Republicans funding Nader

mycroft

You have to ask yourself "how commited is the republican party to the ethics and beliefs of democracy?" if they are willing to fund the left in order to destablise Kerry's campaign.

among Mr Nader's new supporters this election is the billionaire Richard Egan, who was appointed ambassador to Ireland after raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for President Bush. Campaign monitors say other big Republican donors have contributed as well. In Oregon, also poised for a tight contest, two conservative groups admitted telephoning supporters to help put Mr Nader on the ticket.

more at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1279929,00.html

gom

The sad thing is it will work.

If PR was in the US maybe we would see the end of partisan politics in the US. WHich in turn might filter down through the american society leading to a less 'friend/enemy' 'good/bad' 'heaven/hell' 'black/white' 'islam/christian' divid....

Thats my American Dream.

Lennoxschips

You have to ask yourself how much of an ego tripper Ralph Nader is to do this.

Ideally they should make it possible to have a coalition presidency. I.e. Gore and Nader sharing a cabinet in 2000. Or perhaps even a Gore-Bush presidency, who knows? It would help promote a multi-party system and bipartisan politics.

vorbis

great idea, a democrat republican coalition would ensure a continual dictatorship in the US. This Nader thing is jsut politics, theres nothing unusual in it.

Lennoxschips

a democrat republican coalition would ensure a continual dictatorship in the US.

Perhaps, but I believe a coalition system would eventually play into the hands of the small parties and would lead to a multi-party democracy in the long run. A vote for Nader would actually count as opposed to being a merely protest vote. As I said, it would also have made a Gore-Nader presidency possible.

Akula

Well orignally the office of the vice-presidency went to the loser in the election. It just led to political turmoil so was changed.

mycroft

You have to ask yourself how much of an ego tripper Ralph Nader is to do this.

Why? How dare he challenge the two party hedgmony that has held back American politics for a century?

Lots of third party candiates exist, Nader is the only one who's a factor, why does that bother you?

Well orignally the office of the vice-presidency went to the loser in the election. It just led to political turmoil so was changed.

I never heard that. Whats your source? It's like the vice-presidency as a consoliation prize. "didn't he do well folks, but don't worry no one goes home empty handed in this political system"

sceptre

mycroft wrote:

I never heard that. Whats your source? It's like the vice-presidency as a consoliation prize. "didn't he do well folks, but don't worry no one goes home empty handed in this political system"

It was the case until the 12th amendment (IIRC) in 1804 when they introduced separate lists for president and veep. The original plan didn't take account of the idea of political parties. As soon as political parties came into the mix, the original plan was a terrible idea.

Akula

it was meant to produce political unity once elections were over. Just didn't work though.

mycroft

It was the case until the 12th amendment (IIRC) in 1804 when they introduced separate lists for president and veep.

I did not know that. Boards should change it's slogan to "boards.ie occasionally informative"

As soon as political parties came into the mix, the original plan was a terrible idea.

Insert witty political aside here ie "politics is too important to be left to politicans"

gom

I think that the system in the US as it was prior to the 12th amendment was a reasonably democratic one.
Think of it like this.
If the president died or fell on ill health(as they occasionally did back in the day) the guy who got the 2nd most votes takes over.

Compare that with the present system where the guy who takes over is selected by the president. The process of selecting a vice-president is the strange one politically and usually leads to someone who has completely different politics to the president being selected.
This is especially true in the Democratic camp. When the Democrats select a liberial east coaster such as Kennedy or Kerry. They usually are pushed to select a vice-president/running mate who appeals to the Conservative middle american as they feel that this wins them votes that they otherwise would not get. Personally I don't think that I would vote for a guy who i did not agree with because his possible successor is in my favour.

The problem with the present vice-president select system is seen with the Assasination of Kennedy. Johnson takes the US into the Veitnam fold soon after. John Edwards would possible be more like Clinton as a president in my view. But who knows....

mycroft

Think of it like this.The problem with the present vice-president select system is seen with the Assasination of Kennedy. Johnson takes the US into the Veitnam fold soon after. John Edwards would possible be more like Clinton as a president in my view. But who knows....

Ok think of it like this;

You'd have had Kennedy and Nixon in 62.
Nixon and Mc Govern in 72
F**king hell you'd have had Regan and Carter in 82

Pauses........

I need to find Philip K Dick fast, I'm coming with this bizarre alternative earth where this happened, and if he wrote it, it'd be a bloody classic.........

Lennoxschips

I wasn't suggesting that the Vice-President should be forced to be from the losing party, as was the case in the US prior to 1804, just that coalitions should be possible. Reagan in 1980 had an absolute majority and even if a coalition system had existed at the time, he still would have been able to assume power and nominate a cabinet from entirely on his own. The same with Nixon in 1976, he slaughtered McGovern and a coalition would have been out of the question.

Nobody forced Mary Harney to be tanaiste, but it was in F****a F**l's interest to approach the PDs in order to achieve a majority government.

Imagine if Gore had been able to go launch a coalition with Nader after the 2000 election? Nader would have forced Gore to put some of his issues on the table and a Democrat-Green coalition would have taken the White House, easily beating a Republican-Buchanan coalition. Imagine how different the last four years would have been!

chewy

and thought it was funny nadar doesn't though

...
http://votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=142

Sand

Presidential coalitions are being argued for here as some sort of check/balance - The US system of government is not the Parlimentary democracy system, with an honourary head of state that exists here. The US Presidency is part of the three branches of government - executive, legislative and judicial - that are supposed to act as checks on each other according to the powers and limitations they have under the US constitution.

Trying to transplant a method of checking unfettered power onto a system that is already set up to check unfettered power strikes me as being both unecessary and dangerous.

"Coalitions" are possible to some degree already without clumsy ammendments to the system; McCain, a republican, was being seriously - for some reason - being mentioned as a possible Kerry VP. There is nothing really stopping Kerry from nominating Republicans and vice versa, though party loyalties may clash. There was nothing stopping Gore from nominating Nader as his VP - except for the fact that Nader didnt want to be his bloody VP; Nader views both parties in the US as being part of the problem, hes not some closet Democrat, waiting by the phone to be invited in to a "real" party. He is, for better or worse, arguing his own political views and letting people make their own choice. His aim is to build up a solid base for his party, not to simply "Stop Bush/Get a Democrat In!!!!!" If Republicans are willing to fund his message then so be it.

If the president died or fell on ill health(as they occasionally did back in the day) the guy who got the 2nd most votes takes over.

Yeah, and in a two party system....the voters for the first guy, who were the majority, now end up with a President from the second party that they didnt vote for - probably because they didnt agree with his policies. Win, win.

Flukey

If the president died or fell on ill health(as they occasionally did back in the day) the guy who got the 2nd most votes takes over.

Well after the last election, GWB didn't even wait for anything to happen before taking over.

It is ironic that the two greatest democracies in the world both have heads of state that weren't elected and who only got the job because their fathers used to have it!

Victor

Sand wrote:

Yeah, and in a two party system....the voters for the first guy, who were the majority, now end up with a President from the second party that they didnt vote for - probably because they didnt agree with his policies. Win, win.

Hmmm, wouldn't that actually encourage a president's opponents to assasinate him.

Flukey

Some give them plenty of encouragement and even to people on their own side!

That reminds me, JFK is on sometime this week.

mycroft

If Republicans are willing to fund his message then so be it.

Yes republicans are up with Naders alternative fuel, state health car and a reduction in military budget.

C'mon Sands even you'll have to admit this is a plot to move voters on the left of Kerry.

Now for starts I'd like Nader to be on the ballot, and I think it'd be a start to the end of the dual party hegemony that's hurting american politics.

