BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: GUEST,Bartholomew at school
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 03:01 PM

The question I asked after the last election was finally settled was pretty simple: What is Ralph Nader and the Green Party going to do now? The answer was also simple: Nothing much. I didn't see any grass roots organizing in my neck of the woods (Chicago). I didn't see any support for local candidates in the mid-term election. I didn't see any policy papers or proposals. I didn't see any recruiting or rallies. I didn't see any serious attempts to build a third party movement and I don't think I'm the only one who was out of Ralph's loop. No one even knew if Mr. Nader was going to run or not until earlier this year.

Prior to the 2000 election the mantra of Nader's supporters was that there is no difference between Bush and Gore. That argument never held water then and Bush's first term has clearly shown how misguided that view is. We would not be in Iraq now if Al Gore was President. We would not be facing the rapid erosion of our civil rights if AG was P. We would not be seeing environmental regulation being re-written if AGwP. I could go on, but I hope you get the point.

There are real differences between Democrats and Republicans. There is no hope that things will change by supporting Ralph Nader's Quixotic adventurism every four years. Thats the facts, jack.

Thanks all. Nice talking with you again.

Bart

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Art Thieme
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 01:25 PM

Keeping in mind the actual fact that the last election was stolen by Bush, Scalia and Bush's brother, the governor of the state of Florida, it is a valid and necessary tactic to vote for any Democrat that can win. This administration in the USA has dismantled and weakened just about everything progressive that has been accomplished since the 1930s. Along with the term "politically correct", this phrase is now being used to tear down the validity of liberal thought. I say, here and now, that ANYBODY BUT BUSH is how anybody who seriously wants to re-take the White House must think about this election. I don't care if it is Nader or whoever. The one that can start the process of regaining Social Security (and other fine programs) and making their provisions even better will have my full support.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 08:27 PM

I suppose overworked and underpaid depends on which economic bracket you are referring to.

I'll have to agree that America has spent so much time and money on enhancing their image as "The Superpower", the domestic problems at home have largely been ignored. Oh sure... War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on..... But these are just words to pacify a people who are, compared to many of the developed nations, largely ignored by their government.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 01:57 PM

Well, on this forum, the consensus seems to be that we are grossly self-indulgent, wasteful, and fat on the sweat of others in the world, destructive of the environment and profiting from child labor in the 3rd world...under those circumstances I don't see how we can also claim to be overworked and underpaid?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Nerd
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 01:33 PM

Amos,

there is significant evidence that Americans are overworked and underpaid compared to other developed nations. So yes, it would be an improvement.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 01:24 PM

Getting paid more for doing less is an improvement?

Maybe not.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Nerd
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 01:16 PM

The bright spot in the decline you mention, LH, is that maybe once the US isn't hung up on being the superpower, they'll have time for things like universal health insurance, as many European countries have. Maybe we'll have a shorter work week, higher than our current average pay, and fewer robber barons to take all the spoils of our labor.

I think Americans vote for the glory of being "the greatest country in the world" (whatever that means) and forget that people in other countries often have it better than we do here!

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 01:03 PM

Well GUEST, I thought that you might have moved beyond the name calling, but I guess it isn't so. I do not hate Nader and Green voters, but it is useless to try and convince one whose motives are not honorable. But, why don't you answer the question instead of dancing away from it? I have asked you in this and other threads specific questions, but you don't want to answer them. I understand why, because I asked them to demonstrate a point. You are a pretty bright person, and know when your case lacks in the test of reason. That is why you choose not to answer. I understand, and will continue to point these examples out.

You are absolutely right about the Reagan Democrats, but all trends show that these folks are seeing the light today. The continued loss of manufacturing jobs seems to have gotten through and is making wedge issues less effective.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 11:07 PM

It is both, Big Mick. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

But maybe instead of spewing hate at Nader and Green voters because you know the Dems have chosen such a loser candidate AGAIN, your cause might be better served by you tending to your own house of labor, and trying and win those Reagan Democrats of yours back into the fold, eh?

Just a thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 10:13 PM

What worries me, Mick, is that it's a one-party system (the Corporate Party) masquerading as two parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 09:57 PM

GUEST, I wish you would make up your mind. One minute you are whining that we should treat potential allies better, next minute you are spouting off about tearing down the two party system. Which is it?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 06:31 PM

Yes, and Life triumphs regardless and bursts forth anew, as the empires wax and wane and fall into dust. It will always be a beautiful World, regardless of the political nonsense sponsored by power-hungry men.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: M.Ted
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 04:08 PM

Little Hawk:

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 03:41 PM

The fact remains that the American public has been hypnotized into a futile divide between two huge, corrupt, and patently phony political parties who both serve the same corporate sponsors and huge financial interests. I call those 2 parties the Redemocrapublicants. As long as people play the same old "let's pick between Tweedledee and Tweedledum" they will continue to be enslaved by the same set of scoundrels, and will effectively have no real voice.

I despise Bush. I expect very little in the way of positive change from Kerry, because he's just a front man for powerful interests. The style will change, but probably not the substance.

It's very, very sad to watch this happen every 4 years in what pretends to be a great democracy.

