Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Nader Sues Democrats, Saying They Sabotaged His '04 Campaign
WASHINGTON - Even as the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates prepared to debate Tuesday night, Ralph Nader, a controversial figure from the last two presidential campaigns, sued the Democratic Party, the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign and affiliated groups for allegedly sabotaging his 2004 campaign.
"The Democratic Party is going after anyone who presents a credible challenge to their monopoly over their perceived voters," said Nader, the consumer advocate who ran for president in 2004 as an independent and in 2000 as a candidate of the Green Party. Democrats blame him for draining votes from nominee Al Gore in 2000, costing the vice president the election, and were bent on blunting his influence in 2004.
Nader, who's weighing running again in 2008, told McClatchy Newspapers that he'd decide by the end of the year.
"This lawsuit was filed to help advance a free and open electoral process for all candidates and voters," he said. "Candidate rights and voter rights nourish each other for more voices, choices and a more open and competitive democracy."
The suit, filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief "to protect the constitutional rights of both candidates and voters."
Nader accuses Democratic National Committee officials, the campaign of '04 Democratic nominee John Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, and a group called The Ballot Project of jointly planning a nationwide effort to block Nader and running mate Peter Camejo from state ballots "as a means to drive into deep debt or bankrupt the Nader-Camejo campaign."
DNC spokesman Luis Miranda said the party headquarters was unaware of the suit, but in any case, "We do not comment on pending litigation."
Asked why Nader had waited until now to sue, Bruce Afran, an attorney for Nader, said, "It's precisely because everyone is thinking of '08 that Ralph Nader wants to make sure this won't happen again to a third party candidate."
Nader said it took a long time to discover the connections of people and organizations he felt were trying to destroy him. "It's a lot of work," he said. "I'm not GM." Nader's most famous confrontation was with General Motors, which tried to undermine him during his 1960s drive for auto safety.
Democratic Party officials and allied organizations sued the Nader-Camejo campaign in 18 state courts during the run-up to the 2004 election and blocked him from the ballot in such key states as Pennsylvania and Oregon.
A Pittsburgh law firm, Reed Smith, successfully sued Nader for court costs and has a judgment pending against him for more than $61,000. Nader's lawsuit lays out what it says were undisclosed connections between the firm and members of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which decided the case.
"Today's vastly more burdensome, intricate and discriminatory ballot-access barriers in many state laws, enacted by the two-party duopoly, has enabled this vast Democratic Party conspiracy," Nader said.
© 2007 McClatchy Newspapers
64 Comments so far
Show Allshut up,nader..o'mole of le republicans...democrats didnt pay for your campaign ads-republicans did !if nader were serious about having more than just a two party system...he would be part of an alternative system,that didnt always feature him as the 'star'but had a bevy of stout hearted men and women..nader is a celebrity junkie....
Talk about feeding your ego ! If Nader doesnt have any new ideas for a radical new political system, he should shut up and go away. It makes you seriously doubt his motives when he has so consistently attacked the Democartas (as much as i hate them) and given the Republicans a pass (remember his fawning over Bush after the 2001 elections). It seems he needs another shot of 'ego boost serum' as he is running short and needs a fix.
So, pioneer, you think the profoundly dirty ant-democracy tricks to exclude third party candidates was OK then? Because they WILL be used with any other third party candidacy as well.
And spare me the "Nader the egotist" crap. You have clearly never met him. You ould take your phony plastic, war-pig Kerry and shove him up your ass.
Now, will you and all other democrat shills please get lost.
Gyptian,
So, this is how the US left works? They stone their only individual that are seriously challenging the system?
Nader is challenging a rigged electroal system in most states (notably Pennsylvania) with it's arcane "petetions" and dirty tricks that would shock the world if they kenw about them.
What are YOU doing about it?
This is too easy...
Ralf Nader had a 2004 campaign?
It's get out the Hillary Club time I see. The ABBers are reforming for 2008 as what, the ABGers?
And Ralph has been beat over the head so much I'm surprised the Democratic Party doesn't just taser him down? John Kerry could maybe lure him into some event, and then....
Oh, Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dumb,it's horse race time once again. Whose ahead must we see uh fall. Why it's Nader's!
If only he would run as a Democrat like a good boy... good ol' boy would? If he don't watch out, some religiously crazed Democrat might even assassinate him. Be careful, Ralph.
And good luck with the campaign in this fraudulent system called USA.
