It's interesting to see the parallel to the wingers. Something similar occurred to me in reading many of the comments on this site from people whose politics I myself identify with. When I see, as Todd says, the dismay at the Democrats not achieving something, like ending the war or impeaching and convicting Bush and Cheney, what occurs to me is a phrase we've often associated with the other side.

I mean the "stabbed in the back theory." When you can't achieve your ideals, it may not make sense to blame your own side, but it makes a kind of sense if you can't relinquish the certainty that you not only deserve to win, but on that very account you could win. I don't mean that the GOP blames their own side; they're way too disciplined and certain of "us vs them," and we could learn from that. I mean that the underlying theory and its motivation is much the same. 

I'm sorry to be so harsh to those on my side. It seems to mirror my own complaint. So I hope the underlying point won't make everyone even angrier.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

It is frequently easier to be angry at your own side because you expect something from them and you don't expect anything from the other side.

I have been told that focus groups show that some of the people voting for Nader do so out of a sense of frustration. This may arise because they have unrealistic expectations of how the political system functions: you run into problems, however, when you stress how the system operates: instead assessing whether your predictions as to what the system WILL do are accurate you get accused of advocating the less desirable outcome that you predict.

Todd, the big unspoken issue to me is: what does Nader do in between Presidential election years besides count his money?

Democrats like Al Gore and Wes Clark and Howard Dean got out of the election cycle and did a bunch of heavy lifting in very varied areas that suited them, and got results that mean something.

I don't see Nader doing anything besides stepping up with his money to spoil the election every four years. What the hell do you do, man? And besides, there's already new meat out there, namely Mike Gravel and Ron Paul. Lunch: eaten. Thunder: stolen.

Mr. Gitlin, while I'm sometimes tempted to write you off as a hopeless lefty, I must admit I'm now forced to reconsider my opinion. I've recently come to the conclusion that, like most things in the Universe, political affiliation is akin to a circle. There's no such thing as the "far left" or the "far right"--they're both just points on an endlessly continuous line. Move far enough to the left and suddenly you've crossed over from yin to yang and become a fascist. See Paul Wolfowitz as an example. And vice versa, of course. Balancing anger, pragmatism, idealism, disappointment and the desire for change is a delicate act. Some people get it right by being realistic in their expectations, and some get it very, very wrong. I happen to believe that the Naderites have gotten it very, very wrong. They support a vengeful dilettante who has already clearly shown us that he doesn't have the skills to become the mayor of a small town, let alone President of the United States. And why do they support him? Because they're pissed off, that's why. Because they'd rather fabricate and listen to lies about how "the Republicans and the Democrats are exactly the same" than to actually fight for something achievable within our system of best-compromise government. Because they'd rather waste their Starbuck's money whining endlessly about how bad things suck than to actually do something like making their local Congressperson's life a living hell by writing to them on a daily basis to demand change. Democracy may suck, but I don't see that they have anything better to offer.

Thanks for an excellent piece. Sorry for all the bad things I've said about you. *:o)

Gitlin is fighting the wrong enemy.

but there's more to it than that when you consider that nader isn't even a green. it is only out of cynical self-interest ($$) on both sides that the two are ever even allied.

when the greens smeared gore on his environmental record while putting up nader(!!) against him, any respect i had for the greens was gone. forever. as far as i'm concerned, the greens and nader have as much credibility as gonzales.

precisely. the two-party system isn't a quirk of statute or regulation, it is a fundamental consequence of the system of democratic government established by the framers in the constitution.

--Speaking to the indefatigable Max Blumenthal just last month, Nader denied ever having said there was no difference between the two major parties, insisting: "I said the similarities tower over the dwindling real differences."--

Isn't this pretty much like Bush and Rumsfeld insisting that they never said the threat from Saddam was "imminent?"

Must be fun supporting a man who uses the same rationale as Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld to defend his prior statements all the while proclaiming him to be superior to all of the leaders of both the other parties.

Well, by all means let us be clear about what Nader has said:

Nader has effectively stated that the differences between Democrats and Republicans are insignificant, despite the clearly articulated major differences listed in Todd's post, which is hardly exhaustive.