However this is republicans thinking "every state that Nader is on the ballot will cost Kerry votes".

Okay to look at the equivilant. If Democratics funded the paedophile satanists for Bush campaign in swing states, campaigning door to door, in midwestern american, this would be seen as what????

Sand

Yes republicans are up with Naders alternative fuel, state health car and a reduction in military budget

Unlikely but possible. Regardless, if theyre out there funding a campaigner whose trying to publicise those issues and is *winning* votes on those issues, then maybe the Democrats ought to be asking why they cant win those votes with their policies instead of getting upset that somone else has the sheer cheek to campaign for themselves.

If anything it shows the Democrats are caught between two barstools. Theyre trying to appeal to the floating moderate voters, and in doing so their losing credibility with other voters who dont believe them to be any different to the Republicans. Tough. Thats their problem, not Naders. If they want Naders votes then perhaps theyd better adopt the policies that are winning him those votes.

C'mon Sands even you'll have to admit this is a plot to move voters on the left of Kerry.

Oh yeah, probably is. But if Nader represents is closer to their politics then tough for Kerry. He doesnt have a divine right to the votes of everyone living on either coast of the US. Hes got to win them like everyone else.

And speaking of plots Ive noticed that not a single poster has noted the despicable Democrat plot to exploit legal technicalities to keep Nader off the ballot - upsurping the peoples democratic right to choose? Florida? The Democrats were obviously taking notes that day.

Now for starts I'd like Nader to be on the ballot, and I think it'd be a start to the end of the dual party hegemony that's hurting american politics.

Youd like him to be on the ballot but only if he won no votes - otherwise Nader is a problem and not a possible breaker of the two party hegemony. I mean, every single 3rd or 4th party is going to take votes from the the established parties. Thats the reality. No point claiming to be in favour of more than 2 parties and then complaining when a 3rd party starts winning votes.

Okay to look at the equivilant. If Democratics funded the paedophile satanists for Bush campaign in swing states, campaigning door to door, in midwestern american, this would be seen as what????

Well the Democrats have already provided an equivalent with their legalistic ballot tampering. Totally legal, totally within their rights, obviously a clear political dirty trick. Youve not mentioned it at all, and the guardian leads with Republican misdeeds despite the Democrats actions being the meat and bones of the article. So Id imagine the Democrats could do whatever the hell they liked and no one would even care - but its evil and wrong if the Republicans do it.

As for your analogy - sorry I didnt get it really. Are you comparing Nader to a satanic cult? Are you imagining a paedophilic satanic cult as a possible vote getter in mid west US bible belt in the same way as Nader is a possible vote getter in the Coastal areas? Your analogy might have worked better if you had used say, some Christian fundamenalist political action group isntead of the satanists. It is possible that the Republicans will someday tell their whacko Christian wing where the hell to get off, so an out and out "Christian Party" is a possibility.

mycroft

As for your analogy - sorry I didnt get it really. Are you comparing Nader to a satanic cult? Are you imagining a paedophilic satanic cult as a possible vote getter in mid west US bible belt in the same way as Nader is a possible vote getter in the Coastal areas?

My analogy is, if the democrats created this front and campaigned for Bush under it, they'd drive the god fearing bible belters into the smiling arms of John Edwards, and they're be uproar.

if theyre out there funding a campaigner whose trying to publicise those issues and is *winning* votes on those issues, then maybe the Democrats ought to be asking why they cant win those votes with their policies

So funding a campaign whose policies you abhore, but your oposition's target degraphic might go for, thereby weakening their power base is a tactic that adheres to the principlies and ethics of a party dedicated to the ideals of a democractic society?

Oh yeah, probably is. But if Nader represents is closer to their politics then tough for Kerry. He doesnt have a divine right to the votes of everyone living on either coast of the US. Hes got to win them like everyone else.

And funding him to strip votes from the opposition is what I object to. Neither of the huge parties come out of this looking whiter than white.

No point claiming to be in favour of more than 2 parties and then complaining when a 3rd party starts winning votes.

I'm not, I'm objecting to a right wing party funding a left wing party in the hope it will steal voters from the right wing party's opposition, despite the fact that the candiate they're funding is the polar opposite of the republcians worldview

sovtek

Sand wrote:

Unlikely but possible. Regardless, if theyre out there funding a campaigner whose trying to publicise those issues and is *winning* votes on those issues, then maybe the Democrats ought to be asking why they cant win those votes with their policies instead of getting upset that somone else has the sheer cheek to campaign for themselves.

If anything it shows the Democrats are caught between two barstools. Theyre trying to appeal to the floating moderate voters, and in doing so their losing credibility with other voters who dont believe them to be any different to the Republicans. Tough. Thats their problem, not Naders. If they want Naders votes then perhaps theyd better adopt the policies that are winning him those votes.



Oh yeah, probably is. But if Nader represents is closer to their politics then tough for Kerry. He doesnt have a divine right to the votes of everyone living on either coast of the US. Hes got to win them like everyone else.

And speaking of plots Ive noticed that not a single poster has noted the despicable Democrat plot to exploit legal technicalities to keep Nader off the ballot - upsurping the peoples democratic right to choose? Florida? The Democrats were obviously taking notes that day.



Youd like him to be on the ballot but only if he won no votes - otherwise Nader is a problem and not a possible breaker of the two party hegemony. I mean, every single 3rd or 4th party is going to take votes from the the established parties. Thats the reality. No point claiming to be in favour of more than 2 parties and then complaining when a 3rd party starts winning votes.



Well the Democrats have already provided an equivalent with their legalistic ballot tampering. Totally legal, totally within their rights, obviously a clear political dirty trick. Youve not mentioned it at all, and the guardian leads with Republican misdeeds despite the Democrats actions being the meat and bones of the article. So Id imagine the Democrats could do whatever the hell they liked and no one would even care - but its evil and wrong if the Republicans do it.

As for your analogy - sorry I didnt get it really. Are you comparing Nader to a satanic cult? Are you imagining a paedophilic satanic cult as a possible vote getter in mid west US bible belt in the same way as Nader is a possible vote getter in the Coastal areas? Your analogy might have worked better if you had used say, some Christian fundamenalist political action group isntead of the satanists. It is possible that the Republicans will someday tell their whacko Christian wing where the hell to get off, so an out and out "Christian Party" is a possibility.

I think the universe is turning in on itself...I actually totally agree with Sand on something.

Syth

Course none of this would be an issue if the americans adopted the sensible voting system: Proportional Representation.

Sand

I'm not, I'm objecting to a right wing party funding a left wing party in the hope it will steal voters from the right wing party's opposition, despite the fact that the candiate they're funding is the polar opposite of the republcians worldview

Oh right, youre against a right wing party pushing funds to a minor left wing party in the hopes of it splintereing the left wing vote?

Grand - cos when you started off you were talking about respect for democracy and so on. Now youve clarified your position to only being upset when its right wing parties getting up to tricks.

Youve still not spared a single sentence for the legalalistic ballot rigging the Democrats openly admit their engaged in to scupper Naders campaign. But theyre lefties, so theyre obviously okay.

Neither of the huge parties come out of this looking whiter than white.

You wouldnt know it from your posts - or indeed the posts of anyone else whose contributed to this thread. Ive heard absolutely nobody claiming to have a problem with the Democrats extra-democratic campaign tactics.

I think the universe is turning in on itself...I actually totally agree with Sand on something.

Im stunned - Sovtek is actually speaking sense for once.

Course none of this would be an issue if the americans adopted the sensible voting system: Proportional Representation.

Every system has its flaws. The US system, for what its worth, has survived when democracy was overwhelmed by fascism, communism, ultra nationalism and racism in Europe. If anything, PR has a flaw in that while it encourages more modest parties, it also allows for the development of extremist parties - who are rising in strenth all over Europe, again. Le Pen nearly shocked France and Europe didnt he?

