----- Original Message ----- From: "R" <rhisiart at charter.net> \Explaining "Nader-Hating", as you call it, is pretty simple. He's opposing \our candidate, just as George Bush is. He's an opponent, so we oppose him.
-nathan, please. even you know better than that. your party began its -passion of nader bashing in 2000 when it scapegoated him for its own -mistakes in cowardly throwing the 2000 presidential election. transparent -attempts like yours to minimize your party's irrational foibles simply don't -wash.
Again, what's irrational? Nader and the Greens were opposing Gore. Gore supporters bashed Nader, just as they bashed Bush. If Nader, as Carroll says, was dedicated to destroying the Democratic Party, why shouldn't those supporting a different strategy within the Democratic Party see him as an opponent?
If you are attacking the Dems, you just sound sort of whiny when you complain about a pushback by those same Dems.
\The weird thing about third party folks is that they run against the \Democratic Party, and then whine and sob that Democrats are being mean to \them.
-isn't "whine and sob" rather condescending? or are you looking for an -emotional response that mirrors your own frustration with events you don't -understand?
No-- I want you to suck it up and have the courage of your convictions. If you are trying to destroy the Democrats, expect those who still support working within the Democrats to try to destroy your strategy. That's politics. I used to think that lefty Dems could work with lefty third party types in an inside-outside strategy, but the third party folks have generally demonstrated that this is impossible. Which was the conclusion from the 2000 election by a lot of left Dems who were once more favorable towards third party strategies.
>let me make it as simple for you as i can: the democrats treat nader
>exactly the same way the far right treats clinton, passionately and
>irrationally; obsessively and viciously. this is called prejudice,
nathan,
>in case you're not familiar with the phenomenon.
No they don't, or at least I don't. I continually have said nice things about Nader as a political leader in many areas (check my blog and search for Nader if you want examples), but I think his strategy is misguided and he's crawled into bed with anti-immigrant thugs in his most recent campaign.
There's nothing irrational in seeing Nader as a threat. Take it as a compliment. Nader is effective enough to possibly cost Kerry the election. I at least can respect third party types who revel in their power to cost Democrats elections. Those who claim that Nader is irrelevant, then say he should despite this be taken seriously, are just the ones sounding irrational to me.
-- Nathan