Better?

--This may arise because they have unrealistic expectations of how the political system functions--

Absolutely.

Reading the comments of Nader supporters, it is clear that nothing less that lockstep agreement (by Democrats) with Nader's preferred policies is acceptable.

Nothing short of that is meaningful to them and, therefore, despite vast differences, they view Democrats and Republicans as essentially without any differences.

People with extreme viewpoints that require adherence to a very strict ideology (sound familiar to anyone in power now?), call it political religion, are going to view anyone not like them as being all the same, because everyone not like them is, well, evil.

It is similar to how the Islamic extremists view the world: if you aren't a strict Muslim, as they interpret the Koran, then you are an infidel or blasphemer, an enemy, and there is no distinction between the various individuals who fall within the classification "enemy."

If you aren't a strict "liberal" or "progressive" (whatever Nader followers are choosing to call themselves and whatever that term means in their vernacular), then you are an enemy and one enemy individual is no different than another.

If Nader doesn't run they're talking about running Cynthia McKinney which will find them wandering even further from relevance. Nader, at least, is reasonable. McKinney is a straight-up radical.

Nader is a good weathervane, just watch who attacks him and the very accurate statements he makes about the state of Democracy in America today and it makes the establishment’s fifth columnists so easy to identify. The only real wing-nuts around (Wing-nuts because they represent such a small minorities intrests) are the establishment wing-nuts and the right-wingers, which are also mostly controled by the corporate establishment. I see an America with too many Fascists and even Nazis and very few, thank goodness, Communists (totalitarian lefties) who one usually associates as left wing nuts.

It makes me sick to my stomach to see so called Democrats attacking, Liberals, Democratic socialists (folks who believe in Social Security, single payer government health care, TVA and other successful and/or programs potentially useful to the general wealfare.) Attacking Liberals and Democratic Socialists is the stock and trade of the Republican Party who like in this blurb try to juxtapose them with the radical totalitarian left. I don't know why these Faux Neo-Liberals don't just go over to the Republican Party where they so obviously belong. Left wing nut indeed! No wonder you think you stir up venom; hell, I'm resisting taking a bite out you myself. Ssssssssssssssssssssss

Go Edwards...beat the sold out establishment flunkeys...

Leave Mr. Nader Alone! The man has spent his life trying to make America a better, safer, more democratic place to live. Shame!

"Reading the comments of Nader supporters, it is clear that nothing less that lockstep agreement (by Democrats) with Nader's preferred policies is acceptable." ---

You're making an error in this statement.

Ralph Nader's policies are shared by me. He did not introduce them to me or the vast majority of the people like me who support him. Ralph happens to act instead of just talk and offers solutions to the problems I and others have seen.

He's the reason we have seatbelts in cars. He's one of the biggest actions behind the creation of the EPA? The Freedom of Information Act? If you like that, Ralph helped create that too. Oh, by the by, Clean Air Act? Safe Drinking Water Act? Ralph was insturmental in their creation. These are some pretty damn good reasons for me to want to give this guy the Executive Office.

I would like to know where you were when Al Gore was a Tennessee Senator and his accomplishments there. I'd like to know how you feel about Tipper Gore. I'd like you to let me know what you felt when you first learned Lieberman was Gore's VP running mate.

Geez, you people get so wrapped up in playing politics, you don't recognize a good thing when you see it, only going for a mere shadow of what could be. Why? Because you don't think he can win? You don't want him to win?

Look at what he accomplished not in office. Think about what he could accomplish as President.

Funny, that's what I would say about Nader.

And, quite frankly, it's what Gitlin is saying about Nader.

I already got out my cases of cans of whupass in the last Nader thread, I think I'll hold my tongue here, except to say this: Nader is not a leftist or even an environmentalist, he's a consumerist. While he is excellent on some issues, his breadth is rather shallow. He has no notion of community organizing, but is inherently a federal wonk activist. To have him set up as the paragon of progressivism makes me ill.

Think what Nader could accomplish by picking a candidate who can win and actively campaigning for him or her? His reward might be a cabinet seat, say head of the EPA or Department of Labor or Department of Interior. Sure, it isn't as sweet as the White House, but it's better than helping the Republicans win.

