansing.

In the end there was little difference between Bush and Nader."

We can speculate all day long but in the end it amounts to naught. Granted I would agree with most folks that Nader couldn't have possibly known how disastrous a president that 43 would be. He was, I'm sure, basing his comments on what happened to Iraq with the hand-off from Bush41 to Clinton and all of the corporate bullshit that happened in Clinton's watch.

No one could have known that this Bush would be as fascist as he is. It is easy to look back in hindsight and say "Nader is a liar, wrong blah blah blah".

what would happen with a Bush presidency.

From increased crime to mass war, to increasing poverty etc...

Also, Nader now KNOWS what kind of President 43 is, and he is running again, pulling votes from John Kerry.

Granted people have a right to vote for whom they want, but it's tough for me to stomach Nader this time round.

http://www.dontvoteralph.net

Poll after polls shows the Nader impact could be enough to swing this election to Bush.


It is erie to me that Progressives are working side by side with Republicans to get Ralph on the ballot in my state. :(

You can only speculate because Gore never got to take office. Ergo, you don't KNOW. You speculate the differences base off of what you perceive about Gore and what you know about Bush 43's Presidency.

I quit listening to polls long ago.

However, lets say it was speculation on the part of many.

I would ask today that people weigh the "speculation" in this election, in a manner that gives more creedence to those who's "speculation" was correct during the last election?

Hint: Mr. Nader was incorrect. ;)

Gore was NEVER president, ergo you CANNOT say with any sort of definity that what he would have done as president is any different than Bush, ALL you can do is speculate.

based on historical data. :hi:

"My knowlege comes from history not speculation, but common sense."

However, after this statement you did say "for the sake of argument". That being said though really kind of renders this argument into the realm of the Twilight Zone. We form opinions based on speculated data and the end result is...?

Oh, the end result is irrational Nader hatred.

Nice try though.

Nader said there would essentially be no difference between Gore/Bush. I did not agree with that statement in 2000, nor do I today.

I said I based my opinion on common sense, and historical data (of the two men and the two parties.)

In an attempt to defend Naders incorrect assertions, you parsed words indicating that all anyone could do was speculate.

B,B,But poor Ralph, he was only "speculating" ... :eyes:

So, Nader was speculating and many others were speculating. I guess that was your point?

I have yet to gather wtf Nader based his speculation on ... ?

Adding:

In post #8 you said "who said there wasn't" a difference." Then when I provided the information that Nader said it, you came back with "we'll never know if there was a difference" ... "it's all speculation"?

Like I said, I'd be cautious listening to Naders "speculation" going forward. He has a history of being drastically incorrect.

and he was wrong, just as you are wrong. You did indeed supply me with some quotes that Nader said. My reply is this...you cannot say that a Gore presidency would be any different than a Bush presidency because Gore was NEVER president. You can ASSUME and you can SPECULATE all you want but IT DOESN'T make it true.

The only way you could be right in your speculation was/if Gore becomes President one day. Then you can see for yourself in real time if Gore would be different.

Was Ralph wrong? Yes
Are you wrong? Yes

Ralph was basing his speculation and assumption on the historical trend of Republican rule and Democratic weakness. There was no way he could have predicted what this Bush would do because what this Bush has done is unprecedented in our history.

Nixon/Reagan/Bush 1 all had similar administrations.

Ralph was blowing hot air then, and he is now.

"My reply is this...you cannot say that a Gore presidency would be any different than a Bush presidency because Gore was NEVER president."

Your reply is ... Laughable.

Here is what Ralph (there is no difference) Nader is saying today ...

"Things are getting so bad in this country you look back on Richard Nixon with nostalgia." ~ Ralph Nader -- March 25, 2004

Wonder what the goal is this time, to look back on Hitler with nostalgia?

http://www.greensforkerry.com/quotes.php

Nixon/Bush/Reagan all had similar administrations. Despite the fact that this statement is about as vague as you can be I will play along. Let's say, for the sake of argument, they did have similar administrations...are you saying that their administrations are similar to Bush 43's?

I can't believe you are trying to make this claim if this is your goal. Please clairify this statement. The title of your last post was "actually its not unprecidented". Which makes me think you are trying to say ALL these Republican administrations are the same.

"are you saying that their administrations are similar to Bush 43's?"... I can't believe you are trying to make this claim if this is your goal.

