portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

corporate dominance | government selection 2004

Democrats digging their own grave in effort to stop Nader

Helps Bush, Helps Kerry, Helps Bush, No he doesn't... So what? Talk about issues. The democrats are bankrupt. Their only argument is that Nader may help Bush. Fear-mongering. Maybe it is true. So what??? Talk about issues.
The Democrats are spending their time trying to stop Nader. They should be challenging him on issues. If they have a vision and program that people are interested in, that speaks to people, that inspires people, then they have nothing to worry about. They would win the election hands down. Bush is ready to go down in flames.

The reason Democrats are worried about Nader is because he is talking about the things they should be talking about. He is addressing issues that affect people. Nader is running a smart campaign. He is reaching across political boundaries and speaking to people on common sense issues.

Ironically, all the attention that the democrats give to Nader is also helping to invigorate his campaign. Seeing the democrats trying to stop Nader in Arizona with a lawsuit, just makes people root for the underdog. Listening to the constant fear mongering reveals how lacking in substance the democrats are and moves people towards Nader.

The Democrats are digging their own grave. Naders campaign is gaining momentum because it is filling some of the vacuum left by the Democrats abdication of any real dialog with the people. And if the Democrats lose, they will blame Nader again, and not look at their own failings.

Nader is running a smart campaign because he is breaking out of the conservative/liberal rut and reaching out to people based on common sense and the issues important to the majority of people, regardless of political affiliation. He is pointing out the path that reaches beyond this false dichotomy and which can unite people in common cause.

The responsibility is not with Nader to drop out, or with the voters to vote democratic no matter what. The responsibility lies with the Democrats to articulate something worth voting for. Rather than take that responsibility and the challenge to actually win the election, they, like a spoiled child, demand it handed to them on a silver platter and then, when they don't get what they want, they petulantly put the blame anywhere but where it belongs... on themselves.
think bigger 26.Jun.2004 00:22


you are confusing the symptom for the disease. Dissing nader is not the dumbocrats raison d'etre. Sucking up to capitalism is, dissing nader is only a small cog in the great wheel of their corpocratic collaboration.
I voted for nader in '96 and '00, but he's lost me this time around. That garbage with lars larson, asking the republicans to help nominate him because true progressives rallied 'round Kucinich instead just reeks.
It's no different than the republicans crossing party lines to remove Cynthia McKinney, a REAL democrat in the '02 primary.
I've always thought nader should cut a deal with whatever donkey's ass the d's run for a supreme court nomination. After the lars larson shenanigans, I just wish ralph would shut up.
Oh, yeah, I heard nader on kboo this morning, and while I didn't listen that closely, I noticed he spent a lot of time defending himself, some time adressing issues that are relevant, and no time at all pointing out the fact that bush is mussolini's brain in a new body.
Where was nader when the war was being planned? Where was nader when they shoved this 911 horseshit down our throats? He should have been slamming bush the whole time, but here he is, awfully quiet until it's time to ask rich republicans to help him achieve what most on the left find problematic-another candidacy.
Though I've never thought lawyers did the world much good, in general, ralph would be doing everybody he professes to care about a good turn by leaving politics and returning to the law, or what's left of it.
If ralph is your savior, nothing will change your religious fervor, but I favor Marx's thought that religion is still the opiate of the masses. I hope the somatic tranquility ralph gives you soothes your angst over another 4 years of bush.
PS. Don't call me a kerry supporter. He only gets my vote because he's not bush.

I get it now 26.Jun.2004 02:45

catching on

You're right that the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot by acting so fascist and democracy-hating when it comes to anyone who just wants to put Ralph Nader on the ballot to let voters decide what they each want to do. The lawsuit in Arizona is just ridiculous and makes the Democrats look like bullies.

But the Democrats have slick professional strategists and expensive PR people -- so they must know what they are doing. They know they're helping Nader. But ... helping Nader is helping Bush, right? So the Democrats are really trying to help Bush win the election. So they're throwing the election. How convenient, so they can throw the election and blame Nader for it as well.

