Iraq

Roberts and Alito

Race to the Top. Common Core Curriculum.


They suck and should be repealed.

Citizens United
Shelby County

These two decisions are due to Roberts And Alito and the decisions would be very different if Al Gore had not been sabotaged by that idiot Nader

The SCOTUS blocked a full recount that Gore would have won. If Nader had not made the recount necessary, Roberts and Alito would not be on the court and citizen United and Shelby County would have been decided differently

Priscilla Owens: the 5th Cir judge who upheld Texas TRAP law
Janice Rodgers Brown: the DC Circuit Judge who found that corporations have 1st Amendment religious rights

These idiot were put on the bench by W due to Nader

Fuck Nader.

Sid

For some, Nader will always be the evil SUPERMAN who single-handedly knocked the wheels off of the entire Democratic Party in 2000.


Nader merely stepped into the vacuum created by the "Centrist" Clinton Administration as it moved ever to The "Business Friendly" Conservative Right.

Vacuums are filled.
Its the law.... in Physics and Politics.
If not Nader, it would have been someone else.

It is much easier to simply blame somebody else for the problems,
but that approach never solves the problem.

It was the Centrist/Third Way/DLC that created the vacuum for someone to step into, and those who are a part of that, pointed the finger elsewhere.

Until people are willing to admit the real problems we face rather than attempting to distract from them, we will remain where we are, enslaved to Wall St policies. And that IS the problem, or maybe it is the way they want it to be.

"For some, Nader will always be the evil SUPERMAN who single-handedly knocked the wheels off of the entire Democratic Party in 2000."

Really, does anybody REALLY say that?

evil - yes
Superman - no, but a person with some fame and clout
single-handedly - no he had the help of the media and also the idiots who voted for him and donated to him, although ultimately, it is only the idiots in New Hampshire who are culpable. (and speaking of New Hampshire, Senator Bill Bradley didn't help either).
the entire Democratic Party - no, he just cost us the White House, he generally had nothing to do with the Congressional elections which were pretty much the same as those of 1998.

For someone to believe the myth that this mild mannered Consumer Activist derailed the entire Democratic Party in 2000, it is logically consistent to assume these same people must also believe that Nader is a SUPERMAN with some Super Power that not even the largest Political Party in America can overcome.

What I did is called Reductio Ad Absurdum that embarrasses those who continue to insist that Nader caused Gore to lose the 2000 election,
an absurd statement that I have seen posted to DU many, MANY times.

Its the Nader backers who do the blaming and finger pointing. Whenever 2000 is brought up they blame Al Gore or the Democrats or anybody but themselves. What the Greens never defend is their actions in 2000. In hindsight, was peeling off 3% for Nader a good idea? There's no doubt that if even some of those voters had voted Democratic instead Gore would have won.

And neither did Reid. There was no reason why the filibuster couldn't have been changed to allow for the Public Option.

Except that Democratic Leadership (and their donors) didn't want a Public Option.

The votes to change the filibuster in 2009 and 2010 were not there. It took numerous filibusters to get the votes to change the filibuster for nominations only.

filibuster (a simple majority.)

60 votes was the excuse when they wanted to exclude the public option.

There were 60 votes for the ACA but without the nuclear option it would have taken 67 votes to amend the filibuster rules. There was great reluctance to invoke the nuclear option until 2013 and the only for nominations. I do not believe that there were 51 votes for the nuclear option in 2009 or 2010. The claim that the filibuster rules could have been amended in 2009 or 2010 has no basis in history or reality.

It took three years of GOP filibusters on judicial and other nominations to get a bare majority of the Senate to invoke the nuclear option. Even now, the filibuster rules are limited to nominations only excluding SCOTUS nominations. The filibuster rules remain in effect for legislation such as the public option. I am sorry but the facts do not support your claims.

Your excuses are contradictory, and have no evidence to support them. They are just that--excuses.

The votes to use the nuclear option were not there in 2009 or 2010'. No one believes that there were the votes to use the nuclear option at this time. Even last week there were on the votes to use the nuclear option for nomination confirmations only. The filibuster is still in effect for SCOTUS nominations and legislation such as the public option. It tools three years of GOP action to get the votes for this limited modification of the rules. Again the nuclear option was only used to limit the filibuster as to nominations other than SCOTUS nominations.