I can't foresee a solution, because those who control the pursestrings also control almost all the media, and can afford to finance the propaganda that passes for "news" and "campaigning". It's a closed shop.

The USA will play out its string of falsehood until it loses its pre-eminance in the World through the inevitable historical forces that are much larger than the power America commands. Then, like France or Spain or Britain it will become a once-great empire, pushed to the periphery as others take over its spot as king of the hill.

Then it won't matter much anymore about the Redemocrapublicants and their phony elections. I give it 20 or 30 more years at the most.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 03:11 PM

So, guest... though I'm no stranger to the clouds you're walking in here... I must ask... just who's feet are on the ground while you wax eloquent about your 'high ideals'... Vociferous though ye be about the ideal world... and many there are who agree with you 'in theory'... your 'practice', imho, is only 'prima donna' elitism. I just can't take you seriously.

The only hope Bush has of reelection as it stands today, is a fairly robust 'third party' showing. That is the reality. It is obvious. The only real effect on the political realities of this great nation you seem to invite with Nader,... are the Quasi fascistic policies of the Bush administration.

You must be proud... ?;^)
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 01:03 PM

"Politics are about practicalities, not idealism."

I believe that statement only applies to Democrats who are hell bent on getting Bush out. Most of us who actually take the time to participate in the political process put our ideals before political expediency. That is what separates us from the professional politicians. This sort of cliche is the brother of another cliche professional politicians love to use, and that is "politics is about compromise".

"Getting Bush out has to be the top priority."

I have no problem with you making that your top political priority in 2004. But it isn't mine.

My top political priority in 2004 is to continue working against the tyrannical two party political system that is destroying our nation and doing profound damage to our world, to change what needs changing.

Social, political, economic, and cultural change doesn't come from within the establishment, in my experience. It comes when people agitate from outside the established system, to force the status quo to change. Towards that end, I work to change laws, people's driving habits, build grassroots movements to agitate for an end to the war on terrorism AND an end to the war on drugs AND an end to the war on the developing world, to exploit their resources at their expense.

In others words, I'm doing what I'm always doing to effect changes I believe will be for the good of all. Voting for president of the US is a very, very tiny part of that equation.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 11:59 AM

I don't suppose there's any chance of slipping in a few cogent words about Dachshunds here, is there?

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 06:58 AM

A lecturer once told me - The enemy of "good" is not "bad"; it's "better". Meaning that by insisting on "better" we can discard "good" on the way, and sometimes are just as likely to be left with "bad".

Politics are about practicalities, not idealism. Negotiation, barter and doing what is possible is the name of the game.

Kerry doesn't sound like somebody I would follow to the ends of the earth. But Bush DOES look like somebody I would run to the ends of the earth in order to avoid. I would take my improvements in small steps, keeping the priorities right (in my view): Getting Bush out has to be the top priority. Getting an ideal candidate in (who?!!) might take generations.

The only logic in not voting Bush out would be in order to allow things to get worse, and precipitate serious upheaval, which might result in truly radical changes, with a hope then of getting some new pres who would be closer to the ideal. But - what a risk to take!

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 04:34 AM

Amos. my thoughts exactly when I posted that page of the green party, but if anyone can post a page that can show me opposing issues that show anything different, right on. I will look at them with the same un-biased opinion that I have at this point and time.


Ok that may be a lie because I think Dem's and Rep's both really suck on a great big fat dick. but hey-who's to say sucking on a big fat dick is bad?

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 01:20 AM

Amos - I doubt if either Bush or Kerry will be able to establish a democratic govt. in Iraq. Maybe we should give it to Ben Laden or Yassir.

Thats it - A coaliton. Yassir and Ben

With UN humanitarian aid to help re-build. Give them something constructive to do and end terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: M.Ted
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 10:35 PM

You actually believe that either Nader or Kucinich would   implement an "immediate withdrawal" of troops? If you do, I've got a nice bridge that you might be interested in, cheap, and in New York City--Some of us remember that Nixon was elected because he had a plan for "peace with honor", and he promised to withdraw troops from Vietnam, except for the honor part, he did it, but it took a very long time.   

Once the bullets start to fly, there is no easy way out for anybody--even if you achieve a total victory, with unconditional surrender of the enemy, as we did in WWII, the military occupation and the diplomatic negotiations go on for years--Kerry was just being honest about what would happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 02:07 PM

Dear Gawd!!

1. There was no bloodbath being created in Fallujah until the insurgents decided to burn four contractors.

2. I want to know what you precisely mean by stealing the nation's resources? Do you have some odea we are pumping Iraqi oil into ships at night and smuggling it off to feed our SUVs in Washington DC?

3. If the infrastructure for the oilfields is not rebuilt, how does Irag initialize its own economy? Selling burqas to Buddhists?

I don't thik you are stupid at all. I was simply making an observation that Sadr is another Hussein waiting to happen. If th epurpose of allthis is to establish a democracy, his terrorism -- and I think that is a fair description -- needs to be dealt with. If all we are there for is to "steal oilfields" we should be dobne with it -- steal and get the hell out.    But it will be a mess.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 01:14 PM

Amos, your argument is the epitome of "against the war, for the occupation" that is so prevalent among Kerry's supporters.

