Dump Kerry
RalphNader 2004
http://world.std.com/~jberg/edit0301.html
Be wary of Skull and Bones Kerry
Conservatives Against Conservation
> Read this if you care about the US Government
>
> http://world.std.com/~jberg/edit0301.html
>
> Be wary of Skull and Bones Kerry
>
>
>
Kerry would never have gotten us into this idiot Bush/Iraq mess.
Bush is an enemy of the environment, if you want to see the US
in the business of promoting the use of oil & raping the
environment for a few more pennies of profit, vote for Bush/Nader.
Hey Kool Aid
How much is the RNC paying posters here in the news
groups? No doubt alot from the looks of it.
Does Nader and the RNC really believe the majority of the voters can't
see through this clear scam?
Are the Greens whore enough to sell out there country just
to have the "All seeing Eye Ralph the RNC Shill Nader" Run
for Prez? There is no way in the Devils Hell that Nader can
win and everyone in this sub Universe knows it. So I guess
the game for Nader is have your 15minutes (again) and
line your pockets. Typical American.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.692 / Virus Database: 453 - Release Date: 5/28/2004
Team Caldwell
"Hey Kool Aid" <Ko...@Aid.com> wrote in message
news:10bgnuh...@corp.supernews.com...
> So how much is the RNC paying Nader to run this time?
> How much is the RNC paying posters here in the news
> groups? No doubt alot from the looks of it.
i doubt it.
there is not enough wonkishness and persuasive argumentation from the right
to convince me of some sort of conspiracy here.
whit
Nolo
news:MPG.1b21c5e43...@netnews.comcast.net...
> In article <vkVtc.16047$mQ4....@fe2.texas.rr.com>, wlca...@aol.com
says...
> > Read this if you care about the US Government
> >
> > http://world.std.com/~jberg/edit0301.html
> >
> > Be wary of Skull and Bones Kerry
> (gimme a break)
> >
> >
> >
> Kerry would never have gotten us into this idiot Bush/Iraq mess.
Then why did he support the war and vote for the Congressional
authorization?
Steve Krulick
>
> So how much is the RNC paying Nader to run this time?
I'd say, uh, ZERO! Same as last time.
But you are free to substantiate your blatant innuendo with some
actual evidence!
> How much is the RNC paying posters here in the news
> groups? No doubt alot from the looks of it.
There's been more examples in the past four years of
DLC/DNC-backed operatives plying their trade here.
> Does Nader and the RNC really believe the majority of the voters can't
> see through this clear scam?
Do you believe that we will accept the blatant assertions of an
anonymous troll without any support evidence?
> Are the Greens whore enough to sell out there country just
And did you note that Nader is running as an independent and NOT
as a Green?
And we still await substantiation for your blatant claims.
> to have the "All seeing Eye Ralph the RNC Shill Nader" Run
Again, put up or shut up. Show where ANY RNC money or support
has gone to Nader. Do that and you will be the newsbreaker of
the year!
> for Prez? There is no way in the Devils Hell that Nader can
> win and everyone in this sub Universe knows it.
Keep saying it, and keep having the media saying it (when they
aren't simply ignoring him), and keep Ralph out of the debates,
and tie his hands regarding ballot access, and keep spreading
snarky lies, and it may be so.
> So I guess
> the game for Nader is have your 15minutes (again) and
> line your pockets. Typical American.
Typical blatant assertion without proof from a typical liar.
--
Steven Krulick / s...@krulick.com
Ellenville NY 12428-130727
Conservatives Against Conservation
the pres's negotiating power, Bush flubbed it. A normal person would
have backed off when there was no evidence to proceed. And remember,
the president was running around hyping intelligence for some reason
we may never know, maybe it had to do with the Rapture.
Clave
news:40b8cade$0$3152$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
Because he believed what Bush told him. Unlike Bush, Kerry learns from his
mistakes.
Jim
William Kaufman
Then why does Kerry STILL have essentially the same policy as Bush on the
war--"stay the course," etc., add more troops, no date for a U.S.
withdrawal, etc. There is no meaningful difference between Kerry and Bush on
the war. The only serious alternative for opponents of the war is to vote
for Ralph Nader, who calls for U.S. withdrawal within six months. See the
following:
The New York Times, May 26, 2004
THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE
Candidates' Iraq Policies Share Many Similarities
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and RICHARD W. STEVENSON
ASHINGTON, May 25 - When it comes to Iraq, it is getting harder every day to
distinguish between President Bush's prescription and that of Senator John
Kerry.
They still differ on some details, and Mr. Kerry continues to assert that
Mr. Bush has lost so much credibility around the world that only a new
president can rally other nations to provide the necessary assistance, a
point he made Tuesday while campaigning in Oregon.
But as became evident with Mr. Bush's latest speech on Iraq on Monday night,
which followed a detailed speech Mr. Kerry gave on Iraq's future one month
ago, the broad outlines of their approaches are more alike than not. That is
particularly true as Mr. Bush moves toward giving the United Nations more
authority, a move long advocated by Mr. Kerry.
They both support the June 30 deadline for the beginning of the transition
to civilian power. They both say they would support an increase in United
States troop strength, if necessary. Neither has supported a deadline for
removing United States troops.
Mr. Bush's gradual shift away from what many Democrats have long denounced
as a go-it-alone stance is an adjustment to the surge in violence in Iraq,
as well as the deterioration of domestic support for the occupation in the
wake of the prison abuse scandal.
But there also is clearly a political component at play here, as the White
House seeks, while managing its own problems, to create a predicament for
Mr. Bush's Democratic opponent. Mr. Kerry this week is beginning a series of
speeches in which he will lay out some of his most detailed foreign policy
pronouncements.
The fact that Mr. Bush has moved close to Mr. Kerry on some of these
questions makes it much more difficult for Mr. Kerry to take advantage of
what Democrats and Republicans view as the biggest political crisis of Mr.
Bush's presidency, by emphasizing differences between them. Mr. Kerry is
left to argue that while both men have similar ideas about what to do, he
has more credibility to do it, given the breakdown in relations between Mr.
Bush and many world leaders over Iraq.
Mr. Kerry has negotiated the shifting sands of Iraq for more than a year
now. Some Democrats said that their candidate would just as soon stand back
and not engage Mr. Bush on the war, allowing the president to struggle with
setbacks, while avoiding making himself a target should Mr. Bush attempt to
suggest that he is not supporting the troops.
But as Mr. Kerry is well aware, there is a growing antiwar segment of the
American electorate. And there is likely to be an antiwar candidate on the
ballot, in the person of Ralph Nader, the independent candidate who has
called for an withdrawal of American forces.
In another sign of the complication Mr. Kerry faces, Al Gore, one of the
party's severest critics of the war, is to deliver a speech in New York on
Wednesday that is expected to call for the dismissal of top administration
officials and assert that Americans have been put at risk at home and abroad
by Mr. Bush's foreign policy.
"He's caught between what would be politically advantageous, declaring a
timetable for getting out, and what he knows is the reality on the ground,
which is that we need more troops," said one adviser who Mr. Kerry relies on
heavily. "And the internal debates have often been between the camps in the
campaign who want a clear break from the Bush policy and those who want to
portray Bush as largely incompetent in executing what strategy they had."
Mr. Kerry's advisers minimized the extent to which Mr. Bush's shifts had
made him less vulnerable to criticism on Iraq, and disputed the notion that
Mr. Kerry has not, or could not, draw differences with the president on this
issue. And they noted a series of recent polls that show both a drop in
support for the occupation of Iraq and concern over whether Mr. Bush has a
plan to end it, arguing that the issue was more of a problem for Mr. Bush
than it was for Mr. Kerry.
"John Kerry as a Democratic candidate for president has said more about how
to fix Iraq than the sitting president, the commander-in-chief, the person
who lead the nation into this war," said Stephanie Cutter, a senior Kerry
advisor.
In a speech last month, Mr. Kerry said the goal of the United States should
be to bring about "a stable, free Iraq with a representative government,
secure in its borders." That position is broadly indistinguishable from that
of Mr. Bush.
The differences, as they exist, are relatively minor. Mr. Kerry has called
for NATO to take a major role in Iraq, freeing up American troops and
providing an opening to attract military support from non-NATO nations like
India and Pakistan.
Mr. Bush has left open the possibility of a larger role for NATO, but has
not pressed hard for such a change, and administration officials are
skeptical that Europeans have any desire to contribute more assistance than
they already have.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Tuesday that Iraq would be discussed
at the NATO summit at the end of next month in Turkey, and that 16 of the 26
NATO member nations are already involved in Iraq in some way.
He said that NATO has not ruled out an expanded role in Iraq, but that there
is no consensus on what that role would be.
"We should not go into this, as some critics have, thinking that, you know,
all you have to do is go to NATO and there is a huge body of troops waiting
there just to be asked," Mr. Powell said.
Mr. Kerry has also called for the establishment of a United Nations high
commissioner to oversee the political development of Iraq and the rebuilding
efforts. Mr. Bush has more or less embraced the need for the United Nations
to authorize a multinational force led by the United States - a position
long pushed by Mr. Kerry - but has signaled no support for putting
additional direct power in the hands of a United Nations commissioner.
The core of Mr. Kerry's argument is that Mr. Bush is now viewed with such
low regard in Europe that it would take a new president to put together an
international coalition. Mr. Kerry asserted that it would take a new
president to "clear the air" and re-establish battered relations with former
allies.
Administration officials have been dismissive of Mr. Kerry's idea of putting
a United Nations high commissioner in Iraq. They have argued that the Iraqis
do not want the United Nations in power any more than they want the United
States in power.
"This is not East Timor," one senior administration official said, a
reference to the breakaway Indonesian territory where a high commissioner
was put in place.
Conservatives Against Conservation
>
> Then why does Kerry STILL have essentially the same policy as Bush on the
> war--"stay the course," etc., add more troops, no date for a U.S.
> withdrawal, etc. There is no meaningful difference between Kerry and Bush on
> the war. The only serious alternative for opponents of the war is to vote
> for Ralph Nader, who calls for U.S. withdrawal within six months. See the
> following:
There is nothing serious about Nader's campaign, he will NEVER be president.
If you vote for him, seriously, you are helping Bush win, who is an idiot
who cannot make the intelligent decisions to get us out of Iraq. In fact,
Bush regards intellectuals with disdain, preferring the cowboy approach to
world "leadership" - with predictable results.
torresD
A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush with a brain.
"Conservatives Against Conservation" <n...@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b23bb28b...@netnews.comcast.net...
Conservatives Against Conservation
Do we have you to thank?
torresD
"Conservatives Against Conservation"
Who did you vote for last election?
RALPH NADER.
Steve Krulick
>
> In article <_Kouc.15732$Tn6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, kma...@earthlink.net says...
> >
> > Then why does Kerry STILL have essentially the same policy as Bush on the
> > war--"stay the course," etc., add more troops, no date for a U.S.
> > withdrawal, etc. There is no meaningful difference between Kerry and Bush on
> > the war. The only serious alternative for opponents of the war is to vote
> > for Ralph Nader, who calls for U.S. withdrawal within six months. See the
> > following:
>
> There is nothing serious about Nader's campaign, he will NEVER be president.
> If you vote for him, seriously, you are helping Bush win,
$1000 to you if you can prove that MY vote for Nader in New York
State in 2000 'helped Bush win'!
> who is an idiot
> who cannot make the intelligent decisions to get us out of Iraq. In fact,
> Bush regards intellectuals with disdain, preferring the cowboy approach to
> world "leadership" - with predictable results.
--
Steven Krulick / s...@krulick.com
Kryolux Inc / 845-647-2868 / 845-647-8809
Ellenville NY 12428-130727
Steve Krulick
>
> If Ralph Nader is on the ballot, I will vote for him.
> A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush with a brain.
Not to mention Gore without the charisma
or Dukakis without the passion.
--
Steven Krulick / s...@krulick.com
Ellenville NY 12428-130727
Steve Krulick
$1000 to you if you can prove that MY vote for Nader in New York
State in 2000 'helped elect Bush'!
Sigh, another math-and-logic-challenged dolt.
50 million Bush voters, Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, the SCotUS,
and Gore's incompetence put Bush in the White House.
All the math, polls, logic, common sense, and other evidence
that has been presented to date won't move GoreWhores in denial
from their asinine nonsense position.
Hey, Al From, Mr. DLC himself, has called off the
Nader-bashing. Take a hint:
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan2001/2001L-01-24-15.html
DLC DISPUTES SIGNIFICANCE OF NADER'S VOTES
"The assertion that Nader's marginal vote count hurt Gore is not
borne out by polling data," Al From [DLC founder and CEO] wrote
in the DLC's report. "When exit pollers asked voters how they
would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a
point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race."
[More proof that Nader HELPED Gore win the election!]
Even DLC-head From admits that without Nader in the race, Bush
would have done even BETTER, and probably WON outright!
Nader-supporters switching to Gore at the last moment, in the
MILLIONS, actually helped GORE WIN, which Gore then fumbled.
You're welcome, ingrate!
Or do you deny Gore WON the election? HIS refusal to fight for
his win rather than cave to bipartisan collegiality MAKES him a
traitor to the cause of Democracy and Enfranchisement. Again, I
would have been unhappy with whoever won the election, but,
dammit, Gore probably won and having the selection STOLEN
rankles me more than apparently it rankles Gore himself.
It's as if we, as a group, threw a 100-foot rope to a drowning
Gore 102 feet away, yet Gore made no attempt to MOVE the two
feet closer necessary to GRAB it, but YELLED at us for not
having thrown a 102-foot rope, and then blamed US for his going
under.
Thanks to GoreWhore fear-mongering, perhaps 5 MILLION Nader
supporters held their nose and voted for Gore. And what did they
get for their efforts? A Gore who bashed them and Nader, and who
didn't even stand up to claim that voters who GAVE him the
plurality were disenfranchised. What a wimp! I bet many now wish
they'd voted for Nader after all.
And I thought we might have seen the last of the sore, hard-core
GoreWhore corps!
We know they were building up a scapegoating strategy against
Nader nearly a month before the election, but now, with the
true results aborted, they've conceded to a coup and made Nader
the fallguy! Nevermind the ingratitude for the millions of votes
they DID manage to scare Nader voters into tossing to Gore;
nothing but total destruction of Nader and the Greens will
satisfy their denial and anger.
IF the Dems spent half as much time attacking the Reps as they
do the Greens, they might get somewhere. IF they spent as much
time chastising the 10%+ of registered DEMS who VOTED FOR BUSH
(13% in Florida) -- 10-15 times the number of Dems who voted for
Nader, far outweighing any perceived "Nader factor" in
determining ANY losses Gore suffered in any state he might have
carried -- they might be taken more seriously. If they copped to
the Party's failure to pick a likable and believable candidate,
the consultants' failure to mount a competent campaign, and
Gore's monumental failures to beat the least qualified Prez
candidate in a century, that honesty might get them back on the
road to recovery from their denial.
GORE defeated Gore, and bears perhaps 75% of the blame
personally; allow 15% for dumb consultants and a
corporate-whoring DLC and the Clinton fatigue; the other 10%
includes thousands of random factors, from Bush kissing Oprah,
to the weather in different locations on election day.
But blame Nader? Focus on one tiny factor among thousands? Hey,
blame the 50 million fools who voted for Bush, including 10%+ of
registered Dems who voted for Bush. YOUR man Gore failed to get
enough people to buy HIS BS over Bush's BS to make it the
slam-dunk it should have been.
Can you explain again how MY vote for Nader in New York put Bush
in office?
No matter how you spin it, that's Orwellian double-speak.
I will give you $1000 if you can show how MY vote in New York
for Nader put Bush in office.
Some exit polls, nationwide, showed perhaps 40% MIGHT have voted
for Gore, 40% for another alternate party candidate or nobody,
and 20% for Bush, which votes MUST be deducted from Gore,
leaving, at best, Gore GAINING 1 in 5 Nader votes that WERE cast
for Nader. (Another poll said 40% might have gone to Gore, 30%
to nobody or another 3rd party, 30% to Bush.) What isn't
considered is that Nader was polling 2 to 3 times his final vote
(assuming that final vote is accurate, and isn't short by the
Nader votes "disappeared" or ignored) just days before the
election, so that 1/2 to 2/3 of Nader supporters (estimated at 5
million MORE than ACTUALLY voted for Ralph) ALREADY sacrificed
their hopes, gave into their fears, held their nose and voted
for Gore. But THAT wasn't enough for the greedy GoreWhores, who
shrieked that EVERY Nader vote NOT cast for Gore would be HELD
RESPONSIBLE for each and every hypothetical Bush travesty.
No, 13 TIMES as many Dems in FL voted for BUSH than voted for
Nader (which votes didn't contribute to Bush's total count
against Gore a single vote)! THAT'S where your blame and anger
should be directed!
We're talking ACTUAL numbers of ACTUAL votes cast, and the
numbers show that Nader voters gave NO votes to Bush's total,
but 13% of Dems in Florida, and at least 10% nationwide, voted
FOR BUSH, which was enough to give Bush the margin of victory in
every state that Gore had a chance at and lost.
Nader's BEING in the race helped prevent Gore from losing to
Bush outright. Nader is NOT responsible for Bush being in the
White House. Of course, From and the DLC/DNC will NEVER cop to
it being mostly GORE'S fault and THEIR fault, but they at least
now have let Nader off the hook as being THE fall guy to pin it
on. Take a hint, Gorebot!
Hey, argue with CNN who provided the poll data; this is from
CNN's exit polls, first national:
http://a388.g.akamai.net/f/388/21/15m/www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html
Vote in Two-Way Race All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
Gore 48 % 96 % 1 % 0 % 2 %
Bush 49 % 2 % 96 % 0 % 1 %
Would Not Have Voted 2 % 23 % 28 % 9 % 31 %
And this from Florida:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/FL/P000.html
Vote in Two-Way Race All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
Gore 47 % 97 % 1 % 0 % 1 %
Bush 49 % 1 % 96 % 0 % 1 %
Would Not Have Voted 2 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %
And this from New Hampshire, another state where people claim
Nader not being in the race would have given it to Gore. Not so:
Vote in Two-Way Race All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
Gore 47 % 95 % 1 % 0 % 3 %
Bush 48 % 3 % 95 % 0 % 2 %
Would Not Have Voted 4 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %
(I don't know why the would-not-have-voted columns drop to 0% in
the state races, unless they just left out that data. But the
key point is that, nationally, and in two close races, BUSH
clearly beats Gore IF Nader is not in the race. I presume that
this is the data that Al From is quoting from. Do you have a
problem with "independent media" CNN and their polls?)
In addition to CNN and other previous polls I've mentioned:
Stanley Greenberg's poll found that if Nader had not run, Gore
would have gotten only 38 percent of Nader's voters and Bush
would have gotten 25 percent. (Most of the rest would have
stayed home.)
YOU'D love to assume every vote Nader got came out of Gore's
hide, and there's no evidence of that; indeed the available
evidence shows that Gore wouldn't even have gotten the majority
of those. But "logic dictates" that EVERY Dem who voted for Bush
was a vote Gore should have been able to count on; but whether
or not that was so, it was certainly a vote NOT given to Gore
BUT given to his strongest opponent, the eventual "winner," and
THAT was why Gore didn't win outright.
I have CNN exit polls as my evidence; let's parse Florida
(http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/FL/P000.html):
Party Identification All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
Democrat 40 % 86 % 13 % 0 % 1 %
Republican 38 % 8 % 91 % 0 % 1 %
Independent 22 % 47 % 46 % 1 % 4 %
If Gore got 2,907,451 votes, and that represents 86% of
REGISTERED Dems who voted, than the number of registered Dems
would be close to 3,380,757 (2,907,451/.86). So 439,498 Dems in
FL defected to Bush.
Approx. 33,808 Dems voted for Nader in FL, and approx. 31,969
Reps voted for Nader in FL (2,909,176 Reps for Bush/.91 =
3,196,896 registered Reps X .01 for Nader). So in the end, Nader
votes drew almost equally from Dems and Reps, with an almost
equal number of votes, approx. 96,837 total Nader FL votes
-33,808 -31,969 = 31,060, coming from Inds.
And before the Dems moan about the 1,839 difference that MIGHT
have given Gore the win, IF Nader had not been a factor,
wouldn't 13% of the 33,808 Dems who voted for Nader followed the
other 13% of Dems and voted for Bush, or 4,395 Dems for Bush?
Likewise, wouldn't the 8% of Reps for Gore be applicable with
this group, or 8% of the 31,969 Reps who voted for Nader, or
2,558 Reps for Gore? Adding these in to the totals we get 1,837
additional vote advantage for Bush, which statistically erases
the 1,839 votes difference favoring Gore at first glance. This
leaves independent voters, who voted evenly for Gore and Bush,
and some Buchanan votes who made up any difference.
Statistically, this is a dead heat, too close to call, and no
way to reach any conclusions about Nader being a factor.
But more important, 2 to 3 times as many votes as Nader
finally GOT were votes that WOULD have likely gone for Nader
had not Gore's fear-mongering drumbeat already peeled them back
ON election day, or the race had not been seen as so close
(polling for Nader was as high as 6-7% one week before the
election). So where's the Dem gratitude for the tens of
thousands (maybe 100,000 to 200,000) of Green-leaning votes that
abandoned Nader, held their nose, and went to Gore and
TECHNICALLY won him the White House? Yes, people who preferred
Nader but wound up voting for Gore DID help give Gore the margin
that gave him BOTH the national and Florida popular vote
pluralities, but Gore and his Whores refuse to back off from
blaming Nader, yet make nice-nice with the Bush team that STOLE
the election!
439,498 Dems voted for Bush, and only 255,752 Reps voted for
Gore. That's a 183,746 difference that WAY outweighs any
influence by Nader, Buchanan, Hagelin, the communists or
whomever, COMBINED. Votes for Nader added NO votes to Bush, but
183,746 MORE Dems voted for Bush than Reps voted for Gore.
There's your election for ya... DOUBLE Whammy votes lost from
Gore and added to Bush FROM DEMOCRATS! So I don't want to hear
ANY more whining from Dems about Nader costing Gore the election
in Florida or ANYWHERE until I hear the same whiners blaming the
DEM TRAITORS who actually voted FOR BUSH in FAR greater numbers
EVERYWHERE.
So drop it already. Or refute the numbers.
The Dems may want to learn the lesson of not picking a lame
candidate that people didn't trust or like.
Many of us expected that Gore, a sitting two-term VP under a
popular president (subject to debate), in a booming economy
(subject to debate), during peacetime (subject to debate), would
whip a smirking, squinty-eyed, ex-cocaine-user, ex-drunk
(subject to debate if he's still ex), AWOL-from-National-Guard
shirker, "compassionate" killer of blacks, women, and
mentally-retarded teens, sentence-mangling doofus sock-puppet
privileged son of a sentence-mangling political hack privileged
father, failed businessman corporate welfare king, with the
slimmest resume of any presidential candidate in 100 years.
Neither can anyone explain how a vote cast for one candidate,
Nader, magically appears on the vote total of another candidate,
Bush. But, there it was -- AVFNIAVFB -- in all it's Orwellian
glory! Repeated ad nauseum until even seasoned media pundits
began to buy it. But if you buy the logic of AVFNIAVFB, then why
not accept the logic that a Dem actually voting for Bush is
TWICE the damage: one loss from Gore's column, one vote more
needed to make it up; one added vote in Bush's column, one vote
more needed to catch up. TWO outside votes needed to equal the
damage here, see?
So how come AVFNIAVFB? As Dave Letterman said: "If a vote for
Nader is a vote for Bush, who do I vote for if I want to vote
for Nader?"
I'm waiting for you or anyone to explain the simple math: MY NY
vote was NEVER in Gore's column, nor did it wind up in Bush's.
So how did I help Bush? But a Dem who SHOULD have supported his
party's candidate but votes instead for Bush, is one less Gore
vote that should have been there, and one vote ADDED to Bush's
total; it hurts Gore by one down, and helps Bush by one up. Is
that so hard to grasp?
The only people HERE who "helped elect Bush" would be those
who VOTED for Bush; only THEIR Bush votes were tallied up in
Bush's column. It is patently illogical to claim that anyone
else (except Supreme Court Justices, of course, and Jeb and
Katherine) "helped elect Bush.":
I say again: Not one Nader vote added a single vote to Bush's
column; it was identical to staying home, or voting for another
third-party candidate.
What about people who voted for Hagelin, Buchanan, Browne,
McReynolds, etc.?
Shouldn't your new mantra be: "Voting for anyone other
than Gore was a vote for Bush"?
Also, what about the 100 million who didn't vote at all;
aren't they to blame for not blocking Bush? There are far more
of them not voting for Gore than Greens not voting for Gore.
Shouldn't that be your NEW, new mantra: "Not voting was a
vote for Bush"?
IF every Florida vote for the Socialist, or Hagelin, had
"gone" to Gore, Gore would have won outright! So blame them;
they cost Gore the election as much (or little) as Nader. Why
won't you blame them? Or the Dem traitors who DID vote for Bush?
Or the non-voters? OR the prisoners or ex-offenders who COULDN'T
vote thanks to Clinton/Gore's own policies?
If you want to blame those who put Repub Bush in power, blame
Jeb & Katherine, the SCOTUS, and Gore himself, for running the
lousiest campaign in memory, and for being too clever by half in
the post election fight by NOT calling for a complete hand
recount.
The blizzard of "librils" Gore flung around the country to
strike FEAR into Nader voters, to get the 1 or 2% those votes
represent to switch to Gore, and do nothing to win back the 11%
DEMOCRAT defection to Bush, or go after 10% undecideds, or the
100 million NON-VOTING registered voters, was clearly an endgame
strategy to let Nader be the fallguy and Green voters the
scapegoats. Since Al lost his homestate Tennessee, where
Nader is no factor, this blame-game is going to be a harder sell
than even Gore himself was. But you'll do it anyway, because you
can't admit it was GORE that defeated himself in Tennessee and
elsewhere.