Then one has to wonder why, why they're trying so hard to LOSE a nearly unloseable election? Well, maybe because they don't want to be responsible for the mess in Iraq, especially the escalation and the draft and the inevitable use of WMD by ... whoever in fact has them and is ruthless enough to use them (e.g. depleted uranium, napalm, A-bomb).

Clinton sure was strategic, coming out a month before the Dem convention in full support of Bush's war -- Clinton is acting more abashedly corporatist warmongering than even Kerry. Clinton is doing a good job of helping Bush too -- Republicans have been pounding Bush-critics by saying the truth, that Clinton laid the groundwork for Bush's war. But now Clinton is telling the truth about that himself. What gives? He's obviously trying to help Kerry lose, though Kerry's doing pretty good on that all by himself.

Exit polls showed that in 2000, if Nader were not in the race, Bush would have won Florida 49% to 47%:

"If these were the only two presidential candidates, who would you vote for?
% of total category % of category
47 Gore 97 1 0 1
49 Bush 1 96 0 1
2 Would not have voted 0 0 0 0 "
(it's about the 25th item down in the exit poll)

And if it weren't for the Nader voters who voted for Maria Cantwell in the Washington State Senate race in 2000, despite her being a corporatist candidate from RealNetworks, Cantwell would have lost, and the Dems would not have had control of the Senate for the first 2 years of Dubya's reign.

Talk about silver platters.

Nader handed Gore the Presidency and he refused to fight to claim it by hammering BushCo on the one issue that was a sure winner -- the racist elimination of tens of thousands of voters illegally and incorrectly scrubbed from the voter rolls in Florida prior to the election.

By helping Cantwell win, Nader and Republican Senator Jeffords (by quitting the GOP to become Independent) handed the Democrats control of the Senate, but they managed to throw that away in the worst mid-term election for an opposition party in over a century by refusing to criticize Bush's disastrous policies on Iraq, war and terrorism.

That being said, no, I don't blame the Democrats for Bush's wrongs -- Bush and his cronies are responsible for their own wrongs. The Democrats are responsible for failing miserably as a party of democracy, and failing miserably as a party of opposition to Bush's wrongs. If I had a choice whether or not to hire the Democratic Party to do those jobs again, I would flat-out tell them to find a different line of work because they're not cut out for it.

Oh, wait, I do have a choice whether or not to hire them again ...

As Nader has said, the Democrats have become extremely good at electing extremely bad Republicans. They'll even martyr their own favorite scapegoat Ralph Nader in order to make sure they lose yet another election to Republicorp. It happens in boxing all the time, right? The boxer is told to throw the fight by the sponsors who pay both boxers, because it's more profitable for the fight to go that way instead of the other, this time around.

At the very least, the Democratic Party has completely lost its will to lead the fight for social justice. So they should get out of the way. The Democrats should just nominate David Cobb and run a safe-states campaign that stays clear of the Nader/Camejo march into the first Presidency in over a century that really represents the will of the People. Because, as Nader has been saying all year, this country has more problems than it deserves and more solutions than it applies. And that is a mild way of saying, it's time to hand out the pink slips to our politicians en masse, and start hiring some serious Public Citizens into Public Office.

And if some BushCo Republicorp supporters think they're going to help Bush by putting Nader on the ballot, they'd do well to wipe those irreverent grins off their faces. Every vote for Nader is a vote to impeach Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Powell and Rice and Ashcroft, indict them, try them for lying to America in order to justify abolishing the Bill of Rights with the Patriot Farce, and spilling American and Iraqi blood to annex oil-rich Iraq for his corporate cronies. No matter who is elected, appointed or annointed President, every vote for Nader is a vote to restore democracy, and bring to justice a rogue's gallery of criminals in high places.

