Skip to main content

It's official -- the AZ Democratic Party thinks it has found enough bogus signatures to keep Nader off the AZ ballot. From the press release:
Two Arizonans filed suit today against Ralph Nader, detailing a challenge to the validity of Nader's candidacy and putting into jeopardy an effort, aided by Republicans, to get Nader onto the Arizona ballot. The counts listed in the suit include Nader's attempt to name a 'placeholder' Vice Presidential candidate as well as the more than 15,000 collected signatures that were found to be invalid.   A comprehensive analysis of those signatures which could be found in local voter files showed that close to half of the signatures collected came from Republicans.  

"There has been widespread reporting that Republicans financed the efforts to get Nader onto the Arizona ballot. They failed miserably," said Jim Pederson, Arizona Democratic Party Chair.

And by the way, for those of you who are hurt that I'm going after St. Nader, tough. I'm just getting warmed up.

Don't cry for Nader, though. He obviously needs to feel hated, given his national disapproval numbers in the 80s. It apparently makes him feel relevant. So I had a choice -- ignore his ass or take him on. My choice is obvious.

Update: Nader now deigns to give Kerry advice about how to run his campaign.

Although his candidacy endangers Democrat John Kerry's run for the White House, Ralph Nader on Wednesday gave some friendly advice to his rival -- pick John Edwards for vice president.

Nader, running for president as an independent, sent a letter to Kerry urging him to select the North Carolina senator, who was Kerry's chief opponent in the race for the Democratic nomination.

"Friendly advice" my ass. Now if Nader wants to offer to drop out if Kerry picks Edwards, then I'll welcome the "advice".

Otherwise, I have some "friendly advice" for Nader. Though I doubt he'd listen or care.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 04:17 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  go get 'im Markos! (4.00)
    no love for him here!
    •  Yeah! (none)
      Give him Hell!

      "The longest journey begins with the first step. And that first step is electing John Kerry." -- Howard Dean, 3/25/04

      by Go Vegetarian on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 04:27:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Give him a moment of silence. (4.00)
        The late great Ralph Nader has done innumerable good works in his time. We all owe him a great debt for living a life of service through which we all have benefitted.

        If in his golden years he has succumbed to some sad mental deficiency, he deserves our sympathy and prayers that he may recover soon and continue his mission.

        So bash away, but with some gratitude for 50 years of selfless service. Don't let his present dementia wipe all that away.

        p.s. Perhaps his appeal for Edwards is a sign that his health is returning. Maybe his plan is to abandon his campaign if Kerry goes with Edwards. Nadar can declare that sufficient win his support and bow out gracefully.

        Keep your dissidence.

        by KingOneEye on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 04:51:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  From Your Lips to God's Ears (2.66)
          OK, I don't really believe that superstition, but I might be willing to pray that you're right.  Kerry's campaign needs a boost NOW!  It would be a Joe Dumars-like trade.  
          Kerry (Dumars):  I'll take the best Democratic campaigner in the country as my draft choice and  you stop playing.
          Nader: OK, just let me keep some dignity.

          One week later:
          Kerry-Edwards: 51%
          Bush-Cheney: 42%

          If not Kerry-Edwards 2004, then John Edwards 2008

          by philgoblue on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 05:07:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  St. Ralph's best years are long gone (none)
          Indeed Nader was on the cutting edge of progressive change in the 1960s and early 70s, but St. Ralph went downhill when he began hectoring President Jimmy Carter for not living up to Nader's high moral standards.

          And it is possible to negate decades of good works with several years of colossal bad judgement and stupid choices, which St. Ralph started in 1996 with his ego-maniacal runs for the presidency.

          If you are looking for heros to worship, its high time to look elsewhere.

          Another Hunter Thompson Deanocrat

          by Ed in Montana on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 05:36:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The greens don't get it either (none)
          Like someone in this thread wrote, there is a better way, it involves compromise and working together not some egotistical attack on your potential allies. Nader has become a puritanical "my way or the highway" which ironically is very much the social and personal philosophy Bush and most Republicans have.

          Anyway here's an interesting bit from Salon today:

          ---

          While only one day in a long campaign, last Monday's events illustrate the differing strategies of the two leading candidates competing for the Green Party's backing. Cobb seeks the Green Party's nomination, while Nader, who has distanced himself from the party in an attempt to reach a wider audience, seeks only the Green Party's "endorsement" of his independent campaign. "Ralph Nader has refused to participate in the Green Party's democratic process," Cobb says. "I don't understand what we would hope to accomplish by supporting Ralph Nader's independent candidacy."

          Should Cobb, who managed Nader's Texas campaign in 2000, receive the nomination at the Green Party's convention on Saturday, he will be in direct competition with Nader -- and Nader's running mate, Peter Camejo, an ex-Green Party presidential candidate whose last-minute selection before the convention Cobb sees as an attempt to up the chances of a Nader endorsement. It's a strange situation, Cobb admits. But, he says, "Ralph's decision to launch on his own was his call, not ours."

    •  Don't hold back, now, Markos (none)
      Tell us how you really feel.

      What do you MEAN I can't say FuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckittyFUCK any more?!?

      by AdmiralNaismith on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 04:47:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  a piece of non-PC advice for Nader... (2.90)
        ...shove it up your ass, pal!

        feel free to troll-rate me if you like.

        •  this doesn't warrant a reply (4.00)
          but it does.

          You get a troll point.  Look, as I'm sure you well know this kind of talk is troll level.  It doesn't nothing to elevate the debate--it only serves to debase it.

          As someone who voted for Nader in both '96 and 2000 (in Mass.), I've no plan to vote for him at this time, but that's not even the point.

          This behavior from Nader-bashers and Nader-voter-bashers is much more in line with the behavior of blindered republican thugs than anything  I would ever care to associate myself with.

          I may not want to vote for Nader, but constant attacks of this sort make me not want to vote for Kerry (is tepid campaign aside).

          I am literally sick of this kind of behavior from Democrats.  If you want to have a party that actually seeks to distance itself from the Bush-Republican platform, then Dammit start acting like it.

          A troll is a troll regardless of political affiliation.

          •  trolls have feelings too (none)
            >This behavior from Nader-bashers and Nader-voter-bashers is much more in line with the behavior of blindered republican thugs

            It sounds like to me the emotional outlashes of people betrayed.  A lot of us used to think highly of Nader but the man has simply atrophied into something that is closer to a GOP moral absolutist than someone serious about changing the system, working with the dems, or doing anything socially positive.

            I mean, we criticize Bush everyday for his irrational war in Iraq, but when Nader acts irrationally to the point of throwing the election to Bush we're supposed to give him a break? No thanks.

            I think a lot of people are sobering up from the Nader kool-aid they drank (myself included) and are angry that the man and what's left of his following can't compromise, can't run for an office they can win, can't build a third-party, etc.  Instead we have this quixotic run for president.

            I read the AP article on how Nader is telling Kerry who to pick for VP. I mean, what the hell is that? That's like Cheney or Rove telling Kerry who to pick. A part of me feels sorry for Nader and his supporters, they think they're doing something important and still pals with the rest of the liberal and progressive community, when in reality they have positioned themselves as friends of the GOP and enemies of the dems because they won't give an inch.  Pathetic really.

        •  what makes an Excellent post? (4.00)
          I always thought it had something to do with improving, adding to, and elevating the discussion--a well thought out and cogent coverage of issues; well researched and insightful points with supporting data; a nuanced use of language that  provides insights we readers might have otherwised missed.

          Apparently, though, to 5 of the 7 voters to this post so far, an "Excellent" post is "shove it up your ass, pal!"

          C'mon folks.  Get real.  Even if you feel Nader destroyed America or is worse than Bush or whatever, that is not an Excellent post.  Not unless this ranking system has absolutely no meaning whatsoever.

          As much as I despise the policies (and the people) of the Bush administration, I would never give such a post a 4 if directed at them.  It literally adds nothing positive to the debate.

          again, a troll is a troll regardless of political affiliation.

    •  Markos, how was Dean able to appeal... (4.00)
      So greatly to the Nader contingency?

      Oh yeah, he talked openly about getting the Corporations out of D.C. And about the power going back to the People.

      You know there are a lot of us who don't have much faith in our elected representatives, (Lieberman, Dodd, DeLauro). I mean take DeLauro, a decent Democrat by most people's standards. Was she vocal against the Iraq excursion? Not at all, and she sits in one of the safest districts in the country. The conclusion we drew: She cared more about Sikorsky, GE & Electric Boat than about us.

      This feeling is pervasive. You might give it some lip service. Frankly the anti-Nader shtick is turning off a lot of people. I wonder who it is turning on, (besides the ray-rahs.) FWIW.

      "What do Repubs Want? -- Armageddon!" "When do they want it? -- Now!"

      by edwardbanderson on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 04:58:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  don't wonder any more (none)
        "I wonder who it is turning on, (besides the ray-rahs.)"

        Read down the thread and you'll see plenty.

        BTW, what the heck is a 'ray-rah'?

      •  what about Nader's support in AZ (4.00)
        coming from the republicans? How much more of a sellout can one be? How can you take democratic reps to task for failures of political integrity, and not take Ralph to task for sleeping with the enemy? The tawdry facts of Ralph's utter abandonement of principle in AZ (the signature effort was tied to two regressive ballot measures serving republican and right wing interests, and was supported by those interests) should end any claim he has of integrity or ethical consistency.

        "Scrutinize the bill, it is you who must pay it...You must take over the leadership." - Brecht

        by pedestrian xing on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 05:17:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You make a very good point. (3.85)
        And I think it's a point that ought to get more play, frankly, among Dems.  

        I voted for Nader in 2000.  Granted, I did so from a "safe" state (Illinois) when I knew that Gore was going to beat Bush by a good margin.  If the race had been closer, I might have voted differently.

