Nader Puts Off Presidential Decision

http://www.thechamplainchannel.com/politics/2691604/detail.html

Nader Visits UVM, Puts Off Presidential Decision

POSTED: 7:00 p.m. EST December 8, 2003

BURLINGTON, Vt. -- Ralph Nader, who ran for president in 2000 as a Green Party candidate, visited Burlington Monday and spoke to nearly 1,000 people at the University of Vermont.

* * * *

Nader said Democratic candidate Howard Dean's campaign is "vigorous," but urged Democrats to support Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich in the primaries.

That would certainly be another selling point for Dean...
"select me, and Nader won't be around to blow it"

That if we didn't nominate Kucinich, then Nader will run.


You know the interesting thing about the primaries??

The FReepers will readily admidt that they will be voting in the Dem primary (after all, its well known that Republicans don't accomplish a damn thing without some type of cheating or deceit). But they are discussing voting for Dean or Kucinich.
Yeah, that'll screw the Democrats... somehow...

Ignore the fact that both of them could trounce Bush and make him look like the smirking, drunk asshole that he is.

But then again, thats what Gore did too, and people felt bad for Bush because he got his ass handed to him in the debates.

I would like to see Kucinich stay in the race as long as possible. Although I don't believe he stands a chance in h-e-double-toothpicks, his words need to be heard.

to screw Gore yet again :eyes:

flame away...

Him damaging the country thru his personal beef with the Democrats doesn't do him any personal harm. Sorry, but he's not toast. He becomes more powerful in a very narrow little world of his own making. We thought he'd be a left wing version of Pat Buchannan.

Nope. He's a left wing Lyndon LaRouche.

don't do it. endorse kucinich.

That's the prize question.

That truly would be the kiss of death. What an arrogant guy: after what he did to our party he tries to tell us who to nominate. Ralph for Ralph.

Stick around - you'll be fun. :)

'nuff said

Then he'll be free to run in the general election.

Ralph for Ralph. Because there's not a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats.....except Repubicans donate to my campaign. :-)

Nader just wants to change the Dem party. Of course to do so he has to hurt the dems bad. And of course the GOP also wants to hurt the Dems. But that is beside the point.

It's not going to do the Green party any good, nor him personally or professionally.

DISCLAIMER: I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the Green Party.

I thought there'd be more intelligible posts here... But people are still dead-set on blaming one small facet that was the escapade called Selection 2000. Sigh...
Somehow I'd have thought that Jeb and Katherine's corruption of the system to prevent people from voting, combined with the partisan antics of the "Supreme Couty" seemed to be the reasons why Gore lost. Gee, surely Bill Clinton's escapades had nothing to do as well? :eyes: All this stuff has been documented by lots of people (not on DU because that would tarnish their popularity rating), why the hell don't people read? Because it's easier to blame one man? A scapegoat? That speaks volumes. And not good volumes. :cry:

I don't care about Nader. None of us should. I'm not stupid enough to waste so much energy and emotion on such a small issue that, let's face it, had much less impact on the election nationwide than most people give credit for. Nader's a mosquito, not a nuclear bomb. The Green party's a fucking molehill, not a mountain. Or hadn't people noticed?!

Why worry about grilling the minnow when the 14 pound walleye is still swimming freely?

But I think you miss the point. This election will still be close and Nader will attempt to drain left of center democrats. He will be free to play his role again as the purest democrat in the general election. Personally, I think many of those who voted for Ralph in 2000 will not make that mistake again. But the stakes are even bigger this time around- Republicans control the media, polling, and will have lots more computerized voting machines with uncountable ballots.

I personally think that it will take an overwhelming number of people banding together to rid ourselves of the unelected fraud and the criminals that infest this administration. So I think it's just as important making our case, particularly with new, idealistic voters who might be tempted to follow the Piper, on why it's in their best interests to vote Democrat.

So I think it's just as important making our case, particularly with new, idealistic voters who might be tempted to follow the Piper, on why it's in their best interests to vote Democrat.

I would only suggest that the vinegar of the Massive Disciplinary Project of the last few years hasn't caught many flies. Positive reasons to vote for the Dem - and a willingness on the part of the candidate to flipping listen - tend to work better than "you have no other place to go"-style warnings of doom.

It does sadden me that some people, apparently, still refuse to grasp what happened in 2000.

I'm not bad-mouthing Nader or people who vote for him. I don't do that. I'm simply stating a fact: If Nader runs, he won't win and neither will the Democrat; Bush will.

some of your fellow evil-DUers would disagree.

OTOH, if Nader has that much effect on the outcome, how bad does the Dem candidate suck?

At least in his rhetoric, Dean has absorbed many of the compelling things Nader talked about in 2000. This would neutralize much of Nader's 2004 appeal to people like me. Hell, if this current version of Al Gore had run in 2000, Nader would have had much less impact.

Nader should endorse Kucinich, and then he should work for reforming the Democratic Party in 2004.

I support the Greens in local politics and I think they are important and stand for much of what I believe, but its ABB for me in 2004.

I'm simply stating a fact: If Nader runs, he won't win and neither will the Democrat; Bush will.

Nader didn't suddenly show up out of the blue in 2000, and his supporters that year didn't materialize out of the ether. The presense of Nader, or any other independent or third-party candidate, in the race merely gives the lie to the damaging idea that progressives have no where else to turn but to the Democrats. The Ds can answer that, if they will.

or dont you remember?

or dont you remember?

if it means they won't put forth someone else more damaging

....and not issues...that is why Nader can get some votes in the general election. He is running in order to get the Dems to put a Progressive on the ticket, i.e., Kucinich. He did what he did today in order to put the ISSUE of having a REAL LIBERAL, i.e., a Progressive on the ticket. Have you noticed that the leading Dem candidates are not talking about issues?

Nader had a chance to do the right thing and failed.

I hope he stays out of this one.

Oh dear, what will Ralph do? What will Ralph do?

The fate of the Universe hangs in the balance!

:crazy:

On edit......I agree that Iowa voters should support Kucinich.