The Democrats are now entirely responsible for funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of them talk about setting deadlines to withdraw the troops in a year or two or more, but they have no intention of restoring sovereignty to the occupied countries.
"In June 2006, I introduced legislation that set a one-year deadline for the redeployment of most U.S. combat troops from Iraq -- leaving only enough military forces necessary for training Iraqi security forces, protecting U.S. personnel and infrastructure, and hunting down Al Qaeda and other terrorists in Iraq." (Email from Senator John Kerry, 10/30/07)
As in Vietnam, Kerry only ditched his pro-war rhetoric late in the day, switching to the meaningless drivel from which I've just quoted.
In 2004 I had to write in Nader on the Massachusetts ballot, thanks to the Democrats' dirty tricks that kept Ralph's name off the ballot here. Nader was the antiwar candidate then, and he'll be the antiwar candidate in 2008 too. Vote Nader!
Nader is not the only leftist seriously challenging the system. MIKE GRAVEL. It's bad enough GE excludes him from debates, but we shouldn't forget him either.
Gore/Nader Green Party 2008!
Nader is worse than an egotist, he's a hardened egotist, going senile and in a state of permanent denial due to the terrible consequences of his past choices.
This was already true the last several times around; it accounts for his atrocious judgment of the public interest and his own role in electoral politics.
Denial that Nader helped Bush in 2000 and 2004 is just that: Denial. Of what is perfectly obvious, and well supported by hard data.
Now he tries to sue the Democrats to further his mea-non-culpa. Pretty desperate, aren't you, Ralph?
Sorry, but history, to the extent it remembers you, will note your contributions to seat belts and clean water and your role in 1960s-1970s activism, but will record without controversy that toward the end of your career you made a foolish public nuisance of yourself, only demonstrating once again the futility of challenges to the two-party system under this electoral structure, as you played a key enabling role for the globally, horrifically disastrous Bush presidency.
It's about time someone held the (un)Democratic Party to account for the absolutely disgusting campaign of dirty tricks they played against Nader's independent campaign in 2004.
Good luck, Ralph!
Nader2000,
Take your two-party system and shove it up your ass. If challenging it make one an "egotist" than i'm Liberace reincarnated.
The subject of this lawsuit is the profoundly anti-democratic ballot petiton requirements, deliberately designed to be easily nullified even when they are meticulously followed, by the 2-party oligharchy.
Naader2000, gyptian, pioneer, you are enemies of democracy and typical stupid amerikkans who cannor even think logically.
Nader is right -- again.
Ever the consumer advocate he is trying to fix a crooked system that keeps us out and continues a corporate monoply on power. Half-assed liberals who cannot see past their "Dems as our saviors" delusions don't get it and never will.
Nader is not and has never been an egotist or "celebrity junkie". He has spent his entire life fighting for justice and has done more in his lifetime for all of us as citizens of the U.S. than any of the candidates for president.
Even when the media spotlight is not on him, he is quietly working away, fighting for the rights of the people, and we should all appreciate him and all he's done for us. He's had a hand in auto safety, the creation of the EPA, the creation of the freedom of information act, regulation of the prescription drug industry, to name just a very small few of his achievements. There are way too many to go into here now.
And now he's trying to make our elections more fair by bringing to light the unjust obstacles to becoming a candidate. How can anyone calling themself a progressive protest this?
And he wasn't responsible for Bush getting elected. Greg Palast (one of the best investigative reporters we have today) has reported that the Republicans illegally stole far more votes in 2000 than all of the votes Nader received.
Do your research before spewing the standard Democratic Party line about Nader.
What did help Bush get elected is our winner-take-all electoral system. Instant-Runoff-Voting (IRV) would have allowed people to vote for their favorite candidate without helping their least favorite candidate. Imagine that! A system that allows the most popular candidate to get elected! Look it up, and push for it in your local elections. Change starts locally.
If Nader wishes to run for office, what business is it of the Democrats? Let the voters decide. What if, for example, the Republicans took the Democrats to court? Would a judge spend an iota of time deciding whether or not the Democrats should be on the ballot? If so then why not just save everyone's time and have one omnibus court case to decide the one person to be on the ballot?