In my opinion, one of Gore's biggest mistakes in 2000 wasn't going to Nader and offering him just such a cabinet position. I don't know if Ralph would have accepted it. But it could have made a real difference in the outcome of the race.

there is no right or left in the continuous line that makes up a circle.

And the other was selecting Lieberman as a running mate.

You are engaging in knee-jerk triangulation.

One of the Gore campaign's numerous *huge* mistakes was to throw Nader out of the debate audience although he had a ticket (courtesy of Amy Goodman). Perhaps they took Lieberman's advice on this (or Cheney's) in their doomed pursuit of the "vital center".

It was sort of analogous to the German Social Democrats' using death squads on Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebkenich. People don't forget this sort of atrocity. Resentment lingers for decades afterwards.

I have news for you guys, violence, bullying, and "shock and awe" don't work in getting votes for your candidate.

yep, that was just like a death squad. no knee-jerks about it.

I have supported every Democratic party nomination for president since 1972 but will not demonize Nader. He will appeal to the left as long as the Democratic party supports aggressive war and the export of US jobs abroad. I see Nader's strong showing in 2000 as a reaction against the unjustified aggression against Serbia in 1999 and against NAFTA. I worked in Gore's campaign but when Nader supporters mentioned these issues in their disgust against the Democrats there was little I could say. I attended a number of Nader rallies -- I could see why he was supported. Very few of these people identified with the Green Party.

Of course they made a serious error in judgment. But who could have predicted the GOP rule would turn out so disastrous? There is not much chance that these people will vote for Nader this time around.

Let me share with you one anecdote I heard during the 2000 election. The following is hearsay but only one step removed from the primary source. There was a Republican party fund raiser in Florida who directed a number of donors to not give to the Republican Party but to donate directly to Nader's campaign. He estimated that these people gave over $1 million to Nader. I knew then that Nader was going to be serious bad news for Gore.

Huh?

Gore's folks physically threw Nader out. That's thuggery.

hrebendorf writes (elsewhere on this site) that in his opinion "Thuggery is fine [in politics] as long as it gets results."

It's not fine. Where do you draw the line -- If thuggery is "fine" what about anthrax? It got results, does that make it fine?

With friends like these Hillary and Obama hardly need enemies. Oh, wait ... they were friends of Gore, too, and look how well he did. It looks like they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

The Dems in 2000 -- they physically attacked a 70 year old man: Nader (who spent a life-time standing up for the little guy -- and therefore had to be punished, so it seems) and in the vice presidential debate said, "YesSir, Mr. Cheney, I wholeheartedly agree with you."

Re the Naderite-Green "belief" that they have been "left out of the process:"

They took themselves out of the process years ago when they adopted the all-or-nothing mentality they continue to exhibit.

They can't win anything, and they're not expecting to. They just want a sheltered platform from which to to proclaim their moral superiority and accuse everyone else of perfidy.

There are reasonable Greens. I am not talking about them.

Fine thuggery in 1918:

Gustav Noske (July 9, 1868 - November 30, 1946) was a German administrator. He served as the Defense Minister of Germany between 1919 and 1920. He was the first defense minister of the Weimar Republic.

Noske was a Master Butcher by trade, who had climbed the political ladder within the trade union movement. He was a member of the Social Democratic Party and became a member of the German Parliament in 1906, where he remained during World War I. He had long shown an interest in military and colonial affairs. Generally speaking, he was on the right wing of the socialists.

Best known for putting down the Communist and left wing risings throughout Germany in early 1919, Noske was and remains a controversial figure. To crush the incipient anarchy, he permitted and even encouraged the organization and employment of right-wing, ultra-nationalist freikorps. Between January 10 and January 17, 1919 they, together with Reichswehr troops under the command of General von Lüttwitz, crushed the Spartacist revolt by military force, the leaders - Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht - being killed.-- Wikipedia

I think I'd like to see Nader and the Greens win some more city, county and state elections. Sort of like the original Progressives, who never won the big prize, but made enough noise to be noticed, and eventually have parts of their agenda co-opted.

