What a Nader campaign really means to this electoral process

I am really and truly sick unto death of people making knee jerk comments about Nader, comments from people who have, in all probability never read a freaking thing he has written or heard a damn thing he has said.

These are the sort of things he stands for:

Friday April 2, 2004
Dear Conservatives Upset With the Policies of the Bush Administration

There is an old saying in southern American politics which goes like this: 'you dance with those who brung ya.' Have the corporate Republicans in Washington forgotten 'who brung ‘em?' That question is being intensely discussed in conservative-libertarian Republican circles and writings.

Many conservative Republicans are feeling these days that the Washington, D.C. Republicans are taking them for granted. You know what happens when that happens – you get taken! The first basic sign of a platform fissure between the conservative base and the big business Republicans came with the 2002 Texas state Republican Party platform which requires candidates to read every page and initial that it has been read. In an October 2, 2003 letter I asked President Bush whether he supports this platform. This defiant document announces over twenty domestic and foreign policies diametrically opposed to what the Bush Administration is doing or not doing.

Since that time the sources of conservative upset have become more pronounced. Conservative Republicans are furious with the Washington, D.C. Republicans for fiscal irresponsibility on a scale that, to them, would have been unimaginable even for Democrats. From inheriting a budget surplus in January 2001, the Bush Republicans have produced nearly half of a trillion dollars in annual deficits, ballooning the national debt and rocketing the annual debt service payments each year to about $318 billion—paid for by your taxes.

Already, around 30 conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives are in near revolt, despite the iron grip of Rep. Tom Delay (Rep. Texas), having voted against the Medicare-drug bill and its enormous subsidies to the drug industry and other companies. Even so, these legislators did not know at the time that the cost was $540 billion, not the $400 billion that was communicated to Congress by the Bush Administration over the objection of their chief actuary, late last year. Other budgets that can have any relation to national or homeland security are rising in all directions and are out of control according President Bush’s own Office of Management and Budget Analysis which is trying vainly to subject them to some cost-benefit rigor.

Besides federal deficit spending as far as the eye can see, there is the accompanying growth under Republican rule of so many subsidies to corporations that the government does not even have a catalogue of their costs. Conservative Think Tanks and other studies estimate costs of hundreds of billions of dollars annually in all their complex versions—cash transfers, bailouts, handouts or grants, giveaways, loan guarantees, loan forgiveness, tax expenditures and so on. In 1999, Cong. John Kasich (Rep. Ohio), then chair of the House Budget Committee and a critic of wasteful military spending held the first Congressional hearings on corporate welfare. Afterwards he threw his hands up in despair at getting the Republican leadership to take his warnings seriously. He retired from Congress in 2000. Conservatives were vociferous in their criticism of the pending energy bill, which has passed the House, for its $50 billion in subsidies to the profitable fossil fuel and atomic power industries. Using taxpayer money to pay companies to make a bigger profit is not in accordance with conservative principles.

Many conservatives believe that the Patriot Act is too extreme a law and is a threat, as the Texas Republican Party implied, to our domestic liberty under the 'guise of preventing terrorism.' Big Government surveillance, unannounced sneak and peak searches of citizens’ homes and businesses, and the rise of legions of government snoopers rub genuine conservatives the wrong way. Moreover, they hear President Bush making statements supporting a more extremist Patriot Act II and renewing the most liberty-suppressing provisions of Patriot Act I when it is up for renewal in 2005.

http://www.votenader.org/

Wednesday March 31, 2004

Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats

If you wish to defeat George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in November, restore the House and/or the Senate to the Democrats and continue to build a longer term progressive political movement, enlisting the young, middle-aged and elderly together, beyond November 2004.... and you have some doubts as to whether the Democrats can do this by themselves, this letter is for you.

Let's face the facts. Our country has serious problems. The world is not doing very well. We need every source of energy inside the electoral arena to turn harmful, costly and cruel trends against billions of innocent people into just and healthy directions.

The electoral system in our country is rigged in many ways against third parties and independent candidates having a level playing field chance to compete. This leaves the two major Parties to regenerate themselves internally without external pushes and jolts. The Republicans generate themselves with corporate batteries while the Democrats try to play catch up in the corporate money-raising sweepstakes. So it is not surprising that many people are left with the least of the worst choice and TAKE it, assuming you are not in a single party district. After all, they know they are all hostages to this winner-take-all electoral college strait jacket. They realize that the political terrain is rigged to leave them as of now with just that choice if they want to be with a possible winner, which most voters want to be. A modern full representation system to make more votes count should become part of our national political debate. One version – multi-seat districts – elected the first woman, Jeanette Rankin, to Congress from Montana in 1916.

Apart from their ways, the Democrats need to be shown additional ways -- strong, rational, emotive ways to defeat Bush and the Republicans. Why? Because their leaders and consultants are either too cautious, too unimaginative or too indentured to vested interests to even conceive, not to mention field test, these vulnerabilities of the Bush regime.