ColoradoGal

Hello all,

I just wanted to say "hi" and that I'm glad I've found these message boards from Ireland. You all seem to be very well informed about US politics! I look forward to chatting with you. Yes, as much of my country has, I've gotten totally wrapped up in this most important election! I would say the most important of my lifetime, if not ever?? There are so many millions of us who so dislike the current president and where he's trying to take America! So many of us are so upset about Bush & Cheney, it's really been a bit of a nightmarish few years for us Democrats, ever since the 2000 elections.

I added a little about myself on my profile, but I'll be redundant anyway... I'm a young American woman who's been living "Out West" for over a decade. I suppose I'm pretty artsy and outdoorsy and love to travel. I have a great love for this place that is my country and a passion to make it live up to its ideals and potential, but please don't confuse that with jingoism! I'd never say I'm "proud to be an American" grateful, not proud. I personally hate it when people stereotype a group of people, whether they're referring to a race, a nation, a culture, and age, etc. It's all bigotry! The more I meet people from all over the world, the more I realize that people are generally the same. And I know for a fact that Americans are far too diverse in every regard to be dismissed as a Bush Cowboy or whatever and I've seen too much of that sort of talk on intl. talk boards.

I'm one of those silly Irish-Americans who loves all things Irish (even if I've never been there or know as much as I'd like to). So expect some silly questions about your country from time to time. I have traveled to Europe a few times but never to Ireland or the UK. I love Europe and feel that we have so much to learn from each other. I long for a day when our relationship across the Atlantic is repaired - not to mention our relationship with the Middle East! I love all that is good about my country but will try to fight hard in my own way to stop it from turning into something I will not recognize!! Boy, you know when the beloved Irish are mad at America, you KNOW we're in deep trouble!!


Regarding the discussion about Nader, boy there's a character! What a political parasite that man has become! He even came to Boston the week of the Dem Convention to attack the Dems (get your OWN convention, Nader!)

Being someone who's spent a lifetime caring about our Environment, it was so frustrating to see all the policy setbacks we've had since the 2000 election. I can't blame it all on Nader, Gore did run a horrible campaign! But just as Bush appeals to people's fears, Nader appealed to people's cynicism - especially with young voters. Nader's claim that Gore and Bush were not much different is the biggest political lie I've ever heard in my life, and I've heard some doosies! One of the biggest problems (and most telling in my opinion) of Nader is that the man has NEVER even held an elected position! Not city councelman, not senator, not Governor, where he too would have to compromise with the Repugs to get bills passed, where he too would be judged by a real voting record. Now he has this luxury of just throwing stones from his glass house. It's really nauseating to see young voters get suckered by the man.

John Kerry has one of the most liberal/progressive voting record (and I think that's a good thing) and has an almost perfect score on the Environment and other social issues. The man is against the Death Penalty (rare for US politicians) - now there's a good Catholic :-) If Kerry is running towards the middle during the general election it is because he has to, period, in order to win. Bush did it in 2000, so he wouldn't scare off too many people. I've actually been a fan of Kerry for many, many years. He has made some mistakes in his campaign, but I think he's so qualified, so intelligent, and so experienced to be a fine person for the job.

Anyway, I hope I'll have the time to stop by here and talk with you. I just wish there was a way I could hear some of your wonderful Irish accents

Peace,
ColoradoGal

Cork

mycroft wrote:

Why? How dare he challenge the two party hedgmony that has held back American politics for a century?

It has certainly not held back the US economy.

How is a vote for Nader not a defacto vote for Bush?

Nader has no hope of becoming US president.

But he is entitled to run.

ColoradoGal

I do think that of course Nader is entitled to run. Now, in an election such as the one in 1996, Nader's candidacy was a non-issue because the race was never very close. Our electorate is so evenly split as it was in 2000, that it could once again be an issue. Our system over here is too "winner takes all" - far, far different from the parliamentary system - and some Naderites just don't understand that point. If we had run-off elections or had a first choice/second choice ballot as has been suggested, then that would be one thing, but we don't.

I have an issue with the whole idea of "entitlement" as an excuse. I'll use another analogy. Some people over here respond to environmentalist regarding their big SUV's, "I'm entitled to drive a Hummer or an Excursion, it's a free country!" The point is not entitlement, the point is cause and effect, the point is doing the responsible, conservative thing by not guzzling up all the oil for at the very least when your kids when they want to drive an automobile (and of course for less polution).

It would be one thing if Nader has stuck to his previous word or held himself to the standards he likes to bash Dems on. In 2000 campaign, he said that he wouldn't campaign in "swing states", and he lied. He then said that Gore and Bush were "tweedledum and tweedledee" - I can't find two white guys more different than GDubya and Al Gore, in style ideology, intellectual curiousity, priorities and even spirituality. Gore wrote a book on Global Warming years before it was really discussed! Nader blasted Gore for owning stock in Oxydental Oil - when in fact he didn't own any of their stock, his mother did (oh, those pesky details). Other pro-Nader groups used that lie against Gore too. It turns out that through Naders large shares in his mutual funds, he DOES own Oxy Oil, as well as McDonald's and Halliburton!

Likewise, Nader said recently that Environmental groups such as the League of Conservation Voters are just settling by endorsing John Kerry. The league quickly answer back and said that was (another) lie that they have never enthusiatically and quickly endorsed a candidate like they have for Kerry. That is particularly why I've followed Kerry's career for over ten years - and Nader wants to claim that issue as his own? please. Look, being raised in the South, where there are some pretty scummy racist politics down there, I've seen some slick politicians in my time, but Nader is by far one of the slickest. The "I don't have an act" IS his act.

ColoradoGal

Sand wrote:

His (Nader's) aim is to build up a solid base for his party, not to simply "Stop Bush/Get a Democrat In!!!!!" If Republicans are willing to fund his message then so be it.

Yeah, but what party is he trying to build these days? That was his schtick in 2000 for the main reason he was running - to build up the Green Party. But the Greens didn't even nominate his this time around. Many Greens think he did more harm than good to their party in 2000. Michael Moore recently pleaded with Nader to not run this time. Don't waist your time, Moore. Sorry for sounding upset here, but I am upset about this as too much is at stake, IMHO.

Sand

Yeah, but what party is he trying to build these days? That was his schtick in 2000 for the main reason he was running - to build up the Green Party. But the Greens didn't even nominate his this time around. Many Greens think he did more harm than good to their party in 2000. Michael Moore recently pleaded with Nader to not run this time. Don't waist your time, Moore. Sorry for sounding upset here, but I am upset about this as too much is at stake, IMHO.

I doubt theres as much at stake as you might believe - or from the other side of the coin, its actually far, far, far worse than can be resolved by voting in Kerry. If anything youre in the same position the Republicans were when Clinton was in power - theres some crazy, downright evil maniac who hasnt got a clue sending the whole country down the tubes with his mad cap schemes. The saviour is.....John Kerry. From what Ive read of the man and seen of him he doesnt seem like a terrible guy, but hes not my idea of a saviour. If he wins, he wins. if he loses, he loses. The world will keep on turning.

The real problem is that the Republicans and Democrats, out of 280 million odd Americans, who have produced some brilliant statesmen and leaders put forward George Bush and John Kerry as the finest they can offer. The problem is, one of those is going to win as theres no other choices.

Nader is at least offering a 3rd voice, something that makes the Democrats think - we actually have to *work* for our votes. Weve got to put forward an excellent candidate, not some compromise. We cant rely on the fact that 40% of the voters hate the other side too much to vote for them, so we just have to out-moderate the other side to get the floating vote. Hopefully an Anti-Nader will also emerge to give the Republicans headaches too.