Remember, Gore DID take Florida. He WON with more votes. It's in
all the papers. Nader supporters HELPED Gore WIN in Florida and
nationwide by helping his floundering campaign at the last
minute. (You're welcome.) THEN Gore wimped out on them all by
conceding without a real fight. He ran his POST-election
campaign as stupidly as his PRE-election campaign, making
tactical and PR blunders again and again.
Bush's stealing the election was NOT fought by Gore or the Dems;
not ONE white Dem senator or rep backed the black caucus's call
to reject the Florida results, and Gore abandoned them as well.
Nice going.
Did Nader cause Gore to lose his OWN state of Tennessee? Or
cause Gore to so distance himself from Clinton that he also lost
Arkansas? What about Dem strongholds like WV? GORE defeated
Gore, plain and simple.
Better come up with an excuse for the 11% of the DEM PARTY who
BOLTED to VOTE FOR BUSH! That's 11% OFF Gore's expected total
PLUS 11% ADDED to Bush, for a 22% Double Whammy! There's your
margin of loss TIMES THREE!
Why bother with the piddling little Green Vote? I and my fellow
Greens were under no obligation to support YOUR party's
candidate; we didn't pick him, and he didn't think we were
important enough to let play in his "debate" sandbox.
Just keep repeating: "It's NAAAAAAADER's fault"... that a HUGE
proportion of the American people actually voted FOR Bush! Just
ignore math and logic and ANY position can be defended.
People just didn't LIKE or TRUST Gore; but make Nader the
scapegoat.
Rather than ever give us a POSITIVE reason to support Gore, you
tried to tear down the opposition. Great way to make friends and
influence people. Sow hate and fear, and reap the whirlwind.
BUT if your goal is to set up Nader as the fallguy, and Nader
voters and Greens as the scapegoat to blame for Gore's defeat,
well, then it all makes perfect sense.
No, gorebot, YOU just want to wallow in denial and focus on one
of the minor 'banana peels' as Nader called them, instead of the
BIG factors, like 10-13% of Dems nationwide voting for Bush. Is
Nader to blame for THOSE votes too? Is Nader to blame for
everything from the Johnstown Flood onward?
Even DLC-head From admits that without Nader in the race, Bush
would have done even BETTER, and probably WON outright!
Nader-supporters switching to Gore at the last moment, in the
MILLIONS, actually helped GORE WIN, which Gore then fumbled.
You're welcome, ingrate!
Yep, Gore WON! He won more popular votes in enough states
INCLUDING Florida to assure an electoral college win. Only he
tried to be too clever by half, and instead of demanding a FULL
state manual recount, he tried to cherry pick the counties,
which gave the Bush team the opening to go to the SCotUS and
outmaneuver the recount. Gore knew of the thousands of likely
voters thrown off the rolls illegally, but didn't contest it
when he could have. And he didn't fight after the election to
demand the irregularities and biases were exposed. Gore won the
election, but took a dive afterwards, proving he didn't deserve
the job or have the balls to do the tough stuff a president
must.
Why Nader is NOT to Blame
by Tim Wise
AlterNet November 8, 2000
Well, the long knives are out. Media pundits, Democratic Party
officials, and I would suspect Al Gore himself before long, have
or will soon begin to do the predictable: search out a scapegoat
for why the Presidential election turned out the way it did.
With Gore having won the popular vote, and yet having apparently
lost in the electoral college, there will be a cacophony of
voices saying some constructive things -- like discussing the
need for an instant runoff/preference voting system that would
better reflect the will of the American public -- but also
blaming the victory of George W. Bush squarely on the shoulders
of the Green Party and Ralph Nader.
It had begun even before midnight: television talking heads
exclaiming that if Gore lost, the blame could be laid at the
door of Nader and those presumed liberals and leftists that
flocked to his campaign. Few commentators challenged this
analysis, and by the morning after -- as we await recounts in
Florida that will determine the outcome -- it has become
conventional wisdom that Nader did indeed cost Gore the
election, by swinging Oregon, Florida, and perhaps even New
Hampshire to Bush II.
Such is the sorry state of political analysis, not to mention
statistical interpretation, and such is the pathetic state of
the Democratic Party: so desperate to avoid admitting its own
mistakes that it would prefer to attack a large segment of its
progressive base, chastising them like misbehaving children, as
if somehow that will bring them back to the fold. Not likely.
And not a very smart move.
Most importantly, the Blame-Nader first school is wrong, dead
wrong about who is to blame for Gore's slim electoral defeat.
Here's why:
First, the notion that Nader voters would all have voted for the
Vice President in the absence of their favorite from the race,
is nonsense. CNN exit polls show that only about 47 percent of
the Nader voters would have voted for Gore in a two way race,
while 21 percent would have voted for Bush and 30 percent would
have abstained from voting in the Presidential contest
altogether.
This is significant, especially in New Hampshire and Oregon,
where some are saying the Nader vote was the difference.
Looking at New Hampshire first, it is true that Bush's margin of
victory was only about 7,500 votes, and that Nader received
about 22,000 votes there. But based on the exit polling data, if
Nader hadn't been in the race, only a little less than half of
those Nader votes would have gone to Gore, and a fifth would
have gone to Bush, so that in the end, Bush would have still won
New Hampshire by about 1500 votes in all.
In Oregon, where it is a virtual article of religious faith that
Nader is to blame for the Bush victory, the hype is once again
overblown and flatly wrong. Yes, Bush won the state by a margin
of only about 23,000 votes, and Nader received the votes of
54,000. But once again, based on the exit polls, had the race
been only between Gore and Bush, Gore would have gotten 47
percent of those 54,000, for a total of around 25,400, Bush
would have received 21 percent of those 54,000, for a total of
about 11,300, and in the end, Bush would still have squeaked out
a victory, by about 8,000 votes.
Which brings us to Florida. If ever there was a case to make
that Nader had been the spoiler for Gore, it would be here,
where the election will likely be decided by less than 2,000
votes. Clearly, one could look at Nader's 97,000 votes there and
say, with a degree of certainty approaching definitive, that had
Nader not been in the race, Gore would have beaten Bush among
Nader voters by a two to one margin, and that would have been
enough to capture Florida's 25 electoral college votes and
catapult him to the Presidency.
It is this fact which has me anticipating a degree of vitriol,
finger-pointing and Nader bashing truly beyond anything we have
seen thus far from the Democrats. And I fear that some in the
Nader camp may fall for it, and come to regret their decision to
vote for an alternative to this broken two-party system. But
they shouldn't, and here's why:
Think about this election the way you would any other
competition: perhaps, a football game. Just a few days ago, for
example, I watched as my hometown team, the Tennessee Titans,
beat the Pittsburgh Steelers thanks to a field goal in the
closing seconds of the game. Now, needless to say, if the Titans
kicker misses that field goal, the Steelers win 7-6. If he makes
it, we win 9-7. It would have been easy to say -- and
predictable and even true at one level -- that if Al Del Greco
misses that field goal, he is to blame, and the outcome was the
result of that missed kick.
But then again, one could also look back at the entire game and
find a number of other things, which, had the Titans done them
right, the game wouldn't have come down to that kick in the
first place, and so those things could just as logically be seen
as the problem. An interception at a crucial moment, a fumble,
or a penalty flag that hurt an offensive drive. Any one of those
things goes differently, and the Titans have more than enough
points at the end of the game, and don't need the 3 points that
Del Greco can give them. They can just run out the clock and hit
the showers as winners.
The same is true in the presidential contest. Sure, if Nader
isn't running, a plurality of his voters goes to Gore, and he
wins Florida. But taking that singular fact to be the key
factor, and making it, in effect, the missed field goal by Gore
as the clock runs out, is silly. There were, as with the Titans
game, plenty of other factors that could have and should have
gone Gore's way in Florida, but because they didn't, Nader
became a factor. And whose fault is that?
Consider this: Gore lost in Florida among white women (many of
those soccer moms who Clinton carried, and many of whom would
normally have been reached by a Democratic candidate talking
about education, health care, abortion, and other key issues) by
a 52-45 margin, with the Nader factor being negligible among
this group. And he lost among seniors, a group that rightly
should have been concerned about Bush's plans to partially
privatize social security: a plan that twelve years ago rendered
Pierre DuPont (the only Republican willing to float the concept)
an asterisk in American political history, and a laughingstock.
Here too, among the traditionally Democratic constituency of
seniors, the Nader factor was negligible.
Even more to the point, Bush received the votes of 12 times more
Democrats than Nader did, and 5.25 times more self-identified
liberals than Nader did in Florida, indicating that progressive
voters and those who might have been seen as a natural lock for
Gore, actually were stolen not by the Greens, but by the
Republicans.
Now folks, when your base is more likely to vote for George W.
Bush than Ralph Nader, this not only is bad news for Nader, but
also makes quite clear that Gore -- not Nader -- is to blame for
his loss in Florida. In all, 19 percent of voters there
described themselves as liberal. If Nader got 3 percent of
these, this represents a little less than 6/10ths of the overall
popular vote that could have been "taken" from Gore by Nader
voters on the left: those who are being blamed for Gore's
defeat. But if 16 percent of liberals voted for Bush (which they
did, for some reason), this represents 3 percent of the total
popular vote "stolen" from Gore by Bush voters on the left. That
3 percent is more than the Nader total in Florida, which was 2
percent.
The same thing happened in Oregon, where Bush outpolled Nader
among Democrats by a margin of 3.5 to 1, and where Bush took 43
percent more of the self-described liberals than Nader. And in
New Hampshire, where Bush took six times more Dems from Gore
than Nader did, and twice as many self-described liberals.
What all this means is simple: Al Gore has no one to blame but
himself, and his inability to rally voters sufficiently around
his watered-down agenda and lackluster campaign. Gore actually
lost nationwide among voters who said they prioritized world
affairs, despite the fact that Bush would be hard-pressed to
name a small fraction of world leaders, and has no foreign
policy experience whatsoever. And just to make clear that Nader
was not Gore's Achilles heel, consider this: nationally, Bush
got twice as many self-described liberals as Nader did, over
seven times more Clinton voters than Nader did, and among those
who said "government should do more" (a typically
liberal/progressive position statement), Bush took eight times
more of these natural Democratic voters than did Nader.
Of course, it should not be necessary to say any of this. It
should be obvious that when an incumbent Vice-President, in an
administration that is generally given high marks for the state
of the economy, and who serves in time of relative world peace,
can't defeat a man who is probably the least qualified, weakest
Republican nominee in the past 36 years, there is something
amiss -- and it isn't the third party candidate.
Keep in mind, 66 percent of the American public says the nation
is on the right track. That is significantly more than said this
same thing in 1996, when only a little over half felt that way.
And yet, when almost half the population thought the nation was
not headed in the right direction, Bill Clinton was able to put
together a landslide victory. Meanwhile, Gore, with two-thirds
of the public happy about the direction of the country, appears
to have lost. How could that possibly be the fault of Ralph
Nader?
And of course, had Gore carried his own home state, along with
either Clinton's home state of Arkansas or the traditional
Democratic stronghold of West Virginia, then Florida would be an
irrelevancy.
But don't look for that kind of honesty from the Democratic
Party, or Democrat-friendly spinmeisters in the media. When in
doubt, they always look left for a scapegoat, when the real
culprit for their troubles is looking back at them from the
mirror.
So don't believe the hype. If you voted for Nader, don't feel
guilty or conflicted for one minute. And don't mourn, organize!
After all, the next President of the United States will be the
weakest in decades, unable to get away with the right-wing plans
about which we have been warned. And the Democrats, though we
might not have actually cost them the election, have been put on
notice. They can no longer ignore the voices of those committed
to democratic (small-d) principles.
You might as well blame the 100 million non-voters, any few
thousand of them in a select few states could have changed the
outcome... IF you knew in advance which states, and which
amounts. That over HALF the Nader supporters held their noses at
the last minute and voted for Gore, which INSURED Gore's victory
(Gore DID win, or don't you agree?), means that Nader supporters
helped GORE WIN. YOU'RE WELCOME, INGRATE!
The Greens have been shouting to the Dems NOT to roll over and
cave in to the Repubs on everything, but the Dems refused to
listen, over and over.
THEY, the Dems, are the guilty ones, NOT the messengers who were
ignored.
But you go on blaming the victim who fights for the good, and
ignore the co-dependent "lesser" evil ones who "enable" the
greater evil to have its way. I don't hear you
chastising Lieberman or the dozens of other gung-ho Dems on this
one, or who OK'd Ashcroft and the gang.
I addressed this in 2000, you illogical defective, but you are
incapable of getting off your knee-jerk mantra and seeing its
inherent absurdity:
If you've been reading campaign polemics, or watching the
beltway pundits, or even if you've merely hinted to people that
you're "thinking of" voting for Ralph Nader for president,
you've been exposed to the "slogans of fear":
1. A Vote For Nader Is A Vote For Bush. (AVFNIAVFB)
2. Nader is just a Spoiler. (He's "siphoning" votes from Al
Gore.)
3. A Vote for Nader is a "Wasted" Vote. (He CAN'T win, so you're
throwing away your vote.)
Has anybody NOT been exposed to at least one of these claims?
I am here to immunize you against such infectious nonsense!
1. A Vote For Nader Is A Vote For Bush.
NO. A vote for Nader is a vote FOR NADER. A Nader vote doesn't
add a single vote to Bush's total vote count; he'll still need
the same number of votes to beat Gore as if you didn't vote at
all. After all, a vote for Nader doesn't deduct a vote from
Gore's total count either. And many of Nader's votes will be
coming from independents and non-voters who weren't planning to
vote for Gore OR Bush anyway. Unless their turnout for Nader is
so great that Ralph actually wins, their votes, just like the
non-voters who stay home, will NOT change the Bush-Gore totals
one bit.
Frankly, the Democrat and Republican leaders don't care if you
vote or not; the fewer people who vote, the fewer people they
have to go after. That over 100 million eligible voters will
probably NOT be voting this November doesn't seem to bother them
one bit. Why not?
Our analysis is that the Demicans and Republicrats are REALLY a
Corporate Uniparty Duopoly, a cash-milking, patronage-doling,
re-election protection machine that supports the status quo. In
this regard, a vote for Gore is a vote for Bush, and a vote for
Gush is a vote for Bore, and a vote for Tweedledumb is a vote
for Tweedledumber. The Uniparty OWNS both Bush AND Gore, so, in
their view, it's a done deal ---they've already won!
To quote columnist Alexander Cockburn: "A vote for Nader is a
vote for revitalizing the system and breaking the iron ceiling
of the current one party with two heads."
2. Nader is just a Spoiler, "Siphoning" votes from Al Gore.
Now, if you are a Democrat or Republican, please don't take this
personally; it is not directed at you, but at the party
leadership that takes YOU for granted, just as they take whole
blocs of people for granted. For example, if you are an
environmentalist, or a union member, or a teacher, or black, the
Democrat leadership has already added YOUR vote to their column.
After all, they cynically figure, where else can you go? In
their minds, they already OWN YOUR VOTE!
How dare the party bosses and their media apologists assume that
Gore or Bush OWNS your vote, that Nader is somehow STEALING or
SIPHONING votes away like a gasoline thief during the gas
shortage!
NOBODY owns your vote... NOBODY! Each candidate should get votes
the old-fashioned way -- they must EARN them, and give you a
POSITIVE reason to vote for THEM, not just tell you that the
other guy is too scary to let win. They must learn that they
CAN'T take YOUR vote for granted. IF Gore is failing to win
votes, that's Gore's fault... not yours... and not Ralph's.
Some argue that Bush is so horrible that even if Gore is merely
a little less horrible, we should vote for "the Log," JUST to
keep "the Shrub" out of the Executive Mansion. That's the
lesser-of-two-evils rationale. But that strategy just gets you
disappointment (and the "evil of two lessers") over and over
again.
To hell with the least bad! Some of us are voting for the GOOD.
But let's be practical. Let's say you lived in New York State,
as I do. If everyone I could physically contact in New York and
get to vote for Nader DID vote for Nader... and if all their
relatives and friends, and all THEIR relatives and friends, also
vote for Nader... George W. Bush will STILL not win New York's
electoral votes.
In 1996, I voted for Nader, and Bob Dole did NOT win New York
State... in spite of my vote. If YOU were to vote for Ralph
Nader this November in New York, YOU would not tip New York to
George W. Bush. YOU would not be responsible for putting either
Bush or Gore in the White House; THAT will be up to a mere
handful of too-close-to-call states in the midwest. There is
NOTHING you can do about THAT by your vote HERE in New York.
3. A Vote for Nader is a "Wasted" Vote. (He CAN'T win, so you're
throwing away your vote.)
There are actually 51 elections, one in each state plus DC.
According to conventional thinking, Gore "can't" win Idaho (or
Wyoming, or Texas, for example), so you'd be wasting your Idaho
vote by casting it for Gore. Likewise, Gore couldn't lose
Massachusetts if he appeared at the debates in a miniskirt. He
wouldn't need your vote in Massachusetts, and you'd be "wasting"
a perfectly good vote by voting for Gore. In those states, and
ALL the others that Gore CAN'T lose or CAN'T win, why not vote
for Nader and let that vote stand FOR something!
One, you'll feel better that you didn't hold your nose to vote
for the lesser evil, the least worst. To quote John Quincy
Adams: "Always vote for a principle though you vote alone, and
you may cherish the sweet reflection that your vote is never
lost."
Two, you'll send a message that says NOBODY owns your vote and
you'll NEVER be taken for granted by any candidate or party
again.
Three, it's a vote for optimism. Vote your hopes, not your
fears. You'll help establish a viable progressive party, with
federal matching funds for future presidential elections, and
Green ballot lines in most states, and Green candidates running
for almost every office to give everyone a choice other than the
Corporate Uniparty Duopoly.
So, to sum up:
1. A Vote for Nader is a Vote... FOR NADER.
2. Your Vote belongs to Nobody but... YOU. Make each candidate
EARN it.
3. Why Vote for the least worst? Why not Vote for... the GOOD!
Conservatives Against Conservation
> Conservatives Against Conservation wrote:
> >
> > In article <AXouc.15742$Tn6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, torr...@hotmail.com says...
> > > If Ralph Nader is on the ballot, I will vote for him.
> > > A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush with a brain.
> > >
> > > "Conservatives Against Conservation" <n...@spammer.com> wrote in message
> > > news:MPG.1b23bb28b...@netnews.comcast.net...
> > > > In article <_Kouc.15732$Tn6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > > kma...@earthlink.net says...
> > > > >
> > > > > Then why does Kerry STILL have essentially the same policy as Bush on the
> > > > > war--"stay the course," etc., add more troops, no date for a U.S.
> > > > > withdrawal, etc. There is no meaningful difference between Kerry and Bush on
> > > > > the war. The only serious alternative for opponents of the war is to vote
> > > > > for Ralph Nader, who calls for U.S. withdrawal within six months. See the
> > > > > following:
> > > >
> > > > There is nothing serious about Nader's campaign, he will NEVER be president.
> > > > If you vote for him, seriously, you are helping Bush win, who is an idiot
> > > > who cannot make the intelligent decisions to get us out of Iraq. In fact,
> > > > Bush regards intellectuals with disdain, preferring the cowboy approach to
> > > > world "leadership" - with predictable results.
> > >
> > You're going help elect Bush, then. Who did you vote for last election?
> > Do we have you to thank?
>
> $1000 to you if you can prove that MY vote for Nader in New York
> State in 2000 'helped elect Bush'!
>
William Kaufman
and Bush. I just proved to you that on the war, the most pivotal issue of
this campaign, there is no difference. Yet you keep ranting "vote Kerry"
like a windup doll, even after it's been proved to you that the differences
between the candidates are nonexistent on such a crucial issue--and many
others as well.
Are you immune to facts?
"Conservatives Against Conservation" <n...@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b23da339...@netnews.comcast.net...
torresD
Tim Russert, on Meet The Press, asked Kerry if he agreed
with Bush standing with Ariel Sharon and Kerry answered yes,
he does.
Kerry gave Kudos to Ariel Sharon and Bush's standing backing of
Ariel Sharon.
Kerry wants to keep troops in Iraq, and internationalize the war.
Which just means he thinks that Germany, France, etc.,
will listen to him.
Kerry wants to keep our troops in Iraq,
Nader wants to bring our troops home.
"William Kaufman" <kma...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:s_quc.15846$Tn6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Conservatives Against Conservation
> Your presupposition is that there is an important difference between Kerry
> and Bush. I just proved to you that on the war, the most pivotal issue of
> this campaign, there is no difference. Yet you keep ranting "vote Kerry"
> like a windup doll, even after it's been proved to you that the differences
> between the candidates are nonexistent on such a crucial issue--and many
> others as well.
> Are you immune to facts?
>
crap from old man Nader himself with his stupid tweedle-dum
tweedle-dee line in 2000. If you can't see the difference
between Bush and Gore or Kerry you must your head way, way
up there where the Sun doesn't shine. The fact is, Bush is
incompetent, Kerry is not, so why help Bush get elected?
Team Caldwell
> In article <2hquc.15818$Tn6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
torr...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> > "Conservatives Against Conservation"
> >
> > Who did you vote for last election?
> >
> > RALPH NADER.
> >
> >
> >
> Bush in office.
yes. and thank you to nader voters.
it gave us (at least) 4 years of bush!
:)
whit
Do you feel responsible for the
> unnecessary deaths of hundreds of our nation's
> men & women at the hands of idiot Bush? I'm sure
> they all appreciate it.
>
> Maybe you enjoy having a former lead industry
> lobbyist as the DOI secretary. Do you really think
> Kerry will pull this kind of crap?
>
> Gimme a break
>
>
Steve Krulick
Moving the goal posts, I see! YOU brought up the LAST election!
YOU seem to claim YOU have US to thank for Bush! Let's deal with
THAT first! IF you can't prove that my vote for Nader in 2000
"gave us Bush" then how can you claim that it will "help elect
Bush" in 2004? Is there ANY indication that the vote in NY will
be any closer in 2004 than in 2000? Did Bush's failure to
protect NYC, and then renegging on promises to help NYC and the
first responders who suffered there, garner him MORE or LESS
support here?
No, the burden is FIRST on you to substantiate your bogus claims
re 2000, THEN for YOU to PROVE, with logic, numbers, or ANYTHING
other than your mere blatant assertion and big lie technique,
that MY vote in NY for Nader will "hurt Kerry vs Bush"
particularly as Kerry NEVER had my vote anyway! (Besides, you
are asking me to prove a negative! Sorry, strawslinger, but the
burden is on YOU to prove YOUR silly claim!) IF I don't vote for
Nader, I'll probably find some other third party candidate, or
I'll stay home! How come I don't hear you blaming the 100
million NON-voters for Bush? Why aren't you blaming those who
voted for Monica Morehead in Florida?
No, you are obsessed with Nader, because you can't accept the
TRUTH about the election, which is that GORE actually WON, then
he wimped out on his own supporters, and that millions of Nader
supporters actually DID hold their noses and vote FOR GORE at
the last minute, thus securing the very win he threw away!
Thanks, ingrate!
I address all THAT in my post too, but YOU are too much of an
ignorant coward to deal with it, but I'll give you another
chance anyway; I bet you fail to deal with it again!:
$1000 to you if you can prove that MY vote for Nader in New York
State in 2000 'helped elect Bush'!
Sigh, another math-and-logic-challenged dolt.
William Kaufman
> crap from old man Nader himself with his stupid tweedle-dum
> tweedle-dee line in 2000. If you can't see the difference
> between Bush and Gore or Kerry you must your head way, way
> up there where the Sun doesn't shine. The fact is, Bush is
> incompetent, Kerry is not, so why help Bush get elected?
Please stop your irrational ad hominem ranting long enough to calmly and
rationally address the FACTS in the following article"
The New York Times, May 26, 2004
THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE
Candidates' Iraq Policies Share Many Similarities
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and RICHARD W. STEVENSON
WASHINGTON, May 25 - When it comes to Iraq, it is getting harder every day
William Kaufman
"Conservatives Against Conservation" > I voted for Gore. You and your
dreamers helped put
> Bush in office. Do you feel responsible for the
> unnecessary deaths of hundreds of our nation's
> men & women at the hands of idiot Bush? I'm sure
> they all appreciate it.
>
> Maybe you enjoy having a former lead industry
> lobbyist as the DOI secretary. Do you really think
> Kerry will pull this kind of crap?
>
> Gimme a break
Some more facts for another Democratic Party dupe.
1. The Democrats had enough votes to filibuster and thus block EVERY ONE of
Bush's cabinet appontments, including Ashcroft and Norton, but they lay down
and rolled over, as usual, just as they did when a Democratic-controlled
Senate confirmed Scalia's nomination to the Supreme Court 98-0 (and Clarence
Thomas's, too!)
2. Gore supported the idea of invading Iraq MANY MONTHS before the war
began, thus giving the lie to his current demagogic "critique" of the Bush
administration, a critique that does not even call for the withdrawal of a
single U.S. soldier! Here's the proof that Gore supported the war from the
beginning and would have followed the same course had he been president:
Here are the significant callouts from Gore's 2002 prowar, pro-Bush speech
to the Council on Foreign Relations:
1. Gore supports Bush's warmongering "axis of evil" speech:
>"Since the State of the Union, there has been much discussion of
> >whether Iraq, Iran and North Korea truly constitute an 'Axis of Evil.'
> >As far as I'm concerned, there really is something to be said for
> >occasionally putting diplomacy aside and laying one's cards on the
> >table. There is value in calling evil by its name.
