Howard Dean: A Vote For Nader Is A Vote For Bush
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/12/op...12DEAN.html?th

For Ralph Nader, but Not for President
By HOWARD DEAN

Published: April 12, 2004

BURLINGTON, Vt.

Everyone expects this year's presidential election to be decided by razor-thin margins in a few battleground states. Everyone also expects the candidacy of Ralph Nader to make the race between John Kerry and George Bush even closer. As I know from experience, however, voters have a way of proving everyone wrong.

Democrats are motivated to defeat the president this year. They've seen firsthand what three years of Bush administration policies have done to America. And they want to stop his policies from inflicting any more damage on working-class Americans, the environment, our international standing or a woman's right to choose.

Many Democrats also admire Ralph Nader's achievements, as I do. But if they truly want George Bush out of the White House, they won't vote for Ralph Nader in November.

Ralph Nader has built a remarkable legacy as a consumer advocate. Because of his tireless work, we have federal consumer protection laws and a federal department dedicated to the protection of our environment, and millions of defective motor vehicles are off the roads. And I campaigned against the very same corporate special interests that he has been criticizing longer than almost anyone else.

But I don't believe that the best way to do justice to Ralph Nader's legacy is to vote for him for president. Re-electing George Bush would undo everything Ralph Nader has worked for through his entire career and, in fact, could lead to the dismantling of many of his accomplishments.

Voting for Ralph Nader, or for any third-party candidate for president, means a vote for a candidate who has no realistic shot of winning the White House. To underscore the danger of voting for any third-party candidate in elections this close, a statistic from the 2000 campaign may prove useful: a total of eight third-party candidates won more votes than the difference between Al Gore and George Bush nationwide.

When I ended my bid for the presidency, I asked my supporters to continue our quest for change in America. Our group, Democracy for America, is committed to exposing the ways in which the Bush administration's policies are designed to prop up the privileged and please right-wing ideologues. Our agenda is rooted in hope and real American values — opportunity, integrity, honesty. This is the way to defeat George Bush.

Ralph Nader once said that your best teacher is your last mistake. Too many of us learned the consequences of not standing together four years ago. This November, we can elect a president who fights for average Americans. But we can achieve this goal only if we join together — and don't repeat our last mistake.


Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, ended his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president in February.

ITA - I cannot believe anyone in their right mind would vote for Nader in this election when getting rid of W is so important to probably anyone who would vote for Nader :shrug:

P.S. Carne - you are not included in my phrase "right mind" ;) :wavey: :o

BTW - Dean is forming a PAC - I got a donation req. letter today :rolleyes:

Anyone hear Randi Rhodes' fight with Nader on the air? Wow. It blew my mind. Want the link so you can download it? It's 12 minutes, but only 2MB, so it's a very quick download. :) He ended up hanging up on her. :laugh:

I AM MAD AT YOU ---- DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME YYYOOOUUUUU

Classic :laugh:

"WE CAN'T AFFORD YOU? DO YOU UNDERSTAND: WE CAN'T AFFORD YOU RIGHT NOW!!!!!! GET OVER IT! WHAT WOULD YOU DO AS PRESIDENT?! NOTHING!!!!!!!!"

:thumbsup:

Want the link to the MP3 of "She Still Looks Reptilian To Me"? :laugh:

I'm going to have to agree with the article. Never in history has a third party won the election. I'm not saying that it couldn't happen, but Nadar isn't the guy who is going to do it. He has already ran before, and he didn't make the showing that makes me think that he can pull it off. If people want Bush out of the White House, everyone who isn't voting for Bush, better be voting for Kerry. That is the only hope there is. I hope people can see that. Too bad Nadar didn't just keep his butt out of this race. :shrug: I'm afraid it will be the downfall of this campaign year for the Democrats. :( Kerry needs that 5% to 8% of the vote!

I missed that one. Wasn't it her first show with Air America?

Yup. :lol:

He was her first guest and when he got ont he phone, they started talkign about his reasons for running. He got very defensive, so she just told him flatly "We can't afford you right now." He got pissed and they screamed back and forth for ten minutes; eventually he hung up on her.