So yeah, Nader may be hurting the Democrats now, but some actual competiveness in the political landscape of the US can only help the US in the long term. Im guessing you vote Democrat - assuming you feel the Democrats arent delivering enough, who else are you going to vote for? George Bush?

ColoradoGal

Look, it's easy for a foreigner to say that there's no difference to people's lives whether there's a Dem or a Republican in office. The truth is that politicians bills and votes do affect everyone from time to time. For instance, since Reagan completly ended the guaranteed student loan, many kids had to quit school and work full time and then go back to finish college while working full time - it also required a few personal friends to drop out for a while since their financial aid was cut, some of them never returned. Tell anyone at the financial aid office that who's in office doesn't affect everyday people.

I know many school teachers who because of certain law makers cutting the education budget, they have to pay for making copies out of their own pockets!

Talk to the people who are trying to keep after school programs alive for inner city kids with a budget that was split in half by the Bush Administration. It is these sort of groups who are most affected.

I find it interesting that Nader fans are the ones who are mainly not part of those groups who gets affected the most severly when social programs are cut. I have YET to meet a poor, disaffeted, non-white non-middleto-upper-middle class college educated Nader fan. Whereas I have met many poor, ethnic, inner city folks who are Dems - or they were once poor and have become successful in part because of the social programs that helped them rise above their position. They don't have the luxury to throw away their vote. I'm not an expert, but I've worked with enough homeless shelters, inner city program groups to know what these groups really care about.

Bush wants to do away with Overtime pay - you don't think that will affect people? Did you know that children born during this Bush administration are now born thousands of dollars in debt?! That is a direct result of the monsterous tax cut that the Republican led executive and legislative branch passed. I can't imagine Al Gore ever doing that if Resident Bush was not in the White House.

And back to the Nader issue. I wouldn't vote for Nader regardless of his political affiliation, even if yes he were the Democratic candidate. I have serious reservations with his truthfullness, his apparent Narcissism disorder and the simple fact that he's never held an elected position - he's not a qualified candidate for "Leader of the Free World", period. And hey, if you think I think low of Nader, just ask the leaders of the environmental groups in this country.

Sand

Look, it's easy for a foreigner to say that there's no difference to people's lives whether there's a Dem or a Republican in office.

Well thats my position - US domestic policies by definition dont affect me in most cases. You were surprised that foreigners would take such an interest in the US presidential election: Its because US foreign policy affects us. And there will be little enough difference between Bush or Kerry in the White House. Beyond maybes Kerrys plans to discourage overseas investment by US firms, which will be bad news for our extremely open economy.

And back to the Nader issue. I wouldn't vote for Nader regardless of his political affiliation, even if yes he were the Democratic candidate.

But Democrats are in significant numbers, otherwise there wouldnt be an issue? Youve not really answered my question about who you would vote for if you became unhappy with the Democrats delivery so ill try put it another way.

Why should the Democrats pay more than lip service to whats important to you? Theyve got your vote, they know at the very least youre not going to vote for Bush. Theyre going to put their effort into trying to out-moderate the Republicans to grab the majority of the non-aligned voters who swing elections. They worry about the swing voters voting Republican if they dont impress them with their credentials, but why would they worry about you? Who else are you going to vote for?

Whatever you think about Nader hes forcing the Democrats to worry about the voter demographics they didnt worry about before. Thats not a bad thing.

sovtek

ColoradoGal wrote:

Look, it's easy for a foreigner to say that there's no difference to people's lives whether there's a Dem or a Republican in office. The truth is that politicians bills and votes do affect everyone from time to time. For instance, since Reagan completly ended the guaranteed student loan, many kids had to quit school and work full time and then go back to finish college while working full time - it also required a few personal friends to drop out for a while since their financial aid was cut, some of them never returned. Tell anyone at the financial aid office that who's in office doesn't affect everyday people.
I know many school teachers who because of certain law makers cutting the education budget, they have to pay for making copies out of their own pockets!
Talk to the people who are trying to keep after school programs alive for inner city kids with a budget that was split in half by the Bush Administration. It is these sort of groups who are most affected.

And yet you vilify Nader when one of the things he's working for is drastically reducing defense spending to make sure programs like that are funded instead. And you vilify people who want to vote for someone who ACTUALLY represents their goals.

I find it interesting that Nader fans are the ones who are mainly not part of those groups who gets affected the most severly when social programs are cut. I have YET to meet a poor, disaffeted, non-white non-middleto-upper-middle class college educated Nader fan.

You have now, except for the non-white part.

Whereas I have met many poor, ethnic, inner city folks who are Dems -

I've also met many who are also staunch Republicans and crazy religious zealots. What's your point.
Do you think Kerry's corporate backers give a **** about these people?
Kerry still says that he would have voted for the war which is garaunteeing more and more that these programs will go? And yet you say Nader is an egomaniac?

Bush wants to do away with Overtime pay - you don't think that will affect people?

What's your point? And Kerry might put things back the way they were..which means that there might be more overtime pay...but still have some of the lowest real wages in the first world.

Did you know that children born during this Bush administration are now born thousands of dollars in debt?!

And yet Kerry endorses keeping defense spending at it's current rate, while Nader is for greatly reducing the military and putting a stop to elective overseas military adventures. And yet you want everyone to vote for Kerry.

That is a direct result of the monsterous tax cut that the Republican led executive and legislative branch passed. I can't imagine Al Gore ever doing that if Resident Bush was not in the White House.

While Kerry's spending proposals are more responsible than Bush's,. Nader proposes a truly progressive tax policy. Yet you call Nader an egomaniac.

And back to the Nader issue. I wouldn't vote for Nader regardless of his political affiliation, even if yes he were the Democratic candidate. I have serious reservations with his truthfullness, his apparent Narcissism disorder and the simple fact that he's never held an elected position - he's not a qualified candidate for "Leader of the Free World", period. And hey, if you think I think low of Nader, just ask the leaders of the environmental groups in this country.

And yet you give no evidence of Nader's deceptiveness nor do you explain your comment about Narcissism, which sounds alot like amatuer psychological evaluation.
Nader has never held an elected position but he has vast experience with the US government and has spent his career lobbying for the American public. He's the reason you have seatbelts, shatterproof windshields, and collapsable steering columns. You think the automakers did it out of their own free will? What a Narcissist.
I have yet to see Kerry make a truly courageous stand against Bush...no that was Nader. Kerry...what a leader. :rolleyes:

ColoradoGal

Look, I wish Kerry would attack Bush more vigorously and show his true liberal colors. The fact of the matter is that he is indeed one of the most progressive/liberal senators in the US Senate. Maybe the electorate in Ireland is more liberal than that in the US and Nader could easily win. But the fact of the matter is that the American electorate has moved a bit to the right since 9/11. They are very pro-military. Poll after poll shows that gun control, the poor and the environment are nowhere near the most important things to people right now - not nearly as much as the environment & gun control was in the 2000 election. Kerry has a loooong history of voting to trim-down the military spending (just check out the RNC web site, they'd be happy to tell you all about that) he also has a 100% voter rating with lead enviro groups. He wanted to raise gas tax to curb oil/SUV consumption, he's also against the Death Penalty, an unpopular position in this country (sadly).