As for Lars Larson, the left has to recognize that no true conservatives have popular talk radio shows -- only corporate-bred loudmouth entertainers like Rush Limbaugh, who call themselves conservative but betray conservative values every other breath they take on the public airwaves.

issues 26.Jun.2004 07:11

sadder but wiser

IF Nader were allowed to debate both Kerry and Bush, I wonder how many people would still actually vote Kerry.

IF you're interested in stopping the bloodbath in Iraq; IF you want national health care; IF you want to stop pandering to corporate america--then why in the world would you vote for Kerry??

In a two-party system, why would people be interested in voting for someone whose campaign slogan might as well be, "Kerry--he's not quite as bad as Bush."

. 26.Jun.2004 08:47


I am not asking for Kerry to be perfect, or anywhere near it. I do however need a candidate to say something I value in order to vote for her/him.

All the democrats and potential Kerry voters who are hassling Nader and hassling folks who are considering voting for Nader, should be hassling Kerry and demanding Kerry take some principled positions which would give those people reason to vote for him.

Who is killing Iraqi's now? 26.Jun.2004 15:48


The US military destroyed Iraqi infrastructure. They destroyed the government. It is all gone. Now the US is trying to build it up again, yes, one that is sympathetic to the US.

Foreign terrorists are now killing Iraqis, and destroying whatever will help advance Iraq (oil pipelines, active Iraqi citizens). Any Iraqi who wants a part in building his or her country up again, no matter at what level, is vulnerable to murder from non-Iraqi terrorists.

If the US leaves Iraq now, the Iraqi people will be taken over and terrorized by these non-Iraqi Arabs. In effect we will have handed them Iraq on a silver platter. They are not going to build Iraq up. They are going to chop off heads.

It is wrong what the US did. It should not have gone in at all. Say what you will about Saddam, but if he were still there, these Saudi, Jordanian, etc. criminals would not be able to take over this country. If the US leaves now, it belongs to them.

It is unrealistic and cruel to suggest that the US totally pull out of Iraq now.

Certainly there needs to be changes in the way things are done. There needs to be more cooperation with other countries. There needs to be more security. The only hope is that the new leader of Iraq (yes, the one picked by the US) can remind his people who is their biggest threat, unify them and strengthen them enough so that there will be a way for the US to leave Iraq in good conscience. Right now there is no way.

To blame any democrat, or anyone else for recognizing that we cannot simply leave Iraq now is being simple minded, and/or deceptive.

racist and ignorant Kerry supporter 26.Jun.2004 16:11


"The US military destroyed Iraqi infrastructure."

Yes, for years, most of those under a democrat president.

"Now the US is trying to build it up again, yes, one that is sympathetic to the US."

And this is a good thing because...

"Foreign terrorists are now killing Iraqis"

According to what source? The best information coming out of Iraq says that the resistance is Iraqi and they are killing those working witht he US.

"If the US leaves now, it belongs to them."

Yes because those poor helpless brown Iraqis sure can't take care of their country themselves can they? They can't possibly defend against terrorists and therefore we'd better stay to "protect" them.

"It is unrealistic and cruel to suggest that the US totally pull out of Iraq now."

And when should we pull out of Iraq. How many more billions of dollars and thousands of lives will it take for you to demand and end to the occupation. Give us numbers at which point you think it will no longer be worth it to stay.

"To blame any democrat, or anyone else for recognizing that we cannot simply leave Iraq now is being simple minded, and/or deceptive."

We can leave now, or we can leave when things are many times worse than they are now. It's ok if you don't believe me. Just remember this 1 year from now.

nader on video 26.Jun.2004 17:00

pdx imc repost

Racist... 26.Jun.2004 17:42


That's so funny. I find it hilarious how some white people who post here accuse others of racism so self-righteously (and with no real justification) when they don't even know what race that person is. You make that mistake too often. I shouldn't have to tell people what race I am when I post here. It's funny though how evident your race is, merely from your post.

The color of peoples' skin seems much more on your mind than it is on mine. Who's the racist? I don't have to worry about it I guess, 'cause I'm not white.

