Nader: "Dean won't return my calls. I'm trying to give him good advice."

He just said that on Crossfire. I wonder if he was serious.

Even the last chairman at least had dialog with Nader.

Nader is doing a good job. He brings up a lot of corporate issues you don't normally hear. Novak seems to be having more fun than he has with Carville.

I wish I cared what Nader has to say.

eom

Propping up the lying spoiler is good for the Republicans.

And he's completely marganalized. He comes of like a complete wacko on TV. I want the American Agenda to move towards his directions on the issues but Ralph's damaged goods and Dean shoudln't waste his time by returning phone calls from him.

Carville and Begala don't bring up the corporate money issues like Nader is. Its so rare for truly liberal voices to get on TV that I don't complain when they do.

That doesn't mean that I agree with, say, the Weather Underground's practice of trying to end it. Nader is a terrorist, plain and simple. His tactics take his agenda off the table. If someone else who doesn't use suicide bombing tactics wants to talk about Nader's issues, that's fine, but for now Nader is on the "no attention list".

What are you talking about? This post makes it sound like you have an irrational hatred of Nader. He's a lot of things, but he hasn't killed anyone yet.

He wants to make people afraid of him. He used the destructiveness of George W. Bush against someone he disagreed with. That was his weapon.

And to self-destruct any chances of getting progress on any of your own issues to make some sort of point is akin to suicide bombing.

Nader: Every penny increase at the pump translates to $1.5 BILLION profit for the oil companies!

Some increases are to cover cost. So not every penny increase is there to make more profit. Why does anyone even bother listening to him?

I am no fan of Ralph Nader, but I would like to see something to back up your assertion that what he said was a "lie."

Here is a link and a few paragraphs from an article in the BBC regarding Exxon-Mobil's record 2004 profits--which they media can never manage to mention.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4223573.stm

Soaring prices

Exxon Mobil's profits rose to $25.33bn from $21.51bn last year, on revenues up 17% to $298bn.

The strong performance boosted its shares, which rose 39 cents to $51.66 in early trading.

Along with the world's other biggest oil producers, Exxon Mobil benefited from the giddy rise in crude oil prices last year.

Ever-increasing demand for oil from China and India plus worries over interruptions to output from key markets fuelled a rise in prices to a thirty year high.

more...

What Nader says may have a lot of weight to it with respect to oil profits. The message is relevant, but there is no point in shooting the messenger no matter how much contempt you have for him.

Read what I said carefully. Find out what I'm actually saying is not true about what Nader said.

Nader was running because the Dems wouldn't stand up against corporate money. Dem actions in the past few months indicate to me that way too many of them are just as much on the take as the Rethugs. Nader's a true believer.

BTW, he didn't cost John Kerry the election. Kerry won.

Like someone wouldn't figure this out. Actually, I'd posit that a lot of them would figure it out, but go around saying it's true anyways to prove how left-wing they are, as is the tendency of vain and destructive splinterists.

He's not. Research what he says. He's right about a lot of things. Not perfect, but nobody is.

that have nothing to do with the post? They've all been repeated a thousands times on this board. If people want to bash Nader at least do it in a new way.

His own credibility is shot with lies he told. Credibility is important because you can use it to convince someone that listening to you isn't a complete waste of time as it is with Ralph.

That's really illogical, not practical, and inefficient.

wouldn't it be worth it? The dialog that was opened last time helped ensure that Nader spent his time criticizing Bush instead of attacking Kerry.

And Nader isn't just a random person. Regardless of his Presidential runs, he has still done more to help this country during his career than most Democrats in Congress.

Nader did attack Kerry. For example here http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/194638_nader11.html

as opposed to attacking Bush? His campaign in '04 was different than his '00 campaign. He focused on attacking Bush.

And how hypocritcal of a Dean supporter to condemn Nader for criticizing Kerry's stance on the war. I heard a lot of that from Dean himself.

First you made the claim that in '04 that Nader attacked Bush and not Kerry. However, I knew that wasn't the truth and so I googled and found evidence that you were WRONG. But, now you go on twisting my actions. My point was that what you said about Nader not attacking Kerry was WRONG. But you go on to twist my actions saying, "how hypocritcal of a Dean supporter to condemn Nader for criticizing Kerry's stance on the war." Nader crticizing Kerry was the first evidence I found to prove that you were WRONG. But you are TWISTING my actions saying that I'm condeming Nader for criticizing Kerry. You are BLANTANTLY and FALSELY ingoring my point. I urge you to stop twisting people's arguments. Perhaps you misunderstood, if so I'm sorry. But if you purposefully spinned my actions then what you did was fucking bullshit.