You're right Jaded Prole~we seem to have a large herd of hybrid democratic sheep who have forgotten what freedom, democracy,and America means....Nader's an egomaniac? Right. A half century of service to a nation of lazy ass consumers, of warnings, and efforts to right the ship, and what does he get? Idiot Dims blaming the true Progressives and supporting the Corporate Republicans in Democrat clothing.Nader was not responsible for putting George Bush in the White House~THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN~THE DEMOCRATS DIDN'T FIGHT AND DIDN'T SUPPORT AL GORE. Al Gore won..not just the popular vote, but the whole shebang. Put the blame where it belongs~with the Bush Cabal. Thanks Ralph~I'd give it up though, before they nail you to a cross.
I see that the Democrats and their apologists are still fighting Nader harder than they'll ever fight the Republicans.
It's interesting to me that the first comment is "shut up," so evocative of how Dems and Republicans join hands to exclude everyone else from their "debates."
I wait for the day when limiting the discourse is not the instant impulse of our "opposition."
> Take your two-party system and shove it
It's not mine. It's the system that has evolved under our
Constitution and electoral structure. No other system works.
> Nader... has spent his entire life fighting for justice and has done more in his lifetime for all of us as citizens of the U.S. than any of the candidates for president.
By helping to put the George W. Bush gang in power, he caused more harm and injustice on balance than all the good and all the justice he ever brought about.
> he wasn't responsible for Bush getting elected. Greg Palast ... reported that the Republicans illegally stole far more votes in 2000 than all of the votes Nader received.
It's irrelevant how else the Republicans won or stole votes. If not for the Nader factor, Gore would still have won. The point is not that there aren't other factors. Each of us is responsible for the foreseeable effects that our own actions have. Nader's actions helped put Bush over the top. That was completely foreseeable and many people told Nader not to do it. I was one of them, even though I voted for Nader from my safe state.
> What did help Bush get elected is our winner-take-all electoral system. Instant-Runoff-Voting (IRV) would have [blah, blah...]
Jeezuz. The presidency is, and will always be, winner-take-all. How many presidents can we have? FYI, IRV is also winner-take-all. Whoever wins takes the office. That's what we've got in this country and that's what we're stuck with. The solution to that problem is the two-party system. Play it to win, people.
These CD comments for months have been full of rantings and ragings against the incompetent, bought out, spineless Democrats, but as soon as someone like Nader actually takes then to task over their shenanigans, the Dimo apologists get all cranky and whiny. I don't get it.
Nader has been hammering away at the hypocrisy of our faux two party electoral process for many, many years. I hope the democratic party apologist Nader bashers don't actually consider themselves "progressives".
If there is evidence of sabotage, then it must be fleshed out and put on the table for all to see. The American democratic model is dependent on free and fair elections. Put it to a jury to decide if Nader was set up.
....on other notes...so many seem ready to defend DLC without a hearing?! Attack Nader regardless of evidence is like going to a liberal-run shooting range and seeing people unloading! WOW! Ironically, when it comes to comparing Nader's message of the 2000 and 2004 election cycle and much of the anti-Imperialist, anti-corporate rhetoric leveled at mainstream parties today, there are many connections. That is to say, there are more people with the same message as Nader's message than many would like to admit! Even Gore has come out sounding like Nader sometimes (--even if Gore is still DLC)
If the Democratic candidates Gore and Kerry had adopted Naders platform they would have been elected. Interesting how the DNC "liberal" crowd sounds like a right-winger spin machine --
Nader2000 on the 2 party system: "It's not mine. It's the system that has evolved under our Constitution and electoral structure. No other system works."
I disagree. I don't think the 2 party system is working well at all.
"By helping to put the George W. Bush gang in power, he caused more harm and injustice on balance than all the good and all the justice he ever brought about."
Well this is totally subjective. But I must say that I would disagree. Who can measure the effect that his work to hold corporate powers accountable for the last 40 years has had? Who knows how much worse it could have been by now without him? To blame and demonize a true progressive man of his integrity is seriously misplaced and detracts from the real problems we have in this country.
"It's irrelevant how else the Republicans won or stole votes. If not for the Nader factor, Gore would still have won."
I think you're directing the blame in entirely the wrong direction. How do you know that the Republicans wouldn't have still wrangled enough votes to win? They stopped counting when they were ahead. If Nader wouldn't have been in the mess, they would have needed a few more to win, and they obviously were hell bent on doing anything in their power to wrangle a victory. I agree that the voters in swing states had to make a tough choice and I (in CA) voted for Nader knowing that it wouldn't help Bush at all.
"The presidency is, and will always be, winner-take-all. How many presidents can we have? FYI, IRV is also winner-take-all."
