Burnt Orange Report

I did send a message when you first warned about the Nader menace in December. They never replied. :(

If anybody needs inspiration, here is my set of anti-Nader links. Many go back to the 2000 campaign. They were all working as of 10 minutes ago.

http://www.reason.com/0205/cr.mw.speaking.shtml

http://www.thedirtyrag.com/articles/mt_naderspoiler.php

http://www.prospect.org/print/V11/26/green-j.html

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/00_columns/110900.htm

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0042/savage.php

http://www.onlinecolumnist.com/110100.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44093-2002Jul22.html

http://www.macalester.edu/~weekly/600oped.html

http://www.salon.com/news/col/cona/2000/10/24/nader/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,393674,00.html

If Nader runs, he cannot geta "free ride" like last time. Gore largely ignored him, which is ok in a two man race when the other guy has no chance, but in a three way, it can prove fatal.

If he runs, voters need to be CONSTANTLY reminded that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, Inc., i.e.Bush/Cheney/Rumfield/Ashcroft/Halliburton/ RightWingJudges/GuttingofCleanAir&WaterStandards/
RollbackofWorkplaceSafetyRules/RollbackofFairLabor
StandardsAct/RansackingFederalForests/Corruption
UnseenSinceTheHardingAdministration.

Let his would be voters know the TRUTH about what a Nader candidacy means, and that he DOES NOT CARE!

Sorry guys, I'm supposed to vote for a party that rolled over on the war, takes as much money from the rich as the Republicans, won't openly support gay marriage and has Joe Lieberman? Maybe if the "liberal" party could put out some new ideas I might consider them. I despise Bush and I still might vote for the Democrats based on their environmental record among other things. But the Democratic party is bought and paid for just like the Republicans. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

P.S. I'm in Massachussets so don't freak out - my vote won't help W. (Natural Law 2004 BTW).

Three years of Bush, and STILL you're an idiot Jeff....

8 years of Clinton and you STILL think the Democratic party is any different than the Republicans...and I'm the idiot? People like you make me sick. First of all, you call me a name. You must really have a good argument going (yes I realize I just did the same thing). The Democratic leadership must love you (heck, the Rebuplicans must too). You bitch and bitch about Bush but don't realize that the Democratic party is NO DIFFERENT on most fronts. The Democrats can be pro-war, pro-tax cuts, pro PATRIOT Act, anti gay rights, not have one new idea, take gobs of money from both sides and you'll STILL vote for them. What a thriving democracy we have. We have one more party than the Soviet Union had. Seriously though, if you have a good point then I'll listen to it. If you are going to call me a name then you can kiss my ass.

This is terrible news. Why the heck would he run AGAIN. That almost would put Bush back into office.

jeff,
their are good democrats out there. only one is running for president, far as i can see. and hes not getting any respect from any democrats that i see. most ignore him. a few berate and insult him as if he's no better than their nemisis nader.

i don't know about all this. for the first time in my 12 years of voting i'm seriously considering this year voting for someone i dont agree with just to beat bush. i probably wont vote for nader. but that doesnt mean he shouldnt run.

buchanon cost bush more electoral votes than nader cost gore, after all. and i dont see any democrats or liberals or progressives or even moderates imploring anyone to the right of bush not to run. the fact that "we" would welcom pat or ross or someone like that into the race and not ralph says a lot about our commitment to democracy.

but, as always, we must keep our eye on the bigger picture, which goes past nov 2004. if indeed kerry wins the whitehouse, most of the "anyone but bush" crowd will sink back into complacency, believing their work done, and that's when our work really begins. and we will need the help of the "good" democrats i mentioned before to help lead the attack when kerry does rule like a republican.

Yeah, Jeff, I'm sure GORE THE REPUBLICAN would have eliminated the estate tax and slashed income taxes on high earning folks. I'm sure GORE THE REPUBLICAN would have unilaterally unsigned Kyoto. I'm sure GORE THE REPUBLICAN would have begun rolling back US environmental regulations. I'm sure GORE THE REPUBLICAN would be pressing for drilling in ANWAR.

You, apparently, believe all these things. Thus you are, indeed, an idiot.

Of course, you are also voting Natural Law which indicates you have a...tenuous...hold on reality.

One of Nader's slogans in 2000 was, "It has to get worse so it can get better."

That's easy for him to say, he's a multi-millionaire who has nothing better to do than make vapid ideological pronouncements.

The next time he's on a call-in radio show or at a town meeting style forum, someone should tell him, "It may not be bad enough for you yet, but it's unbearable for most of the rest of us."

actually clinton and gore criticised kyoto. bad for american business. i could be wrong, but i believe that is one of the many times gore and bush agreed with each other in their "debates."

and he wouldnt have gone unilaterally into iraq, but 5,000 dead iraqi children every month due to sanctions would have still kept me activly opposing us policy. oh! and that reminds me! the only time the bush administration ISNT bullshitting when it speaks about iraqi intelligence is when they say the bullshit they quoted was from the clinton administration. its the same bullshit clinton used to justify bombing bagdahd in 98.

but i digress. i'm voting for these hypocrites in november this year, after all.

its just that it would be so easier to vote for these republican lite's if the democrats like yourself, blue, would hold them to a higher standard. there is much more room to criticise them and the harm they do than in criticising nader.

tell me. if nader doesn't run, and the democratic candidate cannot somehow overcome the bush adminstrations almost daily scandals and beyond belief ineptitude, who will you blame then?

if you're in texas voting for nader isn't voting for bush because the dems really don't have a chance in tex. if its a close race that's different, but given that texas is a largely conservative republican state i predict all the elcetoral votes will go to bush anyway.

and also try to remember that gore WON the 2000 election.

I'm not so worried about Nader this time around. If he runs as an independent he would have to find a way to get ballot access in every state and i don't think he can do that. And i doubt there will be a groundswell for the man like there was in 2000, i'm thinking that liberals are smart too and will vote for the Dem if they know whats good for them. I predict he gets a fourth of the votes he got in 2000.

Dear Burnt:
Have you heard the new "Ralph Don't Run" song? I either heard it on NPR or Pacifica or a web stream station (I know it would help, but I can't remember). This thing is hilarious and spot on. I don't know the artist, but one line goes "4 years ago, we didn't know the madness of King George...We learnes our lesson the hard way, Ralph. Why didn't you learn yours?"
Dave

If there was anything that the 2000 election made ubundantly clear, it's that the Democratic party, as a whole, is a spineless, weakening institution and is just as bought-and-sold as the Reps, but ashamedly so. Their pro-corporation, pseudo-populist formula isn't working so well and people see through it... me included. Why wouldn't Democrats want Nader to run? Do they NOT want an election where the diversity of issues goes beyond terrorism, Iraq and someone's Vietnam record?