        But I voted for Nader; and I don't think him of "St. Nader" at all, and I am tired of the Nader-bashing that often goes on.  Here's something to consider:  Nader is a symptom, not the illness.  I and many like me voted for Nader not because we're passionate about the man or his candidacy, but because we're fed up with the "business/corporate interests as usual" of the two major parties.  Flame me or troll-rate me, I couldn't care less, but hear this:  Al Gore made me sick to my stomach.  He was less appealing to my Democratic sensibilities than Bill Clinton, and Clinton (deified though he has been by BushCo's atrocities) moved the Dem party way to the right, and away from progressive values.

        edwardbanderson is right:  Nader sounded the trumpet and called for corporations to stop being able to get away, literally, with murder.  The only other people I hear speaking that brand of sense are Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich.  Even my Congressman, Bobby Rush, who was the Information Minister for the Black Panther Party in the 1960's, is a corporate shill who sells himself and his constituents for PAC donations now.  

        It would be much more to the point to ask why people voted for Nader (and I'll give a hint:  "just to be perverse and piss me off" isn't a valid answer) and to ask how those people can be attracted back to the Democratic party.  Don't just write them off as the left version of wingnuts.  Maybe a few are, but most are not; most are people like me, who are tired of seeing all our ideals, and the ideals that formed this nation, sold to the biggest contributor.  

        "Often it does seem a pity that Noah and his party did not miss the boat." (Mark Twain)

        by cinnamondog on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 05:22:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  YES YES YES!!! (4.00)
          That is EXACTLY how I feel (I voted for Nader from the safe zone of NYC) ...

          You put that very well. We need to be about expanding the party. About creating a new progressive paradigm. About moving away from our faustian bargain w/ the Rethugs ...

          Ralph is the fever. Lets treat the infection.

          The world is on its elbows and knees, It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds. Armageddon days are here again Matt Johnson

          by Madman in the marketplace on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 05:36:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  except that (4.00)
          Nader was completely counter productive to those ends.

          A flexible, third party politics would allow Greens to:

          • oppose the GOP
          • lay the foundations of a flourishing grass roots Green party
          • advance an anti-corporate "green economics" from within the current establishment
          • support the dems in races Greens can't win, while still running candidates to broadcast a green message
          • engage the dems on issues important to greens
          • build "karmic debt" with the dems
          • create space for the dems to run left by engaging and registering "green / independents" all over the country
          • still allow for a prinicipled politics of protest where needs be
          The problem with this is that it requires nuanced, complex balancing of political interests.  There are no simple answers.  If your main goal is a kind of pure politics, then you won't even begin to want to imagine a set up where greens and dems cooperate for the most part, and "agree to disagree" on other matters.

          If, on the other hand, the fact that the majority of Americans voted for Gore or Nader last time around and we got Bush and a Republican controlled Congress seems as enormously tragic and dire to you as it does to me...then maybe the "other side" here should consider a politics in which we begin with a pragmatic set of first priorities and work from there.

          Nader's politics are anti-pragmatic and counter-productive.  That ain't gonna change.  It doesn't matter if one agrees with him or not, his inflexiblity is his downfall....but hopefully not ours.  

          2004's the election, 2005's the prize...let'sTCB!

          by kid oakland on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 06:02:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ralphie may be coming around... (none)
            According to the news today on "All Things Considered," Nader said he would tell his supporters to campaign for him during the process, but if by election day it was close in their district or state, he would advise them to then vote for Kerry.

            I would take this as a "straw in the wind" that he's coming around this time.  This might be the influence of Peter Camejo - a guy I used to dismiss 30 years ago when he was professional Trotskyite moron - who seemed to have his head screwed on (mostly) straight during last year's Grey Davis recall, when he advised people not to vote for him if it was close between Bustamante and Schwarzenegger.  Now that he is going to be Ralphie's VP candidate, perhaps someone will talk sense to the Resident Saint.

            William Goldman was right when he said the three rules of Hollywierd are "1) Nobody, 2) knows, 3) anything." Works in the real world, too.

            by HollywierdLiberal on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 06:15:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Or maybe, post-2000,... (none)
              It was were he was at all along...

              Only so many of us were so busy needing to blame the Bush nightmare on a fellow-traveller, (instead of ourselves),  that we forgot to see the obvious, or listen when Ralph said he wanted to see/help Kerry win.

              I pray for the soul of the Democratic Party. That Kos climbed on board the "Bash the Anti-Corporate Greed Guy" Express, troubles the heck out of me.

              Shame on you Kos. Shame.

              "What do Repubs Want? -- Armageddon!" "When do they want it? -- Now!"

              by edwardbanderson on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 06:42:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  where he was AT.... (none)
                sorry, should preview posts.

                "What do Repubs Want? -- Armageddon!" "When do they want it? -- Now!"

                by edwardbanderson on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 06:54:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Fellow traveller? (none)
                Well, he has been running on his own and not really travelling along. Nader isn't trying to influence the democratic party, otherwise he might choose a different kind of an approach then "you can only blame yourselves not being left-wing enough" meme he keeps on repeating.

                Nader is not doing anything productive. That's really the problem. He has lost the shred of respect that he once had, most dems even after 2000 weren't so pissed at him, but now we are.

                Just because he is "anti-corprate greed" doesn't make him automatically better than anyone else. I'm trying to control my frustration and anger against Nader, but it's gettin' too much. He sounds so arrogant, he preaches so much about Dems changing themselves that if i hear it one more time from him, i think i'll vomit blood.

                Nader could be sanctimonious and hypocritical on the sidebars and yelling at dems to move more to the left, without actually running for president.

                I heard him on NPR and TRIED to understand him and his motivation. All i heard was the same crap he has said for the last 4 years. Nothing changes with him anymore.

                Oh I know i should be Ever grateful to Nader that he told people to campaign for him, But if the race looks close, vote for Kerry. Much appreaciated Ralphie. Well, i'm not very grateful.

                It's a free country and he can run if he wants to, this election will probably show how much actualy support he has.

                Republicans best friend is ignorance.

                by Jonesyboy on Thu Jun 24, 2004 at 08:03:43 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, but . . . (none)
              According to the news today on "All Things Considered," Nader said he would tell his supporters to campaign for him during the process, but if by election day it was close in their district or state, he would advise them to then vote for Kerry.

              Yeah, but as I recall, in 2000 he promised to campaign only in states where the results were not in doubt, so as to avoid drawing support from Gore - and then he went back on his word and campaigned in places like Florida anyway.

              Nader is a liar, and a sad shell of whatever he once might have been. But YMMV.

          •  Yes, I agree with you and (3.50)
            that was an excellent articulation of the matter.

            "Tragic and dire" barely comes close to describing my reaction to the results of the 2000 "election."  As god is my witness, I never thought Bush would pull as many votes as he did; or that Gore would pull so few.  The fact that my respect for Nader has declined over the last four years is not the only reason I won't be voting for him this year.

            Ideally, what I want is a repeal of the ruling in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, the 1886 decision of the Supreme Court in which the Supremes found ruled "that a private corporation is a natural person under the US Constitution -- although ... the Constitution makes no mention of corporations-- and is thereby entitled to the protections of the Bill of Rights, including the right to free speech and other constitutional protections extended to individuals."  (From 'When Corporations Rule the World' by David C. Korten)

            Realistically, I know that isn't going to happen in my lifetime.  So yes, I think it is important-- maybe imperative would be a better word-- that all of us who are not okay with the tenets and philosophy of the Republican party work toward that pragmatic set of first priorities you mentioned.  

            Kerry gets my vote, but my hopes reside with Barack Obama and people like him.  I want there to be more Obamas, more Feingolds, more Kuciniches, more reasons to hope.  In the meantime, I'll settle for no more Bush.  Traders know that sometimes cutting a loss is as good as making a profit.

            "Often it does seem a pity that Noah and his party did not miss the boat." (Mark Twain)

            by cinnamondog on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 07:32:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It also takes local growth... (none)
            If Nader and others are serious about creating a viable third party, they need to focus on the grassroots; local elections and organizing.

            Trying to put a third party on the ballot by trying to pull 5% of the national vote in a time where partisanship is at an all-time high, is not only foolish, but counter-productive. They put people who believe rather strongly in pro-green issues in a tough position.

            By working to build viable state parties and build the trust of the electorate, they can build a viable movement.

            •  Yup. (none)
              Those are good points.  The more I see and the older I get, the more strongly convinced I am that the saying "all politics is local" is essentially correct.

              I'm unbelievably excited by the candidacy of Barack Obama here in Illinois this year.  I'm also excited about the possibility that a friend of mine who's been involved in my neighborhood civic organization for years may run for alderman in our ward next year.  Both those things are far more appealing to me than John Kerry in any way, shape or form.

              But in the process of voting for Obama in November, I'll almost certainly vote for Kerry.  I guess.

              "Often it does seem a pity that Noah and his party did not miss the boat." (Mark Twain)

              by cinnamondog on Thu Jun 24, 2004 at 07:27:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  I read your diary on this eba.... (3.87)
        and am sorry you didn't get the debate you were looking for...Let me tell you the main reasons I oppose Nader this  year, and opposed him in the past.

        Ralph Nader is inflexible and he makes his case with inflexible "politics of purity" appeals.  The Greens endorsed Nader (I think to their own detriment) in 2000.  But instead of taking a stance like David Cobb currently is...of running in "safe states" and acknowledging the importance of coordination with the Democratic Party, and highlighting our many common goals, Nader vilified Gore and the Democrats creating a kind of third front, after the GOP and SCLM, in the mischaracterization of Al Gore.  It did not have to be that way at all.

        One thing that always shocks me is the lack of imagination Ralph Nader has.  It could be SO different.  A little flexibility and political creativity goes a long way.  Nader has none.  He is a grim moralist.  He doesn't offer hope and instead appeals to the most pessimistic assumptions and fears of his audience.

        Nader's world view is one in which his opponents are ALWAYS acting out of the most base and crass compromised motivations, and yet he is pure.  A Democratic / Green alliance would scare the shit out the GOP, but that isn't possible if you embrace Nader's "there's little difference between the two parties" mentality.