Politicians are opportunists and the Greens need to grow large enough to make Democrats see an opportunity. Nader doesn't appear to have much patience for that.

I'm no great fan of Tipper Gore, and Al Gore as both senator and Vice President was never impressive as he's been as private citizen advocate for the environment. And Lieberman as VP wouldn't have impressed me either.

But none of that comes even remotely close to the damage caused by Nader pulling just enough votes from Gore to enable Bush to take the presidency.

I supported Nader once upon a time, and I admire much of the good work he's done. But he destroyed everything he claims to believe in during the 2000 campaign. For what he allowed to happen to this country I will never forgive him.

But who could have predicted the GOP rule would turn out so disastrous?

Bartcop.

This has been another ripoff of easy answers to easy questions.

Boy, that's reasonable debate right there, isn't it? Why do insist on trying to prove O' Reilly correct?

--Look at what he accomplished not in office. Think about what he could accomplish as President.--

McCain accomplished a lot as a soldier.

Do you want him in the White House?

I surely do not.

People change.

People also have areas of contribution where they can be effective and areas where they cannot be effective.

Nader is an individual who has grown accustomed to his own ego, grown to crave a cult of personality around himself, and grown to demand absolute fidelity to his proposals.

If you do not cater to him or his preferred policies, in every respect, he will do everything in his power to destroy you.

Since he knows he has no hope at all of moving Republicans, he focuses his wrath on Democrats because he expects them to bow down to his self-proclaimed superiority on all matters great and small.

Problem?

Yep.

And I'd have the same problem with any Democrat who demanded that kind of ideological loyalty.

Apart from being rampantly incompetent, the Bush administration is destroying the ability of our government to fairly and faithfully act in the interests of the people of this nation.

We don't need more of the same, regardless whether it comes from the left or the right or whereever Nader falls within or outside of the political spectrum.

Let's try these for openers, more or less at random: the minimum wage; "war on terror"; nation-building in Afghanistan; health insurance for children; legislation to help labor organize; investment in green energy.

Health insurance for children?  Right.  I believe that, not.  With the exception of Edwards, our party still won't even go on record for universal health care - the kind of care the rest of the first world takes for granted.  Sorry but this just hit me at a bad time.  The woman who cut my hair today has a husband who is partially and sometimes entirely disabled with huge chronic medical bills who is fortunate to be able to get on a Minnesota plan that most states wouldn't even offer.  She spent the whole time today talking about how high a deductible she can afford to cover herself and their son.  And did I think that because she had cancer 6 years ago she could have problems being covered even after paying a huge deductible?  It just makes me want to SCREAM!! If the election was today and I had a choice between Hillary and Nader, I'd go for Nader on health care alone.  It's time to say enough is enough and DEMAND CHANGE!!  Health care for children? In what CENTURY? And what about their PARENTS!

Sorry, I've totally had with the wimpy, sell out, not in your lifetime Democratic Party. 

If we're stuck with the Warrior Princess running on how tough she is  and on how she is not one of those unAmerican  liberals, well count me a vote for anyone else.

What had he accomplished?

He had voted to confirm Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas who then turned around and overthrew his election.

He also had gone on nationwide TV and mocked and attacked career Federal civil servants and saying he was going to "reinvent" government, setting the stage for today's privatization frenzy.

He assisted Clinton in dismantling welfare "as we know it" and he went along with the excerable NAFTA agreement. What a guy!

Let me see. The Democrats voted to give Bush an illegal war. They voted (with one exception --Russ Feingold) for the USA Patriot Act. They were given control of both houses in November in order to stop the corruption and the war. They continue to support the war and they tried to put Murtha the crook in the leadership. They won't talk about impeaching the POTUS. When they took power, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee didn't even know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite. But all that pales in the face of Al Gore having chosen Joseph Lieberman for his running mate. Why would anyone be looking for an alternative to all that?

I gave the Democrats 25 years of unwavering support. I was attacked so mercilessly by Democrats for supporting Nader in 2000 that I left their party for good. I'm not hateful toward the Democrats but they are hateful toward me.