Gimme a second and I'll get you the link. :wavey:

Here's the direct link to the file:

http://www.yeatspub.com/rrs/intervie...0331_nader.mp3

You can get her show archives from:

http://www.randirhodesarchives.com/ (GREAT site!)

Enjoy! :thumbsup:

If Nader would've run in, oh, let's say 1972 or 1976, he might've had a chance. But, now? He'll only get the Evil Empire back in office for another four years. I wonder where on this planet would be a safe haven if Dubya gets a second term. "The End Of Days" seems to be upon us.

Exactly. :wavey: He's past his expiration date, people.

Here's a summary of his Rhodes appearance:

Things turned ugly on the new liberal talk radio network, "Air America," Wednesday night, with guest Ralph Nader blasting the Democratic Party's counterweight to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly as "Hot Air America."

The perennial candidate said the fact that Democrats couldn't hang onto what he described as their presidential victory was the party's own fault.
And for good measure, Nader blasted ex-President Clinton as a "draft-dodger."
It was all downhill from there, as Nader and Rhodes screamed at one another for the next 10 minutes.

Some selected highlights, as transcribed by the Web site "The Daily Kos":

On Clinton

RHODES: You know the Democrats' policy, you know when the Republicans talk about regime change was the Clinton administration's policy, but it was regime change from within. It was never military action on our part on Iraq. That was not the policy ...
NADER: ... You know, Clinton was a draft-dodger so he wasn't willing to take on the Pentagon. And he wasn't willing to take on the Congress on many huge military expenditures and that starved many of the necessities back home among the American people. ...

On Nader's Presidential Run

RHODES: How many ways to Sunday do I have to tell you? We can't afford you.
NADER: I'm sorry, can you afford freedom? Can you afford choice? Can you afford civil liberties?
RHODES: Gimmie a Democrat President!

On "Hot Air America"

NADER: ... can you – is this the way you want to start Air America? You want it to be Hot Air America?
RHODES: Oh, no, you see ...
NADER: ... Log on to the web site votenader.org ...
RHODES: Ralph, let me tell you something. If you did get to be president, tell me who you would caucus with. Tell me who you could get to vote for your ... views and visions, and your, your bills! Who is an independent other than Bernie Sanders and Jim Jeffords? Who are you gonna count on? You ... let's say you win, OK?
NADER: You can't win without a huge mobilization of voters ...
RHODES: ... let's say ya do ...
NADER: ... that would replace many members of Congress.
RHODES: ... let's say it's seventy years old, from your house in Connecticut, your little house ...
NADER: ... now wait a minute. Now wait wait wait. You're ...
RHODES: ... you are, you are ready to do this.
NADER: ... listen, listen. Now you're getting nasty you...
RHODES: I'm not!
NADER: You are ruining the first day ...
RHODES: I'm not ruining anything.
NADER: ... the first day of Air America.
RHODES: This is Air America.
NADER: ... you're not letting your, you're not letting your guest be, have a chance to speak. You're ...
RHODES: I asked you a question.
NADER: ... you're not letting your guest have a chance to speak.

More bickering

NADER: ... you've got a very bad interviewing technique ...
RHODES: ... uh uh uh. I am not ...
NADER: ... and you're not going to get an audience by overtalking ...
RHODES: ... interviewing you ...
NADER: Do not overtalk!
RHODES: I am not ... interviewing you!
NADER: Do not overtalk!
RHODES: I'm mad at you! Don't you understand the difference?
NADER: Fine, just close up and start screaming to your audience.
RHODES: [laughs] Look. Don't tell me how to do radio; I've done it for twenty years. You screwed up the last election, and now you want to screw up this one, and I'm pissed!
NADER: (pause; speechless) You know, you ought to be ashamed of yourself because you ...
RHODES: But I'm not! You know you should ...
NADER: ... you agree with me ...
RHODES: ... be ashamed of yourself!
NADER: ...you agree with me on so many issues. You really ought to be ashamed of yourself

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm still trying to find the file of Oliver North's appearance on her show where he stormed out of the studio in the middle othe show. ;)

This country will never embrace a third party for President. NEVER. I'm sorry, but if you vote for Nader, you are not only wasting your vote, you are putting a vote in Bush's column. That is my opinion and I know it will piss off a lot of the independents here, but it's still THE TRUTH. If Nader wants to make a difference in this country, he will bow out of the election. Plain and simple. We cannot afford to give ANY votes to Bush, because this election is going to be as close or closer than the one in 2000. And we know we don't need another president elected by ELECTORAL VOTES ONLY.