I made a simple point. Nader spent the '04 election criticizing Bush. There are a few exceptions. The media always tried to get Nader to talk about Kerry and that's what they usually played up. So while you can find some examples of Nader attacking Kerry, they are the exception rather than the rule. That's the same point I made twice.
And the point was that part of the reason Nader did that was probably that Kerry and Terry M. had continued conversations with Nader personally. I'm guessing that made a difference since Nader acted very differently in '04 than he did in 2000. So maybe talking to Nader is a good idea.

He should have pitched his message to disallusioned libertarians. There is enough fodder in the Bush history to make this appeal. Instead he chose to go after the low hanging fruit, disallusioned liberals. And that hurt party unity.

I'm pretty far left, but I know that the way we're goign to get this country headed in the right direction is to get a moderatly liberal populist elected (in the veign of Deans campaign or Edwards campaign) then build on that victory with a slightly more liberal succesor and so on.

This country is not going to lurch into some anti-big business, anti-neoliberal, pro-government far-left wet dream we are dealing with an economic calamity (25% unemployment and starvation in the strets).

So attacking Kerry in the middle of one of the most important camapign in our lifetime is grounds for excommunication, add to that that he took funding from the repugs and he's dead to me.

There are so many things he could have done to advance his views and his agenda and he chose the ones that would get him the most press: attacks on the left's best hope. He's no better then the DLC in my mind.

Dean asked, nay, practically BEGGED Ralph Nader to stay out of it last time.

Ralph pointedly ignored him, and never talked with him.

Phone goes two ways, Ralph.

in the mock election tragedy. No one better touch his 3 voters in 5 states!

Why do people even care after '04? He was a non-factor.

His Libertarian votes stole enough from Bush in some states in 2000 to also swing them to Gore. I am always mystified how people that call themselves democrats promote stifling a certain sector of the electorate.

I seem to remember him mopping the floor with that scumbag on stage.

Ralph's all ralph, all the time

Nader didn't listen. Maybe things went on between the two of them that we are not aware of.

I personally don't care if Dean talks to him. He's a traitor to what he claims to believe in, IMO, and I wouldn't trust a single idea that came out of his head anymore.

And this is from someone who voted for him in 2000.

I feel the same and I also voted for him in 2000.

Dean could have run (and I think had some modest success) as an Independent, but he didn't because he knew that it would help re-elect Bush by pulling votes away from Kerry.

Nader didn't have the common decency to do the same, so at this point, I don't think I'd piss on him if he were on fire.

Plus, aren't some (all?) of his books published by a company owned by Rupert Murdoch (or some other Repub?)

Do you live in Florida??? I knew it was SOME ONE!!

I think Nader WAS, I say WAS a real crusader for The People sometime way back, like I can't remember exactly. But I was around. I SAW him on Phil Donahue, so I know. That's about how long ago.

He's 70 or older now and I think some of his effectiveness has worn off, and perhaps he's a bit too narcissistic these days.

Call back around 2009. You could try calling the “idiot” he has to be feeling gratefull for all your help.

You really got something on Dean now!

seriously anymore. He helped to create the mess that we'll be paying for, for generations to come. Better if he'd just retire from the spotlight and go teach corporatism at some community college.

"He said if I really loved him, I would let him sleep with me, but now he won't return my calls."

Tell it to Dr Drew.

This guy is a walking cesspool spilling out on the American political scene. He screwed us period in Florida. Even with the stolen votes, it was Nader who did not tell his people to vote for Gore. Even with the theft there, Gore would have won period.

Ralph Nader gave us George W. Bush. Isn't that enough!

Go away Ralph, take a long walk off a short pier. You are a disgrace

to progressive politics. You have earned the contempt of your peers.

:nuke: :nuke:

All the good work he did on behalf of consumers in the US was, frankly, pissed away during the last two elections. His credibility is gone, goodbye.

I wouldn't piss in his mouth if his teeth were on fire.

