Excellent Ralph Nader website

check it out: http://www.vote-nader.org

No real Nader supporter would have "Beat Bush!" as a sig. (They're not interested in beating Bush.)

I admit, at first I thought the same thing you did, then I went to the site

...at an anti-Nader site. My point is, I already knew the poster was anti-Nader, because of the "We will beat Bush!" sig. It leads to a Kerry site.

So, the "disguise" as a Naderite fails.

There is no such thing as a legitimate Nader supporter. They're all either witting or unwitting enablers of George W. Bush.

A vote for Nader is one less vote for Kerry, and helping Bush. It is pretty doubtful many Bush voters will vote for Nader.

There is no such animacule....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

Care to expound on your definition, or mobuto's, of "legitimate"? Sir?

The matter has been chewed over rather thoroughly here during recent weeks, but to put it bluntly and concisely as possible: persons on the left who vote for Wrecker Nader accomplish nothing but an augmentation of the strength of the criminals of the '00 Coup relative to the Democratic nominee; it does not matter if they claim their motivation is the achievement of some other end, that is what they will achieve, and it is in present circumstances a damnable thing; no person with any degree of political sophistication can fail to be aware of this, and so the contribution to the cause of the worst elements of reaction of such an act must be viewed as a knowing one.

"An election differs from a civil war only as the bloodless surrender of a force outnumbered in the field differs from Waterloo."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

As it happens, I see nothing positive to be gained in a Nader run this year, but I'm not quite ready to allow myself the hubris to declare the activism of those who *do* see a positive in that run illegitimate.

Political action that benefits the worst elements of reaction ought to be, and remain, the sole purview of reactionaries; it can hardly be viewed as a legitimate field for left political action, certainly. As we are in agreement no good whatever can be served by Wrecker Nader running, or by any person on the left voting for him, there is hardly any point our quarreling on the subject, it would seem to me.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

I'm still quite interested in airing this whole large notion of what is legitimate political participation and what isn't.

What benefits the worst elements of reaction is illegitimate; what damages the worst elements of reaction is legitimate.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

To my mind, both welfare "reform" and globalization as currently realized benefit what I consider some of the worst elements of reaction - can we then say that Bill Clinton's support for the 1996 welfare bill and for NAFTA to be illegitimate, with its connotations of extralegality?

That is all that concerns me just now.

To touch briefly on the two things you mentioned, however: "globalization" is a thing that could work toward either progressive or reactionary ends, depending who is driving the trend, and the spirit in which they approach it; the reconstruction of the welfare system was an unavoidable thing, for the system in place was not only widely viewed as noxious, but actually was so, and the reconstruction could have been much worse than it was.

You will be aware of my interest in Confucian thought, and one of its enduring elements is an appreciation of the importance of the character of the persons carrying out an action, for a good man will do a thing in a better way and to more benign effect than a bad man will do it, even if it is the same thing. Therefore the more progressive figure who can be elected is always to be prefered to a more reaction alternative, and even to a more progressive figure who, in my judgement at least, is likely to fail in an electoral contest against a reactionary.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

"globalization" is a thing that could work toward either progressive or reactionary ends, depending who is driving the trend, and the spirit in which they approach it

Right, which is why I said "globalization as currently realized". Could it have been realized in any other way given the trade agreements currently on the books and pushed under Clinton? No.

the reconstruction of the welfare system was an unavoidable thing, for the system in place was not only widely viewed as noxious, but actually was so, and the reconstruction could have been much worse than it was

Precisely the kind of argument that leads us into the black hole in which we gladly embrace the lesser evil. No doubt it could have been worse (and therefore a greater electoral coup), but why, exactly, was it unavoidable? How noxious was it, and how much more so than any other program open to the temptation of human frailty and greed? Was it noxious enough to ensure that benefits to unknown numbers of the poor ended just as the current recession was gearing up?

You will be aware of my interest in Confucian thought

I am now.

for a good man will do a thing in a better way and to more benign effect than a bad man will do it, even if it is the same thing.