Sorry to rant, but Nader is just really pissing me off right now. :mad:

I still can't believe that Nader is in a position to hand the election to a man whose lies have cost thousands their lives. On Easter Sunday, Bush laughed off the past week's violence and kidnappings as "a bad week." My respect for Bush is now at an all time low. We must get him out of that position of power by any means necessary. And NADER DOES NOTHING TO HELP THIS CAUSE!

:thumbsup:

It's just like Rhodes said: if you want to make a difference, do what you've been doing for 40 years. If that's not enough, lobby the new blood for a cabinet position.

The truth!? Funny how I don't remember hearing the rubber-spine Democrats complaining about Perot's two candidacies. A vote for Perot was a vote for whom? I would say Perot, but I'm just fair like that.

This nation survived the Revolutionary War, slavery, the Civil War, two world wars, the Great Depression, the turmoil of the 60s, Vietnam, the Cold War and Ronald Reagan.

Have you who were taught to look at voting in such a narrow way so little faith in the endurance of the greatest democratic experiment on earth that you think four more years of Bush will undo this nation?

Me, I think four more years of Bush may just be what we need to wake up the people in this country from their crippling and chronic political narcolepsy.

You honestly think this country would wake up after four more Bush years? Gimme a break. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

Vote for who you want, man, but keep in mind that when you cast that vote for Nader, you're giving more ammunition to Bush. You'll be giving him your permission to poison your air, kill your fellow citizens, preach his religious hatred, write his beliefs into our constitution, and so on.

That's more narrow-minded than someone using their brain and voting to get the f*cker out.

I'm not voting for Bush. I'm not voting for anyone who had a hand in the killings of thousands in Iraq. You know, like your candidate.

I don't need to rationalize my vote.

That was great listening. Thanks! :wavey:

Yes. Rome is burning.

Not being able to vote makes him innocent by default. Who knows what he would have done?

Then don't.

But don't masquerade your vote under the banner of "doing the right thing" and expect others to accept is as anything but a vote for Bush.

If that's the case, then you voted for Bush last time, didn't you?

Yup, and I won't deny it. I voted for Nader (Bush) in '00.

However, I didn't think for a minute that Bush would actually get in the White House, even when looking at the poll numbers that showed him ahead of Gore. It didn't even come into my mind. Naive, yes. But, Bush did not win the '00 election (or rather selection). It was decided by "activist judges" in Florida.

But to vote for Nader now? There are many words to describe it, but stupid would be the best one.

I'm sure you know all about stupid.

You really have anger issues, don't you? I would respectfully suggest you get some help for that. Just because someone disagrees, it doesn't make them stupid. I don't post much, but I check these boards everyday. You seem to have no respect for anyone. As soon as somebody disagrees with you, you react in a very rude way.

Of course I do, I voted for him in 2000. :laugh:

I'm not even trying to deny it, Carne. What would the point be? No one is right 100% of the time and I had a lapse of judgement in 2000. But it won't happen this time, that's for sure.

I never called anyone stupid, pal. I said that it would be a stupid act to vote for Nader, there's a difference. ;)

Whether or not you like my approach when we talk politics, it is what it is. The only anger issue I have is with the current administration. I can guarantee you that when Shrub's fired in November, my attitude will improve by leaps and bounds. :laugh:

Is that why every independent recount by every news source in FL indicated W won there :cool:

Carne, I get your point, but was thinking (here is where everyone goes :rolleyes: :laugh: ) if you think four more years of W is what is needed to teach America a lesson, awaken it, etc., at what cost is this lesson? More lives lost, more suffering, etc., which history has suggested will surely happen under W in a far worse manner than under Kerry. I submit the same for civil rights deterioration under W as opposed to Kerry and the legislation will take years to undo. Then there are the USSC nominees W will appoint who will be there for 25 or so years. That is too high of a price for me to assert onto America as a learning tool.

Moreover, Nader has no hope of winning and even if he did, could he really stop the progress in Iraq or prevent what everyone pretty much knows is coming in North Korea and Iran? I say Nader or anyone else could not. That and other reasons are why I am voting for Kerry. I think Kerry will at least try more to involve the UN, etc.

But, it is your vote and I respect that. I merely state my reasons, etc. :cool:

Carne-

I know you're going to vote for Nader, but why not Kucinich? He's still campaigning as far as I know. I'm being serious; what is the difference between them? Kucinich is really the only true liberal in the race (along with Sharpton). If Kucinich was actually elected, he'd have a better shot at getting things enacted; Nader would get stonewalled at every opportunity.

And I do apologize for my previous comment; re-reading it made me realize how rude it came off. :xoxo:

OK, let's see if I can address this without sending everyone into a whirlwind of indignation. See, in my view, the last several generations of Americans simply haven't suffered enough. There's too much greed and too much self-centeredness. And the people running things now are from generations that didn't really suffer the way folks who lived through the Depression did. They've forgotten, or simply don't have a point of reference for, the need to be a community and help one another. Compare what we're going through in this country with the plight of people in the former Yugoslavia or the dismal conditions in a lot of African nations or the desperation in rural outposts of China. That's real suffering. Those folks really have something to complain about.

Here, we're just pissed because we're not making as much money as we were five years ago and our benefits have been cut. And we're pissed because our government is blatantly and arroganly selling itself out to corporations and starting unprovoked wars. I'm pissed too, believe me. But while I think the current cadre of fascist Republicans running things is particularly dangerous, I don't see them as being terribly different from previous administrations. These guys are just far more blatant about it. But you don't think the environmental regulations were already being scaled back during the Clinton years? Or the anti-trust laws? By the way, when did most of the corporate malfeasance that's gotten so much press take place? And wasn't Clinton launching missile attacks into Iraq and bombing pharmaceutical factories in the Sudan? What makes his war crimes so different from Bush's?

So what got us here? While there is poverty in America, way more than should be acceptable, too many people are doing well enough. People are thinking about buying their next car or making plans for summer concerts to attend. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. But as a nation, we're not in survival mode, and anyone who wants me to believe that if we don't get Bush out of office in November we're doomed, well, I think whoever says that is buying into the alarmism that makes us live in constant fear. Because, frankly, we have been in a gradual decline for years and will continue sliding regardless of whether Kerry or Bush gets into the White House in November. Did Al Gore even address poverty in 2000? No, Nader did. He pointed out that 20 percent of the children in this country live below the poverty line, and this after the greatest economic boom we've ever seen. It's unconscionable and we all should be ashamed of if. Instead, too many people want to play politics and point fingers. And the masses get fed this drivel and start taking sides based on it. But deep down they know something is rotten, so they hold their noses and vote for what they perceive as the lesser of two evils.

But I don't buy it. We need fundamental change, not the bandaids the Democrats insist on forcing down our throats every four years. More than half of the people in this country don't vote. And that's just how the Republicans and Democrats want it. If a popular movement takes hold in this country and picks up steam, both parties are screwed and they know it. That's why they go out of their way to squash any vestige of a such a movement. Even when it comes from within their ranks. Look at the John McCain and Howard Dean examples. Then these guys are cowed into mostly towing the party line.

Are the Democrats really that much better? Please! Witness the chicken-**** attitude of the Democrats toward the war and their lack of support for the anti-war crowd last year. They know they are just as much an integral part of the corruption and decay in this country as the Republicans. They're just not as blatant about it. For instance, I thought it was hilarious when Trent Lott got caught in his racist attitudes because I would bet you not less than half the Democrats have similar attitudes. A lot of people talk a good game about diversity, but in practice they are just as prejudiced as anybody. I see it daily.

Do you really think that if John Kerry gets into office we are going to solve the Iraq problem that much more quickly or better? Here's a guy who has gone out of his way to support the war while talking out of both sides of his mouth about it. And guess what? Recruitment is down. So you know what that means: The draft is coming regardless of who is president. More carnage, more corruption, more fear. And it won't matter if there is a Democrat or Republican in the White House.