> >"One should never underestimate the power of bold words coming from a
> >President of the United States. Jimmy Carter's espousal of human
> >rights as an integral part of American foreign policy was in truth the
> >crucial first step towards the democratic transformation of Latin
> >America. And Ronald Reagan's blast against 'the evil empire' was a
> >pivotal moment reminding everyone that there was more at issue in the
> >struggle between east and west than a contest for power."
2. Gore supported the idea of war on Iraq--IN 2002, WELL BEFORE THE WAR
STARTED!
> >"Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist
> >networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that
> >could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these
> >governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by
> >itself: Iraq.
> >"As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government
> >should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is
> >not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we
> >will finish the matter on our terms. But finishing it on our terms
> >means more than a change of regime in Iraq. It means thinking through
> >the consequences of action there on our other vital interests,
> >including the survival in office of Pakistan's leader; avoiding a huge
> >escalation of violence in the Middle East; provision for the security
> >and interests of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf States; having a
> >workable plan for preventing the disintegration of Iraq into chaos;
> >and sustaining critically important support within the present
coalition.
> >
> >"In 1991, I crossed party lines and supported the use of force against
> >Saddam Hussein, but he was allowed to survive his defeat as the result
> >of a calculation we all had reason to deeply regret for the ensuing
> >decade. And we still do. So this time, if we resort to force, we must
> >absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on
> >the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option,
> >which means that we must be prepared to go the limit. And wishful
> >thinking based on best-case scenarios or excessively literal transfers
> >of recent experience to different conditions would be a recipe for
> >disaster."
Here's the entire speech:
A Commentary on the War Against Terror: Our Larger Tasks
> >http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=4343
> >By Al Gore
> >
> >I am grateful to be back before the Council on Foreign Relations and I
> >want to congratulate Les Gelb and the entire Council - its staff and
> >its members - on the great work you have been doing to deepen our
> >understanding of America's role in the world.
> >
> >A lot of people have let me know they wished I had been speaking out
> >on public affairs long before now. But in the aftermath of a very
> >divisive election, I thought it would be graceless to do so and
> >possibly damaging to the nation.
> >
> >And then came September 11th.
> >
> >In the immediate aftermath, I expressed full support for our
> >Commander-in-Chief, President George W. Bush. Tonight I reaffirm that
> >support of the President's conduct of the military campaign in
> >Afghanistan, and I appreciate his candor in telling the American
> >people that this will be a long struggle - for which the nation must
> >be braced and its political leadership united across party lines.
> >
> >Indeed, President Bush deserves tremendous credit for the way he has
> >led the nation in a highly successful opening counter-attack in the
> >war against terror.
> >
> >All Americans are proud of our nation's triumph -- and especially
> >proud of the courage and skill that our armed forces have demonstrated
> >in winning swift and decisive victories. Our men and women in uniform
> >have shown uncommon valor and the highest levels of dedication,
> >professionalism and preparedness in responding to this enormous
> >challenge. They have proved they are up to the task and I know they
> >will continue to protect and defend us in the coming stages of the
> >military campaign as well.
> >
> >If yesterday marked the five month anniversary of the darkest day in
> >American history, today - the Day After - must mark the anniversary of
> >one of the greatest days in American history: because on September 12,
> >a bruised and battered nation began to fight back. Some fought back by
> >rushing to aid and rescue the few surviving victims of the tragedy -
> >and to aid and comfort the grieving and bereaved. Here in this city,
> >even this today, remains are still being removed from the World Trade
> >Center site.
> >
> >Some fought back by reporting to reserve units or shipping out for
> >extended tours of duty. And still others reported for duty on the
> >front lines of our homeland defense as firefighters, police, nurses,
> >border patrol, and others whose courage and sacrifices are admired and
> >appreciated now more than ever.
> >
> >The Axis of Evil
> >
> >I also support the President's stated goals in the next phases of the
> >war against terrorism as he laid them out in the State of the Union.
> >What I want to talk about tonight are the fundamental, strategic
> >questions before us as a nation. What are the next steps in the war
> >against terrorism? And beyond immediate next steps, what is the
> >longer-range plan of action? And finally, what should be done to deal
> >with root causes of this threat?
> >
> >Since the State of the Union, there has been much discussion of
> >whether Iraq, Iran and North Korea truly constitute an "Axis of Evil."
> >As far as I'm concerned, there really is something to be said for
> >occasionally putting diplomacy aside and laying one's cards on the
> >table. There is value in calling evil by its name.
> >
> >One should never underestimate the power of bold words coming from a
> >President of the United States. Jimmy Carter's espousal of human
> >rights as an integral part of American foreign policy was in truth the
> >crucial first step towards the democratic transformation of Latin
> >America. And Ronald Reagan's blast against "the evil empire" was a
> >pivotal moment reminding everyone that there was more at issue in the
> >struggle between east and west than a contest for power.
> >
> >As important as identifying Iraq, Iran and North Korea for what they
> >are, we must be equally bold in identifying other evils that confront
> >us. For there is another Axis of Evil in the world: poverty and
> >ignorance; disease and environmental disorder; corruption and
> >political oppression. We may well put down terror in its present
> >manifestations. But if we do not attend to the larger fundamentals as
> >well, then the ground is fertile and has been seeded for the next
> >generation of those born to hate us, who will hold these things up
> >before the world's poor and dispossessed, and say that all these
> >things are in our image, and rekindle the war we are now hoping to
> >snuff out.
> >
> >"Draining the swamp" of terrorism must of course in the first instance
> >mean destroying the ability of terrorist networks to function. But
> >drying it up at its source must also mean draining the aquifer of
> >anger that underlies terrorism: anger that enflames the hearts of so
> >many young men, and makes them willing, dedicated recruits for terror.
> >Anger at perceived historical injustices involving a mass-memory
> >throughout the Islamic world of past glory and more recent centuries
> >of decline and oppression at the hands of the West.
> >
> >Anger at the cynicism of Western policy during the Cold War: often
> >aligning itself with corrupt and tyrannical governments. And even
> >after all that, anger at the continued failure to thrive, as rates of
> >economic growth stagnate, while the cohort of unemployed young men
> >under twenty continues to increase.
> >
> >This is anger different than the pure evil represented by terrorists,
> >but anger nonetheless -- anger which is the medium on which the
> >impulse to terrorism thrives. The evil we now confront is not just the
> >one-time creation of a charismatic leader and his co-conspirators, or
> >even of a handful of regimes. What we deal with now is today's
> >manifestation of an anger welling up from deep layers of grievance
> >shared by many millions of people.
> >
> >Military force alone cannot deal with this. Public diplomacy alone
> >cannot drain this reservoir. What will be needed is a far reaching
> >American strategy for encouraging reform, and for engaging day in and
> >day out with societies that are trying to cast off the curse of bitter
> >experience relived continuously. Hope for the future is the only way
> >to put out these fires.
> >
> >What is "evil" anyway? I do not pretend to have the answer to such a
> >question but my faith tradition teaches me that all of us have the
> >potential inside of us for both good and evil. Indeed, the first
> >example of murderous violence in the Bible is the story of the two
> >sons of Adam and Eve. With slight differences, it is the same story
> >told in Chapter five, verses 27 through 31 of "Sura" in the Koran,
> >where Muslims read that both Cain and Abel "offered an offering, but
> >it was accepted from one of them and was not accepted from the other."
> >Feeling disrespected by God, Cain said to his brother, "I will most
> >certainly slay you... then his mind facilitated to him the slaying of
> >his brother, so he slew him; then he became one of the losers."
> >
> >Disrespect, the feeling that what one has to offer in life has been
> >rejected, the feeling that one has joined history's losers can make us
> >as human beings more vulnerable to evil.
> >
> >Conservative theologian Michael Novak wrote recently of America's
> >founders' view that, "there is evil in the world and it coagulates, it
> >gathers force, and if it bursts its bounds endangers everybody." In a
> >brilliant essay that was otherwise full of praise for President Bush's
> >actions in the war against terror, Novak concluded with an important
> >caution: "The word 'evil', when used only of others, can intoxicate
> >the user before he knows it. I commend to him [the President], and all
> >of us, [Reinhold] Neibuhr's pregnant warning: 'the final enigma of
> >history is therefore not how the righteous will gain victory over the
> >un-righteous, but how the evil in every good and the un-righteousness
> >of the righteous is to be overcome.'"
> >
> >We must also expand our idea of what constitutes a threat to our
> >security in the long run, and be prepared to confront and deal with
> >these things, too. It is time to accept that massive environmental
> >disorder including global warming is literally a threat to
> >international peace and stability. We must finally develop
> >alternatives to mid-eastern oil, internal combustion engines,
> >inefficient boilers and the inertia that has paralyzed needed efforts
> >at conservation.
> >
> >HIV/AIDS is a national security threat. It is now the most deadly
> >pandemic in the history of the world. U.S. leadership is needed.
> >
> >We must acknowledge that the utter poverty of hundreds of millions of
> >people is not a matter for compassion only, but a threat in the long
> >term to the growth and vigor of the global economic system. We must
> >see it as a part of our charge to help create economic opportunity so
> >that the gap between the richest and poorest does not grow ever wider.
> >
> >Globalized crime is a cousin to globalized terror, and along with
> >corruption needs to be dealt with as an urgent threat to civil society.
> >
> >Our most important immediate task is to continue to tear up the Al
> >Qaeda network, and since it is present in many countries, it will be
> >an operation, which requires new forms of sustained cooperation with
> >other governments.
> >
> >Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist
> >networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that
> >could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these
> >governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by
> >itself: Iraq.
> >
> >As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government
> >should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is
> >not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we
> >will finish the matter on our terms. But finishing it on our terms
> >means more than a change of regime in Iraq. It means thinking through
> >the consequences of action there on our other vital interests,
> >including the survival in office of Pakistan's leader; avoiding a huge
> >escalation of violence in the Middle East; provision for the security
> >and interests of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf States; having a
> >workable plan for preventing the disintegration of Iraq into chaos;
> >and sustaining critically important support within the present
coalition.
> >
> >In 1991, I crossed party lines and supported the use of force against
> >Saddam Hussein, but he was allowed to survive his defeat as the result
> >of a calculation we all had reason to deeply regret for the ensuing
> >decade. And we still do. So this time, if we resort to force, we must
> >absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on
> >the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option,
> >which means that we must be prepared to go the limit. And wishful
> >thinking based on best-case scenarios or excessively literal transfers
> >of recent experience to different conditions would be a recipe for
> >disaster.
> >
> >But still, the question remains - what next? Is Iran under the
> >hard-liners less of a proliferation threat than Iraq? Or less involved
> >with terrorism? If anything, Iran is at this moment a much more
> >dangerous challenge in each area than Iraq. Iran is flight-testing
> >longer range rockets. Iran has loaded up at least one merchant ship
> >with a cargo of death for Israel.
> >
> >The vast majority of the Iranian people seem to disagree with the
> >policies and actions of the small group of mullahs now in control of
> >their military and intelligence apparatus. We have to deal with that
> >nation's actions as they take place. In the process, however, we
> >should find ways to encourage the majority who obviously wish to
> >develop a more constructive relationship with us.
> >
> >On the Korean peninsula, unlike in the previous two cases, we have a
> >strong ally in South Korea. It is not enough to call North Korea what
> >it is - evil. We need to continue to keep the peace by remaining ready
> >for war, as we have for almost fifty years. We also need to work with
> >President Kim Dae Jung and the government in the Republic of Korea to
> >galvanize positive action on the peninsula. Throughout the 1990s we
> >proved that a creative, sustained program could help move the North
> >Korean regime in new directions. Such creativity and commitment to
> >addressing our interests in Korea are needed more than ever now.
> >
> >And supposing even that we could eliminate the threat presented by the
> >"Axis of Evil?" at what point, can the United States declare that the
> >job is done, and leave the scene? Here, a too narrow definition of the
> >threat, and a too limited assessment of its causes, can lead us into
> >trouble.
> >
> >It is important that America not just stand tall against terrorists,
> >but America must also stand for economic opportunity and democratic
> >freedoms. America must stand for human rights. America must stand
> >forthe rights of women. America must stand for environmental
> >protection and energy conservation.
> >
> >Unilateralism and hubris
> >
> >The Administration in which I served looked at the challenges we faced
> >in the world and said we wished to tackle these "With others, if
> >possible; alone, if we must." This Administration sometimes seems
> >inclined to stand that on its head, so that the message is: "With
> >others, if we must; by ourselves, if possible."
> >
> >The coalition so skillfully assembled by the President is one that may
> >dissipate as rapidly as it coalesced, unless we make an investment in
> >its permanence, beginning with a more evident respect on our part for
> >the views and interests of its members. As regards our most important
> >established alliance, NATO, we convey impatience and disdain for the
> >military capabilities of its other members, and little patience for
> >their views about longer-term objectives.
> >
> >Maybe they have earned a good deal of that by their failure to invest
> >in capabilities they only talk about; maybe some of them have been
> >much too ready to believe that the best way to deal with dangerous
> >forces is always to engage them in dialogue. Maybe some of them have
> >bought peace for themselves by not looking too hard for terrorists who
> >plot against us on their soil, so long as their plans did not disturb
> >domestic tranquility.
> >
> >But we need them with us - and equally for sure, we cannot bind them
> >to us for fierce battle over the long term if we take them lightly. We
> >may be the world's sole remaining super-power but we are going to need
> >allies. In Greek mythology, Hercules was the super-power of his day,
> >but when he faced his most dangerous foe, the multi-headed Hydra which
> >- like the terrorist networks of today - grew two new heads every time
> >one was cut off - he had to build a coalition. Uncharacteristically he
> >teamed up with an ally because it was the only way he could prevail.
> >
> >Continuity of effort
> >
> >One of the truly bad things about our politics is that it incites each
> >administration to attack every last thing its predecessor has done,
> >and to either tear down what was left or rename it so that its
> >parentage can be forgotten. We did some of that - but we also kept a
> >lot of what we inherited from the first Bush administration and we
> >protected it and built upon it. The struggle against terror may last
> >for a very long time, even past a shift of parties in power. You know,
> >the Cold War was won by the cumulative work of administrations from
> >Harry S Truman to George H. W. Bush. And I hope that the present
> >administration chooses to invest in reconstructing a sense of what
> >bipartisanship in the defense of the country is all about: even after
> >the planes land and the guns stop firing.
> >
> >I don't pretend to any received wisdom but I learned a lot from my
> >experience in the Clinton-Gore administration: lessons I think are
> >worth remembering and incorporating into the normal practice of our
> >diplomacy - and of protecting from the vicious rip- tides of our
> >politics. I know from experience that bi-partisanship is no easy
> >matter. It is difficult to go against one's own political base,
> >whether it's a Democrat supporting the MX missile or a Republican
> >trying to cancel an obsolete 70 ton artillery piece.
> >
> >Above all, I learned that our engagement with others on behalf of
> >common values
> >
> >is something that must be of profound intent, and of long duration. It
> >isn't enough to destroy what is evil, and then seek to leave by the
> >nearest door. We must make the commitment to work with those whom we
> >have rescued until they can stand on their own feet.
> >
> >That means supporting an increase in the size of the international
> >security force in Afghanistan and enlarging its mandate beyond Kabul
> >to the whole country. And it means remaining engaged ourselves, if not
> >with a small symbolic presences in the international force on the
> >ground, then at least as on the horizon ready to respond with help
> >from the air when needed.
> >
> >When all is said and done, I hope that when the people of our country
> >next return the White House for a time to the Democratic Party, our
> >leadership then will be big enough to salute the present
> >administration for what it will have done that is wise and good. And
> >to build upon it forthrightly.
> >
> >Towards that end, we must now expand our concept of what is needed to
> >reach the goals upon which we all agree. The United States needs to
> >create a world made more just and more hopeful, not just a world made
> >more profitable for ourselves. I hope that this President's record
> >makes it damn hard for the competition to complain about his record in
> >foreign policy. That may be bad for the loyal opposition. But it's
> >good for the people, who deserve it. And I promise my support for
> >whatever he may do in support of that prayer.
Steve Krulick
>
> In article <2hquc.15818$Tn6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, torr...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> > "Conservatives Against Conservation"
> >
> > Who did you vote for last election?
> >
> > RALPH NADER.
> >
> >
> >
In WHAT state? What difference did THAT vote make? Either your
state was a sure-thing for Gore, or a sure-thing for Bush
(unless you were in a handful of tossup states), so it was a
WASTED vote!
Aren't you embarrassed that YOU man wimped out and didn't fight
for the WIN he GOT? Yep, GORE WON, and he threw in the towel
anyway!
> You and your dreamers helped put
> Bush in office.
False, GoreWhore! You are logically-impaired, and living in
denial!
Try again:
Sigh, another math-and-logic-challenged dolt.
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan2001/2001L-01-24-15.html
So, to sum up:
> Do you feel responsible for the
> unnecessary deaths of hundreds of our nation's
> men & women at the hands of idiot Bush?
No, and that is the old "prisoner's paradox" fallacy! Blame the
messenger or the victim for his own victimization! The blame
lies with those who DID the deed consciously, and was abetted by
those who actually voted for the man, though many didn't realize
it was a bait and switch.
Are those who voted for anyone besides Gore, or for NOBODY at
all, equally "responsible" in your eyes? How about Gore himself,
for offering NO real difference on most issues? For running the
lousiest campaign imaginable? For throwing in the towel? For the
Dems who BACKED nearly ALL the Bush appointees, and voted along
with Repubs on bill after bill, INCLUDING the falsely name
"PATRIOT Act" and the authorization to ignore the war powers of
Congress and let Bush ride roughshod over US and International
Law? Which Greens in Congress did THAT? Oh, that's right, there
aren't any! Say, how did Nader "help elect Bush" in Tennessee,
Gore's OWN state, or Arkansas, the state of a popular sitting
President?
> I'm sure
> they all appreciate it.
I'm sure that you are an illogical scapegoater living in denial,
GoreBot!
> Maybe you enjoy having a former lead industry
> lobbyist as the DOI secretary.
(No, strawslinger, and President Nader wouldn't have appointed
anyone like that!)
But how did THAT happen without DEM complicity? Likewise
Asscroft and the rest?
> Do you really think
> Kerry will pull this kind of crap?
Who knows? He's a Skull & Bones half-billionaire who has already
picked one of the Wolfowitz gang to be a major campaign honcho!
I have NO confidence in Kerry to buck his corporate paymasters;
indeed, a DRAFT is more likely to pass under Kerry than Bush!
Just like Clinton/Gore got NAFTA and welfare deform, which
Reagan/Bush could only wet-dream about!
> Gimme a break
You don't deserve one, GoreWhore! Answer my points first, then
we'll see!
SMITH29
xxxx
Yer bong is over heating.
Remember, suck..... don't blow.
The29
Steve Krulick
>
> "Conservatives Against Conservation" <n...@spammer.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b23d8a5c...@netnews.comcast.net...
> > In article <2hquc.15818$Tn6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> torr...@hotmail.com says...
> > >
> > > "Conservatives Against Conservation"
> > >
> > > Who did you vote for last election?
> > >
> > > RALPH NADER.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I voted for Gore. You and your dreamers helped put
> > Bush in office.
>
> yes. and thank you to nader voters.
Yes. Thanks to MILLIONS of Nader supporters who, at the very
last minute, gave in to Gore propaganda, held their noses, and
voted FOR GORE, so that GORE WON the election! You're welcome,
ingrate!
Yes, and then Gore threw in the towel and turned his back on
those who DID vote for him! HOW does THAT make you feel about
your hero?
> it gave us (at least) 4 years of bush!
NO, that would be the fault of those who VOTED FOR BUSH, and
those who stole the election from the rightful winner, Gore!
Sigh, another math-and-logic-challenged dolt.
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan2001/2001L-01-24-15.html
So, to sum up:
--
Conservatives Against Conservation
>
> "Conservatives Against Conservation" <n...@spammer.com> wrote in message > >
> > You are self-deluded it appears. We've already heard this
> > crap from old man Nader himself with his stupid tweedle-dum
> > tweedle-dee line in 2000. If you can't see the difference
> > between Bush and Gore or Kerry you must your head way, way
> > up there where the Sun doesn't shine. The fact is, Bush is
> > incompetent, Kerry is not, so why help Bush get elected?
>
> Please stop your irrational ad hominem ranting long enough to calmly and
> rationally address the FACTS in the following article"
>
will never win. Take the last shot, this thread sucks.
Team Caldwell
"Steve Krulick" <s...@krulick.com> wrote in message
news:40BA5EDB...@krulick.com...
> Team Caldwell wrote:
> >
> > "Conservatives Against Conservation" <n...@spammer.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1b23d8a5c...@netnews.comcast.net...
> > > In article <2hquc.15818$Tn6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > torr...@hotmail.com says...
> > > >
> > > > "Conservatives Against Conservation"
> > > >
> > > > Who did you vote for last election?
> > > >
> > > > RALPH NADER.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > I voted for Gore. You and your dreamers helped put
> > > Bush in office.
> >
> > yes. and thank you to nader voters.
>
> Yes. Thanks to MILLIONS of Nader supporters who, at the very
> last minute, gave in to Gore propaganda, held their noses, and
> voted FOR GORE, so that GORE WON the election! You're welcome,
> ingrate!
>
bush won.
he's in the white house. deal with it
> Yes, and then Gore threw in the towel and turned his back on
> those who DID vote for him! HOW does THAT make you feel about
> your hero?
>
who do you think is my hero?
it aint bush, it aint gore, and it aint nader
> > it gave us (at least) 4 years of bush!
>
> NO, that would be the fault of those who VOTED FOR BUSH, and
> those who stole the election from the rightful winner, Gore!
>
no, that would be the fault of nader voters.
> $1000 to you if you can prove that MY vote for Nader in New York
> State in 2000 'helped elect Bush'!
>
it didn't.
frankly, NO individual vote can be said, in a strict sense to have won or
lost the election.
furthermore, NY was overwhelmingly a gore state
what i said is NADER VOTERS, ie the GROUP gave bush the electio
hth
> Sigh, another math-and-logic-challenged dolt.
well, when your argument is weak, resort to ad hominems. typical
> 50 million Bush voters, Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, the SCotUS,
> and Gore's incompetence put Bush in the White House.
>
but without nader, and even with gore's incompetence, gore would have won
> All the math, polls, logic, common sense, and other evidence
> that has been presented to date won't move GoreWhores in denial
> from their asinine nonsense position.
>
whereas many honest nader voters admit their strategic error
> Hey, Al From, Mr. DLC himself, has called off the
> Nader-bashing. Take a hint:
>
i'm not nader bashing. i fully support nader. first of all, he offers an
antidote from the dual party rhetoric, and second of all, he (on the whole)
benefits bush not gore
whit
Rev. 11D Meow!
"Team Caldwell" <Cal...@home.net> wrote in message
news:2hv6tfF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> frankly, NO individual vote can be said, in a strict sense to have won or
> lost the election.
>
So true, especially when the voting machines are corrupted by people that
have a special interest in modifying the results in somebody else's favor.
Not to mention the stupidity of the Electoral College in this age of instant
communication, gratification and whatnots.
William Kaufman
than your dopey preconceptions. Nader would win if morons like you would
break free of your sheeplike obsession with how OTHER people are going to
vote and just vote for the most intelligent, best-informed, and most honest
candidate available.
Mr. N
Nader is NONE of those things - and neither are the obnoxious arrogant
pinheads who push his candidacy. You folks are one step up (a small one)
from the LaRouchies at this point.
--
-Mr. N
-------------------------------------------
"I believe that the president's leadership in the actions taken in Iraq
demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience
in making the decisions that would have been necessary to truly accomplish
the mission without the deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers."
"The emperor has no clothes. When are people going to face the reality?
Pull this curtain back."
-Nancy Pelosi, American Patriot
Steve Krulick
>
> "Steve Krulick" <s...@krulick.com> wrote in message
> news:40BA5EDB...@krulick.com...
> > Team Caldwell wrote:
> > >
> > > "Conservatives Against Conservation" <n...@spammer.com> wrote in message
> > > news:MPG.1b23d8a5c...@netnews.comcast.net...
> > > > In article <2hquc.15818$Tn6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > > torr...@hotmail.com says...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Conservatives Against Conservation"
> > > > >
> > > > > Who did you vote for last election?
> > > > >
> > > > > RALPH NADER.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > I voted for Gore. You and your dreamers helped put
> > > > Bush in office.
> > >
> > > yes. and thank you to nader voters.
> >
> > Yes. Thanks to MILLIONS of Nader supporters who, at the very
> > last minute, gave in to Gore propaganda, held their noses, and
> > voted FOR GORE, so that GORE WON the election! You're welcome,
> > ingrate!
> >
>
> bush won.
Bush lost. He stole the White House. He's a thief. Deal with it.
> he's in the white house. deal with it
That doesn't make him any LESS of a crook!
And the guy who hit you over the head, stole your wallet and
car, STILL has YOUR wallet and car. Get over it!
There's no statute of limitation on felonies like this!
> > Yes, and then Gore threw in the towel and turned his back on
> > those who DID vote for him! HOW does THAT make you feel about
> > your hero?
> >
>
> who do you think is my hero?
I was addressing that to the previous poster.
I don't care about YOUR hero at all.
> it aint bush, it aint gore, and it aint nader
Well, isn't THAT special?
> > > it gave us (at least) 4 years of bush!
> >
> > NO, that would be the fault of those who VOTED FOR BUSH, and
> > those who stole the election from the rightful winner, Gore!
> >
>
> no, that would be the fault of nader voters.
Prove it! Use REAL numbers or logic, and IF you start with a
false premise, we'll be sure to let you know!
I've already shown how it is NOT "the fault of Nader voters" but
you can't seem to address that, can you?