I'm not naive about how politics work. But I know that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. That's why I'm not voting for the Democrats anymore. I'm voting for someone who shares my values and who has a proven track record of making America better. That would be Ralph Nader.

Reality is only reality as long as nobody challenges it, as long as nobody changes it. I want change.

Gore picked Lieberman, and by this action "helped the GOP". During the debate Lieberman "stood with the GOP" by agreeing with Cheney and not challenging them on a single issue. And he's still standing with them! And whose money did he accept, pray tell?

For that matter Maureen Dowd and a slew of other media figures (speaking of "dishonest demogogues") helped the GOP and stood with them.

You so full of it you slosh when you walk...

hrebendorf writes (elsewhere on this site) that in his opinion "Thuggery is fine [in politics] as long as it gets results."

It's not fine. Where do you draw the line -- If thuggery is "fine" what about anthrax? It got results, does that make it fine?

What about military action in places like Rawanda and Darfur? Is that fine? Where do YOU draw the line?

I said thuggery is fine in politics and that's what I meant to say. I didn't mention anthrax--you did. You tossed that straw man into the mix so you could knock it down and claim victory over my argument. But I was talking about politics--not murder or terrorism. Don't be absurd.

And the reason Gore's people tossed Nader out is because Nader was there to commit a little thuggery of his own. Politics ain't for pussies. Deal.

There's no question the Democrats spend too much time fretting, triangulating and working the angles, but that doesn't make Nader something better than a jackass. If our politicians don't do their jobs, let's at least consider the possibility that we might not be doing ours either. Ours is a representative form of government. Instead of scrapping the whole thing, why not force those who represent us to do the jobs they were elected to do?

So you tossed him out "pre-emptively" -- (he wasn't even in the room where the debate audience was, but in a room where it was being watched on a monitor.)
in case he what -- asked awkward questions??
Some "debate". I wonder why the dems are so scared of Nader, really.

You seem to think politics is a version of the Mafia, not an attempt to win over the electorate. But I guess consultants get paid whether or not their candidate wins. And sometimes I wonder who is really paying them.

Read Nader's book: "Crashing the Party" and it will become readily apparent what needs to be done. These include: allowing third party candidates to debate (the debates are controlled by the Repubs/Dems), removing idiotic ballot access restrictions (mandated by Repub/Dem-passed state laws) and halting frivolous ballot challenges (Kerry sued Nader in every state).

In the last election Nader represented the principles of a large portion of the American people, Kerry and Bush didn't.

Nader:
*opposition to Iraq war
*against Patriot Act
*against massive corporate welfare programs
*for universal health care
*against drug war
*against free-reign trade
*for affordable college
*against ballot access obstructions
*against unqualified support for Israel
*against huge Pentagon budget
*for action on global warming

I know something about Nader supporters, and without going into a lot of detail we voted for Nader and gave him money because we believed in him and we believed in his platform, and these beliefs could not be placed elsewhere because the other candidates and platforms stunk.

He was also in favor of re-regulating the credit card companies who are bleeding the American people dry with usurious interest rates. I have not heard Gore, Kerry, Obama, or Clinton say one word about this. Could it be they all take money from Bank America?

Well, you can rate me "1" all you like but I'm mindful tonight that Nader came to fame over automobile and consumer safety. Considering that an interstate highway bridge just fell into the Mississippi right here, it seems to me we need a lot more Naders and lot fewer business and war as usual politicians.

Oh wait, what's this?

Democratic Senator Carl Levin has introduced a bill to regulate the out-of-control practices of the credit card industry.

In the House, Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Carolyn Maloney, D-NY, are also working on legislation.

Why don't you ask the Democratic candidates whether they support it or not? I guarantee Obama will vote for it. Clinton, it depends.

But it seems that, like your hero Ralph, you'd rather throw bombs from the sidelines than get anything accomplished with legislation.

It is a bit ironic, IMO, that many of the same people (in this thread, and many other places) continue to pound away at Democrats (and continue to hold it against them) for supporting Bush going to war in Iraq. Yet they can't fathom why Democrats seem to be holding a grudge against Nader.