        Ralph Nader is an unmitigated disaster for left politics in this country.  He's a political adventurer who plays games with morality.
        Of all Nader's faults, there's one that marks him in complete contradistinction from every single great Left leader our nation has ever produced.   Ralph Nader has no heart.  He has no feelings for the common person.  He  is a grim puritan on a horse...

        and his scythe, though remarkably sharp, does immensely more damage than it does good.

        2004's the election, 2005's the prize...let'sTCB!

        by kid oakland on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 05:39:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  One could argue... (3.66)
          the current crop of Dems "is an unmitigated disaster for left politics in this country."

          A near majority of the working class has no faith left in politics primarily because the leaders of the People's Party aren't doing such a great job.

          A Democratic/Green majority might be fashioned if our elected Dems put People and Clean Process first. There is absolutely nothing, NOTHING, progressive about the Dem Party in New Haven. (Even though we are darn close to SF in our make-up.)

          God if only there were a true Wellstone/Feingold wing of the Party.

          "What do Repubs Want? -- Armageddon!" "When do they want it? -- Now!"

          by edwardbanderson on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 05:55:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There is (none)
            And it is called Democracy for America. Dean's vision of rebuilding the democratic party will take years of hard work by thousands of dedicated progressives.

            You can't wave a magic wand and achieve moral purity like St. Ralph envisions.

            Another Hunter Thompson Deanocrat

            by Ed in Montana on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 06:00:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  And why isn't there? (none)
            How much did Nader contribute to that?  Can we criticize him if he is repsonsible?

            Honestly, Nader is  a big boy, why this handwringing over Nader criticism?

            The shit that was said and wriiten about all of our candidates - I was for Clark, ad I'll be damned if I saw handwringing about the crap written about him.

            Dean was well defended here, but in the mainstream Media, taken through the wringer.

            Kerry gets bashed MORE here than Nader, of course he also gets much more love.

            HOw about Lieberman? I personally have written FUCK Lieberman a gazillion times and stand by  every one.  You worried about alienating the Lieberman facton?

            Enough. NAder decided to become a politician. This is what happens when you make those decisions.

            "Our purpose is to get this dangerous incompetent out of the White House." - Digby

            by Armando on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 06:06:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'll grant you that point (none)
              but who in the Democratic leadership is saying ANYTHING about progressive issues? Ralph & Kucinich. Dean, for very valid reasons, has decided to focus on building for the future.

              However, we have a candidate whose campaign makes a show of parading an endless parade of DLC hacks, washed up has-beens and Dems so far to the Center they would have been Republicans 25 years ago as VEEP candidates. NOT ONE CANDIDATE TO THE LEFT. Not one. "Shut us base, you're going to vote for us anyway."

              We're not just defending Nader, we're defending somebody fucking talking about how the corporate class has bought our government.

              The world is on its elbows and knees, It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds. Armageddon days are here again Matt Johnson

              by Madman in the marketplace on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 06:35:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Fuck you (1.66)
                St. Ralph most definitely is not in the Democratic Leadership, and is an an opponent of our party.
                •  I never said he was (3.50)
                  and this kind of response is exactly the problem.

                  I understand how important this moment is (I'm responding to Kid Oakland as well as your very delicate and loving response) and I think a lot of others responding to the vitriol here do too.

                  Look, I like to hope that Nader will drop out as the time gets closer. I truly hope he does. However ....

                  Shit, I give up.

                  Lets all just jump on board. Sheep, following along behind the designated shepherd. Lets not encourage anyone to actually return a soul to this party. Lets pick Gephardt as a running mate. Daschle, Daschle he's our man ... if he can't cave to the Rethugs no one can!!

                  I fully endorse Dean's methods. I think it's the best course.

                  However, I just want SOMEONE holding the leadership of OUR party's collective well-shod feet to the fire. I hope Nader does that for a while, puts a little scare into them, calls attention to some very important issues, THEN DROPS OUT.

                  Fuck yous to disention make me feel like I've stumbled into the wrong party.

                  The world is on its elbows and knees, It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds. Armageddon days are here again Matt Johnson

                  by Madman in the marketplace on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 07:09:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  luv you man.... (none)
                    In the end is the average Dem any more intelligent than the average Repug?

                    Of course they are. Just bad leadership. How did Daischle and Lieberman ever get to trump Byrd, Feingold, Graham, and Kennedy?

                    I hope we don't see a future in which we see 20% vote Republican, 20% vote Democratic, and 60% don't bother. (although I fear we are heading there).

                    "What do Repubs Want? -- Armageddon!" "When do they want it? -- Now!"

                    by edwardbanderson on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 07:23:26 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Read your post again (none)
                    I never said he was

                    Uh, yes you did:

                    who in the Democratic leadership is saying ANYTHING about progressive issues? Ralph & Kucinich.

                    What else could you be saying with this, if not that Nader and Kucinich are in the Democratic Party leadership?

                    Though the "fuck you" response was out of proportion to the original offense . . .

                •  H'mmm, let me think-- (none)
                  Why is it that I don't consider myself a Democrat despite the fact that in 30 years of voting I've never once voted Republican?

                  Oh yeah-- responses like that one.  Someone disagrees with the party line and immediately, it's "fuck you, so-and-so is an opponent of our party"-- which is just another flavor of BushCo's "you're either with us or you're against us."  

                  Lovely.  Count me out.

                  "Often it does seem a pity that Noah and his party did not miss the boat." (Mark Twain)

                  by cinnamondog on Thu Jun 24, 2004 at 07:31:42 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I think some of this comes from (4.00)
                how we understand this moment in history.
                John Kerry is the last traditional democrat Presidential nominee.  He either wins, or loses.  There's not going to be another.  The stakes were so high this year; despite the clear appeal of Dean, voters went for Kerry.  Not likely to repeat itself ever again.

                If Kerry wins (huge sigh of relief), huge numbers of like minded folks on the left side of the Democratic Party can begin to work on whatever is to become of the "green / democratic" movement.  Will we merge, collaborate, agree to disagree, move forward on parallell tracks, continue to clash?  My view is that we can't just be "anti-corporate";  we have to elaborate a new "green economics" that works.  The best way to show something works is to make it work.  We need to do that.  And we need to begin to elect greens and democrats committed to doing that.  Part of that would show up come 2008 or 2012, and it will definitely affect the Dem choice going forward.

                If Kerry loses.  There won't be time or motivation for playing the blame game, or talking about 2008.  We will need to come together, all of us, immediately.

                I am actually convinced that if Bush wins you will see a rather instant renewal of the politics of protest in this country.   But with a very unpredictable course of action and effectiveness.   I think that's what's missing in all this debate about the past....it's the stakes for the future that are really key here.  It's ironic that what would bring us together on election day if it doesn't go our way...isn't bringing us together right now.  

                2004's the election, 2005's the prize...let'sTCB!

                by kid oakland on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 06:58:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Exactly right. (3.50)
                I think some people still don't get it:  a vote for Nader in 2000 was a protest vote.  It was a none of the above vote, the way a vote for Perot was in whatever year that flake ran.  It was a "goddamn it, give us a REAL choice!" vote.  I don't know how that message still hasn't gotten through...

                "Often it does seem a pity that Noah and his party did not miss the boat." (Mark Twain)

                by cinnamondog on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 07:48:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Exactly (3.66)
                  and if Gore hadn't run such a shitty campaign, and if our entire system wasn't so completely corrupted, the Supremes couldn't have installed their Dauphin to the White House.

                  It's more important, apparently, to blindly go along and squelch dissent than to actually have a meaningful debate ... but then again, fuck me for not just shutting up, sending a check and pulling the lever.

                  The world is on its elbows and knees, It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds. Armageddon days are here again Matt Johnson

                  by Madman in the marketplace on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 07:55:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Who doesn't get it yet? (none)
                  You are saying that you didn't think there was a difference between Bush and Gore (your words were they didn't represent a real choice).

                  Do you still think you were right about that?  Do you think Gore would have been the same as Bush has been?

                  Frankly, the fact that you thought that Gore vs. Bush didn't represent a real choice discredits you in my eyes.  Sorry, but if you couldn't see the choice in 2000, why should I take seriously anything you think about politics?

                  •  LOL! Why on earth (none)
                    would you take seriously anything I or any other poster here think(s) about politics?  You don't know me, or anything about me, beyond what little I choose to divulge on an internet blog (and that could be a complete fabrication).  It's the height of absurdity to take seriously most of what one reads on the internet (especially opinion!), and I don't think my posts are an exception to that rule.

                    Okay, so I'm "discredited" with you-- and what are the consequences of that for me, exactly?  You won't respond to my posts, or you'll give them low ratings?  Cool beans.  Never a problem.  I don't post for the responses, or for the ratings.  

                    To answer your question:  do I still think that Gore would have been the same as Bush has been?  No, of course not.  With all due respect, that's a silly question.  Bush has been worse than virtually anyone expected, and millions of Americans are in a state of stunned horror as the magnitude of the corruption, incompetence, and malignancy of his administration have been revealed.

                    Do I regret having voted for Nader?  I do not.  When I punched the ballot for Nader in November 2000, I walked out of the voting booth feeling good about the way I had cast my ballot.  And I'm sure that many people who voted for Nader felt the same way.  That's what I think some Democrats still don't "get."  And until they do, they'll continue to regard Nader as evil, or at least to think the he is the problem.  He's not.  The Democratic party is the problem, for a lot of us.

                    "Often it does seem a pity that Noah and his party did not miss the boat." (Mark Twain)

                    by cinnamondog on Thu Jun 24, 2004 at 07:19:25 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That's why I think they are selfish (none)
                      Nader voters are more concerned about feeling good about themselves than genuinely helping our Country.  Their selfishness puts our future at risk.

                      I hope they still feel good when our environment is so polluted, we all start to die.  
                       

          •  In that case (none)
            it would make New Haven a great place for a local Green movement.  And if I lived there, not only would I vote Green, I might even run for local office as a Green if it didn't mean I had to pledge against the Democrats.