The ONLY votes that were tallied in Bush's column were actual
votes FOR BUSH! Voting for Nader (or Morehead, or McReynolds, or
Hagelin, or Buchanan) did NOT show up in Bush's column, nor did
they SUBTRACT any votes from Gore's column! It was identical to
staying at home and NOT voting! So why don't I hear you claiming
and blaming Morehead voters? Or non-voters?
> > $1000 to you if you can prove that MY vote for Nader in New York
> > State in 2000 'helped elect Bush'!
> >
>
> it didn't.
Well, that was the point I was trying to elicit from the
previous poster.
> frankly, NO individual vote can be said, in a strict sense to have won or
> lost the election.
$1000 to you if you can prove that ALL the votes for Nader in
New York, or Texas, or ANY locked state in 2000 "helped elect
Bush"!
Then as I show, even in the NON-"locked" states this can't be
proven.
But Gorewhores in denial want to hold ME and MY individual vote
responsible for Bush "winning" (which he didn't anyway), and
thus for every abuse Bush is responsible for. Read the language.
> furthermore, NY was overwhelmingly a gore state
As I said. Yet the Dems spent as much energy lying about it and
trying to get Nader supporters IN NEW YORK to NOT vote for
Nader, but for Gore, even knowing that it wouldn't change the
final Gore sweep. The goal was to smash the Greens as much as
possible, prevent Nader from getting 5%, and keep the
"AVFNIAVFB" lie going.
> what i said is NADER VOTERS, ie the GROUP gave bush the electio
Still false. Just as illogical as claiming any individual Nader
vote did it! YOU can't prove it with logic! No group "gave" bush
the election, other than those who ACTUALLY voted for BUSH! If
nobody HAD voted for Bush, no amount of Nader votes would have
"given" it to Bush! It wasn't Nader voters to "give" anyway!
> hth
>
> > Sigh, another math-and-logic-challenged dolt.
>
> well, when your argument is weak, resort to ad hominems. typical
IF that were the whole of my argument, but it isn't,
strawslinger. Typical strawman.
The fact is that your argument is NOT based on math OR logic.
Hence my statement, which was originally applied to the previous
poster.
> > 50 million Bush voters, Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, the SCotUS,
> > and Gore's incompetence put Bush in the White House.
> >
>
> but without nader, and even with gore's incompetence, gore would have won
G0RE DID WIN, maroon! Don't you acknowledge that?!!!! How can
you blame Nader for Gore losing, when Gore didn't lose?!!!! AND
as shown, Nader probably HELPED Gore win!
The numbers provided below show that without Nader, in a two-man
race Bush would have likely BEAT GORE unambiguously!
> > All the math, polls, logic, common sense, and other evidence
> > that has been presented to date won't move GoreWhores in denial
> > from their asinine nonsense position.
> >
>
> whereas many honest nader voters admit their strategic error
No, unless they are logic-impaired and have bought into the Dem
propaganda and guilt, needlessly.
Again, MY Nader vote in 1996 didn't put Dole in the WH, or in
2000 put GWB there! *I* voted for the best man in each case, and
would again. There is no proper way to "game" one's vote, as one
simply CAN'T cast a NO vote for the one you don't like, and
first-past-the-post voting is the problem. If Dems WERE serious
about "spoiler" nonsense, they'd have already fixed it where
they could, or fight to fix it elsewhere, by pushing for
approval or instant run-off voting, none-of-the-above voting,
and other improvements to a spoiled system.
> > Hey, Al From, Mr. DLC himself, has called off the
> > Nader-bashing. Take a hint:
> >
>
> i'm not nader bashing.
This was addressed to the previous poster; I merely repeated the
whole post, which is the same post I've been posting for over
three years TO Nader bashers. I don't have time to reinvent the
wheel for each particular crank.
> i fully support nader. first of all, he offers an
> antidote from the dual party rhetoric, and second of all, he (on the whole)
> benefits bush not gore
Again, you are buying into an illogical and unprovable "spoiler"
fantasy belief. It assumes premises with no basis in fact and
mere assertion and illogic. Again, NOBODY starts out with MY
vote or anyone else's! All candidates start with ZERO and have
to build UP from Zero! MY vote for Nader did NOT add a vote to
Bush's column, nor did it TAKE from Gore what he never had! One
could just as (il)logically claim that Gore "took votes away"
from Nader! Or that Bush "siphoned" votes from Gore! Indeed,
without Bush in the race, Gore might have gotten many of "those"
votes and won in a landslide. But that is just as silly and
illogical a concept.
If GORE couldn't prevent 50 million deluded fools from voting
for a cretinous troglodyte, that's GORE'S fault! That he WON and
couldn't even make THAT stick, is HIS fault too!
> whit
Let me know when you feel capable of addressing the rest of my
evidence! Until then, your mere blatant assertions are
worthless.
Steve Krulick
>
> "William Kaufman" <kma...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:ZXuuc.17459$be.1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> > What sucks is your stubborn refusal to be guided by reason and fact rather
> > than your dopey preconceptions. Nader would win if morons like you would
> > break free of your sheeplike obsession with how OTHER people are going to
> > vote and just vote for the most intelligent, best-informed, and most honest
> > candidate available.
>
> Nader is NONE of those things -
So you blatantly opine. Will you argue that Bush (or even Kerry)
is more intelligent, better-informed, and more honest than
Nader? Please try; there may be a job waiting for you at
somebody's campaign HQ if you can make even a passing attempt!
> and neither are the obnoxious arrogant
> pinheads who push his candidacy.
So you blatantly assert with your mere unsubstantiated ad hom
opinion.
> You folks are one step up (a small one)
> from the LaRouchies at this point.
So you blatantly opine. The sheer absence of facts and logic in
your ad hom screed is noted.
Team Caldwell
> "Mr. N" wrote:
> >
> > "William Kaufman" <kma...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:ZXuuc.17459$be.1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > > What sucks is your stubborn refusal to be guided by reason and fact
rather
> > > than your dopey preconceptions. Nader would win if morons like you
would
> > > break free of your sheeplike obsession with how OTHER people are going
to
> > > vote and just vote for the most intelligent, best-informed, and most
honest
> > > candidate available.
> >
> > Nader is NONE of those things -
>
actually, i would agree with the last.
he probably is the most honest.
because he can afford to be. kerry and bush are politicians that actually
have a chance at winning.
thus, like politicians do, they lie, they spin, they evade,etc. when asked
tough questions, or when pushed.
out of perceived necessity
nader doesn't have that necessity because he's got nothing to lose.
as for whether he's the most intelligent. he may be. who cares?
intelligence is not a good indicator of a good president.
perfect example: jimmy carter or nixon. especially carter. VERY smart man.
crappy president
the reason why i wouldn't vote for nader is because of his ideas, ideology,
etc.
nobody should deny he is intelligent, well informed, or (at least
reasonably) honest.
as to whether he is the MOST of the first two. who knows?
whit
William Kaufman
his class at Harvard Law School.
Moreover, your logic is flawed. Superior intelligence does not guarantee a
good president. What you evidently mean to say is that intelligence is a
necessary but not sufficient condition to be a good president. Surely you
wouldn't argue that stupidity is an advantage in such an office? (Or maybe
you would, judging by the logical incoherency of your arguments.)
Finally, Nader is honest because he CHOOSES to be. Honesty has been the
singular hallmark of his entire public career, which has been devoted not to
personal gain but to public-interest activism, to which he has devoted 80
percent of his life's earnings.
Why don't you take a course in elementary logic and then get your facts
straight--and then get back to us.
"Team Caldwell" <Cal...@home.net> wrote in message
news:2hvi9nF...@uni-berlin.de...
Clave
> Nader graduated magna cum laude from Princeton and was the top student in
> his class at Harvard Law School.
>
> Moreover, your logic is flawed. Superior intelligence does not guarantee a
> good president. What you evidently mean to say is that intelligence is a
> necessary but not sufficient condition to be a good president. Surely you
> wouldn't argue that stupidity is an advantage in such an office? (Or maybe
> you would, judging by the logical incoherency of your arguments.)
>
> Finally, Nader is honest because he CHOOSES to be. Honesty has been the
> singular hallmark of his entire public career, which has been devoted not to
> personal gain but to public-interest activism, to which he has devoted 80
> percent of his life's earnings.
>
> Why don't you take a course in elementary logic and then get your facts
> straight--and then get back to us.
Unfortunately, one can be both intelligent and honest, and still be batshit
crazy.
Jim
Team Caldwell
> Nader graduated magna cum laude from Princeton and was the top student in
> his class at Harvard Law School.
>
> Moreover, your logic is flawed. Superior intelligence does not guarantee a
> good president.
which was exactly my point
What you evidently mean to say is that intelligence is a
> necessary but not sufficient condition to be a good president.
who are you responding to?
whit
Mr. N
> > > vote and just vote for the most intelligent, best-informed, and most
honest
> > > candidate available.
> >
> > Nader is NONE of those things -
>
> So you blatantly opine.
Sue me.
> Will you argue that Bush (or even Kerry) is more intelligent,
better-informed, and more honest than
> Nader?
Kerry yes - Bush no.
> Please try; there may be a job waiting for you at
> somebody's campaign HQ if you can make even a passing attempt!
If I were interested in working on anyone's campaign I'm sure I'd have no
trouble getting hired, thanks.
> > and neither are the obnoxious arrogant
> > pinheads who push his candidacy.
>
> So you blatantly assert with your mere unsubstantiated ad hom
> opinion.
And?
> > You folks are one step up (a small one)
> > from the LaRouchies at this point.
>
> So you blatantly opine.
There's that phrase again.
> The sheer absence of facts and logic in
> your ad hom screed is noted.
Sue me.
Steve Krulick
Maybe, but that is hardly proof that any particular person (such
as Nader) IS! Once you define "batshit crazy" and then provide
some evidence that anyone, such as Nader, IS intelligent,
honest, YET "batshit crazy" we will be more impressed with the
relevance of that claim. Maybe.
Steve Krulick
>
> "Steve Krulick" <s...@krulick.com> wrote in message
> news:40BA8B93...@krulick.com...
>
> > > > vote and just vote for the most intelligent, best-informed, and most honest
> > > > candidate available.
> > >
> > > Nader is NONE of those things -
> >
> > So you blatantly opine.
>
> Sue me.
Guffaw! Irrelevant side-step. That you have avoided defending
your blatant assertion by defaulting the argument is duly noted.
> > Will you argue that Bush (or even Kerry) is more intelligent,
> > better-informed, and more honest than
> > Nader?
> Kerry yes - Bush no.
That is not an argument. It is simply more blatant assertion.
Your mere opinion, absent evidence, is still worthless.
> > Please try; there may be a job waiting for you at
> > somebody's campaign HQ if you can make even a passing attempt!
>
> If I were interested in working on anyone's campaign I'm sure I'd have no
> trouble getting hired, thanks.
Not based on the evidence you just failed to present!
Side-stepping the issue doesn't support your claim, nor refute
mine. It is simply defaulting the argument.
> > > and neither are the obnoxious arrogant
> > > pinheads who push his candidacy.
> >
> > So you blatantly assert with your mere unsubstantiated ad hom
> > opinion.
>
> And?
And you've again defaulted the argument.
> > > You folks are one step up (a small one)
> > > from the LaRouchies at this point.
> >
> > So you blatantly opine.
>
> There's that phrase again.
And you've defaulted the argument again.
Do you understand what a blatant assertion is? Are you aware of
the difference between mere personal opinion and objective fact,
and between fallacious illogic and logical argument?
> > The sheer absence of facts and logic in
> > your ad hom screed is noted.
>
> Sue me.
Guffaw! Irrelevant side-step. That you have avoided defending
your blatant assertion by defaulting the argument is duly noted.
Proud of your failure, arrogant in your refusal to defend or
refute, it is clear that you are a waste of time.
Mr. N
> > > So you blatantly opine.
> >
> > Sue me.
>
> Guffaw! Irrelevant side-step.
No, responsive non-sequitur.
> That you have avoided defending your blatant assertion by defaulting the
argument is duly noted.
I'm sorry - were you asking me to defend something?
> > > Will you argue that Bush (or even Kerry) is more intelligent,
> > > better-informed, and more honest than
> > > Nader?
>
> > Kerry yes - Bush no.
>
> That is not an argument. It is simply more blatant assertion.
And?
Damn, you LaRouchie/Naderites are some dense motherfuckers.
Steve Krulick
>
> "Steve Krulick" <s...@krulick.com> wrote in message
> news:40BB4335...@krulick.com...
>
> > > > So you blatantly opine.
> > >
> > > Sue me.
> >
> > Guffaw! Irrelevant side-step.
>
> No, responsive non-sequitur.
Both. The point is that you are avoiding proof of your original
blatant claim and defending it, thus defaulting the argument.
> > That you have avoided defending your blatant assertion by defaulting the
> argument is duly noted.
>
> I'm sorry - were you asking me to defend something?
Yes. Are you so short-term-memory-challenged you don't remember?
Kaufman said:
"Nader would win if morons like you would break free of your
sheeplike obsession with how OTHER people are going to vote and
just vote for the most intelligent, best-informed, and most
honest candidate available."
YOU opined:
> Nader is NONE of those things -
> and neither are the obnoxious arrogant
> pinheads who push his candidacy.
> You folks are one step up (a small one)
> from the LaRouchies at this point.
So, you have blatantly asserted that Nader is neither
intelligent, well-informed, nor honest (or did you mean only
that he is not THE most intelligent, THE best-informed, and THE
most honest candidate available? Either way, you failed to
substantiate your claim.). THAT is what you failed to defend,
along with the following claims that there are "obnoxious
arrogant pinheads" pushing his candidacy (again, are you
claiming that ALL who push his candidacy are "oap"s, or you ONLY
speaking of specific individuals who ARE "oap"s AND push his
candidacy? Either way, you failed to substantiate your claim.).
Likewise, no defense of your claim about "you folks" being one
small step up from the LaRouchies. See, all we have is your mere
opinion, and not a smidgen of support evidence, logic, or
anything like a defense of your argument.
> > > > Will you argue that Bush (or even Kerry) is more intelligent,
> > > > better-informed, and more honest than
> > > > Nader?
> >
> > > Kerry yes - Bush no.
> >
> > That is not an argument. It is simply more blatant assertion.
>
> And?
And therefore you continue to default the argument and fail to
prove your claim.
> Damn, you LaRouchie/Naderites are some dense motherfuckers.
Again, more mere unproved ad hom blatant assertions by you,
merely assuming as true your previous unsubstantiated premise
(linking LaRouche with Nader supporters), and just namecalling
in the face of evidence of your own failure to present a logical
argument or defend your blatant assertions.
Damn, YOU (notice I don't engage in sweeping generalizations and
unproved stereotyping, lumping anyone I disagree with into a
phony, non-existent category!) are ONE dense maroon, aren't you?
Mr. N
> Both. The point is that you are avoiding proof of your original
> blatant claim and defending it, thus defaulting the argument.
What argument is that?
> > I'm sorry - were you asking me to defend something?
>
> Yes. Are you so short-term-memory-challenged you don't remember?
I don't have to rely on memory, it's all in writing. Just scanned back on
the thread - don't see what you are talking about.
> YOU opined:
Uh-huh. You seem to think that this "opining" thing is something bad.
> So, you have blatantly asserted that Nader is neither
> intelligent, well-informed, nor honest
Yes, I do believe that Nader is neither intelligent, well-informed, or
honest.
> Either way, you failed to substantiate your claim.
I don't believe I have any responsibiliy to "substantiate" my opinion. It
happens to be my opinion. Apparently you disagree. God Bless America.
> Likewise, no defense of your claim about "you folks" being one
> small step up from the LaRouchies.
Again - no defense required. Hell, if anything, your continued behavior on
this very thread acts as support alone. I can just sit back and watch.
> See, all we have is your mere opinion, and not a smidgen of support
evidence, logic, or
> anything like a defense of your argument.
And. . .? So what?
> > Damn, you LaRouchie/Naderites are some dense motherfuckers.
>
> Again, more mere unproved ad hom blatant assertions by you
And? So what?
> merely assuming as true your previous unsubstantiated premise
> (linking LaRouche with Nader supporters), and just namecalling
> in the face of evidence of your own failure to present a logical
> argument or defend your blatant assertions.
Who said I was attempting (or even have any desire) to "present a logical
argument" here?
Hello? McFly? Anybody home?
> Damn, YOU (notice I don't engage in sweeping generalizations and
> unproved stereotyping, lumping anyone I disagree with into a
> phony, non-existent category!) are ONE dense maroon, aren't you?
Not really, no, but thanks for playing.
--
-Mr. N
-------------------------------------------
"President Bush said in his speech Monday night that the war in Iraq is "the
central front in the war on terror." It's not the central front in the war
on terror, but it has unfortunately become the central recruiting office for
terrorists. [Dick Cheney said, "This war may last the rest of our lives.]
The unpleasant truth is that President Bush's utter incompetence has made
the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat
of terrorism against the United States. "
-Former Vice-President Al Gore, speech at New York Univeristy, May 26, 2004
William Kaufman
>
> Yes, I do believe that Nader is neither intelligent, well-informed, or
> honest.
>
> > Either way, you failed to substantiate your claim.
>
> I don't believe I have any responsibiliy to "substantiate" my opinion. It
> happens to be my opinion. Apparently you disagree. God Bless America.
>
Opinions are like assholes--everyone has one. It's much harder to summon
facts. You have an abundance of the former and zero of the latter on this
point--the very definition of an opnionated blowhard whose remarks are worth
exactly what you bring to them in the way of facts to support your
"opinions": zero.
Mr. N
> Opinions are like assholes--everyone has one. It's much harder to summon
> facts. You have an abundance of the former and zero of the latter on this
> point--the very definition of an opnionated blowhard whose remarks are
worth
> exactly what you bring to them in the way of facts to support your
> "opinions": zero.
Mr. N
> Opinions are like assholes--everyone has one. It's much harder to summon
> facts. You have an abundance of the former and zero of the latter on this
> point--the very definition of an opnionated blowhard whose remarks are
worth
> exactly what you bring to them in the way of facts to support your
> "opinions": zero.
http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm
Ralph Nader has done a lot of good for consumers. He has also led attacks on
such evils as Volkswagen cars, the American Automobile Association, whole
milk, colored toilet paper, fluoridated water, and the Elvis stamp. Through
it all he has manipulated the press brilliantly and built himself a
comfortable and powerful niche without need for election, even within his
own consumer groups.
4 years after he unquestionably tipped the 2000 Presidential election to
George W. Bush, Nader refuses to admit that or take any kind of
responsibility, and he's planning to run again. This time though even the
Green party is getting sick of him.
For 30 years, Ralph Nader has proclaimed himself to be "Saint Ralph", the
only honest man in Washington, and the only friend of the average citizen.
If that doesn't make you puke already, then click on the allegation of your
choice:
a HUGE hypocrite -- just another politician -- Anti-democratic
authoritarian -- secret luxury house -- owned by the trial lawyers' lobby --
busted a union among his workers -- abuses workers -- amassing millions of
dollars and playing the stock market with it -- secrecy and stonewalling --
vindictive toward critics -- forced "contributions" to his college PIRG
groups -- hypochondriac -- Quotes -- Sources.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Quotes:
"[Nader] doesn't want to be a Green, he runs with his coterie rather than
party organizers, he doesn't involve local Green leaders and he doesn't get
the racial issue. I fear if Nader runs, he'll drag down every other Green in
this country." -- John Rensenbrink, editor of "Green Horizon Quarterly"
"Big business never pays a nickel in taxes, according to Ralph Nader, who
represents a big consumer organization that never pays a nickel in
taxes." -- Dave Barry
"If they don't close these [nuclear] reactors down, we'll have civil war in
five years." -- Ralph Nader in 1977
"[Nader running for president again is] an ego-centered exercise in
futility. [Until the Green Party wins more local elections], wasting its
time in races that are unwinnable only detracts from its message, its
long-term goals and current accomplishments." --Larry Barnett, Green Party
member and former mayor of Sonoma, California
"We spent a hundred years trying to clean sweatshops out of our system and
what happens? Along comes the first major reformer of any impact, and he
starts doing the same goddamned thing. ... My wife had to tell Ralph once to
stop phoning after midnight." -- Jim Turner, former Nader lieutenant
"He [Nader] is, I believe, an authoritarian, a man on a white horse, and I
for one, hope that he will never ride into the White House." -- David
Sanford, Nader's former editor, 1976
Jay Leno: "What do you do for fun?" Nader: "Strawberries" -- The Tonight
Show
"Information is the currency of democracy. It's denial must always be
suspect." -- Ralph Nader
A HUGE hypocrite:
Nader wraps himself in the mantle of "public interest" with a personally
ascetic style and a focus on structural or "apple pie" issues -- consumer
safety, corporate accountability, "citizen power" -- rather than traditional
partisan issues. He opposes not conservatives, but arrogant corporate
leaders who amass money through public tax breaks, deny any democratic input
or inquiry, and viciously attack anyone who challenges them. It's a
brilliant strategy.
Unfortunately, Nader has become exactly what he attacks. His organizations
allow no public input, intimidate foes and journalists, bust unions, hide
almost all details of their finances (to the point of breaking laws), and
have amassed millions of dollars - all under Nader's direct and autocratic
control. Meanwhile, Ralph has gotten rich off of investments in stock; in
other words, by owning and profiting off the very corporations he is
attacking. -- Sources -- Back to the top
Just another politician:
"Nader is as ravenous as a Nixon or a Kennedy, and the abstract principles
he espouses he does not live by." -- Charles McCarry, "Citizen Nader"
Ralph's image is built on the idea that he is somehow pure, not motivated by
power, fame or money like those nasty politicians. But he is in fact just
another Washington lawyer and lifelong Beltway pol who has built a powerful
organization, lobbies Congress, raises millions through direct mail and
$1,000 a plate dinners, gets paid tens of thousands by interest groups for
his speeches, manipulates the press and overworks a lot of earnest young
staffers.
Even his presidential ambitions are old news. He claims to be running just
to send a message, but Nader also ran for president in 1992 (running a
write-in campaign in the New Hampshire primary, with little success). As far
back as 1976, his media supporters (including Nicholas Van Hoffman and Mary
McGrory) were plugging a draft Nader movement in their columns.
It's fine for him to want power, fame and even money -- everyone else in
Washington does -- but he ought to cut the holier-than-thou crap and take
responsibility for his ambitions.
No one doubts that Ross Perot -- who spent $60 million out of pocket on his
last campaign -- has huge personal ambitions, whatever good he may
accomplish as a candidate. Why should we think more of Ralph Nader, who has
built a career flush with power, fame and money out of nothing else but his
political actions in Washington?
Nader is no better and no different than Jerry Falwell or Ralph Reed --
nimble but unelected politicians who've made successful careers as
self-appointed moralists.
Anti-Democratic Authoritarian:
Saint Ralph loves to preach about democracy and "citizen power", but he runs
his carefully concealed empire with an iron grip. Of 19 groups associated
with Nader, the most powerful and important groups are all directly
controlled by Nader or completely under his influence and no one else's.
With some groups, Nader is the only contributor; others are controlled by
his sister, Laura Nader Milleron, or his cousin.
And there is nothing democratic about Nader's groups -- citizens have no
power at all. Of 19 groups in Nader's network, only one relatively minor one
is a membership organization, which would allow individuals to vote and
challenge the decisions of the small elite running them. The groups'
managers operate in strict secrecy, releasing the absolute legal minimum of
information, and sometimes not even that. And when Nader IS challenged, he
gets vindictive and often attacks his questioner.
Nader and his PIRG groups also fought for (and got) a very coercive funding
mechanism -- dues charged automatically to all college students, whether
they support Nader or not.
Beyond the hypocrisy, this authoritarian streak is very dangerous in a
potential president -- presidents have tremendous power, and the most
important check on it is simply their personal honor and unwillingness to
abuse power. Nader has never shown these traits, much less an ability to
make tough decisions that are fair to his enemies. Of course, he hasn't had
much power to abuse -- yet. Anyone considering voting for him should think
twice -- or three times -- about that.
Secret luxury house:
The Nader myth is built in large part of stories of his personal
asceticism -- such as taking a minuscule salary, not owning a car (he bums
lots of rides), and living (through the 1970s at least) in a boarding house
with a bathroom down the hall. He claims to live on $5,000 a year and give
nearly all the rest to his organizations.
Back in 1996, we noted that Nader had long earned hundreds of thousands of
dollars per year in speaking fees -- over $250,000 annually even in the
mid-1970s -- played the stock market and carefully avoided making details of
his finances public, even as he demanded that various corporations and other
politicans reveal their money dealings.
He has steadfastly refused to make his tax returns public (as Dole and
Clinton have done). In 1996 he even says he spent less than $5,000 on his
campaign so that he wasn't required to file even the minimal financial
disclosure forms every other candidate is filing.
This time he had to admit spend more than $5,000, and his financial
disclosure -- while sketchy -- revealed that he is a multimillionaire who
makes hundreds of thousands on speeches each year and owns over $1 million
in Cisco stock alone. (Nader still refused to release his tax returns,
though all other major candidates have done so for the last many years.)
His lifestyle claims are bullpucky in other ways, too. His speaking gigs
often include first class hotels and and meals, even limousines, and the
many organizations he controls -- that's where his tax-deductible
contributions go -- have many ways to cover his expenses as well. Plus,
there is considerable evidence that he does own and stay in one or more
houses. He acknowledges spending considerable time at a "family house" in
Connecticut, and he appears to own a townhouse in Washington.