All due respect to the philosopher, but that's a load of horseshit, dependent on the notion that there is a particularly kind and gentle way to starve someone to death.

Therefore the more progressive figure who can be elected is always to be prefered to a more reaction alternative, and even to a more progressive figure who, in my judgement at least, is likely to fail in an electoral contest against a reactionary.

I think you're conveniently leaving out a great deal of American political reality. If the more progressive figure (and let us be real about this - how difficult is it to be more progressive than GWB?) who can be elected still allows the rope to slip from our grasp, only more slowly than the less progressive figure, we still wind up with no rope.

What about them? Is what encourages them legitimate or not?

The not quite so reactionary elements are to be positively encouraged, particulary if such are the only contestants on the field with a decent chance to defeat the worst elements. The point, Ma'am, is not make a personal statement, to to achieve a measureable effect in balking the designs of the worst enemy.

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

is what he said. Which word did you not understand?

Seems to have clarified the matter adequately.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

You support Rep. Kucinich, of course, and doubtless consider him far more progressive than Sen. Kerry, and therefore feel that he should be the candidate the Party chooses. But it is my view, and that of many many others, that were Rep. Kucinich the Party's standard-bearer, he would go down to a defeat in the general election rivalling Sen. Mondale's, or Al Landon's. Therefore he fails the "best chance of success" portion of my criterion.

"Democracy is a form of government based on the proposition that the people know what they want, and deserve to get it, good and hard."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

I mean, thank god we finally have someone with the ability and will to say what is legitimate political participation and what is not. Please, don't keep us in suspense!

is that which attempts to realize specific political ends in as straightforward a manner as possible. Nader supporters do not. By supporting Nader they work to frustrate the very ends they claim to support. The only beneficiary is George W. Bush.

Since when do political activities have to follow straightforward manners in order to be legitimate?

I'd say that if you're campaigning for one set of issues, and by doing so you're actually helping the reverse happen, then you're not a legitimate candidate.

"Legitimate", from m-w.com...

1 a : lawfully begotten; specifically : born in wedlock b : having full filial rights and obligations by birth <a legitimate child>
2 : being exactly as purposed : neither spurious nor false <legitimate grievance> <a legitimate practitioner>
3 a : accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements <a legitimate government> b : ruling by or based on the strict principle of hereditary right <a legitimate king>
4 : conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards <legitimate advertising expenditure> <legitimate inference>
5 : relating to plays acted by professional actors but not including revues, burlesque, or some forms of musical comedy <the legitimate theater>

Are we using "legitimate" in the sense of either #2 or #4? I'm assuming it's not any of the other three.

They define themselves into goodness, thereby defining all those not in their set as not good. It's childish, really: Yer either with us or agin' us. Too bad that parisanship makes so many people willingly abandon their critical faculties.

The far right sees things too much in terms of black and white.

Either you win or you lose. There is no middle ground. There are no shades of gray. Winner takes all.

The tendencies you seem committed to support fail to win elections, and so clearly would seem to have something to learn, by way of technique, from those who do.

Elections are exercises in cultivating group identity, won by persuading the greatest number of persons within the electorate to identify with, and gather together in, a group that will act in unison on a particular day. It is, of course, important in such an activity to present the differences between such potential groupings as being as great as possible, and in the starkest and most compelling terms possible. People are far more likely to wish to rally to the side of angels, particularly when the alternative is a den of demons.

"An election differs fom a civil war only as the bloodless surrender of a force outnumbered in the field differs fom Waterloo."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

"Elections are exercises in cultivating group identity, won by persuading the greatest number of persons within the electorate to identify with, and gather together in, a group that will act in unison on a particular day."

Here we agree. I have noticed, for example, that solely on the basis of party affiliation, I am exhorted to accept that a candidate's urine is champagne. Feelings of group affiliation are supposed to override irrelevant detail such as policy.
Sadly, some small percentage of people like myself are occupationally involved with learning. We cannot tell ourselves that a slower rate of regression is the same thing as progress without violating our respect for learning itself. Lucky is the majority that can fool itself at will.