You're entirely correct. IRV doesn't change the winner-take-all aspect of our elections. I wasn't suggesting that we should have more than one president. I should have said that IRV solved the spoiler effect in elections, and also breaks the 2 party lock on elections. It allows voters to rank their candidates instead of only choosing one. This means that the candidate who wins will be the most popular, and thus is a more democratic system. In 2000, all of us Nader supporters could have put him as our #1 choice for president with no fear of helping Bush, because our #2 choice could have been Gore. Then if Nader didn't have a majority of voters for #1, then the Nader voters' #2 choice would be used. IRV is a growing movement and some state and local elections are using it. I absolutely hate having to feel like I must sell out in the voters booth and vote for the candidate who I least despise, rather than vote for the one who I agree with the most.
I sugggest, like many other democracies around the world, we don't have a president at all.
Canada, UK, Auitralia - all the Commomnwealth countries plus many others don't have presidents or anything resembling one. Most of them also have healthy multi-party politics with a dozen or more parties on the ballot.
Part of waking up to the coruption of the US system is seeing how other poeple do things.
Anytime I'm ready to think there is even a shred of anything decent and worthy in the Democrats, the only thing that has to happen is for the topic of Ralph Nader to come up. The progressive veneer the Democrats try to project drops away and you see nothing but a very nasty streak of hatred. That you still see the same ugly hatred and vitrol 7 years after 2000 speaks volumes about how deep and ingrained this runs in the Democratic Party.
It points out clearly that the Democrats stand for absolutely no values other than they want to win. And woe to anyone who gets in their way as they drive towards that goal. A fine citizens who's served the citizens of this nation well for his entire adult life, who's saved probably tens or hundreds of thousands of lives in just his work on automobile safety, and who ran for President for all the right reasons of wanting to raise the level of debate and just maybe do a decent honest days work in the job if elected, this person is routinely trashed and hated by Democrats who only care about the fact that they think they should win.
These sorts of comments should tell any decent person to get far, far away from anyone and any party that harbors this much hatred and nastiness. These sorts of comments should convince anyone that supporting a party that will sell-out any value just so the candidate with the (D) after the name can win absolutely can not be supported.
So, anytime I have any doubt about my decision that the Democrats are beyond redemption and as much the enemy as the Republicans, well I just read these comments and know I was right. It makes me certain that under no circumstances do I in any way, shape or form want to be associated with such a disgusting political party.
PS ... and to anyone who thinks the Democrats are 'spineless' or 'cowards' or who 'can't fight', just look at the way the Democrats react to Nader and the Greens.
The Democrats have a spine, are not cowards and can put up a viscious fight agains the left and progressives. Its only against corporations and Republicans that it seems they must cave in to and never fight or oppose.
America is the only country in the world that I know of with 'a two-party system'. For awhile, we saw a 'one-party' system in the communist block parts of the world, but it collapsed under its own weight.
Many, many, many democracies manage to function quite well with more than two parties. Its time for the two-party system to go away like the one party system did as well. And if in the process the Democrats went the way of the Whigs, that would be a very good thing too.
"The Democrats have a spine, are not cowards and can put up a viscious fight agains the left and progressives. Its only against corporations and Republicans that it seems they must cave in to and never fight or oppose."
Frickin' excellent point.
Democrats: The "impeachment is off the table" party.
That's all I need to say...they are enablers of the worst scumbag to ever squat in the White House
PJD -- "What are YOU doing about it?"
Wow ! Clearly I touched a nerve. I dont hate Nader and no I havent met him ( he didnt make any house calls where i live ... it may have been a little too ghetto for his effete tastes !). I also dont buy into your bullshit about 'if it aint Nader then you are a Democart' crap which sounds exactly like 'if you object to israel you are anti-semite' argument. I think Nader is a consumer advocate and thats about it. Where I live I can pick at least 10 candidates who are a lot more committed and 'extreme' enough to actually challenge the system. Yeah ... i support them and thats what i do even though they will surely lose.
Its time to yank your hand out of Naders ass ... he is done.
Pete, actually some things you wrote require some clarification.
The term "winner-take-all" usually refers to a voting system where a candidate does not need an absolute majority (over 50.0%) to win - so someone in a multi-way race, with perhaps only 30% of the vote "takes all".
Such a system, peculiar to the USA, is manifestly undemocratic.