            There's two sides to every coin.  Hope, as opposed to the pessimistic assessment, is not only how you build movements, it's also how you win elections.  I'm easy, eba.  I likely share your political views but happen to oppose Ralph Nader.  But one thing that I just don't buy is the politics of negativity.  

            The Democrats of the previous generation were worse; our party was deeply complicit in segregation and Jim Crow.  Our big city party machines were rife with corruption.  Yet despite this, folks like FDR, Truman, Johnson,  and Humphrey pushed past those limitations and built a party that, on paper, has the right ideals, and whose heart, like Bill Clinton's, is in the right place.

            Obviously, our generation has its work cut out for us.  I'd like to see progress made with a green/dem collaboration.  And, yes, that's gonna mean an elaboration of how we successfully implement a "green economics" that's more than pie in the sky running through the flowers.  The future of our planet depends on it, however.  And we should have begun two decades ago.

            I just don't see what positive Nader has to offer, that's all.  And I'm definitely not buying what he's selling.

            2004's the election, 2005's the prize...let'sTCB!

            by kid oakland on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 06:18:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nader, like Kucinich.... (none)
              has a message. (give up the oil. UN in US out.)

              Listening to the message doesn't mean,--in an important election, - you have to vote for the messenger.

              What does it mean that Nader wasn't allowed to debate in 2000. Frankly, one could argue Sharpton and Kucinich, and Holy Joe, shouldn't have been allowed to debate down the stretch. But freezing them out would have alienated a large contigency.

              Frankly I'd rather here Ralph tell how D.C. is more answerable to GE than to me, than listen to Kerry and Bush argue who is Commander-in-Chief material.

              Nader and Camejo can help us win Congress. imho.

              "What do Repubs Want? -- Armageddon!" "When do they want it? -- Now!"

              by edwardbanderson on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 06:50:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Disagree more strongly here... (none)
                If Ralph Nader had run as a Democrat this year...his voice would have gotten full play and we all know it.  In fact, it would have been a great venue for Ralph to debate the centrist Dems...and for the other candidates to ask Ralph some of the hard questions he NEVER has to answer. Heck, if he had run as a Green he might have had to debate and answer a few questions; but Nader chose not to.

                As it stands, Ralph Nader gets more media coverage, more play than his actual standings merit.  " Will he? / won't he?" are fascinating questions to the SCLM....what's going on in Milwaukee right now (the Green Party convention), I guess, isn't.  I find it surprising that it's not the Nader supporters here bringing up the Green convention.  I and others have pretty consistently done so, because it IS very important.  That's what Nader was about last time, right?  Or maybe not.

                The premise that Nader and Camejo can help us or anyone win Congress I don't get.  They are running as independents.  They aren't registering new voters as far as I've seen and don't have the money or organization to do so.  Their campaign seems once again to be on a crash course with the inevitable demand to be included in the debates that they obviously won't be included in, and shouldn't be.  They will protest this...and it will make Kerry look bad and Bush won't care.

                Please explain how they help us or anyone win Congress.

                2004's the election, 2005's the prize...let'sTCB!

                by kid oakland on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 07:16:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Exactly. (none)

                  It's also worth pointing out that Nader's progressive message is not reaching the masses.  It's only reaching activists.  A few weeks ago Nader was on the front page of the NYT after his meeting with Kerry.  Yet he used the opportunity to talk about the horserace, how Kerry reminded Nader he once wanted him to run for president back in 1980, and to take shots at various pols and consultants he doesn't like.  In other words, politics as usual.  Nader may be more than politics as usual (I'm not convinced from what I've read of him), but he is not projecting that to the average voter.  I'm not sure how that helps progressives in any way.

                  And when we meet again, I will fall to my knees, and rise to your needs -- Gary Daly (China Crisis)

                  by tlaura on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 07:38:51 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Is the Two-Party system sick, or maybe broken?? (none)
                  I don't know.

                  But fact is nearly a majority of Americans don't care to vote. (Lazy, Disinterested, or feeling Powerless.)

                  My Representatives represent Corporate Interests more than me. An obvious fact.

                  Nader people don't want a 3rd Party. I don't. They want a Democratic Party that puts People first. If they have to protest against the Lieber-whores of the world, well, so be it.

                  I'm surprised that you won't admit an election with Nader/Camejo will get more people to vote than an election without them. Some people feel strongly enough against both parties, to lodge their protest votes for Ralph. But once in the voting booth, why not chose the Lefty over the Repug?

                  If the Dem Party is to regain Power, we have to bring in the disenchanted.

                  "What do Repubs Want? -- Armageddon!" "When do they want it? -- Now!"

                  by edwardbanderson on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 07:54:47 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Not broken....bent, but not broken. (4.00)
                    My political "Dean" moments were Jesse Jackson in '88 and, Paul Wellstone in '90.  I was 19 when I froze my ass off in New Hampshire for Jesse,  just like many Stormers who froze their asses in Iowa for Dean.  To say that voting for Dukakis, knowing he was going to lose to GHWB, was a disillusioning experience is to put it lightly.  But I did.  When Clinton won in '92 it felt anti-climatic, a relief, but if he hadn't won...well, think about it for a second.  The stakes are about the same or greater right now.

                    In my view, Clinton was really just treading water the best he could trying to hold back the force of the ENORMOUS political change that started in 1980 and continued, despite Clinton's election, through the 1994 Gingrich Revolution, impeachment and now Bush.  The GOP got something rolling in 1980 (dominating the "white vote" and the South) that was huge, and blaming Democrats for not being able to fight back effectively in confronting it is ignoring the fact that we did (most of us) damn well fight the best we could.  Fight we had to and did.  For the most part we simply held our ground.

                    I see Nader as pitching an alternate vision of how things could have been.  And Nader uses Clinton / Gore and "corporate sell out politicians" as a way to erase Jesse Jackson and Paul Wellstone and, to be frank, the hard fought work of a ton of activists and regular joes and janes.  He takes what has been a significant change in American life...the corporate takeover of almost everything...and pins both parties with it.  As if we Democrats simply paved the way for the status quo.  To steal a phrase from Bill Clinton, "That's simply not true."

                    This moment, now, 2004...affords all of us an opportunity to truly turn back what started in 1980 once and for all...that's what I'm interested in...and I have absolutely no doubt that you are too.  So, let's frickin' do that already.  If Nader and Camejo want to help, fine.   It would help me if they would be very clear about HOW they are going to help, because right now, I'm not seeing it...and neither are alot of folks, Medea Benjamin included...but insofar as they can and will....let's do it.  I'll pay careful attention to what they do and say, and let you know what I think.

                    Eba, please return the favor, pay close attention to what Kerry says as he chooses a running mate and at the Convention.  Please, let me know whether the VP pick and how they run their campaign speaks what you want to hear.  

                    I am betting, and hoping, that the concept of a broken Democratic Party might undergo some revision in the next month or two, and that all of us might start to see a "new day rising."

                    2004's the election, 2005's the prize...let'sTCB!

                    by kid oakland on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 09:17:55 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Hey Kid (none)
          Is it now free rein on bashing us "unelightened" posters who don't offer a worthy debate? (Laugh)

          I'm sick and tired of people getting sick and tired.

          "Our purpose is to get this dangerous incompetent out of the White House." - Digby

          by Armando on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 05:58:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Dean/Nader (none)
        What evidence is there that Dean was able to appeal to the Nader constituency? I'm not being sarcastic; I hear it all the time, but aside from anecdata, I've never seen evidence.
        •  Should have come to a Dean MeetUp... (none)
          two out of four, maybe more...

          "What do Repubs Want? -- Armageddon!" "When do they want it? -- Now!"

          by edwardbanderson on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 06:52:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  seconded. (none)
            Of the folks I know who voted for Nader last go-around, at least half of them actively campaigned in some fashion (if even by bumper sticker and cash) for Dean.

            People voted for Nader for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the Democratic leadership has no fundamental vision for America and for Americans.  Nader, all flaws aside (and they are there), did.  As did Dean.  Kerry, like Gore of 2000 before him, triangulates between vaguely liberal and Bush territory--that an emcompassing vision does not make.

            If people spent a little less time bashing Nader voters and bothered to approach the issues, we'd be a lot further along than we are now.  Dems might have made some advances in 2000 rather than losing more ground.  The Kerry campaign could show it actually learned something from the last couple of elections.

            The republicans actually stand for something--mind you it's a depraved rotting core with a glossy shell, but it's a more realized vision than anything the DLC has been able to come up with.  Same with Nader.  Fault him or his candidacy all you want, but he has a vision of an America that is responsive to the the people, not just a bunch of Corporate hacks.

            That's a major reason why so many folks responded to Nader and why they responded to Dean.  Dean has his flaws (which candidate doesn't), but I think ultimately his candidacy was sidelined, not by lack of public enthusiasm, but by power-holders, including the DLC and the mainstream media.

            Dean, as a candidate, appealed to disenfranchised voters.  Kerry doesn't. Is he "less worse" than bush? definitely. well, hurrah, then count me excited.

  •  by the time i get to arizona (4.00)
    half were republicans. shocker. god riddance.
  •  Both sides of the story, please (none)
    Any word on what he has to say in his defense?  He's usually quite forthcoming in interviews.
  •  Another win for democracy vs the corporate agenda (none)

    The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whetherwe provide enough for those who have to little. -FDR

    by kamosa on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 04:24:08 PM PDT

  •  quote of the week (none)
    "And by the way, for those of you who are hurt that I'm going after St. Nader, tough. I'm just getting warmed up."

    Love it!

  •  Hear! Hear! (none)
    Bravo, Kos! You might take a lot of heat for this one but YOU ARE RIGHT!

    The only goal this year, the prime directive, is to get this corrupt and arrogant bunch out of office. A lot of us (most of us I'll venture) are all for a three-or-more-party system.

    But not this year. Bush has to go.