Uhm, Believe it ... :hi:

Nixon, Bush 41 and Reagan = Bush 43. Interesting, I would like to hear your explaination of this.

Are you not aware that much of Bush 43's administration served in the Reagan and Bush 1 admins? Bush's daddy was Reagans VP fer cripes sakes!

Food for thought here:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0405-05.htm

Iraq has become "George Bush's Vietnam," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy said Monday, calling the president deceitful and for the first time comparing him to former President Nixon, who resigned in disgrace.

Saying that truth has become the biggest casualty of the Bush administration, Kennedy said Bush misled the public about the war, the economy, health care and education, eroding the nation's reputation at home and abroad.

"As a result, this president has now created the largest credibility gap since Richard Nixon," Kennedy said in a speech at the Brookings Institution, a think tank. "He has broken the basic bond of trust with the American people."

Bush comparisons to Reagan.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0223-08.htm

"Bush rallies America in a perpetual war against "evil ones" and the "axis of evil." Ronald Reagan used the cold war to lambast the "evil empire" of the Soviet Union. Their administrations are strikingly similar not only in their use of adjectives, but also in denouncing Washington and "big government" and pushing for tax cuts for the rich and deregulating business. It is interesting to compare the corporate connections of the Reagan years and the Bush administration. At the hub of both sits General Electric."

My gosh, the comparisons are endless Nlighten.

PNAC is also of consideration.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Note the members of PNAC.

It's a regular good ol boy Network.

http://oldamericancentury.org/What%20Is%20the%20PNAC%20And%20Who%20Are%20Its%20Members.pdf

There are similarities in motive, players and execution. But I think Nixon's may be dwarfed by DimSon's.

;) I think they all pick up where the last admin left off?

Clinton left us in pretty good shape...I don't think it is a far cry to say that W will be the worst US President in history. He and his family are absolutely drunk with power.

that Bush picked up where Clinton left off. I think Bush drove us off a cliff.

You have to admit though that Bush 41 ran a pretty tight ship when he was President...he looks like the Uber Statesman compared to his offspring.

stupidity though. And, he did seem to have a better grip on reality.

Bush did. I read a statement by a Nader supporter here a few years ago. That person said we could only judge Gore by Clinton's record. Now that's just plain dumb.
I knew what Gore would do because I know what he said, because I was listening to him and not being brainwashed by a lot of bullshit rhetoric coming from Nader's campaign.

How could you not have known?
Nader lied continuously about Al Gore during the last race. Can we expect the same dishonest tactic again this year? Will he run against Kerry exclusively?

what kind of "leader" Chimp would be way back before the "election". How? I simply googled for Bush's record in Texas. I didn't even know about Molly Ivins or anyone else at that time!

Anyway, the results from that search made it perfectly clear what his pattern was as governor, and what to expect from him in future.
So I ran around like a nut trying to tell people NOT to vote for Nader cuz I knew Gore needed every single vote. :cry:

Thanks for the post.

Ms. Molly showed you, and you failed to follow up. You subtly shifted the conversation back around to Molly, instead of Nader where it belonged.

How DO you respond to the FACT that Nader was either wrong, lying, or speculating?

They tend to be people who don't read very well or maybe they are lacking in comprehension skills. Or maybe they are just so ideologically bent towards their opinions they just flat out misunderstand things they read because it doesn't support their fragile position.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1682253&mesg_id=1683925&page=

Molly did indeed show me...and I did follow up. Take your time, read nice and slowly let it sink in.

Thanks for the new label.

Are you saying that there are some people here that DON'T hate Nader? Or just that you aren't one of them?

I'm saying people are not "Nader haters" simply because they have legitimate issues with him.

Having legitimate issues with someone is one thing. Having irrational issues with someone is another.

There are some people who can articulate their dislike of Nader without causing their monitor to be speckled with saliva. For them, I am thankful but for the Nader haters I have nothing but scorn.

I think Nader should bow out of the race this go round myself. However, I absolutely love his platform and I am glad he is out there speaking it because NO ONE in the Democratic party will say it and it NEEDS to be said.

America is going to hell in a hand-basket and, disagree with Nader running all you want, his message is spot on and needs to be heard.