Look, those of us who are backing him UNDERSTAND that he can't talk about all the hot button issues that we mayh agree with, but also can be used to motivate the opponents base to vote! This is exactly what GW did in 2000. Did the NRA gun lobby or the anti-Abortion groups attack Bush for not speaking out for them enough? Or the Energy/Coal industry comnplain that he wasn't speaking enough to their needs? It was sort of a wink-wink we'll scratch your back once you get into office - and boy has he scratched their backs!! What if Ralph Reed of the Christian right did was Ralph Nader did and complain that Bush wasn't conservative enough for his groups and decided to enter the 2000 race? Answer: because Reed realized that he'll keep his mouth shut and patiently wait until Bush is first in the White House and then he'd force his agenda. Guess what, since that time Ralph Reed & Co. has totally infiltrated the Republican party and White House. A very clever move, something that Ralph Nader had a real chance in doing as well, especially since Kerry has been a big fan of Ralph's for decades - and vice versa. You do know that Kerry has been one of the few senators to never accept PAC money for his campaigns?

Back to the electorate, I know of a few Democrats who think that Kerry is TOO liberal for them. The fact is that it's rather hard to be both one of the most liberal senators and also not liberal enough. Look, I would love it if Kerry talked about all his liberal ideas, as I've followed his work, voting record and environmental positions since the late 1980's and for a loooong time, I'd hoped that he'd someday run for President. To really judge Kerry as a candidate, you need to do more than hear what he's saying in a few sound bites on the evening news. You need to go to his Web site in the issues pages, download his plan on PDF, check out his 20 years of voting and read why the most progressive organizations have decided to back Kerry - to know that this man really cares about. So it's not all about the lip service I want from Kerry - it what his priorities are for the country - and it's almost a perfect match for me.

I think that many people assume that we settled for Kerry - but speaking for myself, I did not settle - he's the guy I preferred from the very beginning. I worked on his primary campaign from the beginning. Is he the best politician? Of course not. But some of us try to look beyond the politics.

And no Sand, If I did not like the current Democrat at all, I still wouldn't vote for Nader. I have lost all respect for the man, as have lots of post-nader2000 voters. Go to repentantnadervoter.com. If say you want to put someone who was as far liberal as Nader on the ballot, but also had proven himself by holding an elected position with a voting record, say Dennis Kucinich - I would consider voting for him, because I respect the man.

Regarding Howard Dean, I've always respected him and his outspoken statements. But the reality is that his voting record is far more moderate and even conservative than John Kerry's. Dean campaigns a lot more as a liberal than he really is. Kerry's the opposite, and i'll take actions over lip service any day.

As ex-Naderite Arianna Huffington has said about first getting Bush out of office: Look when the house is burning down, now's not the time to redecorate!

Speaking of Lip Service, Ralph Nader really disappointed a lot of his voters after the 2000 election. During the whole 2000 recount mess in Florida, Where was Nader? Why wasn't he too down there fighting to keep the vote counting going? He was nowhere to be seen - and a lot of people noticed that. When Bush kept rolling back all the progressive and environmental initiatives with a vangence - where was Ralph?? We was over in Cali stumping for ATM Fee reduction! wow. Where was Ralph during the Iraq mess, when Bush abused his power and the authority the Senate gave him. I went to these war protests in the states, I watched them on TV - Ralph was nowhere to be found or heard! Yes, I wish the Kerry had not voted for the resolution, but once he realized how Bush was using that power in detrimental ways, he spoke out consistently! The fact of the matter is that Ralph was not around standing up for us Americans he supposedly cared so much about - not until he tried to sell his book (funded by Rupert Murdock), not until he started a campaign for himself again.

ColoradoGal

CG: Whereas I have met many poor, ethnic, inner city folks who are Dems -

Sovtek: I've also met many who are also staunch Republicans and crazy religious zealots. What's your point.

You've met many poor, ethic, inner city stanch Republican Americans in Dublin? hmmm. I haven't yet, they must have all moved to Dublin, that explains it. ;-)

sceptre

ColoradoGal wrote:

You've met many poor, ethic, inner city stanch Republican Americans in Dublin? hmmm. I haven't yet, they must have all moved to Dublin, that explains it. ;-)

sovtek's one of your lot:) We've imported him.

ColoradoGal

Well, that lucky bastad!

Do you mind the Yankees coming over to post on your site's boards? I'll try not to disrupt things, I'm just awfully curious! Except for my Irish temper flaring up when somebody mentions Nader or Bush, I'm really quite nice and polite :-) I came over from the Guardian site, because it has been hijacked by the Right Wing Americans. (I promise I won't blow your cover to them

gandalf

No of course not the more the merrier, enjoying reading your posts and thoughts. Don't mind peoples politics or locations as long as they remember the golden rule here don't personalise the arguement.

BTW welcome

ColoradoGal

Merci, mon ami!

sovtek

ColoradoGal wrote:

Look, I wish Kerry would attack Bush more vigorously and show his true liberal colors. The fact of the matter is that he is indeed one of the most progressive/liberal senators in the US Senate. Maybe the electorate in Ireland is more liberal than that in the US and Nader could easily win. But the fact of the matter is that the American electorate has moved a bit to the right since 9/11.

Actually I've read polls (sorry I can't be as diligent with links as I'm paying for the internet now) where the majority of Americans think that Iraq was a mistake and want out of there.
Kerry is a liberal senator, but not one of the most. That's sounds like RNC spin. Kucinich is far more so, even Dean.

Kerry has a loooong history of voting to trim-down the military spending (just check out the RNC web site, they'd be happy to tell you all about that) he also has a 100% voter rating with lead enviro groups.

Kerry voted down defense spending that Cheney also voted down. That doesn't make him a reformer of the military industrial complex. You'd have to look to Kucinich or Nader for that.

He wanted to raise gas tax to curb oil/SUV consumption, he's also against the Death Penalty, an unpopular position in this country (sadly).

Yes it is an unpopular position to be against the death penalty, but Nader (IIRC) speaks out against it anyway. That's great that Kerry wants to raise gas tax. Is that going to stop America using the IMF, World Bank, dictators and its military to control world oil reserves?
NO you have to look to Nader for that.

Look, those of us who are backing him UNDERSTAND that he can't talk about all the hot button issues that we mayh agree with, but also can be used to motivate the opponents base to vote!

So he's not being genuine and standing up for what he really believes in. What a world leader. On the other hand there's not much doubt about Nader's stance.

You do know that Kerry has been one of the few senators to never accept PAC money for his campaigns?

So are you saying that Kerry isnt' going to be swayed by corporate contributions to the Democratic Party?

Back to the electorate, I know of a few Democrats who think that Kerry is TOO liberal for them. The fact is that it's rather hard to be both one of the most liberal senators and also not liberal enough. Look, I would love it if Kerry talked about all his liberal ideas, as I've followed his work, voting record and environmental positions since the late 1980's and for a loooong time, I'd hoped that he'd someday run for President.

Great, then vote for him. But then don't come with accusations of Narcissism and lack of leadership against someone who actually has the balls to stand up and declare his intentions.

To really judge Kerry as a candidate, you need to do more than hear what he's saying in a few sound bites on the evening news. You need to go to his Web site in the issues pages, download his plan on PDF, check out his 20 years of voting and read why the most progressive organizations have decided to back Kerry

That goes without saying. I've done some of that and came to the decision that Nader more honestly represents his agenda, as well as mine. So I'm going to vote for him. Not someone who says that they would have invaded Iraq even though they knew they were being lied to and that Iraq wasnt a threat to the country.
And I don't honestly care what some unnamed orgs vote for. I've seen some orgs that are going to vote demo no matter what. Thats just reality.

But some of us try to look beyond the politics.

What does that mean exactly? Sorry I'm still going to vote for someone who has actually stated their intentions and have a whole lifes career to back it up. Am i going to support a party that has spent the last four years blasted Repubs for the sham 2000 election, yet still haven't proposed real ways of reforming it so it doens't happen again...and then go and try to keep another candidate off the ballot.
Am I going to support a party that tries to malign some of it's own candidates during the run up to the primaries, because they are "too liberal"...such as Dean and Kucinich.