    -fink

    •  And not until the right wing goes first (none)
      I'm sick of the left being the ones who take the high road all the time.  I'm totally for a multi-party system, but the Republicans have to split first.  Otherwise, they will solidify their control over the insitutions of power while we are completely unable to win a majority.  Let us have control and fix their mess while they break apart, instead of making us go first.  

      When the religious conservatives or the moderate Republicans or someone else breaks a way and denies them any hope of majority, only then will I feel comfortable fracturing the center-left coaliton into multiple parties.
       

  •  50% Republicans (none)
    I'm just waiting to hear Nader spin this story into some sort of perverse validation of his theory that he's appealing to disgruntled Republicans as much as to progressives.
    •  Clearly (none)
      "This clearly shows that 50% of Republicans voters reject the policies of their own President and of his Democratic contender," Nader could spin.

      "The world is too complex and dangerous for the pious simplicities and arrogant unilateralism of George W. Bush." - Martin Wolf, Financial Times, May 12, 2004

      by Long Haul on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 04:35:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nader SUCKS (2.50)
      Disgruntled republicans? OK, these bozos rule all branches of any kind of government and are hungry for more. The only thing they are disguntled, is probably that the church & state are still separate. Oh, and they're upset because abortion/homosexuality/pre-marital sex/women working are still legal.

      I'm quite sure Nader is going to say that he's just appealing to Republicans. Based on what? I just don't get who the hell on the far-right of the political spectrum, or even moderate right-wing, would ever vote for him. Repukes have their dreanmboy, the cowboy from Texas, to vote for.

      The only reason repukes are cheering Nader on, is only because of they want to piss on dems. So, in that sense, Nader and Repukes are infact pretty much alike.

      Oh boy, i'm sure Edwards is very happy to get an endorsment from Nader. Why couldn't he endorse Gephardt? Damn.

      Nader should drop out first, then Kerry could talk to him. Though i don't think Dems should spend a penny or any energy to fight against Nader. If someone is going to vote for him, fine by me. Obviously they aren't so worried about the whole world going to hell if BushCo. gets 4 more years.

      Republicans best friend is ignorance.

      by Jonesyboy on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 04:44:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just what I was thinking (none)
        Why couldn't he have endorsed Gephardt?  Now he has probably jinxed Edwards, or at a minimum givenm Kerry a reason not to pick him.  

        If you're going in the wrong direction and you stay the course, where, exactly, do you wind up?

        by Mimikatz on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 04:53:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Nader Counts (none)
        He knows he controls the swing vote. His constituency is real, and their issues are real.

        Why should he cooperate when no one is speaking for people who have no health care, no pension, no job security?

        Why should he play nice when the republicans have taken over all three branches of government and the Democrats are looking to give up the states by being more republican than the Republicans?

        People will vote for him until things change for the better for those who support him.  Plain and simple.

  •  asfd (4.00)
    i've lost all respect for nader, like so many other people.  i mean, he's gone so far past delusional it's not even funny.

    if he had any shame whatsoever he would immediatly call a press conference to announce he's ending his presidential bid, and to announce his apologies for being such a complete crank.  and then he would go to wherever he lives and completely shut the fuck up for a long time.

    and all he has to say through all this is, "I have the right to run for president."

    I have a right to run for president?!?!?

    Yeah, we all have our rights, Ralph.  I have the right to paint my private parts orange and run around downtown shouting 'free the smurfs', my mom has the right to take a plane trip to Iowa and eat grass for the rest of her life and say she wants to be one with cows.  BUT WE DON'T DO IT!!!

    He's clearly on another planet.  Getting shouted at by the congression black caucus, running an 80% national disapproval rating, having his AZ ballot petition for occupied by 90% registered republicans.

    i have the right to run.  give me a fucking break already.

  •  "I Want My Green Party Back!" (4.00)
    The GOP is headed up by a megalomaniacal and dangerous man, and so is the Green Party if they embrace <shudder> Nader once again.

    Well, no wonder GOoPers are so willing to sign his petitions - they recognize the type.

    "The world is too complex and dangerous for the pious simplicities and arrogant unilateralism of George W. Bush." - Martin Wolf, Financial Times, May 12, 2004

    by Long Haul on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 04:31:21 PM PDT

  •  WAIT a minute... (none)
    it just occurred to me, since i'm going through something similar with my mother-in-law right now...maybe Nader is succumbing to dementia, and doesn't know what he's doing.  

    We should approach him with sympathy and some Aricept pills.  Poor guy.  

    Or maybe it's like "A Beautiful Mind" and imaginary people keep telling him to soldier on...

    Results matter! Jesus would have been a lot less popular if he had drowned trying to walk across that lake...

    by PBJ Diddy on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 04:34:48 PM PDT

  •  repost from a diary entry (4.00)
    Hope no one minds:

    Bush Urges Kerry to Pick Miller for VP

    By SAM HANANEL, Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON - Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) is getting some advice on his choice for vice president from an unlikely source: rival George W. Bush (news - web sites).
     
    In an open letter sent Wednesday, the Republican presidential candidate urged Kerry to choose Zell Miller (news - web sites) as his running mate, saying the retiring Georgia Senator and former Democrat has been thoroughly vetted and is committed to protecting the right of right-wing theocratic fundamentalists to pretend to belong to any political party they choose.

    "(Miller) has already gone through gubernatorial and Senate campaigns and has his rhythm and oratory all well-honed," Bush wrote to Kerry. "Although he is retiring from the Senate, Sen. Miller has won praise from the media for his 'centrist' credentials and would be an asset to the Kerry campaign."

    Miller, the only Democratic Senator to endorse Bush, has kept his pledge to serve all 8.5 million Georgians and no single party in the Senate. He has chided the national Democratic Party for putting partisanship ahead of the people in his best-selling book, "A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat."  Bush said Miller is committed to establishing himself as a strong voice for the "conservative, common-sense approach to issues."

    And while Kerry may decide to take the advice, Bush spokesman Terry Holt said there is no quid pro quo.

    "It doesn't mean Bush is going to drop out," Holt said.

    The Kerry campaign declined to comment on Bush's vice presidential suggestion.

  •  Amen... (4.00)
    I think this is the year that Ralph is going to learn that there are some left Democrats who really, really don't like him and aren't afraid to say so.  If needs be, I for one will picket him to get my point across.

    But before folks get too riled up, and start the back and forth battles of the last thread....I'd beg you all to read this diary entry from greendem highlighting Medea Benjamin's recent pro-Cobb, anti-Nader 2004 stance that may very well push her onto the Green national ticket.  And while you're at it, check out this thread started by Keith Brekhus, with follow-ups by meangreenmachine and yours truly that highlight how us Dems and the Greens really can and should get along: with open debate on the issues.

    Nader vs. Dems does not have to be a dems vs. greens battle this year, and it should not  devolve into stupid rehashes of the 2000 campaign.  Nader is bad enough and wrong headed enough all by his lonesome that we can opppose him for what he's doing now rather than rehashing the past.  Further, a "safe/states" Cobb / Benjamin ticket would allow some of us to really have the choice we should have had in 2000:

    • anti-Bush, ie. get him out of office!
    • pro-Democrat in all States where it counts
    • pro-Green to build a collaborating party / movement and highlight issues we consider important
    • anti-Nader to say "no" to Ralph's insistence on putting himself before his cause and his misguided and destructive political strategies
    Now, some Greens will feel like the Democrats will inevitably come out ahead on this deal.  I think the jury's out on that one; and I can personally promise that it's not the case from me.  I am grateful to Benjamin and very interested in Green candidates and thinking.  Nader's path, however, is one of mutually assured destruction.  Benjamin deserves major kudos for speaking to reason and looking to the future.

    2004's the election, 2005's the prize...let'sTCB!

    by kid oakland on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 04:38:38 PM PDT

    •  Cobb nomination (4.00)
      Thanks for linking these diaries/threads. I was going to ask about any way one might influence the Green's nomination process toward Cobb.

      I used to be a Green activist - co-founded and co-chaired the Maui County Green Party in the early 90s (until I learned that Hawaii is actually an occupied country and joined the independence movement), and I believe strongly in their values and the value of third parties. In Hawaii we elected a green to the Hawaii island county county, who in her second term was the balance between a 4-4 D-R split and ended up with the council chair.

      I also personally know Peter Camejo. In his bio and Ralph's press release, he talks about being appointed by the Lt. Governor of Hawaii to the Hawaii Capital Stewardship Forum, and I basically faciliated that happening when a group of us were working locally on SRI issues. I have a lot of respect for Peter, and with regard to third parties I especially like his focus on instant runoff voting, which would remove the spoiler factor, and which in 2000 he was critical of Ralph for not emphasizing enough.

      But I am rather disappointed to see him join with Ralph now, and I like Cobb's strategy of pursuing safe states, avoiding splitting the progressives, and working to build awareness and registration for Greens and support for local races and issues.

      So, any idea how to encourage Greens to pick Cobb at their convention?

      From another country under U.S. military occupation ... FREE HAWAII!

      by scottmaui on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 05:28:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're probably all over this... (none)
        but I would start here

        And then click on the David Cobb link.  You may personally know some of the delegates for the other candidates, or the uncommitted delegates.  It's always worth a try...although the thing is...um...underway already.  So you might have to get creative.

        peaceout and thanks for the comment.

        2004's the election, 2005's the prize...let'sTCB!

        by kid oakland on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 06:29:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Safe state strategy (none)
      The safe state strategy hurts Kerry's margin, makes the perception of landslide more difficult, and give the opposition the impression that Kerry has no mandate.   Plus, those in safe states who support Nader keep him viable nationally and helps to prop him up in Swing states.  

      Frankly, I've always thought the safe state strategy was bogus.  

      •  Just to be clear (none)
        the "safe state" strategy I'm talking about is proposed by David Cobb and involves voting Green and not for Nader at this point.