"It is, of course, important in such an activity to present the differences between such potential groupings as being as great as possible, and in the starkest and most compelling terms possible. People are far more likely to wish to rally to the side of angels, particularly when the alternative is a den of demons."

The marketing of Cartesian dualism is rather obvious. But like calling the tail a leg, that doesn't make it so.

"The tendencies you seem committed to support fail to win elections,..."

Indeed. And the tendencies that you seem committed to support ensure that the glorious moment of progress will never arrive. What price, victory? Even Nixon is too liberal by today's standards of triangulation without end.

edited typo

No has asked you to think they Kerry's urine is champagne. You only exagerrate because the truth won't further your argument.

So go ahead and talk policy. In the end, you're going to have to vote for Bush*, Kerry, or someone who is definitely going to lose. You refuse to take a position and defend. All you've shown is the ability to knock something down, not make it better.

Now that you've outed me as the first-ever discussant to exaggerate on DU in order to make a point, I guess that means that no point could possibly have been behind it.

Sorry, but you're going to need to try again. Perhaps you missed the whopper about the primacy of group identity to which I responded and excerpted a quote.

Or maybe you ignored the quote in order to try to win an argumentative point, finally. I guess it wasn't my posting that was impoverished, after all.

As is usually the case with your replies, your comments amount to agreeing that my description of things is accurate, followed by some complaint that what is is not suitable to your delicate sensibilities, and a lament that those professionally occupied with learning, among whom you number yourself, do not have a dominant role. Nonetheless, there are some minor points it might be profitable to engage in some small way.

Your initial metaphor intrigues me strangely, Sir. It is common to hear men opposed to gay rights declare they do not want the homosexual agenda shoved down their throats, and my reaction is always to wonder if these people ever really listen to themselves, and are in the slightest aware of what they have really communicated concerning their fears and desires. Similarly, when you announce you are "exhorted to accept that a candidate's urine is champagne," it is impossible for an old rake-hell to avoid speculating just what it was that made that particular phrase bubble up and spill out over the lip of your mind, and dribble down the front of your argument. It is wise, Sir, to be aware of all possible meanings and communications your words might reveal, and adviseable to avoid figures of the sort that would drive a therapist to serreptitious jottings in a notebook, particularly when engaging someone who you know is not squeamish, and considers the taking of unfair advantage a moral duty. You were kind enough recently to offer me instruction in the formal construction of argument, which you seemed to think would be of benefit to me, so perhaps you will allow me to return the favor with a practitioner's tip: mockery and ridicule are excellent tools for negating an opponent's best efforts, for laughter is a shared emotion, that is a powerful binding for group identity, and what people have once been moved to laugh at they cannot easily be persuaded again to take at all seriously afterwards.

You may, perhaps, Sir, be able to instruct my ignorance in another matter, for you described the ascription of good to one group and evil to another as "the marketing of Cartesian dualism," which puzzles me somewhat. My understanding of that system is that it postulates a duality of mind and body, the substances of which are insusceptible of intermixture or interaction without divine agency, but ascribes no particular moral qualities to the seperation. It seems to me a more apt allusion would have been to Gnostic or Neo-Platonist views, widely circulated at the start of the current era, which postulated a separation of Spirit and Matter, ascribing all good to Spirit and all evil to Matter. That world view was brought alive to me in a story by Mr. I. B. Singer, the title of which escapes my recollection just now, but contained in the collection "Short Friday", that depicts the sufferings of a spirit condemned for some fault to descend into material and wear the mantle of flesh in a body. That it was so repellent a thing to read is the highest tribute to its excellence as a work of writing, and on emergence from it the charm of Gnostic views were greatly dimmed for me, to put it mildly. But that was back in the days when a portion of my time was still devoted to reading fiction, to which category it seems that speculative philosophy must ultimately be assigned, and those days have long passed.