Enter an independent candidacy in a duopolized system that does not believe the election has to be totally enclosed by zero-sum gaming among the major candidates. Instead there should be various strategies and probes and anticipations inside the electoral arena that in important ways escape the zero-sum mind so as to more likely achieve the common goal of ouster.
.........

and ,importantly:

You can agree with all this and still say that this candidacy will take away votes from the Democratic candidate. If so, you also have to assess how many more votes the Democratic nominee will receive by (a) being pressed to appeal more forcefully for the interests of the people and (b) how many effective modes and critiques he can pick up from the independent candidate to improve the prospects of defeating Bush and (c) a more exciting campaign that brings more progressive voters out which, in a rigged, winner-take all system unfortunately would go to the Democrats in large percentages. By the way, there are astute political observers who believe that the Greens pushing Gore to more populist rhetoric allowed Gore to get many more voters.
.........

and....

We believe that two fronts are better than one if conducted collaboratively on those objectives held in common, without compromising either candidacy. To wallow in the squabble of "spoiler" is to plunge into second-class citizenship scapegoating which will get the Democrats nowhere. Think strategically out of the box and you will have three arenas to block Bush -- evict him from the White House or, helped by a spillover, recover one or both of the Houses of Congress not to mention affecting state and local races. Generally speaking, with a few luminous exceptions, the Democrats have been on a losing team for ten years -- the House, the Senate, the state legislatures and the state Governorships. Their language is stale when it is candid, and servile when it is bought and paid for. The alternative in a rigged political system to defeat Bush is to respect small candidacies that can demonstrate high standards and big ways to defeat Bush as well as produce a spillover vote to recover at least one House of the Congress.

Please go to the Nader site, read what he has to say, think about it carefully.....or you could just flame away accomplishing nothing like a dutiful little lick spittle.

http://www.votenader.org/

"Please go to the Nader site, read what he has to say, think about it carefully.....or you could just flame away accomplishing nothing like a dutiful little lick spittle."

You know ... some of us all ready know what Nader has done/been etc.
Some of us remember him before some of you were even born. Some of us
even supported his research groups/worked in them to build the data that changed the world.

AND if we still have our own ideas about what we feel about Nader, then so what? I don't need to be reminded what Nader is/was. I remember from personal experience.

Hence the disappointment now.

I resent the last line. Lick spittle? What a sorry remark.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Where in the heck did everyone get the idea that Nader would be the ideal candidate ---- if we could "afford" him.

I don't WANT him. Even if I could "afford" him, he would be a disaster, and I simply don't WANT Nader.

It doesnt take a great leap of intellect to see that everything you disparage in Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity and the rest you admire in Rhodes...Bah!

He doesn't have what it takes to be an a-hole.

I've seen what Nader has done to my family, ask my nephew who lies in Walter Reed, a 23 year old now a quadraplegic thanks to Nader's buddy, President Asshole. the kid would love to take back his Bush vote and he wants to vote for Kerry in 2004. Will Nader help him with his ballot, or will Ralph steal enough voted to deny my Jon adequate help from the VA.

Burn in hell, Ralph, Burn in hell for what you did to my Jon!

but when they usurp clear thought and facts then perhaps they are not so grand.

sick unto death about ? Maybe Ralph needs to see more people get emotional about what he hath wrought.

I haven't been making knee jerk comments about Nader. I have been watching and listening to Nader for over 25yrs. I used to love to see him on the old Phil Donahue in the 70's and 80's. I agreed with everything he had to say at that time.

I subscribed to Public Citizen and think he and Sidney Wolfe have done a great service for America.

Now, however he is on an ego trip, is way off base and reading your posted article surely doesn't change my mind.

If that makes me a slobbering idiot in your mind, so be it.

He has his merits, but he lost me big time with his "gonad politics" remark.

Normally I ignore the Nader threads, but the young 'uns need to know that we are wiser than they think.

Gap, the Limited, General Dynamics, et al?

How?

He is profiting from the war and slave labor, while at the same time raking in cash from naive folks who oppose both. Ain't it a beautiful scheme.

Nader talks the talk, but he has never walked it.

Compared to many in the Senate Nader is of moderate wealth and his stock acquisitions pale before those of many, Kerry and Teresa included!

He's running on moral superiority, and an end to hypocrisy. He fails on each count. Does he do better than Kerry? Sure he does. But he is no different from other politicians--say what people want to get their money and votes and then do whatever the hell you please in the meantime, regardless of how contradictory the two are.

and treat it as gospel.

Nader graduated from a top flight law school with excellent grades. He could have joined any law firm he chose to and made six figures right away. Instead he chose to work for the good of the public and now he is savaged by small minded people who have done nothing even close to his record of public service.

