The Dems should invite Nader to debate

Rather than avoid him, run from him, ignore him or dismiss him, they should INCLUDE him in a debate. It would be worthwhile for several reasons. It would contrast Nader and the more liberal candidates with Joe Lieberman who thinks we need a rightward pull to win. It would take him to task for his statements that there is no difference between the two major parties since he would have to look back in hindsight at issues such as overtime pay and preemptive war, and frankly, Camejo was included in the California debates and it really didn't serve to do the Greens any favors. Right now he is the darling of those that feel shut out. Let him come on stage and demonstrate HOW he would get any of his policies passed.

what do you think the chances of that will be? And who will be in charge of those chances?

let him come on stage.

However, the debates should be longer in order to accomadate other candidates like Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader. That way, Bush can be attacked both left and right. :-) Hell, even add the Libertarian candidate up there, Gary Nolan. He would rip Bush up.

The chances are slight enough with the Dems. Bush isn't going to get on a stage with Nader.

Might as well make a virtue out of necessity. Personally, I don't think Nader will get over 1% this election no matter what. But someone like Dean could frame himself very nicely as a practical centrist candidate while agreeing with many of the progressive goals of Nader.

and it would make the Democratic candidate look good too. Now look, Bush will at best only participate in one or two debates--I think the Democratic nominee and Nader could have weekly debates even if Bush doesn't participate and many news outlets I think will carry them such as they have the Democratic debates and Bush will look like a the coward he is for dodging them--maybe they can have an empty chair with Bush's picture on it--probably no different than having Bush there in person.

It is shocking in its simplicity and common-sense. :)

keep the egomainical asshole off the stage. He had his 15 min in the sunlight to fuck up the country. Let his good friends at the RNC give him a metal when they have their convention.

Nader would probably spend most of the debate going after Dean for pretending to be a liberal.

...and go after Nader for pretending to be progressive:

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20010423Baker.html

Nader needs to go back to being a consumers advocate. I hold him responsible for the partire of the Democrat's vote that assisted in the 2000 Bamboozle in Florida.

But since he's not, why give him ANY legitimacy? I mean, this is the guy who said we are all "losers"; and who DID say there wasn't a "dime's worth of difference" between Al Gore and Dub in 2000. Why give his lies any more of a stage than we would give, say, Dub's? Or Lyndon Larouche--who at least CLAIMS he's a Democrat; lunatical and whacked-out though he may be.

It's not a "dodge" not to include Ralphie Boy in a Democratic Debate, any more than it would be including any other Green Party candidate in a Democratic debate. Should Ralphie Boy change his registration and claim he was going to work to "change the Democratic Party from within--and without", or something along those lines, then, well, sure; let's put Ralphie Boy up there with the rest of OUR Party's candidates. But until he stops trying to destroy us--making him, in effect, no different from a Republican--why give him air time to do it?:eyes:

Our Party in in the business of sponsoring Democratic debates, NOT Dem/Green Party debates. If the Greens are gaining such strength, let them have their OWN primaries--and their own intra-party debates. If they can't, then they need to concentrate on preventing the spectre next year of George W. Bush with a popular mandate--and their buddy Michael Moore has told them just that!

Good idea, NSMA--just the wrong candidate, and ego, toward which it is directed.:-)

B-)

Where in NSMA's post does it say that Nader should particpate in the Dem primary debates?

"Rather than avoid him, run from him, ignore him or dismiss him, they should INCLUDE him in a debate. It would be worthwhile for several reasons. It would contrast Nader and the more liberal candidates with Joe Lieberman who thinks we need a rightward pull to win."

Unless you think Lieberman and our more liberal candidates are all going to be on stage with Bush at some point, it should be perfectly clear what debates NSMA is talking about.

I can't see how the posters decided NSMA was talking about the Clark vs Bush debates. Actually, I could see Bush wanting Nader on stage for one of those to distract attention from the total tool he will appear to be facing off against Clark.

Going head-to-head with an actual soldier might cause a total meltdown of the Bush CPU and leave him wandering around muttering about "fool me once...fool me once...fool me...me...fool...me fool...me fool..."

"Yes, Mr. President. We know."

THAT is a bad idea on so many levels...if Nader were in a debate with the 9 presidential candidates, he'd wipe the floor with them

If you want someone to truly counter Bush and be his opposition, you'd want Nader on the stage.

HAHAHAHA, that's the funniest damn thing I've heard you say. Nader is thte dullest person I'd ever heard speak. He has as much charisma as Joe Lieberman.

Nah, Nader and Bush could instead speak about their common buddy Grover Norquist, and how they agree that Clinton was an "evil immoral" man!