At least many of the Dems have learned from their mistakes, openly, and have reaped the political benefits. So long as Nader continues to play the part of the bumbling moralist who holds his inability to politically evolve as a badge of honor he'll continue to marginalize himself and those who might support him.

That's an incredible misreading of what Gore actually said. You put an ellipsis just where he lists the major problems with Bush's Iraq (non)strategy.

...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.

Your quoting was ridiculous here too.

In the immediate aftermath [of 9/11], I expressed full support for our Commander-in-Chief, President George W. Bush.

Yes, Gore supported the operation against the Taliban and Osama. No, that doesn't mean he supported Iraq.

Gore's speech was a response to the idea of an "Axis of Evil." He said, basically, those countries do bad things; but the neo-con strategy of using military force stupidly is not an option.

See the American Prospect article I linked to above.

Todd Gitlin,

I don't know why you are wasting your time writing about Nader. He is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what he says or does, whether he runs in 2008 or not. He is irrelevant to American politics. His cultists are a small fringe, probably smaller than Birchers. You are flattering him by writing about him. He is an attention junky. Leave him alone.

Those legislators you mention *are* my heroes. I am very glad to hear what they are doing.

I missed Kerry, Clinton, and Obama talking about it, unfortunately.

I'm not at all convinced that "Nader took votes away from Gore." I think a lot of disaffected people who voted for Nader might well have either sat it out or voted for someone else -- either on the left or the right.

What evidence does anyone have to back this up? He could well have taken votes away from Bush, for all we know. My inlaws voted for Perot and then Nader, for example -- and some of them (former Democrats) voted for Bush and Dole.

The 'no difference between the two' or 'mirror image' in your words, is an old, old gimmick used by Republicans over the years to get people to ignore issues.

I cast my first vote in a presidential election in 1964 and I have to say that in EVERY election since I've heard some form of the same stunt by Republicans.

It helps cut turnout by making people believe that there is no choice and it also, as I said above, deflects attention from issues.

To people who are confused by public policy issues it offers an easy out to avoid voting altogether or, for all too many, an excuse to use some frivolous reasoning in casting their vote. Reasons like 'I would like to have a beer with him' or as one women told this stunned teenager in 1956 that she would vote for Eisenhower because he had such a nice smile.

If only she'd known that Eisenhower seldom smiled.

That's it. The gloves are off.

Al Gore was the first prominent public figure to come out against the Iraq War in 2002.

Bacon get your facts straight, you Greens are no better than Republicans, one lie after another.

And what do you mean 'silent on domestic issues?' Have you bothered to listen to and read the formal positions of John Edwards?

And tell me who are these 'Dems' who want to whack Iran?

Thanks for giving us George W. Bush and the Iraq War.

I hope you're proud.

Nader not a politician?

Grow up.

I can't agree with your idea that a non-politician is what we need in the White House.

We need a real politician in the White House and in all seats in the Congress.

Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln were great politicians and also our greatest presidents.

We need politicians in the sense that a real politician appreciates and holds in high esteem the office he/she holds.

Give us no more 'non-politicians' like Tom DeLay and Bill Frist as prime examples of the 'vote for me , I'm not a politician' breed that's been infecting Washington (and our state houses and legislatures) for too many years. These people have no respect for the institutions of government and no sense of the role that our public institutions serve the people.

I want people in office who respect the institutions of government and who are loyal to the rule of law.

If a candidate runs for public office and claims he's not a politician, he's told his first BIG lie and he's told you he has no respect for government.

The effort would be better spent seeking legislation to change the vote system to instant-runoff. Then you could vote for Nader, who wouldn't win, and have your vote transfer to your second choice, (which I hope would not have been Bush).

We could use your vote.

So the Dems have seen the light, abandoned the center and become true leftys? Sure. We'll see, won't we.

Part of what made the Dems what they are today is the greens walking out the primary fights when they didn't get their way. They remind me of Lieberman.

The real world obligation is to work to get the nomination for the best candidate with a prayer of getting elected.

So when was it that you did all this Green supporting and who was the Dem candidaate who was the mirror image of a Rethug and was he was bad as Bush?