I don't believe, as you accuse me, and as should be evident from my post, that Iraqis are unable to rule themselves, take care of themselves, etc. I believe, as I stated, that the US destroyed all their systems of governance when they bombed the hell out of that country. To leave them now when everything is in disarray, when they have no protection would be disastrous. It's like slicing a carcass open and inviting the vultures in. That doesn't mean I like the way things are in Iraq with the US there, that means there is no better choice.

Those murderers must be thinking with glee, "Who needs an army when the US will do the job for us?" They can't take over Saudi Arabia yet, but they sure as hell can wreak havoc in Iraq. If you think that's okay, you are not thinking in the best interests of Iraqis. If you like those beheaders you are not at all the hero you would like to be.

Muamar Qaddafi has said long ago that the biggest threat against him is not the West, it is his brother Arab nations. I think he compared them to jackals. Why don't you argue with him about racism? Be sure to throw in the "brown" word. I'd like to see him laugh at you. I'm sure he'd be very courteous though. He'd wait until you left.

White Americans who talk loudly are known to be stupid across the world. No one will tell you that though. They let you talk, then laugh about you behind your back. I invite you to go to a "brown" country and try to fit in. I suggest you don't call them brown though, and don't endlessly complain about your white brothers to prove how different you are. You are not. You're obviously a hater. You're so white. It must be so awful. Thank God that's not a burden I must carry. If I had to, I'd try to be a little less racist and realize that my color doesn't mean thing though. It's your brain that's important and your compassion. You're not using either to their potential.

Mr. " - " = RACIST Disinformationalist Troll. 27.Jun.2004 00:20

we don't do body counts

private contractor mercenary troops now outnumber British and non-U.S. "coalition" forces in Iraq.

14 U.S. military bases are under construction in Iraq.

I don't like that just as much as you 27.Jun.2004 01:01


You have no reason to surmise that I think it's okay for the US to kill or abuse Iraqis in any way. People who yell racist or troll to anyone who simply says something they don't like, with no evidence of racism, or troll behavior have weak arguments (not that you're arguing with anything but my right to speak), weak opinions, and a weak character.

The funny thing is that I dislike many of the things you dislike. You have just chosen to attribute all kinds of bad things to me because I said something that you didn't like.

Carry on blah, blah... I shouldn't have bothered to talk to you, and I will quit now. There are actual issues to be discussed here and your baiting of me, and my attempts to get my point across to you are distracting from that.

"There are actual issues to be discussed here . . ." 27.Jun.2004 01:08

OH Really?

and WHICH might those be?

"to be" discussed?

what's the matter with just going right ahead and DISCUSSING them NOW - hm?

shall we ENUMERATE THEM one-by-one?

Please, do Mr. " - ".

Here are a few I'd put up for starters:

Kerry's 'progressive' votes.

Bush's tax cuts
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
Kerry - Absent

Bush's tax cuts
Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002
Kerry - Yea
(This one did extend unemployment and gave tax cuts to businesses, though only temporarily, supposedly)

Patriot Act
Kerry - Yea

Homeland Security Act
Kerry - Yea

Help America Vote Act
Kerry - Yea

Terrorism Risk Protection Act
Kerry - Yea

Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Kerry - Yea

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004
Kerry - Yea

Amendment SA 715 - To strike the repeal of the prohibition on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons.
Kerry - Absent

you are a racist, you should confront that 27.Jun.2004 02:00


"when they don't even know what race that person is"

Are you saying only certain races can be racist?

"I shouldn't have to tell people what race I am when I post here. It's funny though how evident your race is, merely from your post."

Is it, take a guess. Go ahead, make that assumption. I'm not asking for your race; if you think the Iraqi people can't rebuild there own country, which is of course what they're doing right now, than you are racist.

"Who's the racist? I don't have to worry about it I guess, 'cause I'm not white."

So, again, you're saying only whites can be racist? Sounds pretty racist to me.