Most countries solve this not by putting two people in the same seat, they run conventional runoff elections. All IRV is is a time-saving device it allows the general election and runoff to be run simultaneously, since your #2 pick becomes the candidate you would have voted for in a conventional runoff.
I believe Australia uses IRV for all it's elections, is this correct?
The fact that that such basic democratic processes are foreign or poorly understood among USAns seems to be a consequence of their deep indoctrination into believing everything in the US "is the best". Most USAns have to go through a considerable cognitive-crisis to realize that quite a few USAn things from healthcare, to measurement systems, to transportation infrastructure, to most importantly, our electroal sytems are, frankly, crap.
Thanks PJD and Jaded Prole, et. al., for saving me the trouble of attempting to teach both history AND the concept of (lowercase "d") democracy to a hardened political bigot like (I choke on the perversity of the screen name) Nader2000. His willful ignorance is almost as repugnant as his demagoguery. He has plenty of misplaced outrage, but no interest in the truth if it contradicts his cherished delusions. He never tires of perpetuating the tired old Democratic Party canard, complete with false claims of "hard data," that disputes the work of the San Francisco Chronicle and Greg Palast, among numerous others--all in a vain attempt to justify his bigotry. But for some reason he can't ever produce that data--either because IT DOESN'T EXIST or because it is so obviously FAKE.
N2K is unable to understand the fact that even if Nader's ego was the size of HIS (clearly an impossibility), Nader couldn't have run without the millions of US who supported his platform and his candidacy. So although he constantly attacks Nader, he is really attacking US--and by extension anyone who dares to defy his beloved corporate-imperialist duopoly. Like any good Stalinist, N2K wants to intimidate and disenfranchise US for daring to support a candidate of OUR choice instead of one that he, in his superior wisdom, would choose for us.
I can't help but wonder why a lying bully who advocates the mass disenfranchisement and political persecution of American citizens would choose to be a regular poster on a progressive site such as CD. Probably, it is because he is scared to death that people here will start seeing the Democratic Party for what it is—a place where progressives go to be "disappeared."
bildad writes: "I can't help but wonder why a lying bully who advocates the mass disenfranchisement and political persecution of American citizens would choose to be a regular poster on a progressive site such as CD. Probably, it is because he is scared to death that people here will start seeing the Democratic Party for what it is—a place where progressives go to be "disappeared.""
There are, of course, multiple explanations. Without getting into the one poster's mind, we can't know for sure. Nevertheless, it represents a mentality that often baffles us, and it's worthwhile to see how it fits in the big picture.
The simplest explanation is the infantile mentality, the one that refuses to look beyond its own preferences. I'm sorry to say this, but most people are probably like this. Thoughtfulness and reflection do not come naturally; they must be practiced. Our culture doesn't exactly encourage it.
Slightly more sophisticated is the explanation from fear. That is: critically analyzing an insane belief may threaten the person's world view. Doing so would be traumatic.
Similarly, critically analyzing a patently false belief risks instilling a sense of obligation to take action. Giving up on the reflexive Nader-hating could instill in the arguer a feeling of obligation to confront the actual sources of the nation's problems. This is a fearsome task, and so the easier thing is to be secure in unexamined reaction.
Another possibility for N2K's style of argument is outlined in detail in Herman and Chomsky's _Manufacturing Consent_. In this explanation, the Democrats and other status-quo institutions act as gatekeepers of permissible discourse. "This far and no farther" is the idea. Electoral fraud, war, torture, impeachment, and other crises of our time are "off the table" for discussion because they are to the left of the Democrats.
Whichever you choose, any of these or something else, all involve a refusal to consider either the data or other viewpoints, coupled with an imperative to not let anyone else consider them either.
Anyone with a better explanation of why hostile parties post here is welcome to offer it.
You go Ralph!!! Your detractors are nothing but Dem-shrills or Rep-shrills. What's the difference? You have every right to run for election with your platform.
Democrats are part of the problem.
Seems like anytime a member of our human family rises above selfishness, serves his fellow man and frees himself from the "Matrix", he invites fear and hatred. Look what we did to Jesus of Nazareth. The same phenomenon is visible here with Ralph Nader. Those of you who hate him should examine your conditioned responses. They do not serve us. WAKE UP!
Just for fun and giggles, and to make sure we all have a true vision of what the Democrats really are, lets watch them line up and vote tomorrow for a new Attorney General who openly says the President can ignore the laws of Congress with his legal fantasy of 'signing statements', and who openly supports torture.
This is what you get when you vote Democrat. PLEASE STOP!