Sure, Gore wanted to think it through and then invade Iraq. Do you have something against thinking?

What do you mean 'illogical'

It happened and, in case you haven't picked up on this yet, Republicans have a god awful lot of money and have regularly helped finance Green candidates.

They helped finance Nader and also helped finance a Green candidate for a House seat in Oregon and were the sole financial backer of a Green Senate candidate in Pennsylvania in 2006.

Oh look, it's Bacons in the pit.

Hey, what's wrong with the democratic concept that support for Nader's positions might in fact influence and hasten the progressive changes you seek? Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work? Isn't that better than, as many do, focusing on how much money each candidate raises?

Nader made overtures to Kerry, who might've found some positions that didn't mirror Bush's, but he refused. The biggest one, of course, was the Iraq War. Kerry said in August 2004 that knowing what he knew then, that there were no WMDs in Iraq, he still would've voted to invade. Dumb.

It was 21.84 percent on a recent cc offer.

Yes, politicians know how the system works. They know how to raise money from corporate sponsors, they know whom to call over on 'K' Street, they know how to insert earmarks in the budget to benefit their corporate sponsors (nearly 2000 of them in the new 2008 Defense budget) and they know how to equivocate and fabricate with the best of them. They also know how to flatly refuse to represent their constituents, they know how to gerrymander their districts to eliminate any chance of losing and they know how to break the law as many have done.

Why, we have the best politicians that money can buy!

America isn't going to hell in a handbag because of the foreign policies of city, county and state representatives. It wasn't city, county and state representatives who signed off on the USA Patriot Act, who gave Bush the war in Iraq, who agreed to allow the US to torture, who allowed suspended Habeas Corpus and allows Bush to spy on Americans. The world isn't a more dangerous place because of city, county, and state representatives. It isn't city, county or state representatives nominating and confirming idiots like Gonzales and Roberts and Alioto and countless others. It is the policies of the Federal Government. It is the policies of the US House and the US Senate and the Executive Branch that are destroying America.

Obduracy and Slime--Dem style

WASHINGTON, July 31 — Under pressure from President Bush, Democratic leaders in Congress are scrambling to pass legislation this week to expand the government’s electronic wiretapping powers.

Democratic leaders have expressed a new willingness to work with the White House to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to make it easier for the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on some purely foreign telephone calls and e-mail. Such a step now requires court approval.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/washington/01nsa.html?ex=1343620800&en=f84a7e561028490e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Why not elect someone who doesn't have to be forced to do what they are elected to do? You have such low expectations for your representatives. It's sad, really.

Ralph Nader is a consequence of the unbalanced US political spectrum. Seen from the perspective of an European country like Germany, France, Italy or Sweden, GOP is a far-right party and Dems are centre-right.

This puts the Dems at a comparative disadvantage. While it is quite difficult to challenge the Republicans from the right, there is plenty of room to the left of the Democratic Party. As a consequence, the Dems are faced with a complex balancing act: How to position the party such that there number of right-leaning voters is maximized while minimizing the losses of the more left-wing voters?

For all I know, the Dems might be positioned as best as they can be, and certain percentage of leftist voters unsatisfied with Democratic policies is inevitable.

What I don't get is the righteous indignation of people like Todd Gitlin. How dare you vote Nader? The Years of Bush are all Nader's fault. Hey, how about blaming Republicans for electing Bush? Isn't that primarily their fault? Where is the indignation and venom directed at the right wingers? Are they considered beyond the pale? That would be a pretty sad picture of America.

Disclosure: I'm not a US citizen so I don't vote in American elections. But I would definitely be very reluctant to vote for a party that thinks it has a god-given right to my vote, regardless of whether it represents my positions or not.

If Gitlin thinks Nader and the Greens are irrelevant-- why write about them?

If Gitlin wants us to believe Greens are full of "sheer venom" he really needs to cite some examples, doesn't he?

I simply do not understand the anger on the Democratic "left" that is directed at Nader and the Greens.