How is creating a bloodbath in Falluja making Iraq a nation of law and order? How is an occupying force stealing the resources from the nation by using violence to divert attention away from the theft, creating a viable economy for Iraqis?

Our occupation force is in Iraq for one reason, and one reason only. To loot the oil fields. Sadr was totally predictable, even necessary, to justify the violence being used by our military forces, to keep the Iraqi people from overthrowing the occupation authority, and running our asses out of their oilfields. He is NOT the cause of the upsurge in violence, but an American made product of it. Bush/Kerry NEEDS him, to justify our continued military presence, so we can keep getting the oil out. It is that simple. The majority of US funds for Iraq are going to pay for our military, not for the rebuilding of Iraq. The $20 billion of the $87 billion appropriation for this year has gone to rebuild infrastructure for the oilfields, and to support the American and British companies involved in getting the oil out, and the occupation authority's offices in Baghdad and Kuwait.

How fucking stupid do you think we are Amos? You think we haven't seen the US government do this before? This is the same way our government has always invaded foreign countries when we wanted their resources. Stop being so pig ignorantly middle class liberal for a change, will you?

You don't see Halliburton's oil subsidiaries pulling out of Iraq, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 12:31 PM

You're missing something very important Guest, and it is exemplified in the ambitions of Sadr. His forces stand ready to repeat the melodrama of the rise pf Baathism in Iraq and re-assert the government of others by intimidation and brutal force. In sh9ort, terror.

I despise the war in Iraq and have since before it began. But do not pretend that --absent Coalition overwhelming forces -- all the Iraqis need is humanitarian aide. There are psychos within as well as without. How to enable a democratic civilization in the presence of lawlessness is the big issue. What they need is something akin to the Texas Rangers, a force for order known and recognized as coming from "the people" (well, the new settlers, anyway!).

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 11:09 AM

"If you don't act to remove him, the blood is on your hands."

Well, then I guess both Bush and Kerry voters will have mighty bloody hands.

MTed, I'm not interested in the war on Iraq being "managed" as you call it. I am interested in the Anglo American war on Iraq being ENDED. PERIOD.

Both Bush and Kerry have said they have no intention of ending the occupation and war on Iraq.

Only Nader and Kucinich have said they would, upon taking office, begin an immediate phased withdrawal of the occupying forces in Iraq. So how do you square a vote with Kerry, as being a vote to end the occupation and war on Iraq? It isn't. Kerry has said he will not withdraw troops. He said he will try and get other nations, through a UN resolution presumably, to send troops to "relieve" ours.

How is that going to happen when the UN has already pulled out of Iraq, and countries and companies are currently pulling out daily?

Maybe you think there is some honor to not "cutting and running" but that is exactly what everyone else involved in this debacle is doing. It is what the US will eventually do too, IMO. And Iraq will again be plunged back into yet another primeval cycle of out of control chaos, violence, and despair.

THAT is what your vote for Kerry is going to do. At least, if we can get our troops and the American oil companies and their goons out of Iraq sooner rather later, and provide copious amounts of humanitarian aid to rebuild, the Iraqis stand a chance of turning things around without the country being overrun by Muslim fundamentalists.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 10:56 AM

YWouldn't it be fairer to say you nailed it with aninaccurate over-broad generality? The chart is not accurate, IMHO, but I don't have time to mess with the details of it at the mo. It was -- after all -- put together by Grreens. I am not anti-Green, by any means, though!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: M.Ted
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 10:47 AM

"They hate Bush but will vote for Kerry out of fear. "

It is not exactly true that I hate Bush---but I do believe that he is incompetent, vicious, and stubborn. That is a bad combination of qualities in a leader. He is completely unable to manage a war that he initiated, and each day, it grows worse. If you don't act to remove him, the blood is on your hands. And it isn't just the blood of Iraqis any more, it's the blood of our friends, our neighbors, and our children.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 08:09 AM

You nailed it exactly dianavan.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: dianavan
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 01:02 AM

Rustic Rebel - Thanks for the link.

How can anybody read that chart and not want to vote Green. It really shows how wishy-washy the Democrats have become. Trouble is, Americans just don't have the concept of a sustainable economy. Its all about protecting their right to consume and waste. They hate Bush but will vote for Kerry out of fear.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 04:13 PM

Nader and Kucinich, both of whom are still in the race, are the only two candidates now who are anti-war candidates, and also opposed to the Patriot Act, the two main issues for me as a voter. I expect that Kucinich won't get the nomination, so I'm voting for Nader.

It is that simple for me. I will not vote for a pro-war and pro-Patriot Act candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 02:54 PM

The similar stands on the issues between Dem. and Rep. is what is sickening to me. At least the green party takes an opposing stand on most of the bullshit going on.Take a quick look here for some interesting issue stances

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: M.Ted
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 02:51 PM

Recent surveys having been showing that when asked about Bush and Kerry, Kerry comes out ahead, but when asked about Kerry, Bush and Nader, Bush comes out ahead by about the number who support Nader--

St. Ralph can add just as well as anyone, and probably better than some, so he knows that he has no chance of winning, but that he has a good chance of putting Bush back into the White House, why would he want to do that? And why would you want him to do that?