You can call me whatever you want for how I decide to cast my vote. I don't care. I'm not like other people; I do what I want to. I vote for what I believe in, rather than making excuses for supporting the lesser of two evils. No fundamental social change ever comes from trying to fix the system from within. Never. Ultimately the system has to accept it or be thrown out, which is what we've seen with things like the anti-Vietnam and Civil Rights movements, or even the union movement of the 20s and 30s.

So people go into the polling booth in November and place a strategic vote, then sit back and expect everything to fall miraculously into place if your guy is elected. I'm here to tell you it ain't going to happen that way.

You're right, he isn't going to win. And really, Kerry already has my state locked up unless he really screws up. But could Nader stop "the progress in Iraq?" I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you see progress being made right now?

Good point about Kucinich. But I don't believe in voting for one of the two parties. They are too corrupt.

I accept the apology. Though, there's no need for it. I can take it.
:wavey:

No, I don't...my mom is EXTREMELY active in environmental causes and they actually made significant GAINS during the Clinton administration that the "Evil Empire" has recinded.

Ok, cue me where I tell you to f**k off...is that now?


Damn, I hate getting into political discussions...it brings out the worst in me.

Is this the same Clinton administration that was allowing the blowing up of mountain tops in West Virginia and Ohio, causing all kinds of health problems for poeple living nearby?

That's up to you. I changed that part right after I posted it though. I'd gotten a little carried away. But whatever you or anyone wants to believe, four more years of Bush is not going to kill this country.

You do not think any progress has been made in Iraq? I think at least some has, even though I realize the people of Iraq had t go through SH's hell and then the war to get there. But, the situation is progressing, in that something like 80% of the huge country is peaceful and the US has worked hard to rebuild not only what was destroyed in the war, but also what was destroyed by years of neglect and outright destruction under SH. This is sort of where I pull my hair out in that people always harp on the bad and never even seem willing to acknowledge the good. They are seemingly so poisened by their hate (note I am talking about people in general and not you). In the end, I am unhappy about how we got to Iraq and I think W should be impeached for the outright lying he tild to sell this war. I am just saying we are there, so we have to make the best of it and stay there until the end, whenever that is. To leave now IMO would be a worse humanitarian crime than attacking Iraq in the first place.

Also, I get your point about America needing to awaken from the status quo. I just think four more years of W will not teach that lesson. Its just my opinion - no slam intended :cool:

We're not going to agree on your last sentence EVER. And, I'm so passionately anti-Bush/Republican, it'll cause problems. So, I call "truce" for the sake of peace on the Ledge.

Ill add to the environmental thing because this is one of the issues that when I mention it, people think I'm crazy. But Clinton's record speaks for itself.

It would be unfair to say Clinton’s and Bush’s environmental records are on par. And I didn’t say that. I said environmental regulations, or plans for new regulations, were scaled back. A lot of concessions were made to Detroit for instance. Where are those 40MPH cars?

Further, Clinton’s record on local air-quality control standards and global greenhouse emissions was dismal. Clinton said that climate change was a global strategic threat that required bold leadership and, in his first Earth Day address, promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. When Clinton left office, however, emissions were 15 percent above 1990 levels.

Clinton pushed for NAFTA, a pact roundly criticized for lowering environmental standards in the name of free trade. There's so much wrapped up in this one little topic that I couldn't possibly do it justice here. Suffice it to say that NAFTA, and other pacts like it, will hurt us for a long time to come. A long time. The unions were right about this one.

Clinton reversed a 17-year ban on importing PCBs, solely to benefit the overbuilt U.S. incineration industry to the tune of $50 to $150 million a year. I lived next to a PCB site for a good chunk of my life. This matters to me.

Were some regulations improved? Yes. But a lot more that needed to be done was ignored.

Fair enough. I bet you I'm not less anti-Bush or Republican than you, though. I just have a different perspective on what the effect of four more years of this will be.

Horse****. You sound like a lot of Catholics I know who think that this life is all about suffering. Guess what? IT'S NOT. I happen to think it is, however, about taking the high road. That's a pretty sweeping generalization you've made. My father died when I was eight years old. Who are you to gauge the way I have suffered in my life?