In my opinion Kerry isn't that guy, and I'm not going to be swayed by this illogical "electability" argument because it doesn't make sense.

If say you want to put someone who was as far liberal as Nader on the ballot, but also had proven himself by holding an elected position with a voting record, say Dennis Kucinich - I would consider voting for him, because I respect the man.

And he might very well have been on the ballot under Democrat had the DNC not tried to malign him over the past year.

Regarding Howard Dean, I've always respected him and his outspoken statements. But the reality is that his voting record is far more moderate and even conservative than John Kerry's. Dean campaigns a lot more as a liberal than he really is. Kerry's the opposite, and i'll take actions over lip service any day.

But weren't you just saying that Kerry has to just pay lip service, but we can still count on him to really represent the progressives once he's elected?

As ex-Naderite Arianna Huffington has said about first getting Bush out of office: Look when the house is burning down, now's not the time to redecorate!

Im sorry, but I'm surprised that Ari can string a sentence together, much less run for office.

Speaking of Lip Service, Ralph Nader really disappointed a lot of his voters after the 2000 election. During the whole 2000 recount mess in Florida, Where was Nader?

He was doing what he's been doing for years...pushing for real election reform.

When Bush kept rolling back all the progressive and environmental initiatives with a vangence - where was Ralph?? We was over in Cali stumping for ATM Fee reduction! wow.

No he was also speaking out against those roll backs, far more so than any Democrat dreamed of.

Where was Ralph during the Iraq mess, when Bush abused his power and the authority the Senate gave him.

Ummm unlike Kerry..who was actually voting FOR the war. And no I really know that you aren't that up on Nader because he was speaking out against invading Iraq for the past two years.

I went to these war protests in the states, I watched them on TV - Ralph was nowhere to be found or heard!

You mean you didn't see Ralph on TV???? Really???? Go check on Ralph's proposals for media reform and you might answer your own question there.

Yes, I wish the Kerry had not voted for the resolution, but once he realized how Bush was using that power in detrimental ways, he spoke out consistently!

And said that he would have done the same thing as Bush...no matter what.

The fact of the matter is that Ralph was not around standing up for us Americans he supposedly cared so much about - not until he tried to sell his book (funded by Rupert Murdock), not until he started a campaign for himself again.

I guess you don't realize that Nader has been setting up grassroot orgs that lobby Congress to push for corporate reforms for decades.

ColoradoGal

Look Sovtek, I’ll answer to some of your claims and than let’s just disagree to disagree. You vote for Nader and i’ll Vote for Kerry and we’ll all be peachy-keen ‘kay?

“Kerry is a liberal senator, but not one of the most. That's sounds like RNC spin. Kucinich is far more so, even Dean.”

Actually he is and I think that’s a good thing! But hey, what do I know, I’m just a life-long liberal. Psst. Dean was never a senator, he was the governor of Vermont. Dean was endorsed by the NRA is one indication that he wasn't so Liberal. If you don't believe me, you might want to ask your bro Nader.

“Im (sic) sorry, but I'm surprised that Ari can string a sentence together, much less run for office.”

Her name is Arianna, “Ari” is a man’s name – you might be confusing her with Bush’s ex-Press Secretary? I find it rather odd that you support Nader, but not Arianna, who’s practically Nader’s feminine counterpart. I happen to be an avid reader of her columns. Based on your comments, you might like what she has to say.
http://dir.salon.com/topics/arianna_huffington/index.html

“Ummm unlike Kerry..who was actually voting FOR the war.”

Now who’s using Republican spin? Kerry has plainly stated that he voted for the resolution to give authorization to Bush, when Bush said he’d use it to force comprehensive weapons inspections again and to go to war as a last resort. Bush lied, he mislead the people and the congress, period.

“guess you don't realize that Nader has been setting up grassroot orgs that lobby Congress to push for corporate reforms for decades.”

You guessed wrong. But as long-time Nader fans Bill Mahr and Micheal Moore have recently told Nader on HBO, Nader could undo all the good reputation he's accumulated with this Nader's Raiders by tipping another election to Bush again. Mahr even showed Nader a picture of O.J. Simpson who was another man who had a lifetime of acheivment only to ruin it all by making some big "mistakes" (he and Moore than proceeded by getting on their knees and pleading with Nader to quit the campaign and do something more constructive towards their shared priorities).

Anyway, it's nice to speak to other Americans on this board, but frankly that's not why I'm logged in here. You have the right to think that Nader’s the greatest thing since sliced bread, I have the right to say that he’s a phony and not worth the butter to spread on me toast! Get it? Got it? Good.

Peace, out.

sovtek

ColoradoGal wrote:

Look Sovtek, I’ll answer to some of your claims and than let’s just disagree to disagree. You vote for Nader and i’ll Vote for Kerry and we’ll all be peachy-keen ‘kay?

I was just asking you to back up claims that Nader is a narcissist as well as not to be trusted. You haven't done that yet.

Actually he is and I think that’s a good thing! But hey, what do I know, I’m just a life-long liberal.

I don't have a problem with someone being liberal and you might have guessed I think its something to speak up proudly about. You were the one saying that Kerry can't say how liberal he is for fear of loosing the election.
I did read (and this isn't a science I'll admit) that on liberal voting records he's about 24th .

Psst. Dean was never a senator, he was the governor of Vermont. Dean was endorsed by the NRA is one indication that he wasn't so Liberal. If you don't believe me, you might want to ask your bro Nader.

Sorry but you know what I meant. And I'm not really concerned about the NRA endorsing him. The NRA also came out against Michael Powell's new FCC regulations last year. Does that mean other people who supported their same stance are also drunken redneck conservatives like you seem to suggest?

Her name is Arianna, “Ari” is a man’s name – you might be confusing her with Bush’s ex-Press Secretary?

Ari=short for Arianna... I'm well aware of the difference between the two people. Now I may be confusing her with someone else who ran for governor of California with Arni and took part in the one debate. Where she looked like a complete air-head...but that might be someone else and it's also another thread.

I find it rather odd that you support Nader, but not Arianna, who’s practically Nader’s feminine counterpart.

No I'm aware of her columns but when she says stuff like you quoted then she deserves my former comment.

Now who’s using Republican spin? Kerry has plainly stated that he voted for the resolution to give authorization to Bush, when Bush said he’d use it to force comprehensive weapons inspections again and to go to war as a last resort. Bush lied, he mislead the people and the congress, period.

And Kerry should have known that he was lying as well as he said last week he would have voted to go to war anyway.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0818-03.htm

But as long-time Nader fans Bill Mahr and Micheal Moore have recently told Nader on HBO, Nader could undo all the good reputation he's accumulated with this Nader's Raiders by tipping another election to Bush again. Mahr even showed Nader a picture of O.J. Simpson who was another man who had a lifetime of acheivment only to ruin it all by making some big "mistakes" (he and Moore than proceeded by getting on their knees and pleading with Nader to quit the campaign and do something more constructive towards their shared priorities).

O.J Simpson? What? What's that got to do with Nader supposedly failing to fight for causes and for the public good? As well Moore's backing of Wesley Clark wasn't that a bright spark?
That's forgetting the illogical belief that Nader will loose the election for Kerry. Here's a news flash...the only person that can loose the election for Kerry...IS John Kerry.

Anyway, it's nice to speak to other Americans on this board, but frankly that's not why I'm logged in here. You have the right to think that Nader’s the greatest thing since sliced toast, I have the right to say that he’s a phony and not worth the butter to spread on me bread! Get it? Got it? Good.

