Na, Na, Na, Nader!

[Ben Kenobi]

it will split the anti-bush vote... SO HE SUCKS BALLS!

I swear sava,

You made me fall off my seat. I couldn't stop laughing.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
If Nader runs... and Kerry wins the nomination, Kerry will lose. Simple as that.

Wow, my glasses are seriously rose-coloured.

It took me a minute to realise you didn't mean that Kerry and Bush would lose to Nader.:P

[debeest]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Funny, all for democracy until the wrong guy runs .

Personally, I'd be all for a democracy where we got representation in proportion to votes, as I think happens in most first-world countries, rather than the U.S.' idiotic winner-take-all system. In the existing system, and lacking an instant-runoff option, I don't want Nader to run, even though I think he'd be a vastly better president than either of the corporate party candidates.

[Boris Godunov]

Missing option:

Nader is a self-serving megalomaniac. This is a fairly constant criticism from his former colleagues.

Look at the fact he has to run as an independent. The Green party realizes its mistake and wants no part of him.

Nader's effect in this election will be neglible. The anti-Bush voters know the mistake made last time and will support the Democratic candidate over Nader.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Missing option:

Nader is a self-serving megalomaniac. This is a fairly constant criticism from his former colleagues.

No, it's a fairly consistent comment from Democrats, who think the left owes them alleigence when they've ignored us for deacdes.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


He may well have more appeal this time around, especially to angry Deaniacs if Kerry wins. Unlike last time, there is a big, emotional issue he can take advantage of: the war. Both Kerry and Edwards voted for the war and want to continue it. The left wing is out in the streets calling "End the Occupation now" That's grounds for a real schism...

The war issue isn't going to drive the Deaniacs into Nader's arms, dream on. All polls have consistently shown that the Democrats have no problem coelescing around Kerry should he be the nominee. The polls showed that when it came to matching the candidates agains Bush, the Dem candidates enjoyed virtually the same levels of support from the Democratic party member.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No, it's a fairly consistent comment from Democrats, who think the left owes them alleigence when they've ignored us for deacdes.

No, che, from his former colleagues, not Dems.

www.nadersraidersforgore.com, among others was run by his former associates who saw what an egotist he was.

Why isn't the Green Party vetting him? Oh yeah, because they realized he hijacked their party agenda into being about Nader, not the party.

[Japher]

Kerry and Bush make me want to Ralph

There are only to things I like about Nader;
1) He sucks up liberal voters from democrats
2) Some of the best bumper stickers around

[GePap]

Nader's effect will be minimal at best-and unlikely to make much of a difference in the most important races:

4 years ago he could claim that the two parties were the same, blah blah, but the last 4 years have shown most of his voters how wrong that belief was, and the far left will do anything to get rid of bush.

If Nader runs, specially without a party, he will be as influential as Lyndon Larouche.

[debeest]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No, it's a fairly consistent comment from Democrats, who think the left owes them alleigence when they've ignored us for deacdes.

Che, I voted for Nader last time around, but I won't this time. In fact, I only voted for him in the confidence that Gore had California wrapped up. I decided during the Raygun administration that I would never again make the mistake of not voting for the person who could beat the Republican. You don't really elect a person to the presidency, you elect a party, especially when you elect a Republican.

If, like me, you'd like to see your views better represented, then vote for the viable candidate who comes closest (and you know deep down that the Demos come a lot closer than the Pubs), and work for instant runoff or something like parliamentary representation.

In a winner-take-all system, a multi-party situation will not long endure. The parties toward one end or the other of the political spectrum will simply keep each other from winning, until one largely disappears.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Why isn't the Green Party vetting him? Oh yeah, because they realized he hijacked their party agenda into being about Nader, not the party.

No, because the Greens are split about whther Bush is Satan or not. They've decided to play it conservatively this year. Nader's point is that if their argument that the two-party system is corrupt, then they should run. If they don't run cuz they don't want Bush in office, they are admitting there is a difference between the two parties.

Anyway, those former colleagues were and are tighter with the Democratic Party than with Nader, so yeah, they're gonna say bad things about him. Just like many of Dean's top people are now trying to distance themselves from him. Politics is a *****, and these folks are trying to avoid the payback.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
All polls have consistently shown that the Democrats have no problem coelescing around Kerry should he be the nominee.

A lot of Deanics are furious at the Democratic Party for sabotaging Dean. Furthermore, if the story Shi Huandi linked yesterady from the New Republic is accurate, the DP is gonna come down hard on them regardless. What loyalty do they owe an organization that only wants their votes?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by debeest
If, like me, you'd like to see your views better represented, then vote for the viable candidate who comes closest (and you know deep down that the Demos come a lot closer than the Pubs), and work for instant runoff or something like parliamentary representation.

I'm a communist. Neither party represents my goals. Neither does Ralph. I'm just trying to dispell the myth that the left owes anything to the Democrats. We owe them nothing. If they want something from the left, there's gotta be a quid pro quo. Bush, as bad as he is, isn't enough of a reason to betray my principals.

If the Democrats had any cajones Bush wouldn't be the terror he is. They are the ones that refused to stand up to him. They voted for the PATRIOT ACT. They voted for war. They confirmed Ashcroft and Bush's other cronies. Even as far back as 93-93, when they had the Presidency and both houses, they let the Republicans set the agenda. Why will it be any different this time around? Dean I could see standing up to them. Clark I could see standing up to them. Kerry and Edwards are both p*ss**s who will let the Repugs tell them what to do.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


A lot of Deanics are furious at the Democratic Party for sabotaging Dean. Furthermore, if the story Shi Huandi linked yesterady from the New Republic is accurate, the DP is gonna come down hard on them regardless. What loyalty do they owe an organization that only wants their votes?

Again, we're not talking loyalty to the DP--we're talking about beating Bush. Beating Bush will trump this ire in November, I guarantee it. Hell, most Deaniacs came to him because he was so anti-Bush. Why would they then aid Bush and not vote for the non-Bush? We learned the lesson in 2000 that the line "there isn't a difference" is hogwash.

Interesting what the socialists have to say about Nader:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/nad-m30.shtml

More links below that.

[dojoboy]

I like Nader, wouldn't vote for him, but I like him. More political parties are needed, and I agree a parliamentary representation is best. I'm was hoping Dean would create a separate party platform. There isn't a hair difference between the Dems and Reps, except who gets the money.