        I don't think that the margin or "mandate" question really holds.  If you think of most parliamentary democracies,  parties are able to win decisive victories without the high percentages we Americans demand.  There is nothing to stop folks from adding the Dem / Green popular vote together when speaking of mandate; in fact, many folks do when speaking of Gore / Nader versus Bush's lack of a popular vote mandate.  Either way, 2000 demonstrates it is entirely possible that Kerry could win the popular vote with a Green candidate on the ticket.

        In the electoral college, a "sate state" strategy of cooperation between Greens and Dems could still yield an electoral landslide.  Kerry would still win every single electoral vote in California for example....and his landslide would come from adding Ohio and/or Florida, states that Cobb would not contest.

        "Safe states" is actually a strategy that hampers the Greens if anything, because some swing states, like PA, MI, OH and FL are large and important states with big cities that favor Green activism.  

        In my view, the Democratic party should be pursuing cooperation with the Greens.  In an ideal scenario, Dem / Green cooperation would learn not to conflict and make both parties stronger.  I will write a diary on this.  There is nothing bogus about a safe state strategy.  If the point of the Green party is to both grow and cooperate with the Dems, it's actually quite legit.

        If you see politics as a zero sum game between parties that are mortally committed to each other's failure...well, then.....

        2004's the election, 2005's the prize...let'sTCB!

        by kid oakland on Thu Jun 24, 2004 at 11:54:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I know we hate him, (none)
    and he scares me too. But doesn't he kind of keep Kerry from drifting to far right? The left hates Bush with a passion, and overwhelming vote to throw him out unless Kerry really pulls a boner. Like agressively getting behind the Sharon screw the Palestinians plan. Given the right tilt of the country right now, maybe we need some pressure from the left.
    •  Actually he forces Kerry right (4.00)
      Every vote he takes off the left means Kerry must move one voter to the right.  Ralph getting out of the race means Kerry could move farther left.

      The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whetherwe provide enough for those who have to little. -FDR

      by kamosa on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 04:46:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree with this (4.00)
        I think that Kerry's drift to the right loses people to Nader, but pushing to the left would pick some up, especially this year. Gore did better when tilting left. WHen he veered right he did worse. The idea that the right is the way should have died by now, I think.
      •  That's ridiculous ... (4.00)
        If Kerry moves to the right it will be out of a craven Clintonesque desire to stake a centrist position and accommodate the DLC a/k/a the Repubican wing of the Democratic party--and if he does that, former Nader voters like me may not vote for him, with or without Nader in the race. (For the record, I live in a safe state.) I do think that Nader will to keep Kerry from veering in that direction, although it's pointless to argue the point.

        Kerry has yet to define himself in the general election. If he chooses to run as a "New" Democrat, I know that I will spend my money and energy on electing real Democratic candidates, like some in the Kos 8.

        With 20/20 hindsight I deeply regret that Nader didn't confine his campaigning to safe states last time. But I still don't think that Nader intends to play the spoiler this time, as quixotic and infuriating as his run seems to most people on this list. It's clear from what Nader has said on the campaign trail that he respects Kerry and doesn't want to hurt his prospects, epsecially if Kerry runs as a real Democrat. I'm not totally sure that I'm glad Nader's running, but I'm bloody sick of all the vitriol being spewed in his direction. Whatever. I probably shouldn't be wasting my time responding to Nader haters.

  •  You go Kos! (none)
    DON'T HOLD BACK.  I heard Nader's interview with NPR tonight.  His campaign slogan should be "Look at me! Look at me!"  
  •  Let's get rid of the Air Bag (none)
    and Nader, but keep the seat belt.
  •  MAINE WEIGHS IN... (none)

    We fully endorse Kos's anti-Nader campaign.  He ain;t a Democrat, so he's just as much fair game as the Republicans.

    CHEERS!

    http://bill-in-portland-maine.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/23/91440/0768

  •  Old Left (4.00)
    I think Nader's rationale may be that things can't get better until they get worse; bad enough for the public at large to demand someone other than a Dem. or Repub.  I've heard this from people on the far left, and it is truly demented thinking.  It's a lot more common than one might think.
    The Greens have it absolutely right; support the Dems. in states where it matters for now.  If Nader thought along those lines, who would bitch?  Not us, I'm sure.
    •  I heard an interview (none)
      w/ Ralph on NPR walking home from work. His argument is actually that progressives are taken for granted, as well as environmentalists and minority voters. By making a show of support for his campaign, he argued, you can exert pressure on the party to move left.

      That is an argument that one can question, but what I heard sounded nothing like what you suggest. However, I have heard those on the far left make that argument, and many of them support Ralph. I think in a way he's trying to make his run sort of a peoples lobby, only waving votes rather than cash.

      The world is on its elbows and knees, It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds. Armageddon days are here again Matt Johnson

      by Madman in the marketplace on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 05:07:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  far left nuts (none)
        I never heard him say that either - it'd be political suicide, I'm sure. I'm just trying to figure out why the heck he won't give up the battleground states in this election. His argument is valid, I believe, but what good is it if the Dems. move left if he kills them in the process?
        I'm glad to hear that you've heard the same rationale from the far left. Engaging the ideological argument briefly, I have to say it is demented b/c so many more people will suffer, and delusional b/c success certainly isn't guaranteed.
        In any case, this is not the year for experiments in voting.
      •  far left nuts (none)
        I never heard him say that either - it'd be political suicide, I'm sure. I'm just trying to figure out why the heck he won't give up the battleground states in this election. His argument is valid, I believe, but what good is it if the Dems. move left if he kills them in the process?
        I'm glad to hear that you've heard the same rationale from the far left. Engaging the ideological argument briefly, I have to say it is demented b/c so many more people will suffer, and delusional b/c success certainly isn't guaranteed.
        In any case, this is not the year for experiments in voting.
        •  some of those (none)
          on the far left I've spoken with called themselves anarchists. Liked to go on about how living 'without authority' had never really been tried ...

          I tried to talk it out with them, go into a little history, threw my hands up in frustration ...

          That some of these folks would like to use Nader as an electoral bomb is no reason to stop listening to what Nader says about the corrosion of the public square by corporate personhood, and the corruption of both major parties.

          The world is on its elbows and knees, It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds. Armageddon days are here again Matt Johnson

          by Madman in the marketplace on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 05:31:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  As an environmentalist for the last 40 years (4.00)
        John Kerry can take me for granted, since he has a 93% conservation voting record from the League of Conservation Voters.

        St. Ralph can shut up and stop trying to speak for me.

        Another Hunter Thompson Deanocrat

        by Ed in Montana on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 07:16:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  That's the main argument that works (none)
      for me to Nader-ites:  He's on the ballot in Florida.  He's on the ballot in Florida.  You think he has the best interests of the nation at heart when HE'S ON THE BALLOT IN FLORIDA.  
  •  Kos -- does this news (none)
    mean that the anti-immigrant initiative circulated by the same petitioners is invalid too? Does the suit include an attack on this initiative?

    I know others can be trusted to do that piece if this suit doesn't touch it, but it would sure make a person feel good about Arizona Dems if they made sure that initiative got tarred with this brush too!

    If you want peace, work for justice.

    by janinsanfran on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 04:54:00 PM PDT

    •  Arizona Initiatives have a different time period (none)
      to qualify for a ballot than office seekers.  Although the 'protect arizona' (or whateveritzcalled) supporters claim sufficient signatures, currently various factions of that group have been fighting in court over control of the committee.  Former director has been ordered to hand over all committee docs, etc. to another.  One can hope that the infighting will render this group's mean-spirited neanderthal effort fruitless.

      Ariz Dem party check of Nader petitions has produced a list of possible circulators not eligable to collect signatures.  If accepted by the court this effort would render those circulators ineligable to collect signatures for any ballot nomination/initiative during this election cycle.  

  •  Guardian article (none)
    I can't find a good thread for this post, but check out the Guardian article on "America's secret Afghan gulag."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1245055,00.html.

  •  Nader is irrelevant... (3.80)
    but the Nader voters are very relevant.

    The real support for a progressive alternative is two to three times the 3% Nader actually got in 2000 (his support dwindled in the end due to the closeness of the race and/or scare tactics).  Six million voters were not hearing what they wanted to hear from the Democrats, and 2.5 million did not even hear what they needed to hear.  (I'd guess about another 500,000 are core third-party people who are unreachable for any Democrat, people who are voting on factors like ballot status)

    Apparantly, it's OK for centrists to make a choice in the race, but progressives are just supposed to accept "we have to beat Bush" and shut up.

    Kerry needs to decide whether he wants to appeal to the vanishing middle, or whether he wants to make a case that he's the true progressive in the race.  (in the race, but not for progressives.)

    With the exception of the war, he should be able to make a halfway decent argument.  But will he?

    Disclaimers: Dem party activist.  Recovering Deaniac.  Mondale-Dukakis-Clinton-Clinton-Nader.

    •  Nader voters (4.00)
      Apparantly, it's OK for centrists to make a choice in the race, but progressives are just supposed to accept "we have to beat Bush" and shut up.

      Nader voters are only relevant insofar as they feel a certain amount of empowerment at potentially being able to stick pragmatic progressives with another four years of the worst president in this nation's history. Congratulations.

      Nader claims that he offers progressives another choice. It is clear that the vast majority of those progressives have rejected him already, if he needs the help of Republican operatives to get on the ballot. So then, what rationale can he possibly really have for staying in, other than his own ego?

      I would love to see a progressive in the White House. Preferably Howard Dean. But given the alternative of a perfectly acceptable Democrat whom I wish were a bit further to the left and another four years of Bush, I'll take the guy closest to me who actually has a chance at winning the election and saving this country from four more years of this shit.

      •  that's where I am (4.00)
        I was not only a Deaniac, I was an IOWA Deaniac and stomped in the snow.

        2004 is not 2000.  Kerry is a far from perfect candidate but he is a vast improvement over Gore and that's gonna have to be good enough for me.

        But what frustrates me is that my party seems intent on repeating the same mistake as 2000: trying to bully Nader's supporters into voting Democratic.