You've got the right to say anything within the forum rules...and backing up your argument is one of them.
And yes it is nice to speak to you too.

Peace, out.

"That's a Vector Victor."

ColoradoGal

I'm not exactly the first to suggest that Ralph Nader has been exhibiting signs of Narcissitic Personality Disorder. Google it and you'll see.

The fact that Votenader.com's front page is selling T-Shrits that say "Spoiler" says enough right there. They WANT to be the spoiler? Where's the public good in that endeavor? What sort of serious campaign actually admits spoiling the election as a major campaing platform? How self-absorbed and ego-centric (ie NPD) can one get.

Look, ironically I think that most Democrats and Nader voters mostly agree on the issues. The main difference IMHO is their chosen process, one towards pragmatic idealism/activism and the other of chasing windmills. :-)

Look, let's for a moment take Nader seriously as a serious Presidential Candidate. Therefore let's give him the scruntinization that other other two candidates have received.

The man in the glass house: it's time to open the curtains! You asked for backing up my claim. Well here are reports form people who were once very loyal to Ralph Nader and talk about their experiences describing his with traits that are CLASSIC NPD TRAITS:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/07/01/nader_jacobs/index.html

While Nader continues to campaign against corporate abuse, his own record, according to many of those who have worked closely with him, is characterized by arrogance, underhanded attacks on friends and associates, secrecy, paranoia and mean-spiritedness -- even at the expense of his own causes. If he were a corporate CEO, subject to the laws governing publicly held and federally regulated firms, there can be little doubt he would have been removed long ago by his company's board of directors.

Nick Jacobs' blood boils every time he sees another poll showing Nader within striking distance of costing John Kerry the election. For him, it isn't just that Nader was indispensable in President Bush's 2000 victory over Al Gore. Nader's latest run for president is infuriating for personal reasons as well.

"He puts himself out there as pure as the driven snow, and he's not," says Jacobs. "He's paranoid, secretive and manipulative, at best. It galls me that he talks about how corrupt the two-party system is when he trashed someone to the FBI who was his best friend."
That someone was Jacobs' father, Theodore Jacobs. Ted Jacobs met Nader when they were both freshmen at Princeton and then attended Harvard Law School together. Later, as an attorney in private practice, Ted provided personal and professional legal assistance to his old college friend after he was catapulted to national prominence over the issue of automobile safety with the publication of "Unsafe at Any Speed." Ted became, in effect, Nader's chief of staff. And from 1970 to 1975, Ted was executive director of the Center for Study of Responsive Law, the first organization Nader founded.

The two men's ugly and painful falling out -- in which Nader trashed Jacobs to the FBI when Jacobs was up for a federal job and Jacobs retaliated with an explosive affidavit alleging financial and legal improprieties by Nader -- was the first of many destructive breaches between Nader and onetime allies. The story hasn't been told before, but the Jacobs family recently made private papers available to Salon that document the sad split.

"My dad kept everything," said Jacobs. "He had boxes of papers in our basement. They pretty much sat there until Nader announced that he was going to run again, and I decided to go through them." Nick was shocked by his discovery of this dark chapter in his father's otherwise enemy-free life.

In various articles from the early 1970s, Ted Jacobs was described as "Nader's closest friend and advisor" and the person who stood "between Nader and the world, absorbing the fury of the attacked, offering solace to the ignored, always speaking the absolute truth within the limits of what he believes Nader would wish him to reveal." But, according to the private papers shared with Salon, he informed Nader sometime in 1974 that he planned to leave the Center for the Study of Responsive Law but would first finish several projects.

On March 8, 1975, Jacobs arrived at the office to find the contents of two large file cabinets missing (including his personal diaries and documents relating to "financial matters") and his desk drawers ransacked. Nader arrived at the office a short while later to tell him he had ordered the files removed. In a state of near shock, Jacobs tendered his resignation and demanded to know what was going on. According to contemporaneous notes written by Jacobs, Nader said he had confiscated the files because a year earlier, Jacobs had signed checks for magazine subscriptions without Nader's permission. Nader also accused Jacobs of writing a check to himself for about $75 for expenses. Dismayed and shaken, Jacobs searched for a new job.

He was being seriously considered for a position as a staff member on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, which required a routine background check conducted by the FBI (which collects raw data on individuals but does not seek to confirm it). While waiting to hear about the job, Jacobs was told that questions had been raised about his character, honesty and trustworthiness. He subsequently learned that the source of the innuendoes was Nader. According to Jacobs' son Nick, to find out why he was denied a security clearance, Jacobs asked for and received a list of the people the FBI had interviewed and what they had said. He told the agency the accusations were untrue.

Nick says he has repeatedly asked the FBI for access to his father's FBI file, but although the agency has said the file is OK to release, he has so far not received it.

On Aug. 7, 1975, Jacobs wrote his former friend a letter expressing his distress: "I thought that we had settled after our long talk in April ... If I misunderstood you that day, it was surely the most costly misunderstanding in the 24 years I've known you. I was prepared to let you go your way in the hope that you would let me go mine and I was feeling very kindly disposed to you. That was until I learned of your statement to the FBI. The impact of that statement was as if I had been kicked in the stomach ... We must have some sort of resolution to undo the damage done by your statements. As the record now stands, it will be an impediment for the rest of my life."

ColoradoGal

More people speaking out about Nader:
' Disillusioned by Nader's autocratic management style and with the paltry wages that the Congress Project was paying them -- the couple had three young children who attended a daycare center in Georgetown for the indigent while they worked -- they both decided to leave the project. After Anne left to begin a congressional fellowship, she began getting harassing phone calls from people working for Nader. "I would get phone calls late at night, demanding that I turn over these notes I had taken for this idea. They said I was breaking the law, that I wouldn't get away with this. They said my reputation would suffer." Anne refused to turn over her work, however, based on her belief that the project had been her idea and that she had done it on her own time.
After her fellowship, Anne applied for a job with Stewart Mott, a public-spirited philanthropist who was on President Nixon's enemies list. According to both Anne and Nick Zill, Nader attempted to torpedo her hiring with accusations that she had stolen notes from the Congress Project. She was hired by Mott anyway, and he even threw a party for her at the Kennedy Center. When Nader showed up at the party, Nick was so incensed he threw a glass of water in Nader's face. Thirty-five years later, Anne still works for the Stewart Mott Charitable Trust.

Nader "dealt very hierarchically with people through his underlings," says Anne Zill. "At any point, if he had asked me about the notes rather than sending his underlings to come get them, I would have talked with him about it."

"He demanded a kind of loyalty that we found disturbing," says Nick Zill. "Anytime he was going to come into the office, it was like the prophet Mohammed was going to appear. There was this blind obedience that we found cultlike. I think the real reason [Nader told Mott not to hire Anne] was that Stewart was an important source of funds for Nader, and he wanted someone more loyal to him in this position. This nominal dispute over notes is very similar to the Ted Jacobs situation."

While Jacobs may have been damaged more than anyone else by Nader, he was by no means the last intimate associate to suffer Nader's wrath. "These weren't just marginal people who he disagreed with," says Toby Moffett, a former Democratic congressman and another early and close associate of Nader's. "These are people who would have fallen on a sword for him.""

... So what he did in 2000 was no shock to me. And what he's doing now is no shock. It's always been about him and his ego."
"He has no interest in being a constructive part of anything," continues Moffett. "No one can name a coalition he has been in where he really rolled his sleeves up and tried to get [something] done. He's shown no interest in anything that could be construed as incremental change. [But] he has had success in empowering people, like Joan Claybrook and others. That's the legacy."

Bill Zimmerman, a political consultant, would probably disagree with the notion that Nader is the last honest man. As someone who has worked in progressive politics in California for the better part of 30 years, he has had numerous dealings with Nader. Indeed, one of Zimmerman's biggest victories came about because of Nader.

In 1988, Zimmerman was part of a coalition that got a pro-consumer initiative on the ballot promising to lower auto insurance rates as well as give California drivers a rebate. Not surprisingly, the insurance industry fought back hard.
But after several years, it became clear to consumer advocates that the measure wasn't delivering on its promises. Zimmerman and the coalition he worked with believed that fees paid to trial attorneys in auto accident lawsuits were a problem. "So we developed a consumer-oriented, no-fault insurance plan and got it on the ballot in 1994. It would have taken the lawyers out of the equation."

"Not only did Nader oppose it," continues Zimmerman, "but he wrote an Op-Ed for the Los Angeles Times calling me and other people 'consumer traitors.' This is typical of how Nader operates. Rather than arguing the merits or revealing his own financial support from trial lawyers, he publicly demonized the people who were advocating for consumers as shills of the industry. We never took a nickel from insurance companies. There was no logical reason for him to oppose it other than to protect his own financial interest."

Zimmerman readily acknowledges Nader's many achievements. But like others who had bitter fallings-out with Nader, he searches for a psychological explanation for Nader's behavior. "In addition to living inside this bubble of fame, he leads a very monastic life. He has no intimate relationships; he lives without emotional ties to other people. As a result, he is isolated from the kinds of things that help people reach emotional maturity. He has childish and narcissistic reactions to things. If he led more of an ordinary life, some of these problems might be mitigated."



You asked for back up, there it is from ex-Nader's Raiders. A friend of mine who's a pyschotherapist said the other day that these statements and Nader's own statements and behavior on TV appears to to be exhibiting a classic case Paranoid Narcissism - although he'd have to give him a personal evaluation before absolute confirmation. I heard a expert on evaluating Facial Expressions in Humans interviewed on NPR recently. He discussed how all three of the presidential candidate's expressions were telling of their distinct personalities. When asked about Nader, he seemed very concerned that the two sides of his face had such strikingly different expressions, - and that usually indicates a person with significant mental problems and extreme inbalance between their left and right brain hemispheres. Unless he actually has facial nerve damage, that usually indicates a problem mentally.

I try to sometime offer up more instances but I've gotta go for now.

sovtek

ColoradoGal wrote:

More people speaking out about Nader:
' Disillusioned by Nader's autocratic management style and with the paltry wages that the Congress Project was paying them -- the couple had three young children who attended a daycare center in Georgetown for the indigent while they worked -- they both decided to leave the project. After Anne left to begin a congressional fellowship, she began getting harassing phone calls from people working for Nader. "I would get phone calls late at night, demanding that I turn over these notes I had taken for this idea. They said I was breaking the law, that I wouldn't get away with this. They said my reputation would suffer." Anne refused to turn over her work, however, based on her belief that the project had been her idea and that she had done it on her own time.
After her fellowship, Anne applied for a job with Stewart Mott, a public-spirited philanthropist who was on President Nixon's enemies list. According to both Anne and Nick Zill, Nader attempted to torpedo her hiring with accusations that she had stolen notes from the Congress Project. She was hired by Mott anyway, and he even threw a party for her at the Kennedy Center. When Nader showed up at the party, Nick was so incensed he threw a glass of water in Nader's face. Thirty-five years later, Anne still works for the Stewart Mott Charitable Trust.

Nader "dealt very hierarchically with people through his underlings," says Anne Zill. "At any point, if he had asked me about the notes rather than sending his underlings to come get them, I would have talked with him about it."

"He demanded a kind of loyalty that we found disturbing," says Nick Zill. "Anytime he was going to come into the office, it was like the prophet Mohammed was going to appear. There was this blind obedience that we found cultlike. I think the real reason [Nader told Mott not to hire Anne] was that Stewart was an important source of funds for Nader, and he wanted someone more loyal to him in this position. This nominal dispute over notes is very similar to the Ted Jacobs situation."

While Jacobs may have been damaged more than anyone else by Nader, he was by no means the last intimate associate to suffer Nader's wrath. "These weren't just marginal people who he disagreed with," says Toby Moffett, a former Democratic congressman and another early and close associate of Nader's. "These are people who would have fallen on a sword for him.""

... So what he did in 2000 was no shock to me. And what he's doing now is no shock. It's always been about him and his ego."
"He has no interest in being a constructive part of anything," continues Moffett. "No one can name a coalition he has been in where he really rolled his sleeves up and tried to get [something] done. He's shown no interest in anything that could be construed as incremental change. [But] he has had success in empowering people, like Joan Claybrook and others. That's the legacy."

Bill Zimmerman, a political consultant, would probably disagree with the notion that Nader is the last honest man. As someone who has worked in progressive politics in California for the better part of 30 years, he has had numerous dealings with Nader. Indeed, one of Zimmerman's biggest victories came about because of Nader.

In 1988, Zimmerman was part of a coalition that got a pro-consumer initiative on the ballot promising to lower auto insurance rates as well as give California drivers a rebate. Not surprisingly, the insurance industry fought back hard.
But after several years, it became clear to consumer advocates that the measure wasn't delivering on its promises. Zimmerman and the coalition he worked with believed that fees paid to trial attorneys in auto accident lawsuits were a problem. "So we developed a consumer-oriented, no-fault insurance plan and got it on the ballot in 1994. It would have taken the lawyers out of the equation."

"Not only did Nader oppose it," continues Zimmerman, "but he wrote an Op-Ed for the Los Angeles Times calling me and other people 'consumer traitors.' This is typical of how Nader operates. Rather than arguing the merits or revealing his own financial support from trial lawyers, he publicly demonized the people who were advocating for consumers as shills of the industry. We never took a nickel from insurance companies. There was no logical reason for him to oppose it other than to protect his own financial interest."

Zimmerman readily acknowledges Nader's many achievements. But like others who had bitter fallings-out with Nader, he searches for a psychological explanation for Nader's behavior. "In addition to living inside this bubble of fame, he leads a very monastic life. He has no intimate relationships; he lives without emotional ties to other people. As a result, he is isolated from the kinds of things that help people reach emotional maturity. He has childish and narcissistic reactions to things. If he led more of an ordinary life, some of these problems might be mitigated."



You asked for back up, there it is from ex-Nader's Raiders. A friend of mine who's a pyschotherapist said the other day that these statements and Nader's own statements and behavior on TV appears to to be exhibiting a classic case Paranoid Narcissism - although he'd have to give him a personal evaluation before absolute confirmation. I heard a expert on evaluating Facial Expressions in Humans interviewed on NPR recently. He discussed how all three of the presidential candidate's expressions were telling of their distinct personalities. When asked about Nader, he seemed very concerned that the two sides of his face had such strikingly different expressions, - and that usually indicates a person with significant mental problems and extreme inbalance between their left and right brain hemispheres. Unless he actually has facial nerve damage, that usually indicates a problem mentally.

I try to sometime offer up more instances but I've gotta go for now.

Ok...where to start....you are saying that because people have had disagreements with him means he isn't representing the people he purports to as well as your friend thinks he displays Paraniod Narcissism even though she's never met the man. Also you use as evidence of his narcissism aT-shirt they are selling to help raise campaign funds. It's called a joke...as in that's what all these people said about him after 2000 (even though we know that's based on flawed logic) election.
I remember other such amateur psychological evalution made about someone around the year 2000. *Hint, he was a presidential candidate as well.* Do you maybe see a pattern here?
That's forgetting that narcissism isn't really an issue anyway. If the guys got an inflated ego but does good things for the country (and he has)...then so what. I may be wrong..but didn't Kerry have some plastic surgery? Do I care.