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 02:44 PM

BTW, Nader never took a "vow of poverty". That is just ridiculous. He is an attorney, for god sake, not a monk.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 02:37 PM

You are truly laughable at times. You are the one who initiates the attacks, then when you are called on it you try and turn the tables. I can appreciate a good debate tactic, but could you save that for the high school forensics?

Potential allies? How many times in our cyber jousts have I said to you that I would bet that you and I could find more to agree on than disagree on? How many times have I offered for you and I to start a dialogue? Typically I am responded to with invective and inflammatory sexual comments.

Nice try at shifting the blame, but it goes like this. When you make comments and aim barbs, you have to be ready to be held to the same standard. When you make charges about my candidate, understand that yours is going to be held to the same standard. If you want to talk about politicians and what you disdain about them, I a OK with that. Hell, I have worked with some of the top national figures my entire adult life and there is much I don't care for in our system. But when you take to the attack, then understand that you are up for the counter attack.

Bottom line is that Ralph is guilty of much of what you accuse the others of. He does not have the moral or ethical high ground. So it comes down to what and who has the best chance of defeating our common adversary. If I thought that was Nader I would be right there with you. But responsible folks that are interested in changing status quo must accept the rules we are playing under and within that structure work for the best change we can manage. And we must further do all we can to stop those whose actions threaten that change. That is why virtually every political observer/commentator, no matter their politics, has painted Nader as a man whose megalomania is in control.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: M.Ted
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 02:28 PM

Unfortunately heric, you are right. I think that what we've seen is nothing compared to what we will see--

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 02:27 PM

Tell you what fellas. Why not direct your invective against the voters who will defeat Kerry in November--the voters who intend to vote for Bush? How come you aren't leaping all over them? Trying to convince them that they should switch their votes to your guy?

You claim on one hand that Nader could never get enough votes to win. So why bother trying to convert Nader voters? The people you need to convince to vote for your guy isn't Nader's voters, but Bush's voters, and those voters who say they are undecided.

You aren't doing Kerry's cause any favors by engaging in these relentless attacks on Nader's supporters.

How about you go after the real enemy, rather than your potential allies?

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 02:05 PM

What do you mean the damage is already done in the Middle East? I predict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . More damage.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: M.Ted
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 01:38 PM

The information just isn't accurate? The footnotes are to "inaccurate" information? How do you know? Did you check everything out in the time since I've posted it? I doubt it--Maybe you are the one who should look into things--If you do, you will find that Nader is not what he claims to be--

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 12:16 PM

Notice how our GUEST utterly fails the test. When she presents links to partisan attack articles s/he presents it as gospel and finds anyone who attacks it as foolish. When M. Ted presents documentary evidence as to the hypocrisy of Ralph Nader that is attacked as being bad information. Then s/he resorts to the patronizing "Learn to look critically at the internet sites you put forth as "proof" of anything, especially when they are so obviously put up by someone with an ax to grind." You are simply a bitter person, with a delusional view as to your own brilliance. And were people to follow the path you suggest, it would simply insure the outcome you seem not to want.

Folks in the labor movement have long known about Nader's hypocrisy with regard to organizing. He has the classic "it is wonderful, but not in my house" attitude.

By the way, it is duly noted, GUEST, that you conveniently acknowledged the lie from Nader about his "vow of poverty" and then skirted away from it. The very thing you chastise Kerry for is something Nader has been doing a long time.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 11:21 AM

Trying to make Kerry look bad, inconsistant, wish washy... blah blah blah... is only proof positive that Bush is "Looney Tunes" and can't be supported, even by a loyalist. Give us the rundown of why "nobody but Bush" can be president. Oh sure... he's consistant... Consistantly illiterate, consistantly misinformed, consistantly undiplomatic, consistantly closed minded, consistantly unrealistic about the national economy, consistantly motivated by oil and gigantic business... and consistantly ignorant to the issues rellevent to "ordinary working class people"...

He's consistantly killing innocent people, and making things worse.

The way I see it, when you 'fire' someone for dereliction of duties... you don't worry about the replacement too awful much...
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 11:06 AM

mted, the information on that website just isn't accurate. Footnotes to inaccurate information, like the claim that Nader has an empire of 19 non-profit organizations, doesn't make it legitimate. Learn to look critically at the internet sites you put forth as "proof" of anything, especially when they are so obviously put up by someone with an ax to grind.

As to your claim freda, that we should vote for Kerry to stop the evil Bush, all I can say is that is a dangerously naive position to take.

The damage is already done in Iraq, the Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa. There is no quick fix, nor will the 2004 US presidential election, regardless of who wins, even address the problems. Kerry is taking the position of a right wing military hawk to get elected. He has said he supports the Bush/Sharon plan for the West Bank and Gaza. He has said he will remain in Iraq, and is offering no plan for a US exit strategy. He hasn't even mentioned humanitarian aid, the one strategy that WOULD change hearts and minds about the west.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: M.Ted
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 10:50 AM

Well, GUEST, there was a lot more there than just info about the huge amount of money accumulated man who used to claim he lived on only $5000 a year--the documented and footnoted link offers up things like this:



>1)Ralph talks big about democracy and even unions. But when his own workers at one of his magazines, Multinational Monitor, got fed up with cruel working conditions and started agitating for a union of their own, Nader busted the union with all of the hardball techniques used by corporate owners across America. Workers at Public Citizen, another Nader group, also tried to form a union because of 60 to 80 hour work weeks, salaries that ranged from $13,000 down, and other difficult working conditions and were blocked by Nader, who remains unapologetic to this day.