        The center is dead.  Used to be a quarter of teh vote was up for grabs.  38% for Goldwater, 38% for McGovern.  Now that middle has dwindled to 10%.  There's a hard 45% for Bush and a hard 45% for Kerry, with about 2 for Nader.  The center is watching "Fear Factor" and will decide in the last week based on the state of the economy, the state of the war, and who they "like" better - things which are only partially or not at all in Kerry's control.  The only REAL place for Kerry to make gains is on the left.  Let's say Kerry takes the 2% Nader vote (minus a few unreachables I discussed above) That makes it 47 Kerry, 45 Bush, and Kerry doesn't even need to break even with the Fear Factor voters.

    •  Excellent Points (4.00)
      While we all bemoan Nadar's potential impact on the election, we forget that the issues he espouses are ones many of us agree with.
      • Get big corporations out of the politics.
      • open debates to third parties.
      • Empower the people for the environment, labor, health care, etc.
      Howard Dean wanted to get the millions of citizens that have opted out to participate again. That is still a good idea.

      Keep your dissidence.

      by KingOneEye on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 05:20:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's the thing! (4.00)
        The absolute worst way to move Ralph's issues forward is to vote for Ralph.
      •  If Kerry wins (none)
        The corporations won't own him.  He got his money from people like us.  Anyway, 'corporations' isn't the right term. It is CEO's who run them and handle their money.  They are at risk if we win, we get some SEC appointments and some laws that make it hard for them to loot the savings of ordinary people.  It's not corporations, it is the people who loot them who are the problem.  Kerry owes nothing to them, and if he wins, they can't hurt him.
    •  They can't put him over the top (none)
      Kerry can't pander to them without losing more votes in the middle.  It is grade school arithmetic. Sad but true.
  •  Nader: Vote Kerry! (4.00)
    NPR:
    The longtime consumer advocate wants would-be supporters to attend his rallies, but he says he wants them to feel free to cast their votes for Sen. John Kerry once they enter the voting booth -- especially in swing states where their vote might help defeat President Bush.

    --Don Juan aka. punishinglemur [Don Juan's Lair]

    by punishinglemur on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 05:10:55 PM PDT

  •  VP: this sucks unmercifully: (3.00)
    On Talking Points by way of Newsweek, from John Judis: "Speculation is rife about whom John Kerry will choose as his running mate. Newsweek reports that Kerry "is engrossed in the final shortlist of veep picks. Kerry sources say the choice is narrowing to Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and former House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt, and that the candidate remains personally uncomfortable with Sen. John Edwards." I have no idea whether this report is accurate, but if it is, the Democrats are in trouble."  Gephardt or Vilsack.  "Personally comfortable."  Hey, john -- wanna be President or "personally comfortable"?  Who gives a fuck about your "comfort level"?  You'll NEVER SEE YOUR RUNNING MATE ON THE TRAIL!  And if you win, YOU are the President!  Geezus H. Christ.  Gephardt. Vilsack.  We deserve to lose.
    •  VP (none)
      Well ... I'm not a big fan of Gep or Vilsack, but it matters a hell of a lot whether he's comfortable. We're going to win, and the person he picks is going to be his VP for 8 years. They've got to be able to work together. I tend to see things through a political lens too, but there's a big picture here - he's got to pick someone who can be his Veep.
  •  Now When Kerry Picks Bayh (none)
    Nader can say, "very bad pick, I'm staying in."

    ...he didn't make the mistake that some politicians do of wearing his religion on his sleeve. -Ron Reagan Jr.

    by easong on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 05:30:41 PM PDT

  •  Aim your spite at the real enemy (4.00)
    Please. Bush is the real enemy. Bush is the one we all need to focus on. Nader will not affect this race if Kerry runs as a (somewhat) progressive Democrat. If he runs as an also-Bush then Nader matters.
    As far as the Repubs signing Ralph's petition, do you not htink that at least a few Dems haven't signed the "Draft Judge Roy Moore" petition and wouldn't "help" get him on a few state ballots? In TX Nader ended up having to get independent and Republican signers because TX law prevents people who vote in a primary from signing a petition. (Does AZ have similar laws. )
    One other question, is KOS only a site for Dems? I've been feeling that vibe lately.
    •  Problem is they really oppose Nader more (none)
      than they oppose Bush.  They are looking to preserve their spot on the food chain, as predators.
      •  Why shouldn't we? (none)
        Nader is attacking our rear ranks and preventing us from moving forward.

        --- My opinions are my own and not my employer's.

        by Aexia on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 07:56:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  a bit backwards there. (none)
          It all depends on what you define as your rear flanks.

          Nader is attacking the Democratic Party.  He's attacking a party that has been possessed by a leadership that has been consistently shifting to the right and taking for granted it's "base."  

          Nader is not preventing the Democratic party from moving forward.  The DLC is.  In its pathetic shift to the "center" it's abandoning it's base.  Don't be fooled into thinking folks don't recognize that.  There is a hardcore level of disenfranchisement within the Democratic party.  That, in and of itself, is in no way Nader's fault.

          Look, like many here, I'm rather politically active.  I talk about this stuff with friends, co-workers, and strangers.  I've yet to meet anyone who is excited about Kerry.  They're  desperate to beat Bush, but there's no enthusiasm for Kerry.  There was palpable excitement for Dean  (and to a degree there still is).  Why? we can debate that for quite some time, but the point of this is that it's not Nader who is holding the Democratic party back, but the misguided decisions of those at the helm of the party itself.

          •  Uhh, you mean the voters? (none)
            You say that the problem is john Kerry and then say that the problem with Democrats is the misguided decisions of those at the helm of the party.

            It was the Democratic party voters who selected Kerry. I think your problem is with Democrats because they wanted something different in their nominee from you this year.

            I'm not a DLC guy myself, but I think demonizing them is the last refuge of the moronic. Go ask Democrats in Oklahoma or Louisiana whether a shift to the left would help us advance our agenda there.

            Please come to grips with the fact that there aren't enough liberal voters to build a winning coalition.  The base just doesn't have enough votes so we have to make compromises.

    •  No, dKOS is not a site for only Dems (none)
      But it is a site for those progressives who want to WIN and take our country back from the monsters that have been running it into the ground for the last four years.

      Those who want to remain ideologically pure along with St. Ralph may not feel comfortable with the level of down and dirty practicality required to wrest control from the ruling junta.

      Another Hunter Thompson Deanocrat

      by Ed in Montana on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 07:39:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  On the other hand... (none)
    Sorry to sound glum on this, but...

    Nobody has proven that the signatures are bad in any way.  Some people filed suit to get the courts to look into it.  Just because it's said in a filing doesn't mean the courts will see it the same way.

    The courts tend to bend over backwards to give people more ballot choices whenever possible.  Unless there's some real chicanery here I doubt any judge will do anything as drastic as putting Nader off the ballot.  In '92 Bush 1 challenged the Perot signatures in several states and lost them all.  He also endured days of statewide headlines on how the Republicans were picking on the little guys.

    Personally I think this just makes the AZ Dems look petty.  The best way to get progressives in AZ to vote for Nader is to give him a way to claim to be the victim of the local Democratic machine politics.

    AZ is a state Kerry needs, and Nader is a real problem.  However I'm not sure this is the way to beat W.

  •  Nader (3.75)
    Kerry could pick Dean.  He could get FDR to rise and run for VP.  He could propose a $20 minimum wage, pledge to bring the Iraq soldiers home on Jan. 20 at 3pm, and Nader would STILL campaign against him in Ohio and Florida and Pennsylvania.  Nader has become a waste of flesh.  He has trashed anything he's ever done, and he has done NOTHING for years except put George W. Bush in the White House.  So please spare us the "if only Kerry spoke to progressives" BULLSHIT. It simply doesn't matter.  Nader is full of shit with every breath.
  •  I knew Nader was a spud when (none)
    I heard him in 2000 talking on one of those sunday morning shows, and the host asked about the differences btw R's and D's.  Nader said, no difference.  Host asked about abortion and SCOTUS, first Nader said, if repubs. ever overturn Roe it would be end of their party, then he said, even if they do, doesn't it just revert to the states then?  

    BLARF.
    (excuse me)

    And if Kerry does now pick Edwards (or do anything Nader says he should) it will look like Ralph is pulling the strings and exercising WAY more power than he should have.  Hell, in a parliamentary government, greens and dems would form a coalition, and greens % would entitle them to, like one cabinet position, and not even one of the big ones.  

    Ralph, sit down and shut up - pleeeeeeze.

    Results matter! Jesus would have been a lot less popular if he had drowned trying to walk across that lake...

    by PBJ Diddy on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 05:59:52 PM PDT

  •  Goodbye Nader! (none)
    I'm so happy he's on his way out.  His deceptive campaign to get on the Arizona ballot was doomed from the beginning.  Try playing by the rules Nader...

    Oh BTW Nader, ha ha!

    No more lies...stop hiding the truth... WolverineTom's Homepage

    by WolverineTom on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 06:10:55 PM PDT

  •  my take (none)
    I honestly don't believe that Nader will make a difference in this election.  But we sure as hell better act like he will.
  •  From the looks of these posts, (3.50)
    the reasons for a third party are self-evident.
  •  Kiss of death (none)
    Nader does not want Kerry to win.  He is one of those who has bought the lethal brand of kool-aid that makes you think that the worst outcome will dialectically bring out the best. From Bush 2nd term to socialist Nirvana.  He doesn't want Edwards.  He wants to make sure that Edwards won't be selected.
    •  uh huh... (none)
      So the Dems should not pick Edwards because that's what Nader says they should do. But Nader knows they won't pick Edwards because he says he wants them to even though he doesn't. So maybe Kerry should not not pick Edwards because that's exactly what Ralph doesn't want!! That's brilliant!

      Maybe while we're at it we should ask Al Quaida who they want nominated for VP so we can not do what they want, only make sure they're not just telling you who they don't want you to pick!