Now you can say there are other ways for his message to be heard without him hurting the Democratic party, which is true, but the Democratic party is PART of the problem. Why give a pass to people who are only slowing down the inevitable?

In spite of the fact that Nader feels "things are getting so bad in this country you look back on Richard Nixon with nostalgia."

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/may2004/nf20040511_8848_db052.htm

Nader explains: "Dems say, 'We have to beat George Bush.' I'm sorry. We played that game for 20 years. We're not playing it..."

On the other hand he claims: "the main objective in this election, is to beat George Bush."

Hmmm, I'm having trouble figuring out what he hopes to accomplish here?

So, Ralph thinks things are so bad, he's nostalgic for Nixon, but he calls continuing to talk out of his ass to gain votes from Kerry, "playing a game."

Indeed it would appear Ralph is "playing" voters.

Also, I am aware of the backbone campaign as I supported the first recipient.



I agree with you that Ralph should drop out, Granny D notes a win/win solution below:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/051604B.shtml

In that regard, let me urge those who think Mr. Nader is a better candidate than Mr. Kerry not let their high opinions of their own political correctness cause the deaths of thousands of people in the world over the next four years and the loss of our civil liberties, which would be the real result of such selfish narcissism. ** According to Bruce Ackerman's wonderful editorial in the New York Times last week, Mr. Nader can avoid risking this outcome if he will name the same Electoral College electors as Mr. Kerry. Votes will register for Mr. Nader, but they will apply to Mr. Kerry if Mr. Nader has insufficient votes to win. It is a way Mr. Nader can, in this way, create a sort of Instant Runoff Voting system by a clever use of the system. **

If he will not do this, I cannot vote for him, in good conscience. For I do not want to face the survivor of some family whose members were tortured and killed by our forces a few years from now and say, yes, I could have stopped it, but I was too selfish: I wanted the satisfaction of voting for the better candidate, and that satisfaction was more important to me than the lives of your children and your spouse. I cannot do that and call myself a progressive or even an American. I cannot become the kind of ideologue who lets other people die for my precious beliefs.

Yes, we have to be practical if we are to improve the real world. We All have work to do to get to November and to move into the years ahead. Let us make it joyful and selfless work.

On the night of November 2nd we will go to bed, and the next day the World will have gone one of two very different ways. I will be home in New Hampshire. And if it goes right, I will feel like resting. And I haven't felt like I could rest for a long while."

I wonder if Ralph will take her up on this suggestion? I guess if I were supporting him, I'd wan't to know. He'd definately gain some credibility if he does this.

Regarding Ralphs great platform I am continually reminded of a quote by Gloria Steinem that relates: "He was able to take all those perfect progressive positions of the past because he never had to build an electoral coalition, earn a majority vote, or otherwise submit to democracy." ~ Gloria Steinem

Look at the rest of her reasons for not supporting Nader in 2000 here.

http://www.designcommunity.com/law/notes/21.html

I find this "speculative" statement by Steinem especially interesting.

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

:hi:

:P

He didn't change THAT much.

and i asked this before, has ralph nader commented on gore's speech yet ? iw ould be interested in hearing what he had to say. and if he hasn't commented on it, i wish he would.

who think there's no difference between Kerry and Bush. It was just so damn nice hearing an INTELLIGENT speech. I had almost forgotten what they sounded like.

Then ask him to drop out of this election. :grr:

Let's face it, Joe was the whole reason people made that claim, and they had a point.

We know this. Nader was a non-issue on this point. If Nader wanted to be there just to upset the Democrats, he failed in this endeavor. Also if Nader were out for the day to day person he would be standing on a soapbox stating that the voter has a right to have their votes counted and added correctly. Nader is going to do what Nader is going to do, if Kerry loses the election it will be Kerry's fault and nobody else.

have Americans to make a reasonable choice in the coming election. If we dont we shall pay. And so with others around the globe.

...had even vaguely resembled the Al Gore of today, I might have cast my vote for him instead of becoming so disgusted with the rightward turn of the Democratic Party that I said "Fuck you" and voted for Ralph Nader.

That's gotta be a rude awakening to some.

did you listen to any of his speeches or were you too mesmorized by the "liberal" media's and the Nader story line about Gore?

NBA at the time. Only recently he started discovering that war thingy. Good for the campaign doncha know.

:hi:

This is how he makes his living. He lives off campaign donations just like Larouche.