>2)Saint Ralph loves to preach about democracy and "citizen power", but he runs his carefully concealed empire with an iron grip. Of 19 groups associated with Nader, the most powerful and important groups are all directly controlled by Nader or completely under his influence and no one else's. With some groups, Nader is the only contributor; others are controlled by his sister, Laura Nader Milleron, or his cousin.

>3)And there is nothing democratic about Nader's groups -- citizens have no power at all. Of 19 groups in Nader's network, only one relatively minor one is a membership organization, which would allow individuals to vote and challenge the decisions of the small elite running them. The groups' managers operate in strict secrecy, releasing the absolute legal minimum of information, and sometimes not even that. And when Nader IS challenged, he gets vindictive and often attacks his questioner.

>4)College PIRG groups, which Nader founded and leads despite his denials of control, use an astonishingly undemocratic, even coercive funding mechanism that Ralph designed. Once a college approves, all students are automatically billed a few dollars out of their student fees to support the local PIRG. To avoid paying, students must make a special trip to the Registrar and fill out a form so they can get their $2-6 back.

>Most don't of course, out of inertia or because they aren't even aware they're funding Ralph. That's why record and book clubs use the same mechanism. Nader, like most consumer advocates, opposes these billing methods as a rip-off - unless they fund his own groups. One PIRG worker estimated that at Penn State alone, forced payments would have brought in $270,000 a year, while a voluntary checkoff would only have raised $30,000

>5)His main group, Public Citizen, has actively fought disclosure laws that would inform the public of the role that special interest groups -- such as his -- play in lobbying on legislation. (e.g. H.R. 81 in the 96th Congress)

Given Nader's secretiveness, it isn't surprising that you don't identify yourself, either--

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: freda underhill
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 10:36 AM

This is your argument, and your vote, but Bush's decisions affect our world.

yes, a vote for Kerry is a vote for a dry, grim faced clone of a..

but Bush is a fool, a maniac. He's mad. Bush has set up a puppet government in Iraq led by a bunch of crooks including Chalabi, a man who is scorned by most of America's national security establishment, who is ostracised in the Arab world, who has no support or poweer base in Iraq, and who is wanted in Jordan for stealing hundreds of millions of depositors' dollars from a bank he managed which collapsed.

Chalabi, "more than any other person", had been the key supplier of faulty intelligence to the CIA about Iraq's purported "stockpiles" of biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction.

Whoever is president will be making huge decisions that affect the whole planet. Bush, in his selection of people like Chalabi in Iraq, and in his selection of the advisors who surround him and influence him, has already demonstrated that he does not have the judgement to be in such a powerful position.

Sometimes, its important, not to vote for something you dearly believe in, but to vote against what you strongly disagree with, to block political evil.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 10:35 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 10:01 AM

John Kerry is not helping himself:

First his "I voted for it before I voted against it" has made its way into the Bush ads.

ON meet the press he said he would release "all" his military records and than the next day recanted.   (said he already released enough of them)

TV ads against outsourcing jobs while Heinz has 72% of its factories overseas.   (Heinz executives are supporting Bush and have donated money to him- none to Kerry) Kerry explanation that he and his wife have noting to do with Heinz is weak.

TV ads against lobbyist influence while he has met with and taken more money from Lobbyists than anyone in Senate.

Speeches against SUV's and call for higher fule economy and guess what- they own an SUV.   When asked about it Kerry responded that "he didn't own it, his family owned it"   Lame.

Kerry stated on TV and through his advisors that he would run as a "centerest" even though he the most liberal voting record in the Senate according to Roll Call magazine.

None of these are helping him.

Why can't Kerry just run as a liberal and Bush run as a conservative and just let the country decide which they want. If both of them were honest, we would have a real clear choice and not this gobblegook of both of them trying to pretend their moderates.   Be honest and give the country the choice.   I could live with whatever the country chooses as long as it is an honest debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 07:13 AM

First, as to Bill Maher, I don't respect him as either an entertainer or as a political commentator. In fact, I just recently read an interview with him in which he said he couldn't handle reading the Wall Street Journal because it was too wordy, and that USA Today was his main source of news. I think he is a reactionary, ill informed prat.

Second, I don't care how anybody spins it, John Kerry supports the war on Iraq, and has said he will keep the troops there.   I opposed the war, and favor bringing the troops home. In other words, I back the Kucinich position on the war on Iraq.

Now, I do understand how the Anybody But Bush camp that is opposed to the war, would like to have Kerry's voting record go away, but it won't. All politicians are judged on their record. Kerry's record AND his policy positions on his website, show that he supports the war on Iraq, and that he supports the Patriot Act "with revisions" which he doesn't spell out.


