Boy. For a "loser," Ralph Nader sure has "us" in an uproar!

"We're" a good bit afraid of him, aren't "we?" "We" live in utter dread of him peeling a few thousand votes away from "us" in any given election.

But instead of asking "ourselves" WHY such a stiff and boring individual ('ja ever try to stay awake through one of his speeches?) might mount another *GASP!* third party effort, "we" tremble at the very thought that the feckin' eejit might actually run again.

So "we" retreat to the safety of the Internets where "we" may bash him some MORE, and proclaim to "our" fellows how he (again) has no chance of being anything but a Spoiler, just another politician who is in this thang for the MONEY (which is true, which makes Nader just as big a hypocrite as the mainstream parties he so derides).

By so doing, "we" ignore the central question: Why is the Democratic Party such an attractive target for these OUTSIDERS? What have "we" DONE to get this bulls-eye painted so indelibly on "our" foreheads? Ya don't reckon the answer lies with the DLC and dat ole Corporate Money, does ya?

Just askin'...

right idea, even if it is not expedient.

At least Nader is not concerned about that. Wake up morons.

The Democratic Party Leaders were sure slapping themselves on the back after the 2006 elections. Bet they will be slapping each other in the face after the 2008 elections with the way things are going. Who were YOU saying is the loser?

he advocate that is so appalling?

him taking those 97,000 votes in Florida that put this evil regime in power. Yes, the whole system is corrupt but, the Democrats do not even begin to compare with Darth Cheney and this corrupt bunch in power today. I believe that many Greens would like to pretend that's not the truth since, they don't like to feel that they are in any way responsible for this debacle. Ralph shrugs it off with a "they're all the same so it doesn't matter, don't blame me" attitude but, I disagree. THEY ARE MUCH WORSE AND NO AMOUNT OF DENIAL ON HIS PART WILL CHANGE THAT.

I guess I think that he wants real revolution in this country and is willing to see things get much worse before they get better. In the meantime, Iraqis and Americans are dying. This is not the time for Ralph to do it again.

I want him to shut up and go away and come again another day.

He already has plenty and he has to know that he won't live long enough to spend what he has already.

Nader is a narcissistic publicity hog, but what politician isn't.

The reason so many here are frightened of him is that they know he speaks to a certain percentage of the electorate who are slap fed up with both major parties.

On foreign policy there is a clear difference between D and R, but on domestic policy the distinction is far less clear.

Domestic policy is the bread and butter of federal level voting. Americans by and large don't really care about foreign policy all that much but get exercised over domestic issues.

At least that's how I see it.

why did he get almost all his donations in 2004 from cynical Republicans and gleefully take it? I remember when it was pointed out to his VP candidate (Green Party guy from California whose name I can't recall) how much money they were getting from Republicans. He said (paraphrasing) "Oh that's not right, we don't want that money". Old Ralph was on tv faster than you can say "Unsafe at any Speed" to say "Oh contrare, mon frere! Those people want change! And I want their money!" The end.

In other words is he buying diamonds, chateaux, cars, fine wines or other worldly goods for his own consumption with the money?

The reason we can be "afraid" of Nader without acknowledging that the problem lies with the DLC is that most Americans are neither liberal nor conservative, but moderate - or they have some of each philosophy.

Here are some random numbers, just for sake of example. Say 15% of the voters are die hard Conservative. Say another 15% is somewhat Conservative, 40% moderate, 15% moderately Liberal and 15% die hard Liberal. So, in a head on the Republican candidate and Democratic candidate each pretty much get 30% and fight over the other 40. Now, add a Nader to the mix. Some of those 15% die hard Liberals are going to vote for Nader. BUT, if our candidate were further to the left, we'd lose more of that 40%. Not enough to make up for 15% of the die hard liberals.

Of course, my numbers could be completely wrong, I'm just philosophizing.

Another thing is, I think Liberals are more idealistic than Conservatives. Liberal voters are led by their hearts. Conservative voters are more likely to be led by cold logic. A Liberal will vote for a Nader because he is the candidate more in line with his/her views. The Liberal will not think of it as peeling votes away from the Democrat, because they don't see it the Democrat as having their vote anyway. The Conservative will look at Pat Buchanan or Roy Moore and acknowledge that there are candidates who have views more in line with his/her own, but realize that such a vote may throw the election to the Democrat, which would be worse. They will vote AGAINST the Democrat - it's very practical. True Liberals want to vote FOR some one.

If that is so, then why are so many conservative voters voting against their own self interests?

Cold logic would dictate that conservative voters would not do that.

They will not vote for a Buchanan, or Moore, even if he is more in line with their views because they know Buchanan or Moore can't win.

But anyway, as far as views go - I didn't say that cold logic (of Conservative views) was accurate. It is often dead wrong because it is based on faulty assumptions. Take Creationism vs. Evolution. Creation "scientists" will show people "evidence" of dinosaur bones next to humans, allowing them to *logically* believe that the two co-existed.

See what I mean about logic?

Is entirely dependent upon the accuracy of your original premises..

Logic used incorrectly or with incorrect data can take you to some exquisitely strange places.

I nailed Neil Boortz with that one about fifteen years ago..

Left him speechless, which I can assure you is an extremely rare event.

it's a moderate wing of the Dem Party. It's no such thing. It's the CORPORATE wing of the Dem Party that has presented itself as a moderate wing for so long, people just assume it is.

One can be decidedly moderate without kissing corporate ass. I'm a fairly moderate-to-liberal Democrat and I think the DLC bites.

with your assumptions.

Americans do tend to describe themselves as moderate or conservative, yet when you ignore those labels and talk about issues, Americans are definitely liberal in solid majorities.

In terms of issues, Dennis Kucinich is right in line with most Americans on almost every issue.

The reason partisan Democrats often get so pissed at Nader is because they know that his critique of the two party system we currently "enjoy" is basically and fundamentally accurate. Since poll after poll demostrates that Americans do support liberal issues (such as the rule of law, universal access to healthcare, a democratic republic vs an empire, etc.") if someone were to actually analize the two party structure, one comes to the conclusion that it's the two party structure that is keeping these liberal issues from being enacted into law. Our two party system is a check on the will of the people and insures the policies of the elites are dominant.

They attack Nader to cover up the failings of the two party system. I find it interesting and ironic that some people who call themselves members of the Democratic Party are so upset when someone decides to exercise their democratic right to run for office.

The scapegoating goes far and away beyond differences of opinion on issues, or even personality preferences. It's a psychological defense mechanism in action to avoid serious examination of Nader's core message. It's "kill the messenger" in action.

Obviously, serious consideration of Nader's core message doesn't mean that then people will vote for him. Many people agree with Naders core message who won't cast a vote for him.

Hopefully people will at least begin to understand how and why the will of the people vis a vis issues are so completely and severly thrawted in our country.

It's true that there are some in the Democratic Party who could care less about issues; Their focus is party power (and in some cases personal power based on their relationship to the party) at the exclusion of all other considerations. These are the people I expect would avoid debating the message Nader delivers and instead opt to demonize the messenger.

Thank you very much..

That the Democratic party has. Lack of spine? Bash Ralph! Corporately compromised? Bash Ralph! Refusing to fulfill the peoples' mandate? Bash Ralph!

Thus the party continues to sink, becoming more and more nothing more than another corporate mouthpiece.

but then all candidates for high office have to have an inflated view of themselves. It's not that he will win--there is no chance of that--it's that the possibility exists that he can repeat '00 and pull a few states away from the Democrats. But it's America and he can do what he wants. If he can get on ballot in fifty states then what the hell. His vote went down big time in '04 from what it was in '00 and it probably will go down even further in '08.

I won't be voting for a candidate that doesn't represent me regardless of party, and that my friend is how these next elections will unfold as well, the republican voters are not happy anymore, independents have supported the Democrats in the two party system. Lets see who is nominated in the primaries that will represent the mix of voters.

absorbed in his own id that he was okay with putting the entire country through eight years of the 'no difference' of George W. Bush.

I'm angry about St. Ralph, not fearful.

I have disdain for St. Ralph, not fear.

A Democrat, a Republic, and two Independents (one of which can pretty much count on some Republic money, one that doesn't need anybody else's money) all looking to grab the same brass ring.

If the '08 election weren't so damned serious, it'd be awfully entertaining.

that pulls support from us keeps those impressions of us alive if not addressed.

Not big on loyalty, and not too practical.

its constituency AND representing us. The party leadership should quit playing to the boxes and pay attention to those in the nosebleed seats.

But which is the constituency you believe is being ignored in this case?

How much do you think Nader supporters look like Dem primary voters?

What percentage of Democrats do you think feel alienated by the party?

Certainly the GOP does not support or serve the worker - but they sure have enough Republican workers votinjg for them.

I also don't think there's A constituency, but many.

most people going to the polls have no idea, who is DLC and who isn't. Hell, they barely know who is running, and have no idea what DLC even is. Nader didn't cause a problem in 2000 because he had better ideas, he caused a problem because he had the better sound bite. EVERY news cast in 2000 race played his "there isn't a dimes worth of difference between a dem and a repub" sound bite, not once, but over and over again. The picked up the most boring aspect of Gore's race and the most "nice guy" bits of Bush's race and played it over and over again. So, this is how it went, Bush is the nice guy, Gore the boring guy and Nader doesn't really have a chance, so he must be telling the truth, I'll vote for the nice guy. Now Nader voters really thought that if they voted for Nader that they could "send" a message to the dems or get a third party going, fat chance on both accounts. Here's what voting for Nader got them, the dems moving more to the right, because of all the Bush votes. Nader votes counted for so little, that they were not even considered valuable. If the media had been fair, we never would have had Bush for President.

Same thing happened in 2004, they played the Swift Boat ad over and over again, on every station at every news cast. (Here is Syracuse, that means they played it 4 or 5 times a day depending on what channel you are watching and there are at least 5 channels that you can pull in by antenna.) Bush became the nice guy again, and Kerry was the liar. And you had Nader saying the same crap again, but this time he didn't have as much air time. The dems had a real fear of him in 2004, but not so much now. Now they are just pissed at him, and wish he and his people would just go away.

And, as for corporations, most people believe they are a necessary evil. Corporations are what employs them, they are the pay check provider and you don't bite the hand that feeds you. While I may think that CEO's are greedy bastards, many people admire them for getting what they can, and wish it were them.

Here is how the public usually breaks down, party followers (they'll vote for which ever party they belong to), idealists (they vote for which ever candidate meets their exact ideals now matter what party), the one issue voter (they vote only on abortion, gay marriage, environment, war, etc., nothing else the candidate says matters), the what the hecks (they decide how to vote by their feelings, could be how they dress, nothing solid to pin down), the what's the use (nothing will every change, so why vote), the every politician is a crook (these people don't vote because why bother, they'll screw you any way), doesn't trust government (doesn't vote because government is bad, but where is my social security payment), the I don't care (doesn't vote because they don't care who is in office, really) and then the huh? (they don't vote because they REALLY don't know, couldn't even tell you there is an election going on).

Right now media has more power than anything to get someone elected, that is why money is important, it buys time on TV, which is where, I'm guessing, about 85% of the people get all their information about an election, whether it be news or commercials. This is why if Gore is running, it is a brilliant campaign, he is all over the media without spending a dime (he's actually getting paid on most shows, news being the exception).

The average American wants to get a fair wage for working, medical and dental care when they need it, a roof over their heads, being able to pay their bills, a full stomach, TV to watch and maybe a beer to go with it (cheap form of relaxation). That's it. Most people, if it doesn't effect them, they care very little about it. Our country has come down to living for the day, because it can't see tomorrow.

zalinda

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

Couldn't explain it better myself.

I am even more confrontative in real life.

I would be thrilled if a 3rd party ran to the far right of the republicans as dems would win the election. Now someone running down the middle that would take votes from both sides could be interesting.

And, then the party busily panders to the right.

When the Left votes Green, the party busily panders to the right.

And has been for at least two decades now..

for the Presidential election...

I for one don't know how India can be a *real* democracy! They have hundreds of small parties. 30 or so recognized State parties and 6 recognized National parties. Why could you imagine what would happen if people had to choose from so many different parties here in America? It would be man-on-dog anarchy within 16 seconds! People wouldn't know if the candidate they were electing smelled good and prayed to the right GOD! Babies would be abandoned in the streets and blood would flow!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recognised_political_parties_in_India

This mild mannered, wimpy looking man single handedly knocked the wheels off the WHOLE Democratic Party in 2000 (at least according to some here).

Is Nader really THAT strong, or is the problem elsewhere?
Attacking Nader instead of examining the REAL weaknesses inside the Democratic Party is much easier and less painful.


Nader is not that strong, but his message IS. Especially when compared to the current message (business as usual) being transmitted by the Democratic Party.

I have never voted for Nader, but I have read much of what he has written, and I listen to him when he speaks. You should listen too. The man is brilliant, and I understand WHY he runs. It isn't EGO, or Narcissism, or Money, or because he is secretly a republican.
He runs because he honestly sees a very broken system that operates for the benefit of the Corporate Owners at the expense of Working Americans.

He will run again IF the Democratic Party nominates another Republican Lite.

I won't vote for him, but I can't hate him. I pray he gets LOTS of votes in the safe states.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

is a dangerous force, even if he only strips away a small percentage of the votes for the Democrat. I will never forgive him for costing Al Gore the 2000 election. Certainly Jeb and the other cheaters were also culpable, but Nader actually had the audacity to say that there was no difference between the two parties. Gore offered him votes in Texas to allow him to retain his legitimate status, but Nader refused. We have now 6+ years of global agony and the possible extinction of the human race along with the definite extinction of many other species as the result. We have in excess of 650,000 Iraqis killed by the chimp-in-chief. We have broken families in Iraq and America. Well, y'all know the rest of the list. This debacle rests at many doors, but one of them is Ralph Nader. I have no respect for anyone who would have the gall to compare a great statesman like Gore with a puny neer-do-well like W. And in this case "neer" definitely equals "never."

:D

If he really believed all he says he would build a third party between presidential elections or run for something besides President. He should work to get IRV in an extremely liberal state and run for governor. He still wouldn't win, but at least it would be worthwhile and at least he would be building a party rather than hurting the Democratic Party.

Much less us Internetsters.