"I don't believe, as you accuse me, and as should be evident from my post, that Iraqis are unable to rule themselves, take care of themselves, etc. I believe, as I stated, that the US destroyed all their systems of governance when they bombed the hell out of that country."

Well, the US military has been bombing the infrastructure of the country for over a decade, and the sanctions prevented the rebuilding. In other words, they managed, and would have been just fine without US meddling. The Iraqis are rebuilding their country right now, just as subcontractors for US corporations who are making a tidy profit (paid for by US tax dollars of course). If we leave, we can let them rebuild on their own.

"To leave them now when everything is in disarray, when they have no protection would be disastrous. It's like slicing a carcass open and inviting the vultures in."

As I said, you feel they need our protection. Clearly, they don't feel that way. Clearly they will keep killing US soldiers until we leave, and whatever power struggle will take place at that point.

"That doesn't mean I like the way things are in Iraq with the US there, that means there is no better choice."

We can leave, and ultimately we will. And when that day comes, you will see the logic of it even if you cannot right now. I hope, for your sake, that Kerry is elected and gives us 4 more years of war so that your eyes may be opened.

"Those murderers"

What murderers? The Iraqi resistance? Have you been watching too much corporate media about insurgents from other countries, because it couldn't possibly be the Iraqi people fighting us. They love being occupied.

"If you like those beheaders you are not at all the hero you would like to be."

Oh yes, the beheaders, half a dozen people are going to take over a country of millions. Sure, that's going to happen. The Iraqis want a secular government, and that's what they'll get, if we leave them alone.

"You're obviously a hater."

I've never hated a thing in my life; destructive emotion hate.

"You're so white."

Wrong again.

"It must be so awful."

Yes, I really come across as the guilty white liberal. No person of color would call Clinton an architect of genocide against the Iraqi people.

"Thank God that's not a burden I must carry. If I had to, I'd try to be a little less racist and realize that my color doesn't mean thing though."

Perhaps you should take that advice anyway.

Realize that the Iraqi people can take care of themselves. They're not helpless infants. They're not stupid. They have some of the best engineers in the world. They know how to rebuild their infrastructure, they only need the means to do so. Clinton didn't let it happen (and 1.5 million are dead as a result). Bush lets it happen so long as his buddies make a ton of money from it (the better option in my opinion). I'll hope Kerry will continue as Bush, but that doesn't make what he will be doing right. And people will continue to die.

So long as their is occupation there will be resistance. So long as we attack them, they will attack back, and those on both sides will continue to die. The wealthy will keep getting richer, but at least the liberals can sleep well at night knowing that John Kerry means well, he was just fooled by that crafty Bush.

Which bed do you choose? 05.Jul.2004 21:34

politics as impossible

I don't see anything in this barage of Nader-ite advertising that clearly identifies what any Democrat is doing, or has done, to keep Ralph from running for President -- other than to appeal to him to refrain from doing so.

It is, like, when you live in a duopoly you have no choice but to enter into an OBJECTIVE alliance with one or another of the two major parties. Realistically, there is no way around that. Can you understand that simple fact?

So, Ralph has entered into a de facto (or "objective") alliance with the worst of the Karl Rove neo-con Republicans, while David Cobb and the Greens have entered into a de facto (or "objective") alliance with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. To my mind, that's a no-brainer, but not such a big deal in any direction, really. What gets me is the holier-than-thou attitude of the Nader-ites, who are in bed with politico neo-con opportunists.

What would be good, IMHO, would be that the Nader-ites would cease and desist from running down Cobb and the Green Party. (The Greens are NOT reciprocating that nonsense.) In that context, I guess it's okay that the Nader-ites are getting back to their favorite idea -- that it's all the Democrats' fault. At least, the Dems haven't done enough to prevent it getting to its present sorry-ass state, I guess. And most of them, (but not all of them), are sell-outs -- although the most successful sell-outs are always Republicans, who have raised the sell-out to a fine art. That's fair enough.