And as to that "Dark Side" of Nader website, what a joke. I'm supposed to not vote for Nader because he has a couple of million dollars stashed in the stock market and a nice house?

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: el ted
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 05:31 AM

Yo Martin,
          No, that isn't boring.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: jacqui.c
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 03:45 AM

How about a class "B" movie actor? Did you take him seriously?

Many people supported the war with Iraq, simply because they believed the lies that came from the "Not so White House". Now that the truth is out, that support is falling away.
In the face of new evidence, even I have been known to change my mind, so, why should Kerry be castigated for the same thing?

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 12:05 AM

GUEST, get a life and get an identity. Do you consider all who are celebrities equal? I don't, and I sure as hell respect Bill Maher's opinion. He doesn't pull his punches. Do you think that because he is classed as a "comedian" that he isn't serious?

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Peace
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 08:59 PM

Sounds better than the damned goat that never showed up.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Once Famous
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 05:56 PM

Hey El Ted. do you find this boring?

A 22 year old beautiful blonde woman, lying there naked with full round breasts and two sets of puckered lips beckoning you.

Is that boring, also?

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 05:54 PM

a couple of the most misleading and distorted lead-ins in politics are "He voted for.." and "he supports...", which can be used by either side to note some miniscule point that has no relevance to the candidates actual position or plans.

Kerry does NOT "... support the war on Iraq;"
and his position on those other things are nowhere NEAR what you, my dear troll, are claiming.

Lordy, I am sick of half-truths and Gerrymandered voting records and out-of-context semi-quotations and loaded innuendos to distort the truth.....

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: M.Ted
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 05:13 PM

For a slightly different view of St. Ralph, check this site--Ralph Nader, the Dark Side

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 02:28 PM

Maher is a professional political satrist and comedian that was making a good carrer of it until the bush/cheney machine dried up his contracts to quiet him down... hardly some uninterested hollywood celeb... His analysis is scathing, and wow! everyone gets it... but the fact remains... Bush/Cheney can not take criticism. All the rest of us are expendable, and our justly earned negative emotions about the bush/cheney mind control scheme go unanswered ...and are readily turned against American democratic intitiatives. Just look at pest ghoster's techniques in the thread above.

Nader rocks! Kerry is presidential. IMHO, Kerry's policies and personel should be more or less vague until late in the foray... So don't hold your breath, pest ghoster.
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 01:41 PM

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushfalls.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Amos
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 01:37 PM

At this point, given the strange pallor Bush has cast over the character and repute of the United States and its fiduciary well-being, maybe what needs support is the nation as a whole, rather than one or another of its classes. And I don't see how you think voting for Nader will benefit the "peeps" you embrace. But if it suits your own consciewnce, then go vote for him you must.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 01:29 PM

I don't make my voting decisions based upon the way a celebrity says they will vote, or they think Americans should vote.

I don't love Ralph Nader, but I am voting for him because he is the candidate who best represents my interests. Kerry represents the interests of a whole different class of people, and the middle and upper classes aren't my peeps, the working class are. It really is that simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 01:00 PM

Last night on Leno Bill Maher declared his intention of voting for Kerry. He said as much as he loves Ralph Nader, this is no time to go diluting the vote that will get Bush out of office.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Amos
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 12:38 PM

want a complete review of all the anti-terrorism legislation, and I want to see a lot of it overturned and thrown out. The majority of it was bad legislation to begin with, and has done absolutely nothing to make American citizens safer at home or abroad

Sounds like Kerry's position to me.

I think you are confusing his role as junior Senator from a conservative state, with his intentions as President.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Nerd
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 12:36 PM

You said he wanted MORE anti-terrorism legislation.

That is a distortion, no matter what you say.

He wants the Patriot act to expire and to be replaced by DIFFERENT anti-terrorism legislation. That's all I was pointing out. I notice you don't refute this, but bloviate around the point.

I acknowledge that Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, and for the war, so I am not looking for a different set of facts. That does describe YOU, though, for saying that Kerry wants MORE anti-terrorism legislation (emphasis YOURS) when in fact he wants DIFFERENT anti-terrorism legislation.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 11:16 AM

I want a complete review of all the anti-terrorism legislation, and I want to see a lot of it overturned and thrown out. The majority of it was bad legislation to begin with, and has done absolutely nothing to make American citizens safer at home or abroad. The Patriot Act has been used to intern Muslim and Arab Americans, deport them and destroy families. I'm also opposed to many of the provisions of the Patriot Act.

I'm not distorting Kerry's positions or statments about the Patriot Act, Nerd. You are obviously pro-Kerry, so you are going to interpret what he says differently than I will as a Nader supporter.

The reason I cannot and will not vote for Kerry is because he voted for the Patriot Act, and for the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. Period. You can have your own intepretation of the facts Nerd, but not a wholly different set of facts.

Kerry voted FOR the Patriot Act.