There is only one matter on which you seem to venture any real disagreement with my view, and that is on whether slowing the speed of a process can be accounted a good thing. Whatever your professional occupation with learning may be, Sir, it seems apparent it does not touch much on history, or crowd behavior, or the physics of inertia. Great and sudden change has never, and will never, issue from an election: the whole structure of the system is designed to prevent it doing so. Abrupt change of great degree invariably is the issue of great and generally bloody upheaval, not of such a routine matter as an election. These can contrive only small increments of change, which must be repeatedly effected if any major alteration is to come about. Thus, it seems clear that the first step must be along the lines of slowing the impetus towards some undesired end, and that this must be achieved first before there will be any chance of success at altering or reversing the course affairs are moving on. Clearly, this seems too small for you to involve yourself with, insufficiently grand to engage your energies or efforts, or perhaps seemingly just too practical for you take seriously.

"I was not born with knowledge, but being fond of antiquity, am quick to seek it."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

-John F. Kerry (D-MA), September 12, 2001.

Think beyond a slogan, man. There must be some basis for assigning your preferences as "solution." Slower rate of problem just don't cut it.

Frankly, binary opposition doesn't have any greater currency coming out of Kerry's mouth than it does coming out of Bush's mouth. That's the crazy thing about making ideas, not the speaker, the important consideration.

is that they are binary oppositions. You either win or you lose. There is no second. You don't win by placing stronger than expected. You win by winning.

You're now moving on to a point that isn't in dispute.

An election may be a win-lose situation, but it does not follow that the rest of the world is, or that binary oppositions are the only acceptable model of reasoning. My objection stands.

I said they were when you're talking about politics in the US, which is inherently binary. Any attempt to run a third-party candidate only hurts the major-party candidate closest to him or her politically.

That is true to the extent that there is actual closeness. Few would argue that having a Communist Party candidate hurts the Democratic candidate on the very basis you mentioned, yet that it the argument being advanced.

Most people who are interested in voting third party do so because the major parties have lost the possibility of their vote.

he/she is Pro Democratic Party

Get your facts straight.

This is the Democratic Underground. See: Democratic

check it out: http://www.vote-nader.org/

check it out: http://www.freerepublic.com

check it out: http://www.freerepublic.com/

website. I will be making my first donation to the Kerry campaign soon.:)

check it out:
http://www.democraticunderground.com

check it out: http://www.opendebates.org/

Best nothing to do with this thread website: http://www.whothehellcares.com

Rp

We can, and have, done much, much worse than this....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

I'd love to do some content for the site... email me.

Why would anyone vote Nader?

TWL

If you're in a solidly Red state (e.g. Texas or Alaska), a vote for Nader won't hurt, because, well, Texas will go to the Republicans anyway. Every vote for Nader is one more (perfectly valid) plea for the Democrats to support a progressive, as opposed to centrist, agenda. Whether the Democrats will pay any attention is another story. Likewise, if you live in a solidly Blue state, there's not much risk in voting for Nader, because, well, face it, he's not going to get a whole lot of votes no matter what he does.

There are a *lot* of Nader2000 supporters that have seen (the hard way) that the lesser of two evils is, well, a *lesser* evil. A fair amount of them now see that there is actually a difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, and even though it pains them, they will vote for Kerry anyway, just because Bush is by far, the greater evil. The term "swing state" has all new meaning for these people after the 2000 election.

Nader's core supporters really aren't likely to vote for Kerry anyway. Kucinich or Mosely-Braun, perhaps. But not Kerry. Many of us out on the far left would like to see Instant Runoff Voting, so we can state a preference for a candidate without offering the strongest opposition candidate an advantage. With IRV, you'd see a *lot* more first-choice-Nader/Green,second-choice-Kerry votes. There might even be a strong enough non-Democrat-for-first-choice contingent to convince the Democrats that it's ok to leave the center and go left...

Because voting Nader encourages Progressive. activists to work outside the bounds of the Democratic Party. That's a losing proposition. Not just this November, but every November.