He can be left to contemplate on how his life's work has been destroyed by his own actions. He shares responsibility for every outrage that the Bush administration has perpetrated. He's not a babe in the woods. He knew that there were important differences in the two parties in 2000 and he lied about that. He knows that you don't help to empower people like Bush because events can rewrite the script you have in mind. He's not young enough to be forgiven for what he did.

Good for Dean. Dean doesn't need him and Nader shouldn't get the validation of so much as returned phone call. And I don't think there's anything irrational about hating Nader. I think it's completely rational, from those of us who knew what he was doing in 2000 could lead to disaster.

that is all.

RL

cheap bastard.

I imagine Dean is in the "bitter over 2000" camp with respect to Nader.

As a fan of both, I have to say that it's kinda petty to still be on about this, but then Nader has repeatedly refused to have anything to do with the Democratic Party.

They both are effective activists, and they both say a lot of important things that need to be said.

It's a shame if they can't have a dialogue, for whatever reason.

How much votes did they manage to pawn onto him last mock election? 0.001%? Sorry, Ralphie, you're used goods. At least mccain gets Dim Son to ridicule him as a puppy - you don't even get a mention. By anyone. Whaaaaa! :nopity:

how can we miss you, if you won't go away?

He is a sad man. Everyone says he has not been the same since the stroke. They loved the guy..and he just refuses to take responsibility for his actions and how sad the USA has been since Bush won (Nader took enough votes from Gore).

If anyone refuses to keep learning about the realities of the world they live in.. they should not be leading anyone .. anywhere.

You are worse than useless, no matter how noble your intentions.

listen, this man knows a thing or two about getting progressive policy passed. Dean would do well to keep a low-key relationship with him.

It's a Dem thing. It's what we do.

And folks wonder why we lost. We need a Doctah. Oh wait....

who always helps us lose.

Edited to add link:
http://factcheck.org/article216.html

trust me. I think his ego was in the campaign as his running mate.

Whatever good will I had left toward him fled when he took Smear Vet money and tried to say that perhaps they supported him. Riiiight. And all the Repuke help he got in the various states. "We wouldn't want the Nader voters to be disenfrancised, now would we." Nah, just the Kerry ones.

Even so, I wish the rant cannon was aimed out instead of in sometimes.

I honestly don't see ANYONE at the national level NOT eating out of the pork barrels. Honestly it is my pet peeve with our party. Our message may be benevolent, but what does it matter when it's funded by General Fucking Electric.

is more visceral.

And for Ralph, who rails against such things specifically, it just screams hypocrite. He's supposed to be better than that. Or was, anyway.

When Democrats had the majority in Senate, and he was pushing for consumer protection. I don't think he could caucus for a no-littering campaign at this point.

either he has this divine power to throw national elections or he's so inept he couldn't "caucus a no-littering campaign". At the very least I wish Nader haters could stay consistent.

He not only hurt Al Gore (although Gore did a pretty good job beating himself up) in 2000, but he dealt a devastating blow to the Green Party. He now denounces his former sponsors, after nearly trashing their ability to fund raise or build locally. Ralph has a history of being vindictive to former friends--his latest salvo against Michael Moore is mild in comparison to the smears he's launched at some of his consumer advocate associates. The guy probably has an IQ of 150, but his emotional intelligence is too low to be measurable.

He knows a thing or two about getting Bush* elected.

we run a couple of lukewarm candidates and don't stay on message and fall into every repuke trick and trap (which incidentally includes blaming thrid parties candidates). Fuck, if UberDeity Ralph has this divine ultimate power to singlehandedly throw two national elections then WHY THE FUCK WOULDN'T we want him on our side? The blindness is stunning sometimes.

So his candidacy was basically based on a lie.

Then this time around he lied and said Gore would have started the Iraq war, so not only does he lie about what he thinks will happen, but also about what has happened.

Why would anyone vote for someone who lies so much?

Is that Gore lost that election all by himself. Democrats need to face up to that fact instead of looking to Nader as a scapegoat.

Nader went around actively convincing people that it didn't matter who won because there was "little difference" between the parties. There are now dead and maimed children in Iraq who know differently, while there are far-left activists way on the other side of the globe still in denial about it.

Nader got most of his support based on this lie, which we can see because a lot of people who voted for him before didn't fall for the same lie this time around.