As a Green, I am happy that every progressive can find a political party that reflects their belief-- whether it is the Democratic Party or the Greens. This is the BEST possible outcome in a democratic society, isn't it? I mean isn't it a GOOD THING that at least one party ran an anti-war presidential candidate in 2004, especially as that was the position of the majority of the citizens in 2004?!! (BTW The same may be true in 2008, if the Democrats nominate another pro-war candidate like Clinton!)

I think the angry Democrats should direct their fire towards the majority of Americans who never vote, not the tiny fraction of us who have found our political home in the Green Party.

More productively, Democrats should work towards enacting IRV and thus eliminate the "spoiler" factor altogether.

Finally, according to my own research in Maryland, a (bare) majority of registered Greens in our state would not have voted at all in 2000 if there was no Green Party candidate for president, so the idea that Green votes "belong" to the Democratic Party is a fallacy. Green votes belong to Green voters, as does every person's vote in a democracy.

Dave Goldsmith
Baltimore County Green Party Coordinator

Voting for the lesser of two evils is better than helping the greater of two evils to win: that's what Nader's race did by capturing votes in Florida as you know but don't wish to acknowledge.

Given Nader's poor sense of strategy there is no chance that he will ever be elected to anything.

Those are a lot of good things BUT they pale by comparison by the harm that he did in defeating Gore and helping Bush get elected. He knew the risk, he took it, the maintained that he didn't care. This may have cost us the planet when you consider the difference between what Gore would have done on global warming versus what Bush has not done.

On August 1, 2007 - 4:00pm John Culpepper said: One of the Gore campaign's numerous *huge* mistakes was to throw Nader out of the debate audience ...It was sort of analogous to the German Social Democrats' using death squads on Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebkenich. People don't forget this sort of atrocity. Resentment lingers for decades afterwards.

That is a really sick statement. I'm kindof in awe. Luxemburg and Liebkenich MURDERED HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE TO ACHIEVE THIER POLITICAL AGENDAS. Why are they your heroes? Don't cry for Bonnie and Clyde, cry for the victims. Sheesh
By the way I don't think Nadar would appreciate being associated with a violent revolutionary like Rosa Luxemburg; he is as far as I know still a supported of constitutional democracy.

Perhaps it's because some of us wish the Greens well and would like to see some Greens actually holding offices in government, demonstrating some credible ability to govern and training up a bench to go after higher offices. You know, sort of like a bootstrap, grass-roots movement. But of course to accomplish that feat (or anything else, for that matter), one would have to learn have to learn to pick one's battles and use what resources they have wisely, and to greatest effect.

I'm not clear on whether there is a difference between voting for a party sure to lose and not voting. You and I are free to not vote, but I don't claim that not voting expresses any principle effectively.

You're saying it's your right to vote ineffectually. That's true, and it's my right to try and persuade you to hold your nose and keep Republicans at bay. If your political allies helped elect a Democrat you'll have some pull later, during legislative battles, when the reps are reading polls and fielding phone calls and letters.

If said rep knows the Greens (for example) will never vote for him, he has no interest in listening to them either.

BTW, I opposed the Afghanistan operation at first, and then the cheap way we went about it, later, and I'm a Democratic voter. You have company.

At least 226 Greens in 28 states and the District of Columbia hold elected office as of June 2007, including offices of mayor, city council, board of supervisors, etc. (Source: Data compiled by Mike Feinstein and presented on the gp.org website.)

Greens are running at all levels of government and are winning at the lowest levels first.

I think the exposure that the 2000 Nader / Green Party race gave the Greens is the single biggest boost to the growth of the Green Party in the U.S. to date.

In short, I think a synergy can occur when Greens run high-profile races they do not expect to win at the same time they run local races to win.

Dave Goldsmith
Baltimore County Green Party Coordinator

I think there's a huge difference between staying home and voting third party, especially at some local levels. It signals to the future candidates that there are votes out there to be won. Were I running for office, I'd rather try to convince some one who is active enough to vote than some one who is apathetic and stays home.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

So reply to his point --- does Nader use the Greens the way Rove uses the Fundies?

Rove uses the Fundies as people he can get to vote against their own interests if he can get them riled up enough emotionally.

He uses their hot button issues to get them to stop assessing real world consequences.