Ralph Nader Rejoins the Tea Parties

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by rumproast.com and WashIndependent, TMC Member Feed. TMC Member Feed said: Wash. Independent: Ralph Nader Rejoins the Tea Parties: Benjamin Sarlin talks to Ralph Nader, who’s celebrating a… http://bit.ly/5mh5r0 [...]

Democrats love to dismiss Nader as a “scold” or whatever the ad hominem of the day is. Meanwhile, David Weigel claims that the Democrats “rather understandably” tried to keep Nader off state ballots in the 2004 presidential election. Notice Weigel's priorities: he has no problem with the Democrats' nationwide effort to win a presidential election by suppressing voter choice. And Democrats wonder why voters are so often turned off by their lame candidates.

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by TWI_news: Ralph Nader Rejoins the Tea Parties http://bit.ly/5rpXrQ...

Democrats love to dismiss Nader as a “scold” or whatever the ad hominem of the day is.

Actually, he has become a principle-less egomaniac. It's a shame.

Meanwhile, David Weigel claims that the Democrats “rather understandably” tried to keep Nader off state ballots in the 2004 presidential election.

It is understandable. They wanted to win.

Notice Weigel's priorities: he has no problem with the Democrats' nationwide effort to win a presidential election by suppressing voter choice.

Actually, Weigel didn't offer any opinion. Do learn to read.

And Democrats wonder why voters are so often turned off by their lame candidates.

Because Weigel didn't attack them for trying to keep Nader from torpedoing their efforts to win the White House in 2004? I don't think so.

Nader would rather Republicans win and the country be in worse shape. He's not a scold. He's a self-important son of a bitch who doesn't give a shit about Americans.

Weigel says that Democrats “rather understandably” tried to keep Nader off the ballot. That means “he has no problem” with what the Democrats did, as I said. Clearly, neither do you. But you ought to let go of your misplaced anger and try to be more critical. Look at what you are defending. The Democrats made no bones about the fact that they were trying to win the 2004 presidential election by denying voters a free choice of candidates. They do it all the time, and not just by attacking Nader. Imagine if they were trying to prevent African-Americans from participating in elections because they thought it would help them win. Would you still defend such tactics? Now look at what you are attacking. The sin that Nader committed, according to you, is that he ran for public office and supposedly helped Republicans win. Do you really want to defend that view, which is anti-civil rights, anti-First Amendment and anti-Fourteenth Amendment, just because you like Democrats better than Republicans? Maybe you can find a more principled – and productive – way to express your partisan preferences, than advocating for the suppression of your fellow citizens' constitutional rights. What you stand for now, it's just plain old political bigotry.

[...] More: Ralph Nader Rejoins the Tea Parties « The Washington Independent [...]

[...] Ralph Nader Rejoins the Tea Parties « The Washington Independent [...]

Two words: Write-in ballot.

Not our fault nobody gives a shit what Nader has to say after he gave the 2000 election to George W. Bush. That really worked out well for us, huh?

More political bigotry. If a kid on a playground loses a game and blames it on another player, we tell the kid to grow up and take responsibility for his own performance. Not Democrats. They run weak candidates who are too cowardly to stand up to Republicans, and then when they lose, they become fixated on the fantasy that their poor performance was all somebody else's fault. When Democrats lose elections, they have no one but themselves to blame. By perpetrating the bigoted view that another candidate is responsible, you only make Democrats worse.

Nope. Sorry. You don't get to run a third-party candidacy and then take no credit when you throw the election you've wanted to throw all along.

There wasn't a dime's worth of difference between Nader and Bush, becuase they both got Bush elected.

There's a lot of things wrong with what you say, but the most obvious is your presumption (like most Democrats who tout this line) that you have the right to tell other people not to exercise their constitutional rights. Even if you were entitled to do so – and you aren't – you should find more productive and intelligent channels for your energies. The idea that a candidate could “throw the election,” for example, demonstrates a failure of critical thinking. All candidates have to earn votes. Only Democrats go around telling minor party candidates that they will “throw” an election if they participate. Democrats make this claim because they don't consider minor party candidates to have equal rights. The bigotry inherent in this point of view is self-evident, but it never sinks in for some people, and they need to be told over and over again: stop acting like a child; take responsibility for yourself (and your party, and its candidates); and don't presume to deprive your fellow citizens of their constitutional rights just because it would be more convenient for your (perceived) short-term political interests.