Gore ran a bad campaign and it shouldn't have been that close. All the man had to do was win his home state and Florida wouldn't have mattered. Half the Nader people wouldn't have voted for Gore even if Nader wasn't in the race. I think its pointless to keep blaiming it on Nader.

He knows perfectly well what he contributed to the selection of bush in 2000.

If the plutocrats achieve their goal of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, they should name their first oil well after Nader. He's the one who made it possible. Without him, President Gore is serving his second term and the idea of drilling the Refuge isn't even on the table.

God I miss Mediawhores.com

he's on the neocon payroll, too....Here are some other posers that people need to realize ARE posers lapping at the neoncon teat...


Michael Savage - right wing self-hating Jew posing as an independent.
Bill O'Reilly - right wing pervert posing as an independent.
Neal Boortz - right wing meat puppet posing as a libertarian.
Laura Ingraham/Ann Coulter - right wing fembots posing as freepers.

All of the above, along with their local surrogates have one thing in common: they launch their heaviest salvos at Dems, but toss a few mudballs at fellow Republicans (usually the more moderate ones) to give the appearance of being "unbiased". These are more dangerous than the Limbaughs and Hannitys on the radio because the softball slings at Repubs tossed in with the fastball rips at Dems are subtly more convincing than the pro-right harangues of Rush and Sean.


But you all already know this! :)

Nader condemned the corporate influence over the Republican Party more effectively than I've ever heard from Carville or Begala.

Of course, those moderate Democrats take a lot of money from the same corporations as the Republicans. Maybe you should re-evaluate who is on the corporate payroll.

Biden and other Dems rolling over on that bankruptcy bill, ANWR, the Patriot Act, and others are classic examples of the puppetmasters pulling the donkey strings, and they deserve a big BOO HISS. Still, considering Nader's role in the last two presidential election as spoiler, his condemnation of the Repubs should be regarded with skepticism at best, outright disbelief at worst. When he decides to quit being the Ross Perot for the GOP every four years (or at least quit giving the appearance of it), then his criticisms may hold more validity. Until then, I regard him as a political hired gun for Rove/Cheney.

He needs to disappear.

What's that spell? EGO!

What's Ralph got? A BIG EGO!

What's Ralph got? A BIG-ASS EGO!

What am I sick of? RALPH'S BIG-ASS EGO!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

I wouldn't.

Really?

..if he starts dropping Valerie Plame or Joseph Wilson references on Novak. But we know THAT won't happen! LOL!

Im trying to change the Democratic party.

Ralph walked into Dean's headquarters unannounced right before the primaries and gave the Dean campaign an ultimatum: pick me as your running mate or else.

:eyes:

But according to one of Dean's senior advisers, its true.

http://battle.dailykos.com/story/2004/2/25/52333/6530

Now could the Dean campaign be lying or distorting what happened? Sure. But that's an issue you need to take up with the Deaniacs.

Well done in having it handy.

The link doesn't suggest Nader walked in unanounced at random and demanded. It sounds like they had a meeting set up and talked about it. You're characterization of what happened was a little off, even if the story is true.

The phrase "walking in off the street" usually means coming in unannounced. In fact, I think that was the point of the story: that Nader just walked in one day and pitched himself for vice president. That's a pretty presumptuous thing to do, hence the whole "ego" thing.

But there's more to it if you analyze the circumstances. At the time Nader walked into Dean's office, he was also resurrecting his old "both parties are exactly the same" rhetoric and making as much public noise as he could about deciding whether he should run again or not. Politically speaking, I think the message Nader was sending to the Dean camp was fairly straightforward (and I can guarantee you the veterans in Dean's campaign read between the lines and interpreted it like this): Either pick me as your running mate, or you might face me in the general and I'll try to do to you what I did to Gore.

So I don't think I mischaracterized what happened at all. I think Nader publicly began talking about playing spoiler in another election, and then walked into the frontrunner's office and gave him a subtle ultimatum. And as I said previously, my impression is that Dean and Nader have not been on particularly good terms with each other since around that time.

He does bring up important issues but he has wasted whatever credibility he had built up over the years.

If he really wanted to influence the direction of the Democratic Party, he could have run for president in the Democratic primary. But he chose to stroke his ego instead.

Fine. You made your bed, Ralph. Now go lie in it.

Ralphy

he got less than 1/2 of 1 percent.

Nader is irrelevant.