David Sanford of the New Republic documented that residents of a posh
neighborhood in Washington -- on Bancroft Place NW -- often spotted him
sneaking into an expensive house there. Some investigation showed that
Nader's brother purchased the house -- worth $100,000 even back in 1972 --
though he was an underemployed educational "consultant" and had no education
beyond high school. Nader issued a statement "that he does not live in his
brother's Bancroft Place house", but when a now-former worker (Lowell Dodge)
asked him privately, he wouldn't deny it.
When the Washington Post's then-society columnist Maxine Cheshire asked
Nader about the reports, he knew every detail of the house's financing and
couldn't resist rhapsodizing about what a great tax break buying a house
was. "He talks about that real estate investment the way some men talk about
sex. He's so excited about the whole idea of tax write-offs and all that. I
mean, did I realize that that's the greatest investment you can make, the
biggest tax advantage, bla bla bla bla bla bla."
Owned by the trial lawyers' lobby:
Nader always received lots of funding from trials lawyers, and in return has
supported their interests throughout his career. For all his talk of
democracy, Nader's vision is of an elite of lawyers -- led of course by
himself -- defending the little guy, much more than true "citizen power". He
confided to Charles McCarry his dream of having 4,000 to 5,000
"professionals" around the country to battle business nationwide.
Busted a union among his workers:
Ralph talks big about democracy and even unions. But when his own workers at
one of his magazines, Multinational Monitor, got fed up with cruel working
conditions and started agitating for a union of their own, Nader busted the
union with all of the hardball techniques used by corporate owners across
America. Workers at Public Citizen, another Nader group, also tried to form
a union because of 60 to 80 hour work weeks, salaries that ranged from
$13,000 down, and other difficult working conditions and were blocked by
Nader, who remains unapologetic to this day.
Nader says "I don't think there is a role for unions in small nonprofit
'cause' organizations any more than ... within a monastery or within a
union."
When ringleader Tim Shorrock filed the union recognition papers, Nader
immediately transferred ownership in the Multinational Monitor to close
friends who ran an organization ("Essential Information") that Nader had set
up. When Shorrock showed up for work the next day, he had been fired, the
locks were changed, and management called the police to charge him with
theft (of his own work papers.) That charge was thrown out of court, but
management fired the two supportive editors and sued the three of them for
$1.2 million, agreeing to drop the intimidation suit only when they dropped
their NLRB complaint. All of these action are straight from the hardball
anti-union playbook, and Nader makes no apology.
According to Nader, "Public interest groups are like crusades.you can't have
work rules, or 9 to 5." Shorrock, with his "union ploy," became an
"adversary" according to Nader. "Anything that is commercial, is
unionizable," but small public interest organizations "would go broke in a
month," Nader says, if they paid union wages, offered union benefits and
operated according to standard work rules, such as the eight-hour day.
Remember that Nader's well-funded organizations were amassing tons of extra
money that Ralph has been playing the stock market with during all these
events.
Abuses workers --
"How can we go out and try to save the world from people when we're grinding
people to death all the time?"-- John Esposito, original staffer at Nader's
Center for the Study of Responsive Law
"Nader strikes me as conforming to the stereotype people have of
sociologists and politicians: they bleed for the poor and downtrodden but
mistreat their maids." -- David Sanford
Like many Washington politicians, Ralph Nader's groups have long taken
advantage of earnest young ambitious workers, with two differences; Nader
was more controlling and paid far less. In 1976, many were paid $5,000 per
year and only a few at the top made as much as $20,000. (Nader's
organizations refuse to release information on what they pay workers.)
Meanwhile, Nader required daily logs of everything the workers did from 7am
to 9pm, plus monthly summaries of these logs. If you didn't turn in your
logs, you didn't get paid.
Nader often called workers after midnight or on sunny weekend days, with
instructions, or just to test their willingness to work hard. When a revolt
over working conditions broke out in the Congress Project and students
demanded a group session with Nader, he contemptuously scheduled a meeting
at 7:00 am, believing that few would show up.
9 marriages of staffers broke up under the pressure, including John and
Nancy Esposito's, Mark Green's, Sid Wolfe's, and Davitt McAteer's.
What makes this meanness worse is that Nader claims to be defending
workers -- for example in opposing the GATT treaty -- and that his
organizations have a huge surplus of money, accumulating millions of dollar
with which Ralph has played the stock market.
Amassing millions of dollars and playing the stock market with it:
Unlike almost every other nonprofit organization, Nader's various groups
often amass a nontaxable profit of several hundred thousand dollars per
year, and have rapidly build up impressive net worth's -- which Ralph
refuses to reveal in his annual reports. (His lame reply is that people who
are interested can get the information by getting every year's annual report
and doing the math. So much for openness.)
The book "Abuse of Trust" carefully documents the money amassed and stocks
played for 6 major groups, including Public Citizen, Inc. and the Center for
the Study of Responsive Law, his two largest groups. Public Citizen, Inc.,
in particular, amassed money so quickly that it bought an old FBI building
for $1.25 million IN CASH in 1980, only its eighth year of existence.
One reason he may hide his ample cash reserves -- besides the fact that
people may not want to give him more money -- is that he is fond of playing
the stock market with that green. (He also uses surpluses from his most
flush organizations, usually the tax deductible ones, to give grants to his
other groups.) Some of these transactions appear reckless for a nonprofit,
"public interest" group; others skirt the edges of insider trading and
conflict of interest. Mostly, it seems that all this money was a toy that
Nader enjoyed playing with, especially as his winnings increased his power,
fame and influence.
For example, the Nader is the president and treasurer of the Public Safety
Research Institute. In 1970 alone, PSRI traded on the stock market 67 times,
buying and selling $750,000 worth of stock, though the organization only had
$150,000 worth of assets. These trades included a number of short sales,
high risk and tricky transactions. Some worked, some lost money. In later
years, PSRI traded less, for a good reason -- the IRS audited them after
1970 and charged the organization with "churning", excessive stock trades
whose risk threatens the charitable purposes of the organization. It paid a
fine and did not contest the charge. Thereafter, PSRI continued to play the
market with fewer, generally long positions. Likewise, the Safety Systems
Foundation (SSF) -- run by Nader's sister, and entirely funded by him
personally -- engaged in a number of stock and bond transactions in the late
1960s and early 1970s. It was also fined by the IRS and paid without
contest.
Several of these trades were poised to take advantage of Nader's activities,
by selling short the stock of companies Nader's groups attacked, or buying
stock of their competitors. In 1973, PSRI bought stock in Allied Chemical,
the primary manufacturer of airbags, on the very day before GM announced
they would offer optional airbags on 1974 models. PSRI made a 12.5% profit
in 3 and a half months. In 1976, PSRI and the SSF bought stock in Goodyear
just as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- then run by
former top Nader aide Joan Claybrook -- announced an investigation of the
Firestone 500 series of steel-belted radials. The 2 organizations held onto
the stock for 2 years until there was a recall, and Firestone -- Goodyear's
major competitor -- suffered.
In 1970, IT&T attempted to merge with the Hartford Fire Insurance Company.
Nader filed a 50 page brief attacking the merger, then SSF sold IT&T stock
short. It made almost 10% on its money in 6 DAYS, then closed its position
two days before the merger was approved. When pressed by a reporter, Nader
said the timing was "mere coincidence" and said he had no control over the
investment. However, his sister Laura Nader Millerson was the sole trustee
of SSF throughout its existence, and Nader was the sole contributor.
Secrecy and stonewalling:
Ralph exhibits a driven secrecy and paranoia reminiscent of no one so much
as Richard Nixon, his old enemy. The man who said "information is the
currency of democracy; its denial must always be suspect" routinely refuses
to release even basic information about himself or his organizations.
Granted, he has enemies, but this trait goes back to when no one knew of
him. In the mid-1960s, before "Unsafe At Any Speed" made him famous, Nader
wrote for the New Republic Magazine and often gave the secretary there a
false name (Mr. Wilson) when he called or visited. Even then, he made some
of his phone calls in whispers or in code to thwart possible wiretappers.
Another Nixonian trait of Nader's is a tendency to cover-up. When pressed or
challenged, he has lied, shunted responsibility onto his staff members, made
them reconstruct documents, hidden his control over his own organizations,
attacked the press or critics involved, or simply refused to release
information with lame excuses.
There are many examples:
-- Ralph refuses to release his tax returns (as Clinton and Dole have)
-- He even says he will spend less than $5,000 in this presidential campaign
so he won't have to file the minimal financial disclosure all other
candidates have filed.
-- Two of his top aides even refused to give the address of Nader's office
to two Congressman who requested it at a Congressional Hearing.
-- His main group, Public Citizen, has actively fought disclosure laws that
would inform the public of the role that special interest groups -- such as
his -- play in lobbying on legislation. (e.g. H.R. 81 in the 96th Congress)
-- Public Citizen refused to give information to the Better Business Bureau
or the similar NIB when requested.
-- He runs a network of organizations, which he claims are independent --
but his brother, sister and cousins hold major leadership positions with
several, Nader heads advisory boards for others, and he is the only or major
financial donor to 3 groups. Many other groups are funded in whole or in
part by other groups in the network that Ralph does directly control.
-- Ralph even incorporated one of his groups -- the Public Safety Research
Institute -- in Delaware, because of its notoriously lax corporate laws,
-- As of 1982, his groups disregarded the charitable solicitation laws of 25
by not filing legally required registrations. At least 1 state (New York)
had to pursue Public Citizen, Inc. and the Center for the Study of
Responsive Law (Nader's 2 biggest groups) legally to try and force them to
obey the law.
-- After the first attacks on him for being owned by trial lawyers, he
distorted facts, attacked the press and forced am employee to create a false
history to cover up the scandal. The employee, Lowell Dodge, later fell out
with Nader and revealed this cover-up.
Vindictive toward critics:
Another authoritarian trait of Nader's is his inability to tolerate any
criticism. Journalists who question his excesses are inevitably accused of
personal vendettas, or being tools of industry.
Politicians get worse: Nader called one Congressman who opposed the Consumer
Protection Act "a disgustingly repulsive, slimy double-crosser." He called
another a "pathological liar" and a "corrupt, lying anti-people crook." His
crime? Opposing a bill to mandate air bags. Nader went on to say that people
who opposed mandatory airbags were the kind that would "sell thalidomide to
pregnant women."
Even his own workers face Ralph's wrath for leaving after years of grueling,
underpaid and loyal work. James Fallows, author of a recent book critiquing
the media, worked for Nader at the start of his career. He wrote: "I think
you won't find many people who have had a pleasant parting with Ralph. It's
usually pretty ugly when the separation comes, and I think it's largely that
by leaving you seem to make a choice... a 'if you're not with us you're
against us' sort of thing."
Penn State's Board of Overseers declined Nader's PIRG group's coercive
funding and voted instead to let students check a box to make a donation
(like presidential campaign funding on 1040 tax forms) -- a perfectly
reasonable compromise. Nader blasted this plan as a "sabotage technique" and
"tyranny 1776 style," and then announced an investigation of the school's
trustees for "conflicts of interest."
Forced contributions to his college PIRG groups:
College PIRG groups, which Nader founded and leads despite his denials of
control, use an astonishingly undemocratic, even coercive funding mechanism
that Ralph designed. Once a college approves, all students are automatically
billed a few dollars out of their student fees to support the local PIRG. To
avoid paying, students must make a special trip to the Registrar and fill
out a form so they can get their $2-6 back.
Most don't of course, out of inertia or because they aren't even aware
they're funding Ralph. That's why record and book clubs use the same
mechanism. Nader, like most consumer advocates, opposes these billing
methods as a rip-off - unless they fund his own groups. One PIRG worker
estimated that at Penn State alone, forced payments would have brought in
$270,000 a year, while a voluntary checkoff would only have raised $30,000
These forced payments brought over a million dollars a year to PIRGs even
back in the mid-1970s. (Nader's PIRG group won't release the total amount.)
At least 145 colleges in 20 states were involved.
When Penn State turned down this method in favor of a box students could
check to donate, the PIRG refused it. Nader attacked the school viciously,
as described above.
Hypochondriac:
By many accounts, Ralph has a fear of germs that may well be
hypochondriacal. When he was interviewed in July 2000 for CNN, his main
concern before the interview was "Did you wash that [earpiece]?". According
to his former editor David Sanford, Nader refuses dinner invitations from
anyone with pets, because he thinks cats cause leukemia, and simply hates
dogs.
Sources -- Back to the top
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Sources
<"http://www.earth1.net/~ricjan/yates.html">"Nader is a Pain in the Ass", by
Brock Yates, The Windmill, November 1971
----------Anti-democratic Authoritarian Sources
"Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network", Dan Burt, (Chicago:
Regnery Gateway) 1982 p16-17
----------Hypocrite Sources
"Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford (New Republic
Books) 1976, p19-20
"Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network", Dan Burt, (Chicago:
Regnery Gateway) 1982
--- Back to the top
----------Secret Luxury House sources
"Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford (New Republic
Books) 1976, p23-26
"Ralph Nader, Inc.", Forbes Magazine, September 17, 1990 p119, 122
--- Back to the top
----------Owned by the Trial Lawyers Sources
"Dems Step Up to Well-Stocked Plaintiff Bar", Wall Street Journal, September
4, 1992 pA6/A8
"Forbes' Raid on Nader", Washington Post, September 10, 1990 pB1, B10
"Public Citizen's Non-Disclosure", Wall Street Journal, March 17, 1992 pA14
"Ralph Nader is a bargain for trial lawyers at $1,000 a table", by L. Gordon
Crovitz, Wall Street Journal, November 14, 1990 pA15
"Naderite Mossbacks Lose Control Over Corporate Law", Wall Street Journal,
June 24, 1992
"Tortmeisters In the Sun", Wall Street Journal, October 30,1990 pA18
"Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford (New Republic
Books) 1976, p33-42
"Ralph Nader, Inc.", Forbes Magazine, September 17, 1990 p119, 122
"L. Ron Nader" (editorial), Wall Street Journal, June 25, 1991
"A Chink In Nader's Armor?", Leah Young, The New Republic, September 2, 1972
--- Back to the top
----------Just a Politician Sources
Los Angeles Times, March 19, 1996
$1000/plate: "Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network", Dan Burt,
(Chicago: Regnery Gateway) 1982 p14-15
1976 run - "Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford (New
Republic Books) 1976, p1-5 --- Back to the top
----------Union Busting Sources
"Anti Labor Chapter Surfaces in Nader's Past ", by Heather Szerlag, Pacifica
Radio News, October 31, 2000 (starting at 10:45 into the half hour
broadcast - slide your RealAudio player forward to that point.)
"Union Buster? The NADER?", by Nick Mamatas, Greenwich Village Gazette, Vol.
5, #44, September 15, 2000
"1.75 Cheers For Ralph", Left Business Observer, October, 1996 (see the
section "Ralph As Boss")
"Nader Is A Union Buster" (email), by Tim Shorrock (one of the fired
workers), The Sixties-L Listserv, June 27, 2000
"Editors Claim Firing By Nader Based on Unionization Attempt," by Peter
Perl, Washington Post, June 28, 1984 pB3
--- Back to the top
----------Abusing Workers Sources
"The Low-Paid Affluent in Public-Interest Work", by S. Robert Lichter and
Stanley Rothman, New York Times, July 18, 1983 (letter to the editor
responding to Nader's charges in the next article)
"Washington Talk Briefing: One Survey, Two Views", by James Clarity and Phil
Gailey, New York Times, June 29, 1983, pA14
"Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford (New Republic
Books) 1976, p60-65
--- Back to the top
----------Amassing Money Sources
Ralph Nader's official financial disclosure form for year 2000, Open Secrets
web site
"Inside Nader's stock portfolio", by Jake Tapper, Salon Magazine, October
28, 2000
"Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network", Dan Burt, (Chicago:
Regnery Gateway) 1982 p81-95
"Nader Pays $1,250,000 Cash for Old Office Building", Ann Zimmerman,
Washingtonian, June 1980, p11 (cited in Abuse of Trust)
"Nader Undaunted by Setbacks to Consumer Drive", Joseph Lleyveld, New York
Times, November 24, 1975 p1
"Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford (New Republic
Books) 1976, p28-31
--- Back to the top
----------Secrecy and Paranoia Sources
Tax returns and campaign reports: Newsweek, "How Much Is He Worth?", April
8, 1996 p6
Bernard Shaw interview with Nader, CNN Inside Politics, April 9, 1996
"Public Citizen's Non-Disclosure", Wall Street Journal, March 17, 1992 pA14
"Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network", Dan Burt, (Chicago:
Regnery Gateway) 1982 p 31, 16-17, 80-95
Generally, and New Republic false name: "Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for
America?", David Sanford (New Republic Books) 1976, p18-22, introduction
p.xi-xii, p11, p19-23
Information denial must always be suspect quote: "Abuse of Trust", p139,
citing Good Housekeeping
Wouldn't give Nader's office address out: "Abuse of Trust", p119-120, 124
Refused info to BBB & NIB: "Abuse of Trust", p118-119
Opposed HR 81: "Abuse of Trust", p119, 124, 139
Failure to register: "Abuse of Trust", p104-110
Lowell Dodge cover-up: "Me & Ralph", chapter 3
--- Back to the top
----------Vindictiveness Sources
Generally -- "Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford (New
Republic Books) 1976, p56-57
Penn State-- "Me & Ralph", p52-55
Fallows & leaving Nader- "Me & Ralph", p69-73
Congress-- "Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network", Dan Burt,
(Chicago: Regnery Gateway) 1982 p146-7
"The Biter Bit," National Review, November 19, 1990 p18
"Nader Says No", by Peter Brimelow, Forbes, April 25, 1994 p18
--- Back to the top
----------Forced PIRG Contribution
Los Angeles Times, April 8, 1983 p1
"Campus Contest -- Conservatives vs. Nader Group", by Gregory Lamb,
Christian Science Monitor, March 24, 1983 p2
New York Times, March 13, 1983 p20
"Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford (New Republic
Books) 1976, p8, 52-58
"Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network", Dan Burt, (Chicago:
Regnery Gateway) 1982 p147- 149
"Mr. Nader's Conglomerate" (editorial), Wall Street Journal, April 17, 1980
p26
--- Back to the top
----------Hypochondriac Sources
"Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford (New Republic
Books) 1976,p18
"Do You Want to Ralph?", Village Voice, July 26, 2000
----------Quote Sources
Civil war quote - "Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network", Dan
Burt, (Chicago: Regnery Gateway) 1982 p146, citing "'Geiger Counter', Voice,
April 4, 1977". Is that the Village Voice? Not clear.
Dave Barry quote -- from his book "Sweating Out Taxes", quoted on Susan
Brumbaugh's Internet Quotes page.
Denial of information is suspect quote -- "Abuse of Trust" 1982 citing
"Ralph Nader Reports", Ladies Home Journal, September 1973,
Sanford quote -- "Me and Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford
(New Republic Book Company) 1976 Introduction (pX)
sweatshops quote -- "Me and Ralph", p62
Ralph Redux? by Micah L. Sifry, The Nation, November 6, 2003
Steve Krulick
>
> "Steve Krulick" <s...@krulick.com> wrote in message
> news:40BB7CFD...@krulick.com...
>
> > Both. The point is that you are avoiding proof of your original
> > blatant claim and defending it, thus defaulting the argument.
>
> What argument is that?
Oh, I see, this is just childish trolling on your part!
Answering your questions directly and clearly has no effect on
you. Further, you snip away those parts of my reply that answer
your questions, challenge you to support your blatant
assertions, and otherwise are too inconvenient for you to deal
with. The signs of a disingenuous loser who can't be expected to
engage in actual dialogue.
> > > I'm sorry - were you asking me to defend something?
> >
> > Yes. Are you so short-term-memory-challenged you don't remember?
>
> I don't have to rely on memory, it's all in writing. Just scanned back on
> the thread - don't see what you are talking about.
Then try again, O blind one:
Kaufman said:
"Nader would win if morons like you would break free of your
sheeplike obsession with how OTHER people are going to vote and
just vote for the most intelligent, best-informed, and most
honest candidate available."
YOU opined:
> Nader is NONE of those things -
> and neither are the obnoxious arrogant
> pinheads who push his candidacy.
> You folks are one step up (a small one)
> from the LaRouchies at this point.
So, you have blatantly asserted that Nader is neither
intelligent, well-informed, nor honest (or did you mean only
that he is not THE most intelligent, THE best-informed, and THE
most honest candidate available? Either way, you failed to
substantiate your claim.). THAT is what you failed to defend,
along with the following claims that there are "obnoxious
arrogant pinheads" pushing his candidacy (again, are you
claiming that ALL who push his candidacy are "oap"s, or you ONLY
speaking of specific individuals who ARE "oap"s AND push his
candidacy? Either way, you failed to substantiate your claim.).
Likewise, no defense of your claim about "you folks" being one
small step up from the LaRouchies. See, all we have is your mere
opinion, and not a smidgen of support evidence, logic, or
anything like a defense of your argument.
> > YOU opined:
>
> Uh-huh. You seem to think that this "opining" thing is something bad.
Didn't say THAT, strawslinger. Why don't you cite MY words that
show ME saying that. Or how you can read minds through the
internet to know what *I* think!
> > So, you have blatantly asserted that Nader is neither
> > intelligent, well-informed, nor honest
>
> Yes, I do believe that Nader is neither intelligent, well-informed, or
> honest.
And you base this on WHAT, other than your mere say-so? Why
should we take YOUR opinion seriously?
Now, how does YOUR mere opinion about Nader further explain,
logically, how you rate Naderites 'one step up' from LaRouchies?
Where's the support evidence? Why, NOWHERE! Again.
> > Either way, you failed to substantiate your claim.
>
> I don't believe I have any responsibiliy to "substantiate" my opinion.
Then we can now infer that you HAVE no substantiation (if you
had, why wouldn't you provide it, and shut us all up?), and you
are merely spouting empty and baseless blather.
Thus there's no reason for anyone to take YOU or your mere
personal opinion seriously, and nobody is going to change THEIR
opinion just because YOU say so! You persuade nobody to agree
with you, and weaken your own credibility.
> It
> happens to be my opinion.
And is thus worth a pitcher of warm piss. If you presented it in
a court of law, or even a high school debate class, absent any
support evidence, you'd be laughed out of the room as an
incompetent.
> Apparently you disagree.
And you have provided no reason for me or anyone to agree with
you! Is that how you win friends and influence people? Have you
ever tried LOGIC, or EVIDENCE? The point I'm making is that you
HAVEN'T HERE!
> God Bless America.
Irrelevant side-step. Again.
> > Likewise, no defense of your claim about "you folks" being one
> > small step up from the LaRouchies.
>
> Again - no defense required.
Then you have again defaulted the argument. No, no defense is
required... if you wish to be seen as nothing more than an empty
and bloviating blowhard.
> Hell, if anything, your continued behavior on
> this very thread acts as support alone.
Prove it! AGAIN, this is just MORE blatant assertions without
proof!
Show how MY insisting that you substantiate blatant assertions
with more than your mere beliefs is "continued behavior"
supporting ANY assertion that "Naderites" are like "LaRouchies"!
Absent definitions, examples, logic, etc., you are just
whistling in the dark past the graveyard.
> I can just sit back and watch.
More side-stepping and defaulting.
> > See, all we have is your mere opinion, and not a smidgen of support
> > evidence, logic, or
> > anything like a defense of your argument.
>
> And. . .? So what?
So you are revealed to be an empty loser who can't back up what
you say. I've seen 5-year-olds put up a better defense of their
opinions!
> > > Damn, you LaRouchie/Naderites are some dense motherfuckers.
> >
> > Again, more mere unproved ad hom blatant assertions by you
>
> And? So what?
So you further demonstrate the hollowness of your bloviation.
There is no sting to your name-calling, because there is nothing
behind it! You are unarmed and naked.
> > merely assuming as true your previous unsubstantiated premise
> > (linking LaRouche with Nader supporters), and just namecalling
> > in the face of evidence of your own failure to present a logical
> > argument or defend your blatant assertions.
>
> Who said I was attempting (or even have any desire) to "present a logical
> argument" here?
Well, it's been OBVIOUS that you weren't, which was my point
exactly!
It's quite simple: you made some empty claims and failed to back
them up with evidence or logic. Thus you prove yourself to be
nothing more than a silly troll who makes snarky comments, then
plays childish "who me?" games when challenged. You aren't
offering any useful info, are not going to change any minds, and
can be safely dismissed and ignored as a worthless waste of
time.
> Hello? McFly? Anybody home?
Yawn. Lame and irrelevant reference. Look in the mirror, loser.
> > Damn, YOU (notice I don't engage in sweeping generalizations and
> > unproved stereotyping, lumping anyone I disagree with into a
> > phony, non-existent category!) are ONE dense maroon, aren't you?
>
> Not really, no,
Yes, really. I have given you every opportunity to show some
intelligence, wit, or knowledge. You have shown an inability or
unwillingness to do so.
> but thanks for playing.
Yawn. Lame loser retort, mere whistling in the dark past the
graveyard.
Clearly you won't change or learn, so you can now join the other
lame losers in my killfile loony bin.
Ta ta.
<PLOINK!>
(Oh, please "explain" to me that it's not <PLOINK!> but
<plonk>!)
Mr. N
> > What argument is that?
>
> Oh, I see, this is just childish trolling on your part!
No, it was an actual question seeking an actual answer.
> Answering your questions directly and clearly has no effect on
> you.
How would you know? You haven't done it yet.
> "Nader would win if morons like you would break free of your
> sheeplike obsession with how OTHER people are going to vote and
> just vote for the most intelligent, best-informed, and most
> honest candidate available."
>
> YOU opined:
Uh-huh. I sure did. You keep using that word "opined" like it's a bad
thing.
> So, you have blatantly asserted
I see the problem now - you don't know the difference between an assertion
and an opinion.
Here: http://www.m-w.com
> > Uh-huh. You seem to think that this "opining" thing is something bad.