We are going to take the fight to the Republicans and force them to spend money advertising in some of those 'solid-Red' states and I say we can win some of them. Even Republicans don't like being lied to. Many Republicans don't like running up the biggest deficit of all time. Many Republicans are vets or military folks who are FED UP with only being supported when the cameras are rolling.

And the red-and-blue doesn't take into account the complex nature of the electorate. Consider my state, Montana, normally thought of as solid red. But Clinton took Montana in '92 (with Perot's help, of course). And in 2000, Nader got one of his highest percentages of any state - 5.95% - but you will see that number going dramitically down this year, as voters look at the last 4 years and realize, yes, there is a difference between the parties.

supported and voted for a lot of what tweedledum started

so it's intellectually dishonest

will it be
?

Nader who? https://contribute.johnkerry.com

knowing what I now do about him, I would never do it again. I believe that he is at worst a GOP operative, and at best, out to destroy the Democratic party and prevent it from winning this election.

If I ever feel the need to vote third party again (not in this election), I will vote for some other third party candidate and not for Nader. He does not need any reinforcement of his ego, and he really doesn't stand for anything that I believe in.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

http://www.vote-kerry.org/

Note: NOT my site, just something I found. The Kerry campaign slipped up by not preemptively registering that domain name before someone else could.

"Make your vote count this time. Don't waste it on the two-party duopoly.

John Kerry for President
Ralph Nader for President
George W. Bush for Moron of All Time!"

So they allow for votes for Kerry- but not Bush. That's O.K.

Barf..Who cares! Really! I doubt that Nader will even get anywhere this time around..Or even get on the ticket. After the Bush and gore lie he really blew it..Later Nader

that site. I just went to the Nader site and sent a message to his campaign. Specifically, I wanted to know why he is the only presidential candidate without a blog. It does seem a little suspicious. Like he is scared and doesn't want to see what people really think of him.

Somehow I don't think I will be getting any kind of response.

Ralph Nader and Election 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Nader is once again running for President of the United States, this time as an independent candidate. Let your voice be heard. In the 2000 election campaign, Ralph Nader repeatedly said that the difference between Al Gore and George Bush was the difference between Tweedledee and Tweedledum.



What has Tweedledum done since his inauguration?
Invaded Afghanistan and Iraq

Lied about uranium in Africa, WMD, Saddam being an imminent threat and more
Refused to submit the Kyoto treaty on global warming to the Senate
Alienated most of America's traditional allies in the world
Passed several massive tax cuts that primarily benefit the very richest Americans

Turned a $300 billion annual budget surplus into a $500 billion annual deficit
Presided over the largest number of lost jobs since Herbert Hoover
Given billion-dollar no-bid contracts to Cheney's company, Halliburton

Kept American citizens locked up at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba without counsel or trial
Appointed a judge to the Court of Appeals who said Roe v. Wade was an abomination
Would Tweedledee have done these things? What might Tweedledum do with 4 more years?

Invade Iran and North Korea?
Appoint two or three Supreme Court justices determined to scuttle Roe v. Wade?
Bankrupt the federal government?
Abolish Social Security as we now know it?

Give Halliburton contracts to drill for oil in the National Parks?
Further erode Americans' civil liberties?
Let your imagination run wild. He will
In Nov. 2000, George Bush won Florida by 537 votes, with 97,488 people voting for Ralph Nader. This November, THINK before you vote.
Make your vote count this time. Don't waste it on Ralph Nader. John Kerry for President

None of the splinterist wreckers has yet come up with an adequate rejoinder to it....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

I loved it. :thumbsup:

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

Tweedle-dee is still Tweedle-dee. But Tweedle-dum has turned out to be a mad dictator.

V

Old men are wont to tell young men that the differences between one young woman and another are greatly over-rated. But the opposite applies with political figures; it is dangerous to under-rate the diferences between those, and they cannot be too strongly emphasized.

"There will be a holiday on our street soon!"

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

Good bit of knowledge sir. Gospodin Geksogen, now there is a good novel... but I digress.

V

Tovaritch seemed too familiar....

The novel you mention is unknown to me; who is its author?

Welcome to DU!! :toast: