Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Why is it “pathetic and pathological” for Nader to sue in order to get on the ballot? Could you explain a bit more? If you consider mounting an electoral legal challenge pathetic and pathological, you must have been REALLY hacked at Gore’s antics in Florida in 00.

Also, I’m especially confused to see a Democrat set off by his suing in Texas. Are Democrats afraid of splitting the vote with Nader in TEXAS of all places? I grudgingly admire your ambition, I guess, if you Dems think you might pick off Texas now.

YA KNOW, I personally think that Mr. John Kerry could actually gain quite a bit by taking a few ques from Mr. Nader. Listening to Nader in stark to listening to the generalized babblings of mortician Kerry is night and day.

Kerry is good at Q&A really he is an inspired speaker when he dumps the scripts, but where Kerry fails hard is his treating of the American People as if we’re all dull-witted reactionaries that should be talked down to by our leaders. Which Mr. Nader chooses to speak to people as adults. Kerry could gain from Nader’s influence.

His second big gaffe is not offering anything to the younger voters. It was the vision to the young that got Big Dog Clinton in. Ralph Nader does have many valid selling points but he’s being demonized by those who desperately need his knowledge and wisdom the most. Idiot Terry McCaulliffe is making a huge mistake in treating Mr. Nader as a spoiler and not as a source of much needed intellectuality.

I as a lifelong Dem, like Ralph Nader far more than Kerry as it stands now. When Ralph tackles an issue he goes indepth not insulting my intelligence with Clintonite buzzwords for 6-year olds. It gets involved and stays interesting whereas the Dems year after year lack substance and go to the corniest string of hodge podge as their selling points. Mr. Nader actually interests smart people what a crime, to not pump pablem domn the throat of their own constituency.

And all these Dem-ogoguery that demonizes Ralph Nader for participating in our democracy is pure ignorance when each and every one of them should be so indepth and researchably valid. He offers a very much needed voice to this democracy, win or lose. And this man is the quintessential and responsible ‘democrat’ that each of our democratic leaders should aspire to emulate. And yet we shun him atleast within party leadership circles(DLC/DNC).

As the DLC zombie chant goes;”ALL FALL DOWN AND WORSHIP KERRY!!!”

Gee DLC/DNC when did we stop having brains of our own within our own democracy. Soap salesman Kerry is supposedly much better than a very bright consumer advocate who sees numerous flaws within our system that democratic leadership ignores.

I’m tired of populist generalizations engineered to befuddle the barfly with A.D.D., We should demand more substance instead of flash. And Bush could still win this thing and wouldn’t we be remissed if we atleast didn’t bring forth issues that were substantive and interesting glitches like Ralph Nader presents or have real dialogue.

The DLC is a clique in need of disbanding.

Nader should run for Congress in CT, then in 2006 challenge Mr. Joe-mentum for the senate seat. He could even do it all from within the democratic party if he liked, thereby *actually* bringing the party to the left. Regardless of his party affiliation, unseating Lieberman is something that I can get behind.

Lieberman actually said that we didn’t have to appologize for Abu Ghraib since the terrorists never appologized for 9/11! Dispicable! And this guy sets himself up as the champion of morality. I guess that only counts when sex or video-game-violence is involved.

Gaelen, Another thing that’s funny is the sentiment as to why we hold ourselves to a higher standard in Iraq, like nobody should be the adult over there? The Leiberman thing is a bit whacko I hadn’t heard that before (given that we don’t get TV news anymore, just 24 hour News-fotainment).

But I think his talents are much more suited to unseat Jeb Bush in Florida. This is a state fraught with Nader-esque problems(high med malpractice,ACLU type government encroachment,riduculous drug laws and so on) And it would unseat GW’s brother. That’s a race well spent! Undoin’ the Jebbie!

Hands off Jebbie. When W’s finished in 08, he’s going to be POTUS until 2016. :)

9thwave, what do you mean by “before it is too late”.

Ralph Nader is a very smart man. What he is doing does not make sense to a lot of folks, especially Democrats. But, he is one of the noblest candidates to have run in decades.

His obsession most of his political life has been the revolving two party door which renders our nation incapable of maintaining long-term solutions to long term systemic problems, like pollution, energy, poverty and violence in our society.

The two party system reduces political debate down to one or two political issues, like the economy, or jobs, or war. But, when each party is dethroned, the new party throws the baby out with the bath water, so to speak when starting up with new leadership - thus long term implementations of federal resources to address the issues above, cease every 4 to 8 years - and are rendered ineffective in addressing such systemic problems.

Nader is choosing 2000 and 2004 as key central races in which the potential for his changing the political landscape for the better, for the long term, is better than ever. With such close races, if he, or the Green Party, is able to make the difference in the race with their paltry 2 to 4% of the vote, the losing major party will likely never again attempt to launch a campaign that excludes through the FEC, and excludes through party platform, the third parties and candidates which can lose them their races.

He is running a David and Goliath campaign, not to bring down the Goliath Democratic Party as much as to teach it that to win, it must include the Green Party and Liberal candidates of third parties into their winning strategy. He is hopefully going to teach Terry McAuliffe some respect for non-Democratic party liberals, he is going to demonstrate to the Democratic Pary why it must end its role in the FEC (Federal Elections Commission) which marginalizes and prevents third party constituents from having any real voice in American politics.

BTW, just so Democrats don’t feel too special, the Libertarian Party, whether by design or not, will be playing a similar role for the Republican Party this year. I have nothing but the greatest of respect for Ralph Nader and he will get my vote though I have contributed to the Kerry campaign and will contribute to the Nader campaign.

Our political system needs Nader to do exactly what he is doing. This country is lost and making huge erroneous decisions about our children’s futures, by maintaining this political system in which a minority of eligible voters call the shots for the majority of the rest of Americans. That has simply got to end, if America is to avoid another civil war resulting from some catalytic event in the near or distant future which causes the unrepresented eligible voters as a group to be harmed by the process (e.g. reinstating the draft).

Skunkbud said: “Idiot Terry McCaulliffe is making a huge mistake in treating Mr. Nader as a spoiler and not as a source of much needed intellectuality.”

Truer words were never spoken, Skunkbud. Terry McAuliffe and Dick Cheney have a lot in common in that regard. Cheney dumps on the Libertarians in the same way McAuliffe dumps on Nader and the Green Party. Both of these individuals can’t see the forest for the trees thus blinding them to the potential win that a simple embrace of their political party cousins could bring.

Martin,

Why is Nader’s antics in Texas ‘pathetic’? Because, if he’d put the same effort into garnering the required petition signatures (instead of falling short by 14,000+), his candidacy might have finally earned some legitimacy.

This is an embarrassing repeat of his failure to get on the Oregon ballot - one of his highest 2000 election vote totals. Looks like his self-serving, narcissistic stubborness, comes with damaging incompetence and growing indifference to his run.

Last, I’m not sure what you meant by us being ‘set off’, but if its watching with respectful disappointment as a principled man loses his influence, my definition fits better.

Well, it seems to me that Nader at least deserves to exercise his right to legal challenges. If they’re without merit, he’ll probably lose, but he at least deserves his day in court. Isn’t that the American way?

I think Bush should try to manuever to include Nader in the debates—it would be brilliant if he did, setting the stage for a repeat of Bush/Clinton/Perot in 92. Against Nader’s calls for troop withdrawals, Bush and Kerry would be seen on the same side, saying we mustn’t “cut and run.” Can you imagine what effect this would have on the anti-war left, how many votes Nader would skim? N

Nader has promised not to campaign in states that aren’t “safe,” but that man would never turn down an opportunity to appear on the national stage in debates. Attention Karl Rove!

I think that liberals need to learn how to appeal to Nader supporters and other on the far left side of things. We need to work together, and that starts with some respect from the moderates and Democrats. The fact is that we can lose elections for the moderates, and since we can’t our own elections yet we have less to lose than you do. So stop being mean, and get serious about bringing us into your coalition.

I also think that it makes sense for the far left to support Kerry in 2004, instead of voting for Nader. As a person who has not voted for a Democrat for president ever, it sometimes surprises me that I plan to vote for Kerry this year. But I think that the left gains power when we act as swing voters, which requires that go both ways at times. Now is a good year to move to the Democrats. I explain why at the link to my site below…

The $2,000 personal contribution cap is making me miserable. I’m not up to speed on these rules at all. Is it permitted to contribute the max to two different candidates, say Bush and Nader? Does anybody know?

I don’t feel Mr Nader is a legitimate candidate this time around.

That doesn’t make this run about ego or pathetic.

Mr Nader is suing Texas because of it’s exclusionary rules for getting on the ballot. That is a valid lawsuit. Texas is independant discriminatory.

Mr. Nader was and is a valuable voice in America. He IS independent as much as that seems to irritate Democrats. I doubt seriously he ever did or will effect the outcome of the election.

Is it permitted to contribute the max to two different candidates, say Bush and Nader? Does anybody know?

Haha! Martin is trying to double his campaign contribution to Bush. :)

Seriously, I have to agree with Martin. Don’t dump on Nader for challenging election law. 3rd Party candidates really do have tougher ballot rules than Dems and Reps. If he can level the playing field, let him.

I’m not a Nader fan, but if he can make it easier for someone else to run as an independent, I’m all for it.

Thanks Bert - you caught my point exactly. There’s too much at stake this year for philosophical waxing and waning about Nader’s actions, IMHO. And an attack on Nader isn’t an attack on independent parties or an endorsement of DLC or a stifling of democracy. It’s an attack on Nader.

As a former presidential campaign staffer for Mondale/Ferraro and Dukakis/Bentsen, I’ve seen firsthand what it takes to run a presidential campaign - from primary through the general. Ralph Nader is not a legitimate candidate, despite how much one might agree with his message. Nader needs to first look at himself and his organization before suing. If the law in question is so heinous, why didn’t he sue before he missed the deadline? And if he cares so much about winning the White House, why wasn’t he working to ensure his place on the ballot since December 2000?

9thwave, if you don’t think he’s a legitimate candidate, then don’t vote for him. What you’re saying is that others shouldn’t have the right to make the same decision.

David, I should point out that a vote for Ralph Nader for president is not only a blow to the Democrats and Republicans, but it is also a blow to the Greens. If you vote for Nader to kill the 2-party system, realize that you’ll be killing the Greens, too.

-Cf

I have gone a few verbal rounds with Nader supporters and there is a striking similarity between them and there candidate.

I’ve pointed out that many of us in the Democratic Party share some, if not most, of the Nader agenda. I clearly stated with certainty, that they would be welcomed into the party and could shortly have a profound influence on the party’s direction and platform - not unlike the Conservatives in the GOP.

From the reply comes the indictment of influence by corporations, Big Money, Unions, special interests, etc. Which begs this question: If you feel your idealogy/cause would not have as equal, or more, impact in such a large political entity, how strongly are your beliefs?

9thwave, you truly are displaying an ignorance of what Nader is doing and why. He was on Washington Journal, yesterday morning, I think it was, where he stated quite clearly, he is not a politician and has no intention of taking the office of Presidency.

His purpose is to open the political process so that a majority of Americans can be represented in the halls of government via equal and fair ballot access by qualifying third parties.

His decision to miss the Texas deadline was intentional so that he could legally challenge our unfair and unequal one party state rules governing elections. He is having no problem raising the number of signatures, and his network is ample to get the job done. But, if he initiated and successfully acquired the signtures by the deadline, he would not have been able to hilight the one party political machine in the public’s eye which has existed in Texas for more than a half century.

Texas was a conservative Democratic one party state until it became a conservative one party Republican state a couple decades ago. It remains however a one party state and its rules and laws are designed to keep it that way. Thus, Texas’ laws deliberately seek to eliminate any influence or consideration of any minority parties, Democratic, Green, Libertarian, or otherwise.

Last word on this one from me and please be assured I’m not the ignorant one here. If you don’t agree with my position fine - but let’s just agree to disagree then, shall we?

I’m sorry to say I did miss that Nader interview. But if what you say is all true, than that’s even more reason for him to get out now. It is my opinion that Nader’s crusade — and that’s all it is — is ill-timed given all that’s at stake in November.

If he intentionally didn’t get the signatures he could have to get on the ballot to make a point, he shouldn’t be in this race. And if he isn’t interested in occupying the White House but only wants to further his crusade, he shouldn’t be in this race. Again I ask, for one SO committed to changing the system, where the hell has he been since December 2000? No need to answer that. I already know the answer.

And another thing which has ripped at me for years.

The loss of the election is not the fault of Ralph Nader AT ALL.

It is the fault of campaign manager Donna Brazil who created the worst and most hokey-assed presidential campaign in modern history. And yet at the latest democratic fundraiser she sits front and center. This woman shouldn’t even be working in DC nevermind preferencial seating. She should be the parriah of dems for her clowniness in important elections.

Gore laying a kiss on his wife at every whistle-stop did him in, not Nader. But Terry McCauliffe and DNC honchos blame Nader like as lf they had a real chance with Gore as Donna Brazil presented him to the public.

I’m not so sure these people don’t work for the GOP as much as they shoot themselves in the foot.

You act, 9thwave, as if Nader is busting his butt and spending his own money for some cause that no one but he is interested in. Please, he entered with 7% of the polling numbers, he is now between 2 and 4 percent of eligible voters. He does have a constituency who feel he represents their cause, values and goals.

Put the shoe on the other foot. How about Kerry just get out of the race, since he offers little choice as Bush-lite for about 1/3 of the voting public. It is ludicrous, in my opinion for anyone to take the position that their candidate should run unopposed by representatives of other constituencies. Does the word democracy and freedom of choice have a place here?

How about Kerry just get out of the race, since he offers little choice as Bush-lite for about 1/3 of the voting public.

Hey David, I understand you were trying to make a point, but that’s just wrong.

Bush may have come to the conclusion that Kerry’s Iraq solution is the only good solution we have, but Kerry’s policies differ from Bush’s on many issues like health care, education, Social Security & Medicare, the economy, paying down the national debt, total energy independence from Arab oil, the environment, and on and on.

If you really believe Kerry is Bush-light you’ve been misinformed. There’s a very big, and very real difference.

Lee, what Kerry says to get elected and what Kerry will do when facing a reelection bid, remains to be seen. But, my hunch is he will play footsie with the corporate lobbyists only somewhat less than Bush, and if that happens, he will be Bush light in my mind.

One. All politicians play footsie with lobbyists to one degree or another. That’s how they raise the money necessary to get re-elected.

Two. If that’s a problem (I think it is), let’s push to separate incumbents from money.