And come to Denver next August to tell the Democrats to their face what you really think of them. www.recreate68.org
"Denial that Nader helped Bush in 2000 and 2004 is just that: Denial. Of what is perfectly obvious, and well supported by hard data."
Yep. Nader's ZERO votes in Ohio in 2004 really made the difference.
To gyptian's comment:
"I think Nader is a consumer advocate and thats about it."
Actually colleges all over the country have PIRG's (Public Interest Research Groups) which have done great work on researching and campaigning on issues like the Environment, democracy and other progressive causes.
Ralph Nader has a history of planting the seeds of these sorts of grassroots local activist organizations.
He does not use them to promote his own power or egoistic agendas, he starts them and moves on - leaving those organizations their own autonomy.
This is precisely what we need to do in as many spheres as possible.
It is true democracy building at its finest.
Kurt Vonnegut once wryly wondered why critics, upon declaring his latest book a piece of crap, so often felt compelled to go on and declare that everything he had ever written was crap.
So it is with Nader. Since he became the chief scapegoat for the Democratic partisans' displaced rage and self-loathing despair in 2000, one finds denunciations not only of his 21st-Century political activities, but also repudiation of the suggestion that he was ever anything but a self-serving, self-promoting, egomaniacal shyster, with negligible redeeming qualities. One would deduce from the totality of these damning reports that Ralph reached manhood with no other aspiration or avocation than to become a maniacal, malign monster wreaking havoc with the fragile American polity: an Arch-Spoiler.
Democratic detractors invariably charge: "He took money from the Republicans!" For a partisan, this is anathema, tantamount to Benedict Arnold being In the Pay of the Enemy. Case closed! 'Nuff said!
From a more disinterested perspective, this seems at worst to reflect an "all's fair in love and war" ethic (or absence of ethic). Which is demonstrably the Democratic Party's approach towards Nader! Dems on the state level have always aggressively and unapologetically challenged Nader's candidacy and made strenuous efforts to undercut and derail it by any means necessary. You know, "politics ain't beanbag" and all. So cry me a river if Nader accepted funding from Republicans to stay afloat in a sea of Democratic sharks. Turnabout is fair play, 'tis said.
I can well believe that Nader may have a skeleton or two somewhere in his long career, or that he may be difficult to work for, or with. He may be a colossal pain in the ass, flawed, etc. But the bitter Dems' caricatured demon is much belied by Nader as he appears in person or in print. He manifests integrity, clarity of thought, eloquence, and determination to push our broken polity towards necessary evolution and reform.
The image of Nader as a predatory, sociopathic serial Pied Piper is an artifact of the view through Democratic Party Goggles. FWIW, the pre-selected "top tier" Democratic candidates are far likelier to set off my crap detectors than Ralph Nader.
The shills for the Democrats are trying to change the subject. This is not about the 2000 election; it's about the dirty tricks that the Democratic Party used to keep Nader off the ballot in 2004.
Gawd. Some of the "My way or the highway, vote DP and shut up already" posts here are kinda...creepy. It's as if you can't deal with people who speak truth to power...
Folks, the report on Democracy Now from one of Ralph Nader's lawyers in the lawsuit spells it all out: intimidation, coercion and the use of the legal system as a weapon. Check it out:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/31/145208
"It's irrelevant how else the Republicans won or stole votes. If not for the Nader factor, Gore would still have won. The point is not that there aren't other factors. Each of us is responsible for the foreseeable effects that our own actions have."
Well, okay nader2000, but you've merely hoisted yourself by your own petard. If not for the blame factor that you and others keep foisting upon folks like me who voted for Nader (in 2000 for me), you are merely driving many of us further away from any chance of voting for a Democrat. Blame, no matter how righteously you may claim the ground, usually drives others to do the opposite of what you seek.
Therefore, you are doing exactly the same that you blame Nader for doing.
So, how's the view from up on the ceiling?
Funny how the Nader Haters bring so much profanity and bad spelling to the discussion.
Nader has been a valuable public servant for decades, and I definitely wouldn't put it past the democrats to suppress the opposition from the left. I'm interested to see how the case plays out.
Until the democratic party learns that left wing consistency plays better than centrist equivocation, they will continue to lose elections.
Oh, having said what I said above, I have to say that I find your tactic of blaming to be extremely counterproductive and damaging.
The difference between the real Nader and you is that Ralph was trying to improve the situation.
