Burnt Orange Report

What you call an attack might be called by others to be pointing out basic facts. Clinton/Gore didn't demand better fuel efficiency. The Democratic Party has abandoned the South.

The difference, I expect, is that Nader will directly attack Bush and his administration. He won't attack the Democratic nominee. Pointing out the failings of past Democratic administrations is not a condemnation of potential future ones; pretending that every Democratic administration in the past has been great won't help anything either.

--d

Today (Feb. 27th) is Ralph Nader's birthday.
If we followed the ancient Roman practice, it could be declared to be "a day of ill omen".

Guys, GROW UP!!!! You should have learned in kindergarten that when things do not go 100% your way, you do not pout and give up. (Which is waht a Ralph Traitor candidacy is all about). Has the Democratic party been perfect on every issue over the last 25 years. No. Has it been light years against the alternative? Hell, yes.

In a democracy, politics will ALWAYS involve some sort of compromise. Do not destroy the best vehicle for change for the better in this country (Dem. Party). Join it and change it from within.

I do not blame Nader for Florida. I blame Bush for cheating. Period. If African-Americans had not been disenfranchised, then guess what-- Gore would be in the White House and Ashcroft would not he Atty. Gen. People have a right to run for President; frankly, I think the picture of all the signs at the GEO building looked a little silly. If people who vote for Nader are suddenly the Democratic equivalent to Nascar Dads (i.e. a new group to count on as our base), then dammit, reach out to them!!!

Like Dan said, pointing out basic facts is not an attack. Nader critcized (not attacked) the Dems. He criticized the mayor of Miami (who deserved it.) Big deal. In the past few years, the Dems have rolled over and bowed down to the likes of Bush, Cheney, and whatever conservative attacked them. If our party stood up for themselves more often, then there would really be no need for Nader to appeal to those tired of politics as usual. I, for one, was accused for a long time of being "too liberal" for other Dems, and was sort of ostracized as a result. Well, the Dem party has done the same thing to Nader voters. While trying to be Bush lite and reaching out to select groups to court as part of our base, (soccer moms), we lost a lot of power in 2002. Look, if one party says, I'm for this, and the other says, I disagree with that, but we'll go along, which party are you going to go with if you are an independent?

I am not concerned about Nader. He may not get on the ballot in many states, like swing states. The only reason he got so much support in 2000 was because many people thought that Gore would run away with the election. I doubt he will get the support he did this time around, and that anyone who votes for him would either not vote or they would write him in. I have talked to Nader supporters who aren't going to vote for him again in 04. I was told (as if I didn't know) that the Democratic base is made up of middle class families, and we should reach out to them. Ok, so what is wrong with reaching out to the left and adding them to the base. Surely, there is middle ground we can find and welcome them to the party again.

There's no debating that Nader's run in 2000 contributed to Gore's loss, but there's plenty of blame to go around. I don't pin it all on Nader.

That said, if Nader really believes in his heart of heart that there's so little difference between the Dems and GOP, he should run--and he should loudly trumpet that opinion at every possible opportunity. Nobody who has been paying attention will give him any credence.

I don't know. I think Nader likes to play spoiler, it makes him more important. If he was really interested in changing things, he would run as a Democratic candidate. He is smart enough to know he can't actually win as an independent right now.

I wish our election system worked better, specificially when there are more than two candidates. I'm not optimistic it will change anytime soon though...

Do not destroy the best vehicle for change for the better in this country (Dem. Party). Join it and change it from within.

Yeah, right. Let's run down a short list of people who've tried that recently:

Morris Udall (1976)
Ted Kennedy (1980)
Jesse Jackson (1988)
Jerry Brown (1992)
Dennis Kucinich (2004)

Ever since the McGovern loss, Dems have been so fearful of even the most tepid progressivism that the "change from within" strategy has worked no better for progressives than the "third party challenge" strategy.

Howard Dean isn't on the list because there's still some hope he'll prove to be the long-sought exception. Dean may not be a progressive, but at least he ran like one. In fact, Kerry is probably in the driver's seat today because Dean succeeded in moving the debate leftward. Otherwise, Kerry would be marginalized, and we'd all be wondering "can Edwards stop Lieberman?" today.

But the year is still young, and I'm not at all optimistic that once Kerry secures the nomination, he'll keep up the "angry about the war" rhetoric that he borrowed from Dean. So Dean may well end up getting added to that list before long.

The Democratic Party simply has to get over its "McGovernphobia." When the wingnuts say "Jump," Repug candidates ask "how high?" But when progressives say "Jump," Democratic candidates seem to go out of their way to do the exact opposite!

I do not endorse Nader's, or any other third-party, candidacy this year. Shrub has proven himself too dangerous. But the Democratic establishment has proven, time and again, that it can and will marginalize progressives. Punishing this behavior by playing the spoiler is just about the only leverage we have left.

I wish our election system worked better, specificially when there are more than two candidates. I'm not optimistic it will change anytime soon though...

I'm with you, Jason. In New Mexico, Democrats have proven they prefer repeatedly losing elections to Green spoilers in lieu of reforms (such as runoffs) to eliminate the spoiler effect.

When the Dems prefer Rethug protofascist rule to even the slimmest chance of sending a Green or two to Congress, American democracy is in deep doo-doo (as Bush the Elder might say).

Er, about "Republicans for Sharpton" and "Republicans for Nader": the "Village Voice" ran an article a couple of weeks ago documenting a flow of Republican money and manpower into the Sharpton campaign. During the 2000 campaign, Green state organizations found themselves recipients of Republican campaign cash on behalf of Nader. The Republicans are machiavellian enough to fund anybody who will hurt their real foes, the Democrats.

During the 2000 campaign, Green state organizations found themselves recipients of Republican campaign cash on behalf of Nader.

Indeed, Republicans were quite openly giving money to the Greens in Wisconsin just before the 2000 election.