Kerry voted FOR the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

End of discussion, for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Nerd
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 11:02 AM

GUEST, you are distorting the facts as you always do. For example, you write:

"He voted for the Patriot Act, and still supports most of it's provisions AND says he will propose even MORE anti-terrorist legislation;"

Actually, he voted for the act as a temporary measure that would expire soon. What he says is that he will let the act expire and then propose DIFFERENT (not MORE) anti-terrorism legislation to replace it. Do you mean that you want the act to expire and you want NO anti-terrorism legislation at all, so that the FBI and CIA can go back to not speaking? If so, you're inviting another 9/11. So what exactly would YOU do, GUEST?

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: jacqui.c
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 10:33 AM

To all you Nader supporters, Do you really think we can afford another 4 years of that lying, phony coward?

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: el ted
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 10:27 AM

Boring.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: InOBU
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 09:41 AM

hi folks... i'll try and get the point over, typing still not easy with the old' hand... the battle is for the supreme court. bush argues that there are places without law, such as guantanimo bay, where a us pres cant act without any restraint of law... even too deporting us citizens to this dark hole of no liberties... can we afford a pres who may, next election name a young majority who start with this point of tyrony ... what is next, extermination camps, don't think it can't happen here.... larry

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 07:47 AM

Thomas, you are excellent at character smear posts, you do know that don't you? I mean, you could have had a career as a media spinner. In each and every one of your posts, you don't say a word about the virtues of your candidate, or about the greatness of his policies. It's just attack, attack, attack, just like a Rove Republican.

Kudos to you, sir. Like I said elsewhere, your attacks won't get you into heaven, but it will probably sway someone to help you attack anyone and everyone who is a third party independent voter supporting Nader and the Greens.

Good job. After all, we all know that Nader and his supporters are the REAL enemy of the Republicrats, because it is us stealing your votes, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 02:08 AM

You're foaming at the mouth, guest, and you are obsessed with your own partiality. I've heard all that nonsense before,... cut and pasted from your talk radio clowns. Who the hell wants to change the world? George w. Bush does. Do you have anything new to share? Or is it just the same old same old intimidation and bullying tactics that have become so popular in the last few years?

Our choice is between better, worse, or indifferent.

It's a 'no brainer'. And that suits me fine.
ttr

P.S. Bobert... you care. Remember?

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Johnny in OKC
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 12:15 AM

"Anybody but Bush" ~~ not exactly.

There are still a few people whose presidency
would be LESS preferable than that of GWB.

Dick Cheney
David Duke
Richard Armitage
Don Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz

Some of these might actually run for
nomination. The mind boggles.

Love, Johnny

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 11:56 PM

Oh, I know, I know...he won't change enough. But godammit, even if he dissembles, he will do so in complete and grammatical sentences. I like to be kissed when I am getting fucked.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 11:44 PM

Oh and Amos, I'm asking this question of you Anybody But Bush Republicrats: what exactly is Kerry going to change? Specifics, please.

He supports the war on Iraq;

He supports the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and his corporado buddies;

He voted for the Patriot Act, and still supports most of it's provisions AND says he will propose even MORE anti-terrorist legislation;

He voted for No Child Left Behind, even though he knew damn well that it wasn't going to be funded;

He is the Democratic Leadership Council's water boy;

I mean, just what the hell do you think will change with him in power?

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 11:41 PM

It won't change the Republican/Republicrat dynamic Amos, but it will change the third party dynamic, which is what us indies are interested in.

But apparently, you don't get that we have no interest or intention of trying to save the Republicrats from themselves, and are interested in working on our children's and grandchildren's futures instead, do you?

Voting Republicrat ain't gonna do jack to save or change the world Amos. So it ain't an option for those of us who are here to save and change the world. We are going to do what we have always done, which is to bring pressure to bear from outside the status quo, beat down the people system of robber baronry we currently are enduring because the Republicrats keep running jerk offs like Kerry. Gore/Lieberman. And other sorts of Dukaka clones.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 11:34 PM

Tell me how throwing votes into smoke (by voting for Nader) brings about any change; at least Kerry will bring about some change. Less than we would want, but more than we will get by leaving that spittle-sipper in the White House for another term!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 11:34 PM

As long as we're commenting on the Nader-Blaming Game...

IF Gore and Clinton and the DLC-corporate-Republicrats hadn't taken the party down the toilet with...

* NAFTA,

* GATT,

* the so-called "reform" of welfare,

* some gratuitous bombing of Iraq,

* enthusiastic support of the death penalty, despite the overwhelming evidence of its racist application.

* the "don't ask don't tell" disaster that has actually led to increased harrassment of gays in the military,

* a huge increase in the prison population, thanks to the Clinton/Gore administration's relentless support for the racist War on Drugs,

* Hillary's pathetic corporate "Managed Competition" plan that crashed and set back the movement or universal health care by at least a decade,

* the so-called "anti-terrorist act" that gave the police state more power,

* a whole lotta money for right-wing Colombian death squads,

* etc, etc, etc,

...THEN Gore would have done what any other Democratic incumbent running against a moronic Republican during relatively peaceful, relatively prosperous times would have done -- WON HIS OWN HOME STATE!

And as long as we're assigning blame, Clinton's sexcapades must have cost the ticket a few thousand votes in Florida. If Ol' Bill could have just kept it zipped for 8 years, his boy Gore would surely have won, right? And how about Gore's dialing-for-dollars and Buddhist Temple shennanigans? Even if you write these events off as "everyone does it," don't you think that it probably cost Gore votes in Florida, just as Clinton's shortcomings and the whole laundry list of treacheries listed above cost him votes?