COmarc-- "America is the only country in the world that I know of with 'a two-party system'. "
Im not sure if you've been reading the news for the last 10 years but America stopped having a two-party system a while back. Sorry to burst your bubble ... instead you have one huge party with bickering teams and the occasional self-righteous smug-ass with an outsized ego.
We need a radical departure from this so called 'democracy'. This so called 'democracy' which we have is not even challenged by the so called 'intellectuals' we have. Its taken as Gods own truth in God's own country (U.S.). Never mind that true representative government does not exist here in our country. We will still rattle off figures and ballot statistics or some arcane hair-splitting non-sense.
Nader never came out against the Afghanistan 'war' and his objections to Iraq were cursory initially. Instead of stridently objecting to this 'warfare' state which is the root cause of our misery, he chose to focus on ... you guessed it ... consumer issues. I love the guy but come on now ...
Nader2000 - "Nader is worse than an egotist, he's a hardened egotist, going senile and in a state of permanent denial due to the terrible consequences of his past choices."
OR he's fighting a corporate oligarchy the only way he can. I think he's as much dismayed by the corporate takeover of both parties as the rest of us. He chooses to DO something about it unlike the rest of us. We really should applaud what he's doing. Your psycho-analysis of him being a senile egoist just doesn't fit. He's fighting a machine that no longer recognizes individual freedoms. It just chomps them up and spits them out. Are you on the people's side or are you on the side of the corporate machine? You spew a great deal of venom at a man for choosing to exercise his right to fight back.
seriousprofessor- well put
is it possible that these people see themselves as "progressive" because, as you said, nothing to the left of them is allowed in public discourse? So, despite their center-right worldviews, they perceive themselves as slightly left? Just a thought.
Damn! Ralph Nader has become a lightning rod on this site. It is quite impressive how villified he is. Credit, once again, to PJD and CoMarc for coming to his defense in a timely fashion.
One other thing -- how can Nader literally "take away" votes without any reflexive pondering on how over 30% of the population did not even vote. 30% of the people thought nobody was worth their time. If either party could reach out and satisfy 10% of these people, they win no contest, right? I dont know, just a thought.
And, to be juvenile, fuck both corporate dependent parties.
The Nader-bashers act like Washington DC was a town that was legendary for its small egos until Nader came along. So why is Nader any more egotistical than the Democrats and Republicans who run for office? Give me a better argument than because the Democrats say so.
Glad Nader is making this move to sue the democrats. I watched the segment on DemocracyNow that covered this topic as well. One should really look at the motive of the democratic party, as it appears they greatly fear Nader.
I voted in the primary in 04 for Kucinich and when he didn't get the nomination, Nader for President. It would be great to see a Nader/Kucinich in 08.
When I heard about the Nader suit on Democracy Now, I was so happy I almost created a new wrinkle.
It's so clear that the Democratic Party engaged in illegal intimidation, frivilous lawsuits and numerous other immoral, unethical and illegal tactics to keep Nader off the ballot, I can not imagine a court of law that would not find in favor of Nader - whether of not a court of law actually exists in the U.S. is questionable. Justice is not now nor has it ever been a reality in America.
But for one shining moment, I could see into the near future where Nader wins the suit, the court awards damages of say...... $500,000,000.00 and forces the DNC to liquidate all its campaign accounts to pay the verdict. The DNC of course appeals and the Nader team calls for an injunction to freeze the funds, so they cannot be liquidated or used for campaigns until after the '08 auction. The result is the Dems are unable to tap into their corporate pool of cash - the Hillary auction bid fails to pay its bills, Nader is able to fully fund an independent campaign, is joined by running mate Dennis Kucinich and, in the absence of the scoundrel Democrats, soundly defeats the Republican cabal and becomes president and we all live happily ever after.
Holy Demented Dreams Batman! The acid flashbacks have finally got you!
Wait, Wait, I'm coming to. (the smile still on my face)
There it is - Hope for the Nader/Kucinich ticket.
Please! if there is a relevent omniscient being watching over us let this happen.
I might mention that although I was brought up and socialized a Democrat (my father was a UAW local president, when unions actually had teeth and lacked gum disease), the hypocrisy was too much to bear and ever since I was old enough to vote, and I do vote - old habits die hard - I have never voted for a Democrat or Republican in the general election.
Oh man, I'm coming down - where is that purple mescaline I stashed thirty years ago?
I gotta go kids - Nader/Kucinich '08 Live the dream.