What would we do without ya Ter!

this is the looniest idea I have ever encountered on DU.

These debates are to help Democrats decide who the Democratic candidate will be. Nader will never be a Democratic candidate.

If Nader wants to run as a Green or an independent, that's his right as an American.

Provide him with a forum and free advertisement in the name of some nebulous fantasy? Forget about it.

In 2000 I agreed with Nader that it made little difference who won in the general election since both Gore and Bush represented little more than slight differences in how much of this country they were willing to give away to the corporate interests. Being a New Yorker and a union guy I still voted for Gore but it made little difference in NYC anyway. Boy, would I feel like a total jerk if I hadn't.

Now? Nader has no business doing anything but attacking Bush and supporting the election of the Democratic candidate. That's if he has anything motivating him other than raw ego.

No debate. No support. No encouragement. If he isn't with us, well, he isn't with us and he doesn't belong on our stage.

maybe you were the pariah...hypocrisy runs rampant

a public interest debate. Frankly, I am sure Nader has some good ideas but I am also certain that he envisions a wholesale revamping that is not possible in this political climate and it would inject a dose of reality in both the Dems that have abandoned their base and inject some reality in those that would favor Nader by highlighting where his policy decisions would not stand a chance of passing and might possibly harm the economy and the job situation.

I also think he should be taken to task for his statements that there is no difference since at this point while there are areas where we ALL get frustrated, there are plenty of differences.

While I am not happy with some of his actions, right now he is used as a pundit on television where he does not have to really defend his positions against those who really have to consider all aspects of policy. I'd frankly love to see Nader debate John Kerry.

He fucked up the 2000 election so fuck him. Letting him debate will just give him more credibility than he deserves. I'll never forgive him.

and by default makes it appear he has a point.

Until then, there is no reason that the Democratic Party should allow other parties to participate in their debates.

and at least dennis is not an egotistical and lying sack of pigshit.

un-freepin'-believable

Frankly we have a situation whereby nationwide elections are being polarized due to the unpredictable independent vote. Why not get independents debating with us well ahead of the elections in order to compare and contrast whether thier ascendency to office would really make a difference or matter. It could go a long way to include those people who feel left out of the process simply by acknowledging they exist.

That is NOT what's going on! This is an incredible mistake and exactly the premise you do not want to work on. The polling data shows the poll of "independent" voters is approaching something like 4% of this country and the trend is towards further hardening of positions.

The candidate that will win is going to be the one that did the best at GOTV and that means appealing to the base, NOT the center. This is the formula Karl Rove is using and if democrats fuck around and try to triangulate this one they are going to fail. Just because something worked in '92 doesn't mean it's the eternal formula for victory.

at least he has run as a democrat.

It would expose La Rouche for the nutcase he is once and for all. He is only enjoying popularity because of some young people on the internet who read articles from others but have no idea what a delusional nut he is.

To Blakc Francis, that contrasts with what trends I have seen recently in voter registration in my state where I am politically active. Dems have been losing membership not to Repubs but to people declaring themselves independent.

bleating ideologues.

give me a break

the state of political representation in the country even though I disagree with his strategy for change. La Rouch is just a fucking nut who has some seemingly sane people writing articles and promoting him.

but I can't go with you on this one. No way, not unless he's a declared candidate in the Democratic prmaries/caucuses. Then he should be pressed to guarantee his support for the eventual party nominee (in the unimagineable circumstance that he lose). Can't force him to do it, but reporters should keep asking him over and over and over.

Then he can get on stage and debate.

and his ability to get press coverage at our own peril. I still don't know HOW the debates would work or even if ALL the current candidates should participate but I would certainly like to see some type of open forum wherein he is taken to task rather than avoided as though anyone is afraid of him.

And I love you too! ;-)

I hope the other nine (especially Lieberman) slash him to bits. Call him the "Ross Perot of 2000"

got 19% of the vote. And he got that after dropping out and coming back with stories of black helicopters and Bush-sponsored disruptors at his daughter's wedding. If he'd stayed and built on his early momentum, the Clinton years could've been the Perot years.

Don't count on the Dems' ability to "slash" Nader to bits. He's more than an able debater, he's quick and has a powerful intellect and prodigious memory. If Nader's allowed in the debates I would expect to see a swelling of Green ranks -- at least a third of the electorate consider themselves independent and are amenable to a choice outside of the binary constraint of Democrat or Republican.

:shrug:

Not all of them, but Kucinich is saying a lot of the same things. He's losing, but he's been in every debate so the people who feel 'left out' are not left out, they're just losing the debate.

It's a far better strategy than joining hands with the Republicans to exclude him.