As information consumers, sorters and processers, we can choose from among plenty of potential scapegoats to blame for Bush's election, but the one that's been fed to people non-stop through the media, is that Ralph Nader. So why are Democrats being urged to demonize Nader, and not blame Clinton, or the DLC, or Gore and Lieberman themselves?

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 10:58 PM

And so what if he does take votes away from Kerry? Not all of us have as our first priority, winning the White House for yet another Republicrat.

Some of us want serious social, political, and economic change. Can any of you Republicrat apologists tell me exactly how voting for Republicrat Kerry is going to bring about substantial, desperately needed change? Because the Kerry campaign sure can't, so I'd like to hear what you think WILL change if we vote this Republicrat crown in.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 10:55 PM

Hey, like who really cares?

Who really wants to be president and spend 4 years cleanin' up Junior's messes? Kerry? Come on. Deep down inside her knows the Bush/Diebold team will deliver!!!

Hey, good...

Like let Bush stew in his own juices and Nadar get 5% and be in the '08 debates...

Sorry, but Kerry's stand on Iraq is as dismal as Bush's...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 10:48 PM

I still don't see how a guy who in 2000 stated that if Bush won then people would be ready for his (Nader's) campaign in 2004 and that Kerry wasn't liberal enough (my take that he means that he's a better liberal candidate) can claim that he won't take votes away from the democrat candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 10:09 PM

Yeah Bobert, don't do what is best for your commitment to third parties, just support the Republicrat.

The pay off for you and the country to support yet another Republicrat is...ah...will be...ummm...

Maybe the Democratic Leadership Council knows. Go ask them what you'll get for selling your third party vote to the highest Republicrat bidder. And for what?

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 09:57 PM

Bobert:

Ya gotta do whut you gotta do, but you know you will be casting your vote to the wind, and indirectly aiding the cause of the Bushies. I urge you to reconsider the most effective use of your franchise --


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 09:31 PM

Oh, Bobert... What's gotten in to you! Bush lite?

Look, I know JK is not into 'full scale' reorganization of the US day to day, but I'm convinced that anyone who is is unelectable... We have got so far to go, and we'll probably need some rest along the way... So why not lets head over to Kerry's place for the night and get an early start in the morning for Naderville... Please fill me in on your insight. Kerry is running for President of the US in 2004 AD... and the here and now of it is simple. Nader is eloquent in a way that only an unelectable candidate can be... direct, caustic, and irreverent to the status quo. That this will give us all a higher level of debate on real and mostly ignored issues is great for the country... but the re-election is something that would probably sour our provocative Bobert's ensuing four years...

C'mon Bobert... give yourself a break, and tout Kerry fer now!
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 08:39 PM

Well, GUEST, I have done a complet flip flop and now plan of casting my vote fir Nadar should he get the necessary signitures in Wes Ginny to be on the ballot... Kerry is a jerk. He is nothin more than Bush-Lite and if he doesn't reverse course he is going to loose in a landslide... Think Dukokis or Goldwater here...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 08:31 PM

Lloyd Bentsen an old lib Dem guy? IIRC, he was United States Secretary of the Treasury for part of Clinton's administration. A democrat, but never strucl me as old lib material!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 07:44 PM

Thanks for correcting me--I knew it was one of those old lib Dem guys.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 07:41 PM

That was Lloyd Bentsen, Senator from Texas, who told Dan Quayle that he was no Jack Kennedy.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: GUEST,21 Apr 04 - 02:51 PM
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 07:31 PM

Actually, I think the letter is awful. It isn't really even comprehensible in a meaningful, cohesive way, is it? Yet, the rest of the website writing seems pretty good. I think the campaign manager needs to not let Ralph write and upload without an editor seeing it first! Ah well, that's a grassroots campaign for ya.

But that said, I don't think Nader has changed his mind about his influence in the 2000 election. I think he is simply trying to address the concern (I would say obsession) he knows liberal Democrats have about his candidacy undermining their guy. If I were a Democrat, I'd be much more concerned about the Washington Post article today about Kerry's campaign strategy, and the fact that Kerry hasn't fired up the base, but seems to have alienated a good chunk of it.

There just aren't too many Democrats I'm talking to that are raving about how excited and fired up they are with the Kerry candidacy. To rewrite the old Mondale saying--John Kerry is no JFK.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 03:10 PM

" In 2000, exit polls showed that 21% or 25% of my vote would have gone to Bush, 38% or 41% to Gore, and the rest would not have voted."
Ralph Nader

It appears that he has changed his mind as to whether his candidacy in 2000 helped put Bush in office.

Subject: BS: Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 02:51 PM

Here are two links from Nader's website I thought some people here might be interested in. The first is to a letter by Nader, to those in the thread title, here:

http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/?cid=13

The second link is one I've been meaning to post, because I think some here might be interested in signing the impeachment petition, regardless of whom they intend to vote.

Call for Impeachment Inquiry of Bush & Cheney petition