Nader speaks rather clearly to those who bother to read his articles or listen to his speeches. I find a hell of a lot more hypocracy from those who seek to defend the cowardice and selling out of the democratic party than ever I do among third party candidates.

You may rant all you like about his stock portfolio, I believe it pales mightily next to Teresa Heinz Kerry's and her husband's. Does that make them both hypocrites, of course not, does it make them less trustworthy, that they own stocks, of course not. Does Kerry's voting record make his current stance subject to criticisms , of course it does.

Doubtless you've missed these:

Look at these quotes from the man himself, and compare them to his portfolio:

"I'm quite aware of how the arms race is driven by corporate demands for contracts, whether it's General Dynamics or Lockheed Martin," Nader told the Progressive in April. "They drive it through Congress. They drive it by hiring Pentagon officials in the Washington military industrial complex, as Eisenhower phrased it."

The Fidelity Magellan fund owns 2,041,800 shares of General Dynamics.

"Both parties are terrible on antitrust," Nader told CNN in August. "Look, we have Boeing now, one aircraft company, manufacturer after the McDonnell Douglas merger." In a June press release, Nader expressed disappointment in the Clinton administration's Justice Department to challenge the merger of British Petroleum with Amoco, or Exxon's merger with Mobil.

The Fidelity Magellan fund owns 2,908,600 shares of Boeing, 24,753,870 shares of British Petroleum-Amoco and 28,751,268 shares of Exxon-Mobil. The fund also owns stock in Shell, Sunoco, Texaco and Chevron -- on whose board Bush advisor Condoleezza Rice serves.

He's a milder form of hypocrite because he at least says the right things, but that's exactly what he expresses himself to be running against. They're just stocks, you say? Then why did Nader go after Gore for Occidental oil holdings--holdings Nader has himself? Nader is a shameless hypocrite, and seems to prey on idealistic young people who DON'T read his speeches, and who DON'T research him. He is profiting from the bombs that are killing Iraqi children as we speak--he OWNS part of those Raytheon cruise missiles that slammed into Baghdad during shock & awe. Only fools would give him money because they oppose what those murderous weapons stand for. Vote Cobb or Camejo depending on the outcome of the Green primary--don't give your vote to a hypocrite if you are voting your conscience.

After accusing me of all sorts of nonsense and providing no facts yourself, you leave when I provide the words from the man himself?

I don't know how; it's just a hunch.

and the dead and the impoverished so as to indulge political fantasy. I am sick of the knee-jerk ideologues who are so eager to be used by Republican tricksters who want the splintering of progressive Americans.

Most of all, I'm sick of being called faux-progressive by a one whose practical actions abet the power of the far right.

Spit in the face of working people if it gets you your jollies.

Engage your mind instead of your testosterone and then tell me what you disagree with in those two messages to both dems and repubs.....

//sarcasm off

where is your "Moran" sign?

All this crusading and getting his name in the media. All ego.
He could have cared less that he cost Gore the election or the consequences. He doesn't care now, only that his name is in the media, so that we all aren't deprived of choosing him. What a frigging jagoff.

I do remember him working to get Bush selected. And I see him doing the same now.

and that's okay? Could the bar get any lower for the democratic nominee?

There were other reasons car companies put seat belts in cars besides Ralphie Baby. To begin with, safety sells.

Nader has done more for the people of this nation that ever you will accomplish. If you cared to pay attention to history or could comprehend all those big words he uses you might understand his positions and his actions...pity.

That you believe Nader is responsible for the failure of Gore to win his own damn state, or run a decent campaign, or fight instead of babble so be it. If you think that nader is responsible for the Democratic Party putting up only a token resistance tothe Florida theft then so be it...it nust be very nice in that fantasy world.

screws up an election, in the face of all reason it says to me he is being PAID OFF!! Who benefits from this? The Republicans. Nader isn't stupid. He knows what he is doing. He's getting paid to.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

advocate, but a disaster as a presidential contender.

And I damn near voted for him in 2000--don't tell me I don't know what I'm discussing.

It's the CEO's and their boards that are to blame. He never names them specifically. Its easy to criticize a faceless entity.

Who specifically has he helped? By the way, did you know that he has $3.8 million. From non-profits.

I'm with you--Nadir has to get out of this YESTERDAY.

But still impersonal. Its the officers and boards who move the levers and who should be singled out. Blaming a corporate entity is a cop out. Go after whoever made the move.

The "disaster" is your party not Nader. As he plainly stated, third party candidacies will force the election to deal with issues that neither party wishes raised.

I can't vote for Nader, no matter what--call me every name in the book.

I read the link, I've followed Nader for years, I nearly voted for him in 2000.

I think the Nader people are the ones who do the insulting. Just because the party doesn't go your way sometimes doesn't mean they are selling out or are timid.