>
> Didn't say THAT, strawslinger.
I know you didn't say that. I said you seem to think it.
> Why don't you cite MY words that show ME saying that.
But I never said that you said it.
> Or how you can read minds through the internet to know what *I* think!
I don't. I can only opine that you seem to think it.
> > Yes, I do believe that Nader is neither intelligent, well-informed, or
> > honest.
>
> And you base this on WHAT, other than your mere say-so?
My study and personal observation of the man, his words, and his actions.
> Why should we take YOUR opinion seriously?
I never said you should.
> Now, how does YOUR mere opinion
I don't know that my opinion is 'mere' at all.
> about Nader further explain, logically, how you rate Naderites 'one step
up' from LaRouchies?
My personal observation that Naderites have become as legitimate (and as
tenacious) as the ranting LaRouchies. Nader has avoided prison time, which
makes him "one step up", but it's a short step.
> Where's the support evidence?
You'd better go check www.m-w.com again. Make sure you look up both
"assertion" and "opinion".
> > I don't believe I have any responsibiliy to "substantiate" my opinion.
>
> Then we can now infer that you HAVE no substantiation
You may 'infer' whatever you please, that doesn't make your inference
legitimate.
> (if you had, why wouldn't you provide it, and shut us all up?)
It wouldn't shut you up. That's one of the lovely features of you
Naderites/LaRouchies. You never shut up.
> Thus there's no reason for anyone to take YOU or your mere
> personal opinion seriously
Well, I'm not sure you speak for everyone, so I'm sure anyone reading this
whom you do speak for will nod their head, and anyone whom you don't speak
for will either say their own peace or simply move on with their lives
unfazed.
> d nobody is going to change THEIR opinion just because YOU say so!
I'm not asking anyone to.
>ou persuade nobody to agree with you
Again, you are speaking for the entire human race. Another feature linking
you to the ranting, raviing LaRouchies.
>and weaken your own credibility.
With whom? Oh yeah, that's right - everybody in the world.
> > It happens to be my opinion.
>
> And is thus worth a pitcher of warm piss.
Actually it's worth the same as anyone else's.
>f you presented it in a court of law, or even a high school debate class
Although this particular medium has less in common with the former than the
latter, it is in fact neither.
>absent any support evidence, you'd be laughed out of the room as an
> incompetent.
I've never seen that happen in a room full if people exchanging their views,
so I guess I'll have to take your word for it.
> > Apparently you disagree.
>
> And you have provided no reason for me or anyone to agree with
> you!
So what? You seem to be laboring under the impression that I give a flying
fuck whether you agree with me or not. Why is that?
>Is that how you win friends and influence people?
Is WHAT how I win friends and influence people? And why make such
assumptions about my motives?
Welcome to Usenet, by the way.
> > God Bless America.
>
> Irrelevant side-step. Again.
Side-step of what?
> > Again - no defense required.
>
> Then you have again defaulted the argument.
What argument is that? I don't recall starting one.
> > Hell, if anything, your continued behavior on
> > this very thread acts as support alone.
>
> Prove it!
No need. I was just opining. See? You seem to think that's a bad thing.
> > I can just sit back and watch.
>
> More side-stepping and defaulting.
No, more like more sitting back and watching.
> > And. . .? So what?
>
> So you are revealed to be an empty loser who can't back up what
> you say. I've seen 5-year-olds put up a better defense of their
> opinions!
Again, you labor under the mistaken impression that I give a fuck about
whether you agree with me. Why is that?
> > And? So what?
>
> So you further demonstrate the hollowness of your bloviation.
See? If you can use a fancy word like "bloviation", SURELY you can look up
the definitions of "opinion" and "assertion".
>You are unarmed and naked.
My preferred and natural state, preferably with a number of others equally
unarmed and naked but for a large jug of fine wine, thanks.
> > Who said I was attempting (or even have any desire) to "present a
logical
> > argument" here?
>
> Well, it's been OBVIOUS that you weren't, which was my point
> exactly!
Uh-huh. So cool we agree on this. Peace, love, flowers and all that.
> It's quite simple: you made some empty claims
No, no, no! I didn't make any "claims" at all, remember? I "opined".
Just for kicks, some optional reading material. "Proof", if you will:
Steve Krulick
>
> "William Kaufman" <kma...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:tdNuc.16962$Tn6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> > Opinions are like assholes--everyone has one. It's much harder to summon
> > facts. You have an abundance of the former and zero of the latter on this
> > point--the very definition of an opnionated blowhard whose remarks are
> worth
> > exactly what you bring to them in the way of facts to support your
> > "opinions": zero.
>
> http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm
Well, having plonked the anonymous "N for nothing" I see that
this was the last post that slipped in under the wire. And, why
should I be surprised, the best this loser crank can offer is
MORE blatant opinions as defense for HIS blatant assertions!
I've dispatched this screed many times, so here's the last post
I posted on this same nonsense:
I found a more complete reply to this snarky crap, which I
posted in February 2001:
Much of the criticism of Nader was rounded up in a 4-year-old
screed by realchange.org, which did a shellacking on EVERY
candidate. By comparison, Nader's looks like a petulant stamping
of little feet by "reporters" who couldn't find any REAL dirt on
Ralph, so they took unsubstantiated rumors and criticisms from
people who had some grudge against Nader. Nader was never given
a chance to reply. They had to go back YEARS to find anything,
and nothing is supported beyond the innuendo itself.
-----------------------
Back in July 2000 I wrote:
> There's plenty of dirt on Ralph:
> http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm
No, merely a bunch of tired, "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no
more," innuendo and whining. One could prepare a similar smear
sheet on Jesus if one wanted to (you know, he drinks and hangs
out with sinners, prostitutes and tax collectors, breaks the
sabbath law, denies Caesar, heals by means of demons, that kind
of stuff) but it wouldn't make it any more accurate an appraisal
than the bilge and hearsay these "journalists" have gathered; I
wonder if they gave Nader or any of his associates the
opportunity to respond to the charges. I doubt it, since Nader
isn't directly quoted once after any of these claims with his
side of the story. What a trial that would make; the prosecution
gets to say everything, the defense is bound and gagged.
Your honor, I rest my case.
-----------------------
In August 2000, I wrote:
I read this piece several months ago, and I must admit it was,
at first glance, disheartening.
But as I looked more closely, I found it rife with logical
fallacies and saw it was mostly hearsay, slanted opinions, and
innuendo from people of questionable objectivity. I was waiting
for someone to ask "Why is He eating and drinking with tax
collectors and sinners?"
Right at the top of this four-year-old screed you get this
straw-man attack:
"For 30 years, Ralph Nader has proclaimed himself to be "Saint
Ralph", the only honest man in Washington, and the only friend
of the average citizen. If that doesn't make you puke already,
then click on the allegation of your choice."
I would like to see a single instance of Nader "proclaiming"
himself "Saint Ralph" other than in a clearly jocular and
self-deprecating way, if at all. If the very stridency of this
sentence doesn't make you puke already, try this
guilt-by-association:
"Ralph exhibits a driven secrecy and paranoia reminiscent of no
one so much as Richard Nixon, his old enemy... Another Nixonian
trait of Nader's is a tendency to cover-up... Nader is no better
and no different than Jerry Falwell or Ralph Reed -- nimble but
unelected politicians who've made successful careers as
self-appointed moralists. "
How about sheer ad hominem hearsay pettiness:
"According to his former editor David Sanford, Nader is a
hypochondriac who refuses dinner invitations from anyone with
pets, because he thinks cats cause leukemia, and simply hates
dogs."
I guess one could write a similarly smarmy portrait of any great
figure from Jesus to St. Francis to Gandhi to ML King, but what
would it prove? That they had some human frailties, as do any of
us? That they had envious, small-minded enemies acting like the
pickpocket who, when he sees a holy man, sees only his pockets?
Even if some of these shortcomings were true, and I have no way
of knowing how accurate they are, they would not weaken the
validity of the message Nader propounds, nor the value of the
work he has done. Compared to the shortcomings of previous
presidents, or those of the other candidates shredded at this
site, Nader comes out quite well by comparison.
The article was useful in one way, however. Recall those movies
about the Roman Empire where the hero is riding his chariot
through the Forum and this wizened guy at his side is holding
the laurel over his head and repeats in his ear (as the crowd
cheers madly) "Remember, you are only a mortal." Whether or not
one phrase of this muck is accurate, and I await some outside
verification from credible journalists before I'll grant any of
it is, it can help from turning, in our minds, a truly great man
into an unrealistic god.
With all that said, I intend to continue to support Nader and
vote for him for President.
-----------------------
The following is from a work in progress by someone answering
realchange's MM charges:
Claim #6: "Ralph talks big about democracy and even unions. But
when his own workers at one of his magazines, Multinational
Monitor, got fed up with cruel working conditions and started
agitating for a union of their own, Nader busted the union with
all of the hardball techniques used by corporate owners across
America" The only problem with this claim is that Nader didn't
bust the union and the authors of the website will say so only a
few short lines later. They admit that soon after "ringleader
Tim Shorrock filed the union recognition papers" Nader handed
the Multinational Monitor over to some "close friends."
Realchange.org suggests that Nader did so to avoid the union
controversy, but they provide no evidence to back that up except
that the two events, the filing of the papers, and the transfer
of ownership, happened around the same time. It is true that a
dispute broke out between the management and the new owners of
the Monitor, but the website is unable to link Nader to the
labor dispute. (It seems to be true that Nader originally fired
Shorrock because he violated editorial policy (and perhaps
Shorrock tried to organize against Ralph in response.) Yet
Shorock has made varying statements about what exactly happened,
and even if his original firing happened as stated above, it had
had nothing to do with union busting) The website also claims
"Workers at Public Citizen, another Nader group, also tried to
form a union because of 60 to 80 hour work weeks, salaries that
ranged from $13,000 down, and other difficult working conditions
and were blocked by Nader, who remains unapologetic to this
day."
None of realchange.org's sources address this claim, and an
extensive search through newspaper databases done by this writer
has turned up absolutely nothing. Where this came from is
undeterminable.
...
Claim #8: Ralph Nader has for many years "taken advantage of"
and "abused" his staff. There is no question that Nader works
his staff (many of whom affectionately take the name "Nader's
Raiders") very very hard. ten hour days. Low wages. Not a fun
work environment. However, there is key difference between Nader
and sweatshop tyrants, that the writers at realchange.org
decline to go into: Nader is running nonprofit organizations.
Most of those who go to work for Nader are college educated and
could earn twice what they make with his groups if they worked
elsewhere. Those who go to work for him do so because they want
to and because they believe in the cause. Further, at this
point, more than thirty years after the founding of his first
nonprofit, nobody who goes to work for Nader should be surprised
by the exertion he expects -- its common knowledge. In other
words, this is not capitalistic wage slavery. Nader's employees
are not members of the working-class desperately tied to Ralph
in order to pay for their next meal -- rather they are mostly
young bourgeoisie knowing full-well what they are getting into.
One last thing -- it is known even by Nader's most fervent
critics that he works just as hard or harder than his staff.
Oh, and Nader is NOT the leader of the Greens; just one more
blatant assertion without any basis in fact.
> a HUGE hypocrite -- just another politician -- Anti-democratic authoritarian --
> secret luxury house -- owned by the trial lawyers' lobby -- busted a union
> among his workers -- abuses workers -- amassing millions of dollars and playing
> the stock market with it -- secrecy and stonewalling -- vindictive toward
> critics -- forced "contributions" to his college PIRG groups -- hypochondriac
> -- Quotes -- Sources.
This is OLD, ad hominem, blatant assertions from jealous or
biased cranky lesser lights.
>
> Quotes:
>
> "[Nader] doesn't want to be a Green, he runs with his coterie rather than party
> organizers, he doesn't involve local Green leaders and he doesn't get the
> racial issue. I fear if Nader runs, he'll drag down every other Green in this
> country." -- John Rensenbrink, editor of "Green Horizon Quarterly"
Then why has the Green Party GROWN by 27% AFTER Nader ran
through 2002? Why have HUNDREDS of Greens won elective office
since then, including ME?!! The Greens grew 600% in New York!
> "Big business never pays a nickel in taxes, according to Ralph Nader, who
> represents a big consumer organization that never pays a nickel in taxes." --
> Dave Barry
Barry is a comic; he trades in exaggeration and ironic overkill,
NOT journalism! But where's the PROOF of any of that?
> "If they don't close these [nuclear] reactors down, we'll have civil war in five
> years." -- Ralph Nader in 1977
Context? Source? Proof?
> "[Nader running for president again is] an ego-centered exercise in futility.
Blatant assertion. What were Dean, Clark, Gephardt, et al doing?
Why did Gore run in Texas? ANY chance he could have won there?
Why did he run in Wyoming? Or ANY state where the Republican win
was a foregone conclusion?
One runs because one legally and morally CAN, because one is
offering a CHOICE to the voters.
> [Until the Green Party wins more local elections], wasting its time in races
> that are unwinnable only detracts from its message,
False. Nader running helped GROW the party thusly:
Besides, there are many ways to define a "win"! When one looks
at the gains made by Nader running, only nervous GoreWhores like
Savitt would have wished we hadn't realized them!:
* Green Party and Nader 2000 campaign organizers started more
than 450 new local Green Party groups around the country.
* Over 150,000 people volunteered their time and energy to
supporting the campaign.
* Over 900 Students for Nader and student Green Party
organizations were started and 25,000 student volunteers
registered tens of thousands of new student voters.
* The Green Party ran a record number of 266 candidates this
year (including Ralph Nader). 32 Green candidates won elections
in a dozen states, giving the party a total of 79 elected
officials in 21 states, gains that make the Greens the biggest
political presence of any third party. (More gains after 2000)
* Over 463,000 signatures were collected to put the Green Party
on the ballot in 43 states and in DC.
* The campaign raised 7.7 million dollars.
* The campaign took zero corporate or political action committee
(PAC) money.
* Over 115,000 people signed the on-line petition to protest
Ralph Nader's exclusion from the presidential debates
* Over 8 million pieces of literature and 1 million buttons,
bumper stickers, and lapel stickers were distributed.
* Super Rallies were held of 15,000 people at Madison Square
Garden in New York City, 14,000 at the Target Center in
Minneapolis, 12,000 at the Fleet Center in Boston, 10,000 at the
Pavilion in Chicago, and 10,000 at the Coliseum in Portland, and
10,000 at the MCI Center in Washington, DC.
* The campaign formed a citizens committee of 100 prominent
supporters.
* The campaign had a staff of over 100 people in two offices in
DC and 19 more local offices around the country.
* Ralph Nader campaigned in all 50 states, the only presidential
candidate to do so in the 2000 election.
* Over 600 house parties were held in support of the campaign.
* The campaign sent out over 500 releases and the campaign was
covered in innumerable newspapers, television, and radio stories
around the country.
* The campaign brought two lawsuits against the corporate
funding and anti-democratic processes of the commission on
presidential debates.
* The campaign brought eleven lawsuits to challenge barriers to
ballot access and filing procedures.
* The campaign defended one lawsuit against Mastercard.
> its long-term goals and
> current accomplishments." --Larry Barnett, Green Party member and former mayor
> of Sonoma, California
>
> "We spent a hundred years trying to clean sweatshops out of our system and what
> happens? Along comes the first major reformer of any impact, and he starts
> doing the same goddamned thing. ... My wife had to tell Ralph once to stop
> phoning after midnight." -- Jim Turner, former Nader lieutenant
See answer above. WHEN was this written? Proof? Where is Nader's
response?
> "He [Nader] is, I believe, an authoritarian, a man on a white horse, and I for
> one, hope that he will never ride into the White House." -- David Sanford,
> Nader's former editor, 1976
Sheesh! You have to go back to 19fucking76 to find a disgruntled
and embittered ex-associate! Out of context, and again without
Nader's side. Blatant assertions of unsubstantiated opinion and
irrelevant.
> Jay Leno: "What do you do for fun?" Nader: "Strawberries" -- The Tonight Show
Out of context. *I* saw it. It was Nader's poor attempt at humor
to a silly question when HE wanted to talk SUBSTANCE instead.
> "Information is the currency of democracy. It's denial must always be suspect."
> -- Ralph Nader
Context? When? Why? Cite!
> A HUGE hypocrite:
Blatant assertion based on innuendo and snarky ad homs. Most of
this is so OLD! IF there were anything solid on Nader, it would
have been discovered and PROVEN years ago! THIS is all mere
opinion and supposition from the realchange smear site.
> Nader wraps himself in the mantle of "public interest" with a personally
> ascetic style and a focus on structural or "apple pie" issues -- consumer
> safety, corporate accountability, "citizen power" -- rather than traditional
> partisan issues. He opposes not conservatives, but arrogant corporate leaders
> who amass money through public tax breaks, deny any democratic input or
> inquiry, and viciously attack anyone who challenges them. It's a brilliant
> strategy.
And who has shown any non-truth to it? He's been consistent and
voluble for years on this.
> Unfortunately, Nader has become exactly what he attacks.
So this unnamed source blatanly asserts. Where's the PROOF? WHY
should we believe HIS mere opining?
> His organizations allow
> no public input, intimidate foes and journalists, bust unions, hide almost all
> details of their finances (to the point of breaking laws),
To the point of? What does THAT mean? Were laws broken? ANY? Any
proof?
> and have amassed
> millions of dollars - all under Nader's direct and autocratic control.
Most of Nader's groups have been spun off and he has little or
no input at all.
> Meanwhile, Ralph has gotten rich off of investments in stock; in other words,
> by owning and profiting off the very corporations he is attacking. -- Sources
> -- Back to the top
Show that he's made money from "THE VERY" corporations he is
attacking! I KNOW he attacked Enron; any proof he profitted from
THEM? Where is the PROOF? Where are the specific examples? BTW,
this doesn't mention the vast majority of his income he gives TO
the groups he supports to do public works.
> Just another politician:
>
>> "Nader is as ravenous as a Nixon or a Kennedy, and the abstract principles he
> espouses he does not live by." -- Charles McCarry, "Citizen Nader"
Examples? Proof? Again, when written, and why? Why should we
believe THIS ink-stained wretch? These are simply MORE blatant
assertions of some yet-to-be-proved-credible nobody, taken out
of ANY context.
> Ralph's image is built on the idea that he is somehow pure,
According to who? This is a strawman fantasy BY this anonymous
source. Has Nader ever said as much?
> not motivated by
> power, fame or money like those nasty politicians. But he is in fact just
> another Washington lawyer and lifelong Beltway pol who has built a powerful
> organization, lobbies Congress, raises millions through direct mail and $1,000
> a plate dinners, gets paid tens of thousands by interest groups for his
> speeches, manipulates the press and overworks a lot of earnest young staffers.
See my response above. You could have said the same of Gandhi or
King.
> Even his presidential ambitions are old news. He claims to be running just to
> send a message, but Nader also ran for president in 1992 (running a write-in
> campaign in the New Hampshire primary, with little success). As far back as
> 1976, his media supporters (including Nicholas Van Hoffman and Mary McGrory)
> were plugging a draft Nader movement in their columns.
>
> It's fine for him to want power, fame and even money -- everyone else in
> Washington does -- but he ought to cut the holier-than-thou crap and take
> responsibility for his ambitions.
Cut? When is there any indication HE has exhibited such
behavior? It's only more projection based on unproven
assertions!
> No one doubts that Ross Perot -- who spent $60 million out of pocket on his last
> campaign -- has huge personal ambitions, whatever good he may accomplish as a
> candidate. Why should we think more of Ralph Nader, who has built a career
> flush with power, fame and money out of nothing else but his political actions
> in Washington?
Because Nader has actually accomplished positive things! Nader
has pointed out failings and has done things to address them,
more than any six presidential candidates of the last two
decades you can name!
> Nader is no better and no different than Jerry Falwell or Ralph Reed
Guilt by non-association! Just more name-calling without
evidence.
> -- nimble
> but unelected politicians who've made successful careers as self-appointed
> moralists.
> Sources -- Back to the top
>
> Anti-Democratic Authoritarian:
>
> Saint Ralph loves to preach about democracy and "citizen power", but he runs
> his carefully concealed empire with an iron grip.
See original response above. This is just more blatant
assertions.
> Of 19 groups associated with
> Nader, the most powerful and important groups are all directly controlled by
> Nader or completely under his influence and no one else's. With some groups,
> Nader is the only contributor; others are controlled by his sister, Laura Nader
> Milleron, or his cousin.
>
> And there is nothing democratic about Nader's groups -- citizens have no power
> at all.
THAT is not the purpose of having an organization; it's to
accomplish a goal. It's all clear if you don't come with
pre-conceived and hateful agendas as this anonymous author does.
> Of 19 groups in Nader's network, only one relatively minor one is a
> membership organization, which would allow individuals to vote and challenge
> the decisions of the small elite running them. The groups' managers operate in
> strict secrecy, releasing the absolute legal minimum of information, and
> sometimes not even that. And when Nader IS challenged, he gets vindictive and
> often attacks his questioner.
Proof? Examples? Cites? What is the point?
> Nader and his PIRG groups also fought for (and got) a very coercive funding
> mechanism -- dues charged automatically to all college students, whether they
> support Nader or not.
It's to support the GROUP, not Nader! Nader has no involvement
in ANY PIRG groups for years!
> Beyond the hypocrisy, this authoritarian streak is very dangerous in a potential
> president -- presidents have tremendous power, and the most important check on
> it is simply their personal honor and unwillingness to abuse power.
Show any examples of Nader betraying his trust or honor, or
abusing public power. *I* have never caught him in a lie!
> Nader has
> never shown these traits, much less an ability to make tough decisions that are
> fair to his enemies. Of course, he hasn't had much power to abuse -- yet.
> Anyone considering voting for him should think twice -- or three times -- about
> that.
Blatant assertions and speculation. THIS could be said about
ANYONE! But where are any FACTS? This is just personal attack
and snarkiness!
> Sources -- Back to the top
WHERE? WHO? WHEN?
> Secret luxury house:
>
> The Nader myth
Blatant assertion! Make up something, don't prove it, and thus,
since nobody else has heard of it, one punctures a made-up
(here) myth! The only "Nader myth" is the one this anonymous
author fabricates!
> is built in large part of stories of his personal asceticism --
> such as taking a minuscule salary,
Any proof he doesn't?
> not owning a car (he bums lots of rides),
Any proof he DOES own a car?
> and living (through the 1970s at least) in a boarding house with a bathroom
> down the hall.
Sheesh, only 30 year old claims! Is that the best you can do?
> He claims to live on $5,000 a year and give nearly all the rest
> to his organizations.
I've never seen that $5K figure! Care to cite where Nader
claimed this? I've seen figures closer to 30-40K in actuall
expenses for personal living. And that he does give most of his
book and speaking fee income to the groups he wishes to support.
Do YOU?
> Back in 1996, we noted that Nader had long earned hundreds of thousands of
> dollars per year in speaking fees -- over $250,000 annually even in the
> mid-1970s --
And a sharp lawyer of his talent (look at John Edwards!) could
have been worth tens or hundreds of millions IF that is what he
did with his talent! Do you begrudge him earning a living IF
people are willing to pay to hear him speak? Is Cokie Roberts
worth $50K PER SPEECH? Or any number of celebrities who
routinely pull in that kind of money?
> played the stock market and carefully avoided making details of
> his finances public,
Don't you believe in privacy? He has revealed whatever the law
requires. Who's the hypocrite now?
> even as he demanded that various corporations and other
> politicans reveal their money dealings.
As the law requires! Care to show that Nader is under the same
requirements, or has broken any laws?
> He has steadfastly refused to make his tax returns public (as Dole and Clinton
> have done).
When was THAT written? He made all required figures public in
2000.
> In 1996 he even says he spent less than $5,000 on his campaign so
> that he wasn't required to file even the minimal financial disclosure forms
> every other candidate is filing.
So? If he didn't go over the mark, he wasn't required to!
> This time he had to admit spend more than $5,000, and his financial disclosure
> -- while sketchy -- revealed that he is a multimillionaire who makes hundreds
> of thousands on speeches each year
How much does Ollie North or Newt Gingrich make? At $50K or more
PER speech, it doesn't take much heavy lifting to make hundreds
of thousands, does it? Add book fees too, while you're at it,
and it is still WAY less than he COULD be making IF that was his
only goal in life. And, with the stock market bust, he's
probably at half or a third of his 2000 value. But, is that
illegal? What kind of FAR LEFT guy plays the market, anyway?
> and owns over $1 million in Cisco stock
> alone.
So? Probably not worth THAT much any more! Do you begrudge him
for wisely investing at the time in a growing tech stock? Did he
have Enron stock? Global Crossing? Exxon?
> (Nader still refused to release his tax returns, though all other major
> candidates have done so for the last many years.)
Nader complied with ALL disclosure laws and requirements!
> His lifestyle claims are bullpucky in other ways, too. His speaking gigs often
> include first class hotels and and meals, even limousines,
If THEY are willing to pay, what business is that of YOURS?
Unless he wears a hairshirt and eats gruel YOU won't be
satisfied?
> and the many
> organizations he controls -- that's where his tax-deductible contributions go
> -- have many ways to cover his expenses as well. Plus, there is considerable
> evidence that he does own and stay in one or more houses. He acknowledges
> spending considerable time at a "family house" in Connecticut, and he appears
> to own a townhouse in Washington.
More blatant ad hom assertions. Yes, his family has a house in
CT, but if he DID own a townhouse in DC, that would be more than
"appears"! Where's the proof?
> David Sanford of the New Republic documented that residents of a posh
> neighborhood in Washington -- on Bancroft Place NW -- often spotted him
> sneaking into an expensive house there.
Which could mean anything. So what? Any evidence of crime or
theft?