      Wow I don't think I'm smart enough to keep up with this kind of deep political analysis.

  •  This bad on so many levels... (none)
    There is no per state standard for a national candidate, nader could throw this ballot to the supremes.

    That repukes tried to help is  indictative of their  poor performance.

    That a 2% candidate would be an issue is junk as well. If the Dems ran a good race last time (Kerry for VP then instead of Lie-berman) and ran ads in the last quarter to keep the media  halfway partisan it would not have been an issue.

    The right to run on ideas or platforms is crucial, they've already taken away ballot initiatives after some successful examples for direct democracy.

    Nader picks Edwards. Trial lawyers club. How many pro-bonos there johnny? No vote to go after war profiteers? Ralph has yet to disclose all of his finance details? A self-serving nonprofit pariah who bashes the Dems suddenly christens their VP?

    Ralph Rat's downfall is somehow self-profitable. Johnnie  Suit slimes up, look his 2% surge from a Ralph endorsement would not win his home state over Kerry, and combined over Bush in red states.

    How much environmental legislation has Edwards backed? None? Tort reform is something he says must be done to address issues the insurance lobby lawyers face? In return for higher law fees the people's rights are a sure sell-off, only those in the know will be aware of it and of course they profit.

    Edwards has how many greens' issues on his platform?

    The attempt to quell Ralph is bunk, the only time it is relevant is where  voting machines occur. The attempt to boost a one-termer is also suspect. Finally Ralph's own party is going to vote a true green over him so his mia culpa is even more suspect.

    Charades is something kids do. Enough of this as an excuse ofr politics.

  •  Stupidity of Binary Thinking (4.00)
    The more I see and hear of Nader and his ideology, the less impressed I am with him.

    Sure, his goals are worthy ones.

    But counterproductive, meaningless gestures that only demonstrate how ideologically pure you are are nothing but self-serving vanity.

    It's like the Christians who say that they have to "bear witness" to their faith by insulting and denigrating everyone else's religion - they aren't actually "evangelizing," they're "devangelizing," and they're destroying the ability of other Christians to do any effective good works, because we have to contend with the fallout from their smug, congratulatory self-righteousness. Explaining "No, really, we're not all absolutist twits," takes up all our time and energy. What they actually do is convince the people they come in contact with that no sane, decent human being could ever be a Christian. But they get to go away feeling good about themselves for "not compromising their beliefs" and to look down on the rest of us, heathens and namby-pamby liberals alike.

    So with Nader. His self-righteous refusal to work with those not at his purity level means that his causes don't happen. What ever happened to half-a-loaf being better than none? What ever happened to the idea of positive reinforcement? This binary, absolutist, zero-sum game thinking is incredibly destructive - and who does it remind you of? (Hint: "either yer with us, 'r yer against us")

    And I'm sorry, but I have too many people I love, some with serious health conditions, to be complacent about the idea of a post-Apocalyptic barbarism being an ideal transition state to a new, improved humanity. Maybe back when I was eight or nine and hadn't had any responsibility for the lives of others, but not now. This meme popular in the avant-garde progressives, we have to destroy civilization to save it (according to our recipe) is beyond selfish, it's beyond counterproductive, it's simply immoral. And while it's unworkable - at least based on what I know of the slip-slide of the Roman Empire, it's not going to happen the way they're imagining it - there's going to be a hell of a lot of casualties.

    And odds are, again based on history - they're mostly going to be from the poor, who won't be able to afford to get out, or collect resources to shelter them from the chaos.

    When Ideals turn to Ideology, it's time to get the hose and turn it the hotheads.

    "The Truth Shall Make Ye Fret" - T. Pratchett (change @ for AT to email)

    by bellatrys on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 07:48:40 PM PDT

    •  Nader has worked with other groups and accomplishe (none)
      He has done more good by working in the system than any other citizen (in my opinion) The dems shut him out since 2000, but until then he was pretty effective in working with all kinds of people to get stuff done.
      I don't think trying to hold one of the main parties to some kind of progressive is being a purist.
      •  Like what, specifically? (none)
        That's not a rhetorical question.

        As many people have pointed out, there are other - often better - ways of working through the system than an all-or-nothing presidential campaign. Heck, there are ways of working outside of politics that are more effective - where I live, a liberal-owned yogurt company has had more effect changing minds and actions grassroots in re environment and social justice than has the Green Party via politics.

        We need a majority of progressives in the other branches of government, so that we're not crippled again by powermad factionalism sabotaging everything to make the Democrats look bad. How come Nader won't stoop to run for Congress? There is very good reason that people are betting that Barack Obama may be the first black president of the US, because he's following one of the traditional models, starting on the lower floors and moving upwards, doing his job meanwhile, which did give us a pretty good president from Illinois once before...

        "The Truth Shall Make Ye Fret" - T. Pratchett (change @ for AT to email)

        by bellatrys on Thu Jun 24, 2004 at 04:01:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  As a resident... (none)
    I find it highly interesting that the Arizona Republic has not featured this in any major headline that I've seen, and I check their site at least three times a day...
  •  Press release (none)
    Anybody know where the press release Kos mentioned can be found online?

    Anything different is good - Bill Murray, 'Groundhog Day'

    by thisiscmt on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 10:49:30 PM PDT

  •  Wasted energy on bashing Nader... (none)
    If people spent half the effort they spend on bitching about Nader and how he is going to lose us the election on getting out the vote, Nader's influence would be inconsequential.  Has everyone forgotten how many millions (!!) of people don't vote in the U.S.?  Don't blame those who did vote (for Nader) for the problems of your preferred candidate (Gore/Kerry) not winning; blame yourself for not getting more people to vote for your candidate in the first place.

    I'm not a pure pro-Naderite in any sense, but I'm glad that he is running.  I wish he run a campaign that worked to raise total awareness and involvement, of course.  I want to vote every election cycle, but I refuse to vote for someone that I don't think represents my interests in the future of the nation.  Right now, I don't see much value in Kerry aside from the fact that he isn't Bush.  Sure, there is value there, but I see more value in expanding our political spectrum and raising the profile of additional parties.  I'll vote Libertarian or Green this year (maybe Natural Law, but unlikely) not because I'm such a fan of Nader or Libertarianism as much as I desire robust and vibrant democracy that offers more to more people in this country.

    Maybe Logic gets you farther.

    by Nutrimentia on Thu Jun 24, 2004 at 01:23:59 AM PDT

  •  Are you TRYING... (2.33)
    ...to alienate us?  I read this blog because it's a great community that's completely different from others in the blogsphere.  I read it because while I think democrats have completely lost their way, I still root against republicans.  I love this site and love the intelligent dialogue.  I also have a real affection for many of the candidates that turn up here.  I'm not going to vote for Kerry (I live in a dem safe state) because he's on the wrong side of the overwhelming majority of my personal big issues.  That and he actively helped Bush wreck the country.  War. Tax cut. Patriot Act. No child left behind.  Didn't vote no.  Didn't abstain.  Voted YES.  He was more of help to this administration in the first two years than Karl Rove.  He stabbed me in the back; abandoned me when I needed him most.  I'm not voting for him.

    I very well may not vote for Nader either, but why would Kos go out of his way to insult and alienate Nader voters?  You'd think he'd be trying to get people on board with the coalition vein of thinking.  Telling Nader voters to f**k off is swell for preaching to the choir and getting bloggers rocks off, but it ain't going to get you any new votes.  

    You guys think Kerry is acceptable; I don't.  Let's disagree on that but talk about other ways to tilt the country away from the radical right.  Don't basically tell me to go home and take my tonka trucks with me.

    "Don't blame me; I voted for Kodos" - Homer Simpson

    by Buckeye in Los Angeles on Thu Jun 24, 2004 at 09:29:22 AM PDT

  •  Please, someone explain the rules (none)
    How does the fact that a signature is Republican spoil it?
    What else spoils a signature?

    Downhill from a Saab liberal.

    by pedant on Thu Jun 24, 2004 at 09:59:32 AM PDT

  •  I don't like Nader at all... (none)
    But he said on NPR the other day that excluding third parties from a political race pretty much means that the third parties are second class citizens.  He has a point.
  •  I voted for Nader in 2000....maybe I will again. (none)
    Why?

    Because while there ARE differences between the Republican and Democratic parties, there are NOT enough differences for ME.

    Clinton/Gore supported:

    The "Defense" of Marraige Act

    NAFTA

    MFN for China

    Star Wars funding

    Undermining the Kyoto Accord
    (see http://archive.salon.com/news/1997/12/12news.html)

    The Federal Death Penalty

    The prosecution of doctors who prescribe medical marijuana.

    The War on (some) Drugs

    The pro-business philosophy of the Democratic Leadership Council.

    Excluding Nader from the debates.

    Yes, things have become even more evil under Bush. The government WOULD have been less evil under Gore.  But I did not vote for the lesser evil.  I voted for the greater good.

    Do any of the Nader bashers (and Nader voter bashers) think that W would have won in a free and fair election in 2000?  

    What are the Nader bashers (and Nader voter bashers) doing in 2004?  They are trying to make sure that this election is even LESS free and LESS fair than the 2000 election.  If they don't want to vote for Nader, then they shouldn't vote for him.  If they don't think other people should vote for Nader, then they should do their best to CONVINCE others not to vote for him.  But when they use the apparatus of the state to make it more difficult for people to vote their conscience....then they are no better then their GOP rivals who rigged the election in Florida by making it more difficult for African-Americans to vote their conscience.

    I live in the battleground state of New Mexico.  I WAS planning to vote for Kerry this time around.  But when I heard about this anti-democratic activity by the Democratic Party...it angered me and reminded me of WHY I voted for Nader back in 2000.  If the Democrats succeed in getting Nader pulled off the ballot in Arizona, I might just vote for him again. Making it HARDER for people to vote for the candidate of their choice is anti-democratic and immoral.  The ends do NOT justify anti-democratic means.  And if you don't get that, then you are (unsurprisingly) no better than the Bushies.

    XYNZ

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site