If the party went any further left, it would lose votes, not gain them. Look at any poll out this year that contrasts a two party race to a race with Nader in it. Nader takes 3% to 7% of the vote and none of it from Bush.

We are drifting toward fascism, if we aren't already there. I wish the Nader voters could put their differences aside, instead of insulting everybody who doesn't agree with them.

I care about what he DOES, and what he's doing HURTS PEOPLE.

I couldn't have said it better. Thank you.

for anybody lately? Not much, since their whining and spinelessness has left them completely out of power at the national level.

by HELPING BUSH* (notice I said "helped" not "caused") to steal the election.

play to the lowest commen denominator all you want but the truth is that the democrats voted for the war, for the patriot act, have refused to deal with offshoring, were the party in power when Clinton threw all those people off welfare...Just who in hell is hurting people?

Democrats caused deaths by voting for IWR and other legislation, but Nader isn't responsible for anything he does.

That's the loony left for you

which is not only unworthy of you but requires no response whatsoever.... Try to debate not sputter and spout BS....

When asked about Bush* stealing the election

"I'm just amazed that people think I should be concerned about this stuff. It's absolutely amazing. Not a minute's sleep do I lose, about something like this - because I feel sorry for them. It's just so foolish, the way they have been behaving. Why should I worry?" -- Common Dreams 4-03-2001

http://www.damnedbigdifference.org/quotes

It makes me wonder...

Hope Kerry will do something about it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

In 1976, 1988, or 1992. He could have had a better chance. He chose to stay out. His time is over.

He who hesitates is lost.

For both these pieces of self-serving swill. Are they to become daily occurances here? That would smack rather of electioneering for Wrecker Nader, to my view....

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

then why isn't he running on the Green ticket this time? Did the Greens not meet his standards? Is this a repudiation of the Greens? It also raises the question of whether the Nader supporter are truly voting for principle or personality. :wtf:

based on economic issues.

I want Libertarians to start voting straight Democratic tickets based on social issues.

I want to marginalize neo-conservatives.

I don't see how it helps in the long run for Nader to run around telling conservatives and Libertarians that Democrats are bad.

That said, the statement at the head of this thread by Nader is a very very good one.

Please , please continue to read and consider Nader's points. He is outraged at the Bush administration and just as angry at the betrayals of the Democrats...In the end that outrage is the only hope we have to save this nation. Do you honestly think a Kerry victory will end the illegal invasion of Iraq? Do you think his own party will allow him to deal with outsourcing? Bah!

Nader is not running to become President obviously, he is using his national stature to bring a message, and he will force this campaign into areas neither party wishes it to go.

given how he has never participated in a successful party

It's sort of like Nader, who has never won an election, giving campaign advice to Kerry, who has won almost every election he has run in.

Oh wait! Nader does that too!

:crazy:

The Democratic Party has become an abysmal failure since its usurpation by the right wing DLC. That it lost a mid term election that traditionally goes to the "out" party seems to escape your attention. That it has demonstrated the worst sort of cowardice in going along with every freaking Bush agenda item since 9/11 is obvious to anyone not either blinded by party loyalty or on the right themselves....Which is it in your case Sangha?

"I'm just amazed that people think I should be concerned about this stuff. It's absolutely amazing. Not a minute's sleep do I lose, about something like this - because I feel sorry for them. It's just so foolish, the way they have been behaving. Why should I worry?" -- Common Dreams 4-03-2001

Of course not. He is running for attention, and if Bush wins he gets even more attention.

What's that they say about someone being delusional ? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result ? Well kids, we all know Nader isn't delusional. He damn well expects, and damn well wants the same result.

Is Dennis Kucinich running because he thinks he has a legitimate chance at the nomination? Of course he isnt, he is still in the race because he wants a say in the platform, because he is the progressive conscience of the party.

Likewise Ralph is running because, without his voice, many issues would simply disappear from view, issues far too important to be stifled by the right wing dems or repugs.

It seems that way

:)

If you don't understand the difference between Nader and Kucinich I may be wasting my time answering you, but what the heck, here goes.

Kucinich will not be taking votes from Kerry in the general election. If all Nader wanted to do was get his message out there why didn't he run as a Democrat or a Republican ? He would have gotten even more air time, debates and all. Matching funds, wheeeeeeeeee.

Have you ever watched or listened to him in interviews? He has a very authoritarian communication style and is dismissive of other people. His ego is 2nd only to Bushco, but I get the same creepy feeling when I watch him or Bush interact with others on TV. Nader has no plan for putting his "big ideas" into policy. It is because he does not have the brain power or people skills to those things that he self-righteously preeches. He would be a disastrous president. That is my opinion and I won't be bullied into being quiet on these issues.

Kerry is the BEST candidate. I will not be "settling" for 2nd best when I vote for Kerry.