> Some investigation showed that Nader's
> brother purchased the house -- worth $100,000 even back in 1972 -- though he
> was an underemployed educational "consultant" and had no education beyond high
> school. Nader issued a statement "that he does not live in his brother's
> Bancroft Place house", but when a now-former worker (Lowell Dodge) asked him
> privately, he wouldn't deny it.
Ah, proof by non-denial!
> When the Washington Post's then-society columnist Maxine Cheshire asked Nader
> about the reports, he knew every detail of the house's financing and couldn't
> resist rhapsodizing about what a great tax break buying a house was. "He talks
> about that real estate investment the way some men talk about sex. He's so
> excited about the whole idea of tax write-offs and all that. I mean, did I
> realize that that's the greatest investment you can make, the biggest tax
> advantage, bla bla bla bla bla bla."
And this prove exactly WHAT?
> Sources -- Back to the top
>
> Owned by the trial lawyers' lobby:
>
> Nader always received lots of funding from trials lawyers,
Prove it! When trial lawyers were brought up by Tim Russert on
Meet the Press, Nader laughed and dismissed any support by them
as a group.
> and in return has
> supported their interests throughout his career. For all his talk of democracy,
> Nader's vision is of an elite of lawyers -- led of course by himself --
More blatant assertions! Prove that Nader has said or "visioned"
any such thing!
> defending the little guy, much more than true "citizen power". He confided to
> Charles McCarry his dream of having 4,000 to 5,000 "professionals" around the
> country to battle business nationwide.
And that's a BAD thing?
> Sources -- Back to the top
>
> Busted a union among his workers:
False. See above.
> Ralph talks big about democracy and even unions. But when his own workers at
> one of his magazines, Multinational Monitor, got fed up with cruel working
> conditions and started agitating for a union of their own, Nader busted the
> union with all of the hardball techniques used by corporate owners across
> America. Workers at Public Citizen, another Nader group, also tried to form a
> union because of 60 to 80 hour work weeks, salaries that ranged from $13,000
> down, and other difficult working conditions and were blocked by Nader, who
> remains unapologetic to this day.
And was Nader, other than the following snippet, given equal
time to give HIS version of events?
> Nader says "I don't think there is a role for unions in small nonprofit 'cause'
> organizations any more than ... within a monastery or within a union."
> When ringleader Tim Shorrock filed the union recognition papers, Nader
> immediately transferred ownership in the Multinational Monitor to close friends
> who ran an organization ("Essential Information") that Nader had set up. When
> Shorrock showed up for work the next day, he had been fired, the locks were
> changed, and management called the police to charge him with theft (of his own
> work papers.) That charge was thrown out of court, but management fired the two
> supportive editors and sued the three of them for $1.2 million, agreeing to
> drop the intimidation suit only when they dropped their NLRB complaint. All of
> these action are straight from the hardball anti-union playbook, and Nader
> makes no apology.
See comments above. Was Nader given equal time to respond?
> According to Nader, "Public interest groups are like crusades…you can't have
> work rules, or 9 to 5." Shorrock, with his "union ploy," became an "adversary"
> according to Nader. "Anything that is commercial, is unionizable," but small
> public interest organizations "would go broke in a month," Nader says, if they
> paid union wages, offered union benefits and operated according to standard
> work rules, such as the eight-hour day.
And those who sign on should know what to expect! Any evidence
that this isn't an accurate description?
> Remember that Nader's well-funded
> organizations were amassing tons of extra money
EXTRA money? Prove it! Show that Nader saw any of IT!
> that Ralph has been playing the
> stock market with during all these events.
With money made by HIS books and HIS speaking fees,
strawslinger! Implications that he used NON-PROFIT moneys to buy
PERSONAL stock are beneath contempt.
> Sources -- Back to the top
>
> Abuses workers --
>
> "How can we go out and try to save the world from people when we're grinding
> people to death all the time?"-- John Esposito, original staffer at Nader's
> Center for the Study of Responsive Law
Grinding people to death? I doubt it! Hey, did anyone work
harder than Nader himself?
> "Nader strikes me as conforming to the stereotype people have of sociologists
> and politicians: they bleed for the poor and downtrodden but mistreat their
> maids." -- David Sanford
More snarky blatant assertions of unsubstantiated opinion.
"Strike me as"! "Conforming to the stereotype people have"! What
third-hand accusations! Any proof Nader 'mistreated his maid'?
> Like many Washington politicians, Ralph Nader's groups have long taken
> advantage of earnest young ambitious workers, with two differences; Nader was
> more controlling and paid far less. In 1976, many were paid $5,000 per year and
> only a few at the top made as much as $20,000. (Nader's organizations refuse to
> release information on what they pay workers.) Meanwhile, Nader required daily
> logs of everything the workers did from 7am to 9pm, plus monthly summaries of
> these logs. If you didn't turn in your logs, you didn't get paid.
So? Nobody HAD to work for Nader's groups, did they?
> Nader often called workers after midnight or on sunny weekend days, with
> instructions, or just to test their willingness to work hard. When a revolt
> over working conditions broke out in the Congress Project and students demanded
> a group session with Nader, he contemptuously scheduled a meeting at 7:00 am,
> believing that few would show up.
So? Nobody HAD to work for Nader's groups, did they?
> 9 marriages of staffers broke up under the pressure, including John and Nancy
> Esposito's, Mark Green's, Sid Wolfe's, and Davitt McAteer's.
And NADER alone was the cause? Marriages OUTSIDE of Nader orgs
NEVER break up independent of Nader being THE cause? Sheesh.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
> What makes this meanness worse is that Nader claims to be defending workers --
> for example in opposing the GATT treaty --
Workers in the private workplace are NOT in the same boat as
often well-to-do children of privilege who CHOSE to work for
Nader groups. There were no illusions of what the job would
entail, and they were not naive.
> and that his organizations have a
> huge surplus of money,
Prove it.
> accumulating millions of dollar with which Ralph has
> played the stock market.
Prove it! Prove that he used NON-PROFIT contributions to
personally buy stocks, as opposed to using his own fees and
royalties! This is just more blatant assertion of ad hom
slander.
> Sources -- Back to the top
>
> Amassing millions of dollars and playing the stock market with it:
So you blatantly opine! Where's the proof?
> Unlike almost every other nonprofit organization, Nader's various groups often
> amass a nontaxable profit of several hundred thousand dollars per year, and
> have rapidly build up impressive net worth's -- which Ralph refuses to reveal
> in his annual reports. (His lame reply is that people who are interested can
> get the information by getting every year's annual report and doing the math.
> So much for openness.)
So much for the law! Nader is not required to reveal more than
the law requires! Any proof that any laws are being violated?
> The book "Abuse of Trust" carefully documents the money amassed and stocks
> played for 6 major groups, including Public Citizen, Inc. and the Center for
> the Study of Responsive Law, his two largest groups. Public Citizen, Inc., in
> particular, amassed money so quickly that it bought an old FBI building for
> $1.25 million IN CASH in 1980, only its eighth year of existence.
Any laws broken? Any proof Nader used non-profit money
illegally?
> One reason he may hide his ample cash reserves -- besides the fact that people
> may not want to give him more money -- is that he is fond of playing the stock
> market with that green. (He also uses surpluses from his most flush
> organizations, usually the tax deductible ones, to give grants to his other
> groups.) Some of these transactions appear reckless for a nonprofit, "public
> interest" group; others skirt the edges of insider trading and conflict of
> interest. Mostly, it seems that all this money was a toy that Nader enjoyed
> playing with, especially as his winnings increased his power, fame and
> influence.
This is all snarky blatant assertion and slander. Where's the
proof?
> For example, the Nader is the president and treasurer of the Public Safety
> Research Institute.
Is he still? When was this written?
> In 1970 alone, PSRI traded on the stock market 67 times,
> buying and selling $750,000 worth of stock, though the organization only had
> $150,000 worth of assets. These trades included a number of short sales, high
> risk and tricky transactions. Some worked, some lost money. In later years,
> PSRI traded less, for a good reason -- the IRS audited them after 1970 and
> charged the organization with "churning", excessive stock trades whose risk
> threatens the charitable purposes of the organization. It paid a fine and did
> not contest the charge. Thereafter, PSRI continued to play the market with
> fewer, generally long positions.
Any laws broken? I notice PSRI is mentioned, NOT Nader! Why?
> Likewise, the Safety Systems Foundation (SSF)
> -- run by Nader's sister, and entirely funded by him personally -- engaged in a
> number of stock and bond transactions in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was
> also fined by the IRS and paid without contest.
There are many reasons for NOT contesting an IRS challenge
(which COULD be politically motivated, or didn't you know that
during Nixon's years the IRS was used to attack and harrass
enemies?) that have nothing to do with guilt.
> Several of these trades were poised to take advantage of Nader's activities, by
> selling short the stock of companies Nader's groups attacked, or buying stock
> of their competitors. In 1973, PSRI bought stock in Allied Chemical, the
> primary manufacturer of airbags, on the very day before GM announced they would
> offer optional airbags on 1974 models. PSRI made a 12.5% profit in 3 and a half
> months. In 1976, PSRI and the SSF bought stock in Goodyear just as the National
> Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- then run by former top Nader aide Joan
> Claybrook -- announced an investigation of the Firestone 500 series of
> steel-belted radials. The 2 organizations held onto the stock for 2 years until
> there was a recall, and Firestone -- Goodyear's major competitor -- suffered.
Any proof that laws were broken? Nader had enough enemies that
if any of this could be made to stick, it would have been done
so. Where's Nader's responses to these charges?
> In 1970, IT&T attempted to merge with the Hartford Fire Insurance Company. Nader
> filed a 50 page brief attacking the merger, then SSF sold IT&T stock short. It
> made almost 10% on its money in 6 DAYS, then closed its position two days
> before the merger was approved. When pressed by a reporter, Nader said the
> timing was "mere coincidence" and said he had no control over the investment.
> However, his sister Laura Nader Millerson was the sole trustee of SSF
> throughout its existence, and Nader was the sole contributor.
Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc.
> Sources -- Back to the top
>
> Secrecy and stonewalling:
>
> Ralph exhibits a driven secrecy and paranoia reminiscent of no one so much as
> Richard Nixon, his old enemy.
More snarky character assassination by comparison without
substantiation. See my old comments above.
> The man who said "information is the currency of
> democracy; its denial must always be suspect" routinely refuses to release even
> basic information about himself or his organizations. Granted, he has enemies,
> but this trait goes back to when no one knew of him. In the mid-1960s, before
> "Unsafe At Any Speed" made him famous, Nader wrote for the New Republic
> Magazine and often gave the secretary there a false name (Mr. Wilson) when he
> called or visited. Even then, he made some of his phone calls in whispers or in
> code to thwart possible wiretappers.
Blatant assertions and hearsay.
> Another Nixonian trait of Nader's is a tendency to cover-up.
Blatant assertion and character assassination by (unproven)
association.
> When pressed or
> challenged, he has lied,
Prove it! Examples and evidence!
> shunted responsibility onto his staff members, made
> them reconstruct documents, hidden his control over his own organizations,
> attacked the press or critics involved, or simply refused to release
> information with lame excuses.
So this anonymous whiner opines.
> There are many examples:
> -- Ralph refuses to release his tax returns (as Clinton and Dole have)
He didn't have to in 96!
> -- He even says he will spend less than $5,000 in this presidential campaign so
> he won't have to file the minimal financial disclosure all other candidates
> have filed.
And so he did and thus didn't have to disclose!
> -- Two of his top aides even refused to give the address of Nader's office to
> two Congressman who requested it at a Congressional Hearing.
Did the law require it? Don't you believe in privacy?
> -- His main group, Public Citizen,
Is he still in charge?
> has actively fought disclosure laws that
> would inform the public of the role that special interest groups -- such as his
> -- play in lobbying on legislation. (e.g. H.R. 81 in the 96th Congress)
> -- Public Citizen refused to give information to the Better Business Bureau or
> the similar NIB when requested.
What information? Who said they had to?
> -- He runs a network of organizations, which he claims are independent -- but
> his brother, sister and cousins hold major leadership positions with several,
> Nader heads advisory boards for others, and he is the only or major financial
> donor to 3 groups. Many other groups are funded in whole or in part by other
> groups in the network that Ralph does directly control.
Any laws broken? Any proof for these claims?
> -- Ralph even incorporated one of his groups -- the Public Safety Research
> Institute -- in Delaware, because of its notoriously lax corporate laws,
Any proof for THAT claim?
> -- As of 1982,
Sheesh! How old IS this crap? Any proof it is as claimed?
> his groups disregarded the charitable solicitation laws of 25 by
> not filing legally required registrations.
YOUR interpretation.
> At least 1 state (New York) had to
> pursue Public Citizen, Inc. and the Center for the Study of Responsive Law
> (Nader's 2 biggest groups) legally to try and force them to obey the law.
So you claim. That's THEIR claim. Or your interpretation.
> -- After the first attacks on him for being owned by trial lawyers, he
> distorted facts,
Prove it. All I see is the blatant assertion of unsubstantiated
opinion.
> attacked the press and forced am employee to create a false
> history to cover up the scandal. The employee, Lowell Dodge, later fell out
> with Nader and revealed this cover-up.
So how do we know he's telling the truth? Maybe he was just
getting revenge? And this is just secondhand interpretation.
> Sources -- Back to the top
>
> Vindictive toward critics:
>
> Another authoritarian trait of Nader's is his inability to tolerate any
> criticism. Journalists who question his excesses are inevitably accused of
> personal vendettas, or being tools of industry.
And maybe they are! Do YOU like being criticized? I don't! But
that doesn't mean he isn't correct.
> Politicians get worse: Nader called one Congressman who opposed the Consumer
> Protection Act "a disgustingly repulsive, slimy double-crosser." He called
> another a "pathological liar" and a "corrupt, lying anti-people crook."
Context? Details? Maybe he WAS just that!
> His
> crime? Opposing a bill to mandate air bags.
Maybe. But was THAT why Nader purportedly said what is claimed?
> Nader went on to say that people
> who opposed mandatory airbags were the kind that would "sell thalidomide to
> pregnant women."
Context? Details?
> Even his own workers face Ralph's wrath for leaving after years of grueling,
> underpaid and loyal work. James Fallows, author of a recent book critiquing the
> media, worked for Nader at the start of his career. He wrote: "I think you
> won't find many people who have had a pleasant parting with Ralph. It's usually
> pretty ugly when the separation comes, and I think it's largely that by leaving
> you seem to make a choice... a 'if you're not with us you're against us' sort
> of thing."
Opinion. Assertion. Bias.
> Penn State's Board of Overseers declined Nader's PIRG group's coercive funding
> and voted instead to let students check a box to make a donation (like
> presidential campaign funding on 1040 tax forms) -- a perfectly reasonable
> compromise. Nader blasted this plan as a "sabotage technique" and "tyranny 1776
> style," and then announced an investigation of the school's trustees for
> "conflicts of interest."
One-sided version of this.
> Sources -- Back to the top
>
> Forced contributions to his college PIRG groups:
>
> College PIRG groups, which Nader founded and leads despite his denials of
> control,
Prove it.
> use an astonishingly undemocratic, even coercive funding mechanism
> that Ralph designed. Once a college approves, all students are automatically
> billed a few dollars out of their student fees to support the local PIRG. To
> avoid paying, students must make a special trip to the Registrar and fill out a
> form so they can get their $2-6 back.
This may be true for many organizations.
> Most don't of course, out of inertia or because they aren't even aware they're
> funding Ralph. That's why record and book clubs use the same mechanism. Nader,
> like most consumer advocates, opposes these billing methods as a rip-off -
> unless they fund his own groups. One PIRG worker estimated that at Penn State
> alone, forced payments would have brought in $270,000 a year, while a voluntary
> checkoff would only have raised $30,000
>
> These forced payments brought over a million dollars a year to PIRGs even back
> in the mid-1970s. (Nader's PIRG group won't release the total amount.) At least
> 145 colleges in 20 states were involved.
>
> When Penn State turned down this method in favor of a box students could check
> to donate, the PIRG refused it. Nader attacked the school viciously, as
> described above.
There's no 'description' only blatant assertion and selective
interpretation.
>
> Sources -- Back to the top
>
> Hypochondriac:
>
> By many accounts, Ralph has a fear of germs that may well be hypochondriacal.
By many accounts? So much for 'proof'!
Unable to deal with the message and what matters, this has
devolved into sheer personal hysteria and ad hom well poisoning.
As I said, Jesus was treated the same!
> When he was interviewed in July 2000 for CNN, his main concern before the
> interview was "Did you wash that [earpiece]?". According to his former editor
> David Sanford, Nader refuses dinner invitations from anyone with pets, because
> he thinks cats cause leukemia, and simply hates dogs.
I repeat from earlier:
I guess one could write a similarly smarmy portrait of any great
figure from Jesus to St. Francis to Gandhi to ML King, but what
would it prove? That they had some human frailties, as do any of
us? That they had envious, small-minded enemies acting like the
pickpocket who, when he sees a holy man, sees only his pockets?
Even if some of these shortcomings were true, and I have no way
of knowing how accurate they are, they would not weaken the
validity of the message Nader propounds, nor the value of the
work he has done. Compared to the shortcomings of previous
presidents, or those of the other candidates shredded at this
site, Nader comes out quite well by comparison.
> Sources -- Back to the top
>
And just what ARE the sources?
>
> Sources
>
>
> <"http://www.earth1.net/~ricjan/yates.html">"Nader is a Pain in the Ass", by
> Brock Yates, The Windmill, November 1971
>
Wow, 1971! So much for timely, relevant material!
> ----------Anti-democratic Authoritarian Sources
>
>
>
> "Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network", Dan Burt, (Chicago: Regnery
> Gateway) 1982 p16-17
Over 20 years old!
> --- Back to the top
>
> ----------Hypocrite Sources
>
>
> "Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford (New Republic Books)
> 1976, p19-20
Almost 30 years old! Talk about grasping at straws!
> "Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network", Dan Burt, (Chicago: Regnery
> Gateway) 1982
More old crap.
> --- Back to the top
>
> ----------Secret Luxury House sources
>
>
> "Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford (New Republic Books)
> 1976, p23-26
>
> "Ralph Nader, Inc.", Forbes Magazine, September 17, 1990 p119, 122
And THEY have no bias against one who attacks corrupt
corporations!
> --- Back to the top
>
> ----------Owned by the Trial Lawyers Sources
>
>
> "Dems Step Up to Well-Stocked Plaintiff Bar", Wall Street Journal, September 4,
> 1992 pA6/A8
WSJ! THEY'RE objective! And where's the actual PROOF?
> "Forbes' Raid on Nader", Washington Post, September 10, 1990 pB1, B10
>
> "Public Citizen's Non-Disclosure", Wall Street Journal, March 17, 1992 pA14
>
> "Ralph Nader is a bargain for trial lawyers at $1,000 a table", by L. Gordon
> Crovitz, Wall Street Journal, November 14, 1990 pA15
Nader speaks to LOTS of groups; is he "owned" by students
because he speaks to lots of colleges?
>
> "Naderite Mossbacks Lose Control Over Corporate Law", Wall Street Journal, June
> 24, 1992
>
> "Tortmeisters In the Sun", Wall Street Journal, October 30,1990 pA18
>
> "Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford (New Republic Books)
> 1976, p33-42
>
> "Ralph Nader, Inc.", Forbes Magazine, September 17, 1990 p119, 122
>
> "L. Ron Nader" (editorial), Wall Street Journal, June 25, 1991
Yes, when you want the objective truth, go to a WSJ editorial!
> "A Chink In Nader's Armor?", Leah Young, The New Republic, September 2, 1972
Is there? 1972!!!
> --- Back to the top
>
> ----------Just a Politician Sources
>
> Los Angeles Times, March 19, 1996
>
> $1000/plate: "Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network", Dan Burt,
> (Chicago: Regnery Gateway) 1982 p14-15
Opinion or proof?
> 1976 run - "Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford (New
> Republic Books) 1976, p1-5 --- Back to the top
>
> ----------Union Busting Sources
>
> "Anti Labor Chapter Surfaces in Nader's Past ", by Heather Szerlag, Pacifica
> Radio News, October 31, 2000 (starting at 10:45 into the half hour broadcast -
> slide your RealAudio player forward to that point.)
Claims aren't proof. One side isn't the whole story.
> "Union Buster? The NADER?", by Nick Mamatas, Greenwich Village Gazette, Vol. 5,
> #44, September 15, 2000
Another question mark! Why? Because maybe it's all just claims
and no proof?!!!
> "1.75 Cheers For Ralph", Left Business Observer, October, 1996 (see the section
> "Ralph As Boss")
>
> "Nader Is A Union Buster" (email), by Tim Shorrock (one of the fired workers),
> The Sixties-L Listserv, June 27, 2000
See above.
> "Editors Claim Firing By Nader Based on Unionization Attempt," by Peter Perl,
> Washington Post, June 28, 1984 pB3
And Nader's response is...?
> --- Back to the top
>
> ----------Abusing Workers Sources
>
> "The Low-Paid Affluent in Public-Interest Work", by S. Robert Lichter and
> Stanley Rothman, New York Times, July 18, 1983 (letter to the editor responding
> to Nader's charges in the next article)
Hmmm, 'low-paid affluent' Yes, many of those who basically were
VOLUNTEERING were NOT in NEED of funds!
> "Washington Talk Briefing: One Survey, Two Views", by James Clarity and Phil
> Gailey, New York Times, June 29, 1983, pA14
>
> "Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford (New Republic Books)
> 1976, p60-65
>
> --- Back to the top
>
> ----------Amassing Money Sources
>
> Ralph Nader's official financial disclosure form for year 2000, Open Secrets web
> site
>
> "Inside Nader's stock portfolio", by Jake Tapper, Salon Magazine, October 28,
> 2000
There was a concerted and scurrilous effort to bash and trash
Nader in 2000; NO irrelevant facts were too low or off limits to
the GoreWhore patrols!
> "Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network", Dan Burt, (Chicago: Regnery
> Gateway) 1982 p81-95
>
> "Nader Pays $1,250,000 Cash for Old Office Building", Ann Zimmerman,
> Washingtonian, June 1980, p11 (cited in Abuse of Trust)
>
> "Nader Undaunted by Setbacks to Consumer Drive", Joseph Lleyveld, New York
> Times, November 24, 1975 p1
LOOK at how old and hoary this all is! THAT'S how little there
is to pin on Ralph after all these years! That's how far they
have to dig to find such slim and questionable pickings!
> --- Back to the top
>
> ----------Quote Sources
>
> Civil war quote - "Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network", Dan Burt,
> (Chicago: Regnery Gateway) 1982 p146, citing "'Geiger Counter', Voice, April 4,
> 1977". Is that the Village Voice? Not clear.
>
> Dave Barry quote -- from his book "Sweating Out Taxes", quoted on Susan
> Brumbaugh's Internet Quotes page.
Jokes now stand in for political discourse!
> Denial of information is suspect quote -- "Abuse of Trust" 1982 citing "Ralph
> Nader Reports", Ladies Home Journal, September 1973,
There's a serious political publication! 1973!
> Sanford quote -- "Me and Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford
> (New Republic Book Company) 1976 Introduction (pX)
>
> sweatshops quote -- "Me and Ralph", p62
>
> Ralph Redux? by Micah L. Sifry, The Nation, November 6, 2003
>
> --- Back to the top
Consider and respond to the following:
http://www.counterpunch.org/frank03182004.html
Democracy is for everyone. And if liberals and progressives do
decide to hold their nose and pull the lever for John Kerry,
they better be able to consciously handle the ramifications of
their pragmatic choice if he's victorious. Here is a short list
for which they'll need redemption:
* A continued US endorsement of Israel's illegal occupation of
Palestinian territories.
* A US supported occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
* A continued adherence to neoliberal policies throughout the
free market world.
* An American health care system controlled and run by private
corporations.
* An increase in the level of income disparity among rich and
poor citizens in the US.
* And an almost exponential decline of the natural environment
and endangered species of North America. And much much more.
It is true that Ralph Nader may not be the answer to all that
ails us, but he is at this moment the only Presidential
candidate willing to challenge the status quo we call American
politics. A vote for John Kerry may amount to a vote against a
vile Bush administration, but it is also a vote cast in support
of a degraded structure that continues to ignore the majority of
the American people.
Perhaps the Green and Reform Parties are on to something, and
their support of Nader's candidacy could be done more in protest
than solidarity.
Regardless it would be wise for us to realize that Kerry is part
of the problem, not the solution.
Josh Frank can be reached at: frank_...@hotmail.com
> Plonk
Yes, that's easier than dealing with the substance.
In 2000, I said "Bush: very, very, very bad; Gore: very, very
bad. See the difference?" Kerry is somewhere between very bad
and very, very bad. See?
Here's some more:
Kerry vs. Kerry-lite
By Stephen Gowans
<http://www3.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans/kerry.html>
http://www3.sympatico.ca/sr. gowans/kerry.html
Some advice to politically Left Americans. Most of you will cast
a vote for John Kerry in November. There's not much doubt about
it. And the reason you'll be backing Kerry is (a) you assume
nothing could be worse than Bush, (b) the Democrats must be
marginally better, because…well, because they're Democrats, (c)
pressuring elites doesn't seem to be working and you can't think
of anything else to do to stop "Bush's" drive to war, and (d)
all those people who keep warning you about lesser evilism,
can't seem to come up with anything better. So Kerry's your man.
Oh sure, some of you admire Kucinich. Others even think well of
Nader. But you know Kerry's going to be your go-to-guy come
November.
Okay, fine. Leave it at that. When the time comes, head down to
the polling station, and cast your vote. But in the meantime,
shut up about it, because, just between you and me, you're
starting to look a little silly, twisting yourself into knots to
explain why it is that all the things you used to say about the
Democrats being the same as the Republicans, no longer apply.