Mean Gene Debs

You are 100% correct. Thank you for you cohesive, sound and accurate response to the silly, nonsensical poster. I support Ralph Nader and voted for him in 2000 and will vote for him again and again. Who the bloody hell is anyone to malign, undermine, chastise,and demonize a candidate who represents MY views by dictating when he can and should run?? Some democracy we live in here! What a despicable joke!

It is very scary that democrats who pretend to be the party of the people habitually undermine them and find it so easy look the other way and call it “understandable” that democrats tried to keep Ralph off the ballot. democrats and republicans are 2 sides of the same coin. My vote goes to Ralph because he is the only one speaking truth to power and it makes me more and more disgusted when democrats act like Ralph is stealing my vote from THEM. Ralph's positions are very different from the democratic party line and a lot more articulate. Listen to him actually talk, you might be surprised. Why did Obama refuse to debate him? Democrats need to stop being corporate whores, like Baucus who personally gets paid $1.5 million from wellpoint and surprise surprise keeps single payer off the table.

The only reason Obama won the election was that Nader supporters and other Independents voted for him. Now whiny dumb-asses like Weigel are pushing progressives away when we need them the most to counter the corporate democrats.

They seem to forget that Clinton was elected because of a third party candidate, remember Ross P.

I and many other Independents have voted for dems while holding our noses and hoping for the best, many will not vote for them again.

Many in the democratic party sold out to the corporate overlords years ago and are no different from their republican friends. At least the republicans admit their fealty to their corporate backers.

We don't need republican opposition to change while the corporate democrats are undermineing every good idea proposed, the dems are doing their work for them.

scold or not.. whatever that even means.

Nader's got more guts, intelligence and ethics in his pinky than the entire “millionaire's club”… uh.. i mean “senate”.

anybody who insults him, without having reasons behind it.. (more of a reason than just running for office).. is obviously unwilling to look at the democratic party for what it is. a corporate pandering, two faced group of neo-cons in peace and love clothing.

if you ask me, Gore spoiled the election for Nader.

When you front major a policy that was a huge capitulation to the right PRIOR to even being introduced for debate and discussion… yeah, that's selling out the progressives.

When you front major a policy that was a huge capitulation to the right PRIOR to even being introduced for debate and discussion… yeah, that's selling out the progressives.

Apparently it is you Mr. Weigel who is being willfully ignorant of politics and what Obama said as a senator… when he was for single payer and now… where he is not.

It's comical to watch people call themselves centrist, independent or worse liberals when they are so ready to bail on liberal policies then say someone who doesn't tote that Rahm centrist blue-dog loving line as being aligned with the right. You really need to find your bearings Mr. Weigel before you try to call out where other people stand.

It'd behoove you and your ilk to stop taking liberal progressives for granted and stop calling those on the left virtual traitors while bending over to every single blue-dog demand. Obama will never find his backbone if you wont.

This is what Nader has to say about people such as this writer who are so willing to throw in the liberal towel just to get a win no matter how much it bends to the right.

==================
“There is no breaking point. What is the breaking point? The criminal war of aggression in Iraq? The escalation of the war in Afghanistan? Forty-five thousand people dying a year because they can’t afford health insurance? The hollowing out of communities and sending the jobs to fascist and communist regimes overseas that know how to put the workers in their place? There is no breaking point. And when there is no breaking point you do not have a moral compass.”
==================

Problem with what you’re asking people to do MGD, is asking people to be RESPONSIBLE for any actions. They’re ok with that if they’re actions result in positive results, but when there are consequences its point to the nearest scape goat, in this case people who are willing to take a chance and vote for what they really believe in and not pander to the popular vote.

I’ve had people tell me twice how I “spoiled” the election….Little ole me, I SPOILED THE ELECTION. Didn’t know I was that important! In that case, I should’ve won the election with my vote! Common sense and critical thinking are not things that are encouraged in this country. If they were, people might understand the mathematics behind funding a war at nearly $4million a day, the surplus of money we had, and the deficit we now face. Since math (ie, logic) is not a subject we encourage people to understand beyond it’s original intent, which was to make sure that factory workers could apply what they needed to their jobs, we have to accept that people don’t understand how their economy works in this country, including government spending. And they really don’t seem to care either or maybe we would see some of the outpouring of discontent like you see in Europe when the government decides to go against the people.

Gore didn’t lose the 2000 election, it was stolen from him. It’s not like Nader and Nader supporters lobbied the SCOTUS in favor of Bush.