[lbo-talk] Re: Opposing Nader. (Was Powerless Religious Right)

[John Thornton]

I am confused by this post. Are you claiming that Doug and most of this 
list is FOR the Dems? This seems unlikely. Nader seemed a possible way to 
attempt to build a viable third part at one time in spite of himself. He no 
longer appears to offer that so many are now opposed to his campaign since 
no tangible benefits seem likely to arise from his running. I voted for 
Nader in the past for that reason and want him to go away this year also. I 
am not FOR the Dems but rather for attempting to build a 3rd party. Nader 
is making this more difficult by his presence and should see himself as the 
obstacle he has become and remove himself. Not everyone believes as I do 
that Kerry is going to win the election therefore not everyone sees Nader 
as having little to no influence on the outcome. Many people see Nader on 
the ballot as possible hurting the chances of removing Bush from office. 
Since Naders run will come to nothing for himself and will not in any way 
help to build a viable third party opposing him seems a logical choice for 
someone interested in progressive politics outside the Democratic party. 
Why do you think opposing Nader necessarily means you are wedded to the 
Dems? It is possible to oppose (not just criticise) Nader, not be too hot 
on the Dems, and want to build a third party. I do and believe all three of 
these things everyday.

John Thornton


>C'mon Doug, you are AGAINST Nader because in truth you are FOR the 
>Democrats, like the rest of the Left.  Unlike the rest of the left, you're 
>just less than honest about it.
>
>There's plenty to criticize about Nader, as apposed to being _against_ 
>Nader.  There's a qualitative difference between criticism and opposition.
>
>-Brad Mayer
>
>>Chuck0 wrote:
>>
>>>Nader's campaign is an example of "politics as theater." It is getting 
>>>radcial and progressive ideas into circulation, albeit not as 
>>>effectively since the corporate-controlled Democrats have been fighting 
>>>Nader tooth-and-nail (which shows in Kerry's falling poll numbers).
>>>
>>>I'll just out that most people on this list would be supporting Nader's 
>>>campaign if this was 2000. His campaign then was just as much about 
>>>injecting ideas and issues into the political theater as it is now.
>>
>>That's a rather flattering view. How has political discourse changed in 
>>the U.S. as the result of either Nader's 2000 or 2004 runs? Barely if at 
>>all. One of the reasons I'm agin' him now is that he did so little after 
>>2000. Theater isn't organizing, especially if the audience is almost 
>>immeasurably small.
>>Doug