Of course, you're not going to give up talking the talk, even if
you'll be miles away walking smack dab in the middle of your
comfort zone. There will be no going cold turkey on all the
leftist shibboleths you've been spouting for decades. Like Noam
Chomsky, you'll still point to the Democrats as nothing more
than the second business party [1], kind of like Thing Two to
the Republican's Thing One. And you'll dismiss your go-to-guy as
nothing more than Bush-lite, but hey, a lite beer's still better
than the real thing when you're trying to get rid of those love
handles, right?
Except I'm trying to figure out why everyone keeps saying Kerry
is Bush-lite [2], rather than Bush in a different suit, or that
Bush is Kerry-lite. Look at Kerry's record.
For one thing, as much as Bush, Kerry's part of the ruling class
– that privileged, hyper-rich stratum of the population that
organizes the domestic and foreign policy of the United States
in its own interests. Not only have corporations showered more
contributions on Kerry than on any other member of the
millionaires' club that doubles as the Senate, he's also the
richest millionaire in the club. He and his wife Teresa Heinz
Kerry, boast a net worth of between $200 and $840 million [3].
But Kerry's wealth and his fitting into corporate circles like a
CEO into an oversize corner office, isn't all that makes him, at
best, a dead ringer for Bush. His policies do, too. Kerry
proposes "a bold vision of progressive internationalism," a
"tough-minded strategy of international engagement and
leadership" in the tradition of such renowned peaceniks as
Woodrow Wilson (WWI), Harry Truman (Hiroshima) and John F.
Kennedy (Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs) [4].
Which may be why "Bush's" drive to war, which we're told, must
be stopped by voting for Kerry, seems to be Kerry's drive to
war, too [5]. After all, he voted for the war on Afghanistan,
and supports the occupation [6]. He voted for the war on Iraq,
and says "we now have a solemn obligation to complete the
mission" [7]. He promises to add 40,000 troops to the Army and
to spend more on defense than the Republicans, and more on
homeland security [8]. Yeah, he sure sounds different from Bush,
though not in any better way.
What's more, not only is he prepared to use military force
unilaterally, ("People will know I'm tough and I'm prepared to
do what is necessary to defend the United States of America, and
that includes the unilateral deployment of troops if necessary,"
[9] he's prepared "to target and capture terrorists even before
they act" and says he "will not hesitate to order direct
military action when needed to capture and destroy terrorist
groups and their leaders" [10] -- his own doctrine of preventive
war.
Plus he says he will spend more on the National Endowment for
Democracy [11], an organization that does openly what the CIA
used to do covertly -- meddle in the affairs of countries like
Haiti, Venezuela, Serbia and Cuba, that put the interests of the
domestic population ahead of those of corporate America and
investors who can boast net worths of hundreds of millions of
dollars, like, let's see...well, like Kerry.
And in case you thought Kerry draws his advisors from a
different stratum of the population than Bush does, you should
know that his national finance chair, Louis Susman, is
vice-chairperson of investment banking for Citigroup [12], and
that his foreign policy adviser, Rand Beers, worked for Bush's
National Security Council until about a year ago [13]. So
explain to me how there's anything lite about Kerry?
My favorite Kerry quote is, "I could never agree with those in
the antiwar movement who dismissed our troops [in Vietnam] as
war criminals or our country as the villain in the drama" [14].
As for Iraq, if Kerry has a problem with Bush, it's that he
didn't drag France, Germany and Russia into the war, preferring
to strike a grabby, it's all mine, pose, rather than the "let's
divide up the loot" approach the Democrats favor. Apparently, a
gang rape is better than a rape carried out by a lone assailant,
which, I gather, would make a gang rapist a rapist-lite, and
therefore more worthy of our backing than a rapist who goes it
alone.
But, for the record, Washington hasn't gone it alone in Iraq,
managing to cobble together a coalition, though one lacking
France, Germany and Russia, whose backing, in some perverted
twist of reasoning, is supposed to have invested the rape of
Iraq with legitimacy. Apparently, if you can lure other renowned
rapists into a gang rape, it gives the whole sordid affair moral
weight. So, you'll have to excuse me, but I don't see any
redeeming difference between Kerry and the current Kerry-lite
occupant of the White House, not even a razor-thin one, at least
not one that would lead me to conclude that Kerry's better, if
only marginally. And if there's any logic in the Chomsky claim
-- which he's been making for a while now -- that a minuscule
difference can make a big difference (because the president has
so much power, Kerry being even a little better than Bush can
have fairly substantial implications), I'm afraid it has eluded
me, as well. Is it just me, or is Chomsky staring to sound like
those corporate PR flaks, who rather than not even trying to
claim black is white, figure their forensic skills are so finely
honed, that they can pull it off?
And has Michael Parenti, another high-profile American leftist,
joined the club? Of course, he has. He, along with Chomksy and a
gaggle of other left luminaries, wrote a "letter to the left"
sometime late last year, that attributed the drive to war to
Bush [15], as if wars of aggression haven't been a fixture of US
foreign policy, and have suddenly sprung to life fully formed
under the Bush administration's careful nurturing. They coyly
avoided saying that the Left should vote Democrat in the next
election, but the message was plain, and odd, coming from a
number of people who say they're radicals, but then, maybe the
meaning of radical changes in "times when you have to pursue
coalition politics against the forces like the kind we're facing
in the White House today" [16].
Not so many years ago -- four to be exact -- pursuing coalition
politics wasn't deemed to be so important. Back then Michael
Moore was directing a Rage Against the Machine video that
depicted Al Gore as a clone of George Bush, and he, and a whole
bunch of other US Left luminaries, were exhorting people to vote
for the anti-clone, Nader, none more zealously than Moore
himself. But what made impeccable sense back then, now seems to
make no sense at all. Nader's been dumped faster than a date
with active genital herpes, and Moore slunk back to the
Democrats soon after the election, his self-imposed estrangement
from his political home passed off as temporary insanity.
Eventually, he decided to back the real Butcher of Belgrade,
Wesley Clark, for a run at the Democratic nomination, touting a
war criminal, on record as supporting the rape of Iraq, as the
peace candidate the anti-war Left could really get behind.
My logic isn't infallible, but it seems to me if we accept
Moore's claim that Al Gore is a clone of George W. Bush, then
Gore as president would have been like Bush as president. In
other words, there would have been a war on Afghanistan, which
seems pretty likely given that 99 percent of the establishment,
plus a fair number of liberals, think the whole affair was a
pretty good thing. And we can be sure Gore would have carried
out some kind of hostility against Iraq aimed at regime change,
since, after all, this had been the policy of two
administrations, one of which Gore belonged to. All of which
makes one wonder why Moore has decided, along with Chomsky and
Parenti, that coalition politics - - that is a vote for the
Democrats -- has suddenly become vitally important. It's as if
they're all kicking themselves for not voting for Gore when they
had the chance -- even if he is a clone of Bush. Figure that one
out. Maybe it's a poor grasp of logic. All of them talk about
the necessity of voting for the candidate most likely to defeat
the dangerous and repellent Bush, assuming quite unjustifiably
that his successor won't be equally or more dangerous and
repellent.
Radical, if it means anything, should refer to the root of a
problem, and given that aggressive foreign policies have been
pursued by every administration, and elsewhere in the world, by
governments of various political hues, it seems highly unlikely
that the drive to war is an anomaly of a group of people in
power. It seems far more likely to be systemic, and therefore,
the means to stop the drive to war must be systemic, as well.
And yet the word, radical, it would seem, now means acting to
replace one group of people drawn from the ruling class, who
seek to shape the international security order in line with US
export and investment interests, with another group of people
drawn from the same ruling class, who aim to exercise US power
boldly in the tradition of Wilson, Truman and Kennedy, to do the
same.
Parenti, who talks a militant leftist line, says elections
matter, but boasts that he coined the phrase "two-party
monopolies" when he wrote, "Democracy For the Few," [17] which
would kind of suggest Parenti was thinking that elections don't
matter and a vote for the Democrats equals a vote for the
Republicans, or if you extend the logic, that the drive to war
does not belong uniquely to the Republicans but is owned by the
monopoly. So you see elections don't matter, but they do matter.
Figure that one out. I can't decide whether Parenti's starting
to remind me of a guy who writes cryptic fortune cookie
fortunes, or a retired Sprite salesman who's been claiming for
the last four decades that Coke and Pepsi are the same, but has
just put in a call to the regional Pepsi sales office demanding
a Pepsi machine be installed outside his local public gym,
because all that's there now is a Coke machine, and he can't
stand the taste of Coke.
If the US, in Parenti's words, is a democracy for the few,
dominated by the super rich like Kerry and Kerry-lite, what
difference do elections make? At this point the exponents of the
view that elections matter (well, at least this election
matters) step forward and say, "Yes, but the Bush Republicans
are a particularly vicious wing of the ruling class, and while
the Democrats are only marginally better, they are better all
the same, and therefore any project that seeks to put a Democrat
in the White House is meliorative."
Let's ignore the reality that this is like saying death by
guillotine is better than death by hanging, because a hanging
death can be long, drawn out, and gruesome, whereas the
guillotine is swift and certain and marginally more humane. By
this reasoning we're supposed to support death by guillotine and
believe we've accomplished something if we thereby avoid the
hangman's noose. Either way, you end up with a nasty neck-ache,
though on the bright side, it only lasts for a fraction of a
second. But I'm not at all sure that the premise -- that the
Democrats are marginally better -- is sound.
It's a canard, really -- part of the mythology of the Democrats.
It may have been true seventy years ago, but you'd be hard
pressed to show how any Democrat in power has differed from
Republicans in power on economic or foreign policy since, and
certainly now. And yet the fairy tale lives on, invulnerable to
the facts. But then it serves a useful intellectual function -
keeping Americans of the political left from wrestling with a
vexing and troubling question: What the hell can we do, if we
can't vote Democrat? Join the Communist Party? No, they're
voting Democrat too.
What can be done, is to start to ask why it is that no matter
who's in power, Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal,
and overseas, conservative or Socialist, foreign and economic
policy always seems to head in the same direction: foreign
policy is aggressive, and economic policy abets profit-making at
the expense of wages, working conditions and social security, as
it must. It doesn't seem to be the greed or ignorance or
viciousness of a group of people in power that accounts for this
uniformity of direction, any more than the greed or ignorance or
viciousness of CEOs account for layoffs, which isn't to say that
some CEO's aren't greedy or ignorant or vicious, only that it
doesn't matter whether they are.
It's like baseball. It doesn't matter what the players think of
the game, what their aims are, how they feel. All the matters is
how many runs are scored. If they underperform, they're benched,
sent down to the minors, or sent packing [18]. Imagine a CEO who
decides to keep workers on, at the expense of his company's
profits. He won't last long, suffering the corporate equivalent
of being pulled from the game, banished to the minors, or cut
loose from the team.
The same applies to leaders of governments in societies
integrated into the global capitalist system, dominated
materially and ideologically by the business community. If they
lean to the Left, chances are they rose to power by
progressively bartering away their principles for respectability
and votes [19]. They can be counted on to pursue corporate
interests at home and abroad. If by some unlikely confluence of
events, they have risen to power without first arriving at a
modus vivendi with the corporate class, their tenure is likely
to be short-lived, and unquestionably rocky. Which means they
too will end up like the baseball player who fails to add to the
tally of runs -- given a one-way ticket to the bush leagues, or
worst.
The news, in recent days, offers three examples of leaders who
have been sent, or may soon be sent, to the showers.
South Korea's President Roh Moo Hyun has been impeached for a
minor transgression, tantamount to being shot, according to Kim
Dong Yune, a Seoul-based political analyst, for a minor theft
[20]. Roh's real crime: He "came to power promising to be South
Korea's Robin Hood" and "has embraced a left-leaning agenda over
his year in office, including carving out a path more
independent of Washington, establishing warmer ties with North
Korea and China, and enacting new policies to empower the poor
and rein in the rich." Roh "levied more taxes on the rich while
spending billions of dollars on new government housing for the
poor," [21] something that will never secure him a spot in the
Baseball Hall of Fame.
Haiti's Jean-Bertrand Aristide was forced from power by what was
almost certainly a US-engineered coup. He angered the business
community by raising the minimum daily wage beyond $1.30, and
failed to privatize state-owned enterprises, a definite no-no if
you expect to keep your place on the team roster.
Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, once ousted in a short-lived US-backed
coup, hangs on to office despite the fierce opposition of
Washington and a domestic business class backed by contributions
from the National Endowment for Democracy. John Kerry questions
Chavez's commitment to democracy, noting that Chavez is a friend
of Fidel Castro [22]. By this reasoning, George Bush must be a
military dictator because the US government counts Pakistan's
Pervez Musharraf as an ally.
Chavez has implemented a program of land reform, imposed a ban
on oil privatization, invited Cuban doctors into Venezuela's
slums, and is using the state-owned oil firm, Pdvsa, to pursue a
social spending program. That's why Washington, and Venezuela's
wealthy, are trying to cut him loose from the team.
In a word, the problem -- and you had better send the kids out
of the room before I say this -- is capitalism. Yeah capitalism,
the C-word. Not neo-liberalism, or globalization, or the
Washington Consensus, or corporate rule, or any of the other
synonyms dreamed up to protect anyone from really striking at
the heart of the problem.
Radical Left groups say they're opposed to neo-liberalism and
against globalization. So are social democrats and a whole lot
of liberals, even if social democratic and liberal governments
have implemented neo-liberal policies. Like baseball players, it
doesn't mater what they think of the game, only whether they
play it. So, are some radical Leftists social democrats, or
nothing but liberals in disguise? Based on Chomsky's and
Parenti's support of Kerry, it's difficult to think they're not.
But if capitalism is the problem, rather than the policy choices
of Kerry versus those of Kerry-lite -- which are
indistinguishable in any important way, anyway -- what can be
done? There's nothing that can be done now, but much that can be
done on an ongoing basis, most particularly political
organization under the direction of a party that has the energy,
pluck and resolve to replace the existing system with one that
doesn't depend on foreign expansion to resolve its dilemmas and
sets the fulfilment of human requirements, not capital
accumulation, as the primary purpose of economic activity
In the meantime, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to back a
candidate who must, and will, carry on in the tradition of the
monopoly (to use Parenti's words), with policies as grim,
reactionary and aggressive, or more so, than those of the
current occupant of the White House. At best, voting for Kerry
is a pointless act, and at worst, a backward act, to the extent
it fosters the illusion that change can be achieved by changing
the name plate on the Oval Office desk. Contrary to the reigning
mythology, doing something pointless is not better than doing
nothing, where nothing means refusing to cast a ballot for
either Thing One or Thing Two. And calling Emperor Moore's,
Parenti's and Chomsky's strutting about without their clothes
on, what it is, can't hurt either.
1. "Chomsky backs 'Bush-lite' Kerry," The Guardian, March 20,
2004. 2. Ibid. 3. Center for Responsive Politics, cited in "The
fallacy of the 'anybody but Bush' movement," Workers World,
March 25, 2004. 4. Mark Hand, "It's Time to Get Over It: Kerry
Tells Anti-War Movement to Move On,"
<http://www.counterpunch.com/>www.counterpunch.com, February 18,
2004. 5. "Bush can be stopped: A letter to the Left,"
<http://www.petitiononline.com/LttrLeft/petition.html>http://www.petitionon
line.com/LttrLeft/petition.html 6. John Pilger, "Bush Or Kerry?
Look Closely And The Danger Is The Same," New Statesman, March
04, 2004; "The fallacy of the 'anybody but Bush' movement,"
Workers World, March 25, 2004. 7. From Kerry's Web site, as
cited in "The fallacy of the 'anybody but Bush' movement,"
Workers World, March 25, 2004. 8. "On foreign policy, Kerry is
not far from Bush," The Globe and Mail, March 3, 2004. 9. "Kerry
Condemns Bush for Failing to Back Aristide," The New York Times,
March 7, 2004. 10. Willian Blum, "If Kerry's the answer, what's
the question?"
<http://www.counterpunch.com/>www.counterpunch.com, March 2,
2004. 11. Ibid. 12. "The fallacy of the 'anybody but Bush'
movement," Workers World, March 25, 2004. 13. Gabriel Kolko,
"The US must be isolated and constrained,"
<http://www.counterpunch.org/>www.counterpunch.org, March 12-14,
2004. 14. Mark Hand, "It's Time to Get Over It: Kerry Tells
Anti-War Movement to Move On,"
<http://www.counterpunch.com/>www.counterpunch.com, February 18,
2004. 15. "Bush can be stopped: A letter to the Left,"
<http://www.petitiononline.com/LttrLeft/petition.html>http://www.petitionon
line.com/LttrLeft/petition.html 16. Michael Parenti, interviewed
by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!, February 23, 2004,
<<http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/23/1528222>Http://www.dem
ocracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/23/1528222> 17. Ibid. 18. The
analogy was originally used by Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy in
"Monopoly Capital: An Essay on the American Economic and Social
Order," Monthly Review Press, 1966, p. 41. 19. This is
paraphrasing Paul Sweezy in The Theory of Capitalist
Development. Monthly Review Press, 1970, p. 352. 20.
"Jubilation, Rage in S. Korea Impeachment of President Exposes
Deep Ideological Rift," The Washington Post, March 13, 2004. 21.
Ibid. 22. "Senator John Kerry's Statement on Venezuela," The
Miami Herald, March 23, 2004.
<http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/8255944.htm>http://www.mia
mi.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/8255944.htm ... You may
re-post this article, providing the text remains unchanged.
E-mail list. Send an e-mail to sr.gowans@s... and write
"subscribe" in the subject line. To unsubscribe. Send an e-mail
to sr.gowans@s... and write "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
Stephen Gowans
> Try this on for size, whiner; here's my standard response to
Gorebots like you since 2000, and I'll let you apply it to the
Kerry/Bush race this year:
50 million Bush voters, Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, the SCotUS,
and Gore's incompetence put Bush in the White House.
All the math, polls, logic, common sense, and other evidence
that has been presented to date won't move GoreWhores in denial
from their asinine nonsense position.
Hey, Al From, Mr. DLC himself, has called off the
Nader-bashing. Take a hint:
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan2001/2001L-01-24-15.html
Speaking for ME, I have NO regrets about voting for Nader in NY
(in 1996 and 2000), as HE was the best candidate running, and
the one closest to MY views. Gore should apologize to those who
WASTED a vote on HIM, as HE didn't even fight to keep the win he
got!
The Greens have been shouting to the Dems NOT to roll over and
cave in to the Repubs on everything, but the Dems refused to
listen, over and over.
THEY, the Dems, are the guilty ones, NOT the messengers who were
ignored.
But you go on blaming the victim who fights for the good, and
ignore the co-dependent "lesser" evil ones who "enable" the
greater evil to have its way. I don't hear you
chastising Lieberman or the dozens of other gung-ho Dems on this
one, or who OK'd Ashcroft and the gang.
--
Clave
> Clave wrote:
<...>
> > Unfortunately, one can be both intelligent and honest, and still be batshit
> > crazy.
>
> Maybe, but that is hardly proof that any particular person (such
> as Nader) IS! Once you define "batshit crazy" and then provide
> some evidence that anyone, such as Nader, IS intelligent,
> honest, YET "batshit crazy" we will be more impressed with the
> relevance of that claim. Maybe.
Does he want to be President?
Jim
Conservatives Against Conservation
>
>
> http://www.notnader.com/
>
Reminds me of arguing with anti-evolution creationists.
William Kaufman
> Because he believed what Bush told him. Unlike Bush, Kerry learns from
his
> mistakes.
How can you argue that Kerry has learned from his mistakes when his policy
on Iraq is still identical to Bush's? See the following:
The New York Times, May 26, 2004
THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE
Candidates' Iraq Policies Share Many Similarities
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and RICHARD W. STEVENSON
WASHINGTON, May 25 - When it comes to Iraq, it is getting harder every day
to
distinguish between President Bush's prescription and that of Senator John
Kerry.
They still differ on some details, and Mr. Kerry continues to assert that
Mr. Bush has lost so much credibility around the world that only a new
president can rally other nations to provide the necessary assistance, a
point he made Tuesday while campaigning in Oregon.
But as became evident with Mr. Bush's latest speech on Iraq on Monday night,
which followed a detailed speech Mr. Kerry gave on Iraq's future one month
ago, the broad outlines of their approaches are more alike than not. That is
particularly true as Mr. Bush moves toward giving the United Nations more
authority, a move long advocated by Mr. Kerry.
They both support the June 30 deadline for the beginning of the transition
to civilian power. They both say they would support an increase in United
States troop strength, if necessary. Neither has supported a deadline for
removing United States troops.
Mr. Bush's gradual shift away from what many Democrats have long denounced
as a go-it-alone stance is an adjustment to the surge in violence in Iraq,
as well as the deterioration of domestic support for the occupation in the
wake of the prison abuse scandal.
But there also is clearly a political component at play here, as the White
House seeks, while managing its own problems, to create a predicament for
Mr. Bush's Democratic opponent. Mr. Kerry this week is beginning a series of
speeches in which he will lay out some of his most detailed foreign policy
pronouncements.
The fact that Mr. Bush has moved close to Mr. Kerry on some of these
questions makes it much more difficult for Mr. Kerry to take advantage of
what Democrats and Republicans view as the biggest political crisis of Mr.
Bush's presidency, by emphasizing differences between them. Mr. Kerry is
left to argue that while both men have similar ideas about what to do, he
has more credibility to do it, given the breakdown in relations between Mr.
Bush and many world leaders over Iraq.
Mr. Kerry has negotiated the shifting sands of Iraq for more than a year
now. Some Democrats said that their candidate would just as soon stand back
and not engage Mr. Bush on the war, allowing the president to struggle with
setbacks, while avoiding making himself a target should Mr. Bush attempt to
suggest that he is not supporting the troops.
But as Mr. Kerry is well aware, there is a growing antiwar segment of the
American electorate. And there is likely to be an antiwar candidate on the
ballot, in the person of Ralph Nader, the independent candidate who has
called for an withdrawal of American forces.
In another sign of the complication Mr. Kerry faces, Al Gore, one of the
party's severest critics of the war, is to deliver a speech in New York on
Wednesday that is expected to call for the dismissal of top administration
officials and assert that Americans have been put at risk at home and abroad
by Mr. Bush's foreign policy.
"He's caught between what would be politically advantageous, declaring a
timetable for getting out, and what he knows is the reality on the ground,
which is that we need more troops," said one adviser who Mr. Kerry relies on
heavily. "And the internal debates have often been between the camps in the
campaign who want a clear break from the Bush policy and those who want to
portray Bush as largely incompetent in executing what strategy they had."
Mr. Kerry's advisers minimized the extent to which Mr. Bush's shifts had
made him less vulnerable to criticism on Iraq, and disputed the notion that
Mr. Kerry has not, or could not, draw differences with the president on this
issue. And they noted a series of recent polls that show both a drop in
support for the occupation of Iraq and concern over whether Mr. Bush has a
plan to end it, arguing that the issue was more of a problem for Mr. Bush
than it was for Mr. Kerry.
"John Kerry as a Democratic candidate for president has said more about how
to fix Iraq than the sitting president, the commander-in-chief, the person
who lead the nation into this war," said Stephanie Cutter, a senior Kerry
advisor.
In a speech last month, Mr. Kerry said the goal of the United States should
be to bring about "a stable, free Iraq with a representative government,
secure in its borders." That position is broadly indistinguishable from that
of Mr. Bush.
The differences, as they exist, are relatively minor. Mr. Kerry has called
for NATO to take a major role in Iraq, freeing up American troops and
providing an opening to attract military support from non-NATO nations like
India and Pakistan.
Mr. Bush has left open the possibility of a larger role for NATO, but has
not pressed hard for such a change, and administration officials are
skeptical that Europeans have any desire to contribute more assistance than
they already have.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Tuesday that Iraq would be discussed
at the NATO summit at the end of next month in Turkey, and that 16 of the 26
NATO member nations are already involved in Iraq in some way.
He said that NATO has not ruled out an expanded role in Iraq, but that there
is no consensus on what that role would be.
"We should not go into this, as some critics have, thinking that, you know,
all you have to do is go to NATO and there is a huge body of troops waiting
there just to be asked," Mr. Powell said.
Mr. Kerry has also called for the establishment of a United Nations high
commissioner to oversee the political development of Iraq and the rebuilding
efforts. Mr. Bush has more or less embraced the need for the United Nations
to authorize a multinational force led by the United States - a position
long pushed by Mr. Kerry - but has signaled no support for putting
additional direct power in the hands of a United Nations commissioner.
The core of Mr. Kerry's argument is that Mr. Bush is now viewed with such
low regard in Europe that it would take a new president to put together an
international coalition. Mr. Kerry asserted that it would take a new
president to "clear the air" and re-establish battered relations with former
allies.
Administration officials have been dismissive of Mr. Kerry's idea of putting
a United Nations high commissioner in Iraq. They have argued that the Iraqis
do not want the United Nations in power any more than they want the United
States in power.
"This is not East Timor," one senior administration official said, a
reference to the breakaway Indonesian territory where a high commissioner
was put in place.
Clave
>
> > Because he believed what Bush told him. Unlike Bush, Kerry learns from
> > his mistakes.
>
> How can you argue that Kerry has learned from his mistakes when his policy
> on Iraq is still identical to Bush's?
What do you mean "still"? DO try to focus, boy. Kerry advocated invasion only
*after* a whole bunch of other approaches were exhausted first, and they never
were, and even *then* only based on the fraudulent information provided by the
White House.
Now that the damage has been done, there's little disagreement that it has to be
dealt with. The issue is who's more or less likely to lead us into other
irreparable situations, and the answer is becoming increasingly obvious to
everyone.
Jim