I am sorry but I am a lawyer and I have been following this issue very closely. The ACA without a public option barely passed in 2010 after Senator Kennedy died. If the votes were there to use the nuclear option, then the Senate would not had to relied on reconciliation to pass the ACA amendments necessary to get House approval.

You can not use a 2013 vote on a different issue to back up your assertions

Really? So 9 democratic senators suddenly agreed with the republican position that democratic legislation needs 60 votes to pass? 9 Democratic senators would not have voted for cloture on their party's president's signature piece of legislation?

That, this transparent nonsense, is what you are saying if you believe this fiction that "the votes were not there". Though it is true that the votes weren't there, it's because the democratic party did not and does not want to pass serious progressive legislation. Not because we didn't have enough democrats in the senate.

That is why.


I'm not against a protest vote, but that was the wrong time and place to make a statement. The idea that Bush and Gore were so similar that it didn't matter which one you voted for is ridiculous on it's face. I think it is clear now that we have lived through 8 years of Pres. Bush that the world would be a very different place if we had instead lived through 8 years of a Pres. Gore.



Now, could you please clarify your question #1 ?

I don't understand what point you are trying to make about "Democrat" Party Leaders.


As for question #2, that is also ridiculous. Those of us on the left have had more than just bones thrown to us lately. DOMA repeal. DADT repeal. Mandatory sentencing reformed. Iraq war ended. There have even been some small steps made in banking reform (although much more is needed). Yes, even the ACA is a progressive breakthrough. (Maybe you haven't noticed but Vermont now has a single payer system.) Any progressive who says no "bones" have been thrown to us, not even little ones, is either not paying attention or not being honest.

In 2000, it was friggin' Al Gore himself and his dis-interest that cost him the election. He could not win in Tennessee, his own damn home state. Had he won Tennessee, Florida would not have mattered.

And then when the vote procedures and vote count in Florida arose as the number one major hindrance to him having that state count as a victory for him, he was quite dis-interested. Look at film footage of him arriving in one Florida city where a vote re-count was being attempted. He wishes he could be any place in the world other than there! Yes, even as activists living on peanut butter and jelly tried to handle having the recount, Al was peeved. Some of us suspect he had already signed off on a deal to not accept any contention of the US Presidency.

Jump to four years later -

Back in early to mid-2004, Democratic leaders did not want to hear about how the electronic voting systems would play a major role in the coming election. Nope, they were not interested. Even though those machines were about to sabotage the efforts of Democrats to get Kerry elected.

Only Sen Barbara Boxer, Lynn Woolsey, a Calif. Dem in the House of Representatives, and Bill Bradley were among the handful of people committed to helping Black Box voting activists in their efforts to stop the spread of the electronic machines.

During the late Nov and Dec 2004 recount tallies in Florida, Andy Stephenson had as many troubles with the Democratic Leaders in various districts in Florida as he had with Republicans. He used to joke with me during our weekly chats bout how someone should tell Florida Dem Party leaders that they weren't Republicans.

And maybe you never were told this, but it is the truth - with Ohio discrepancies being the difference between a second term for George W Bush, or a brand new term for Kerry, it was not the Democratic Party leaders, nor was it John Kerry and his self proclaimed "army of lawyers" that came into Ohio, fought court battles to get recounts, and provided the monies for those recounts, but David Cobb (I) and yes, this might be hard for you to swallow, Ralph Nader!!

Kerry showed us what sort of President he would have made - he'd have been another Dem leader of Betrayal, when he broke his major number one promise to the Faithful and conceded the election within 10 hours of the Bush announcement of their victory.

If you want to hear a full recap of the Nov 2004 "Stolen Election" I happen to be the very first person to have a regular monthly publication print my article and release the fact that this was a stolen election. Among other things this article demonstrates is that only in America does the party occupying the WH happen to be so in charge of the"Mainstream media" that their announcing they won gets accepted without even a "Did you really? Are you sure there aren't still outstanding ballots?" comment from the various TV outlets. Here is the article in full:

http://www.coastalpost.com/04/12/01.htm

We all thought it was a done deal. Gore didn't even campaign here because it was assumed it was "in the bag".

If it wasn't for Nader, Gore would have easily won Florida. 3rd Party votes matter.

Find out why it doesn't appeal to those people. And start appealing to them. Of course, this would involve actually sticking up for the environment, actually opposing nuclear, actually ending wars and stopping so much of our monies going off to the military etc.

Third party voters don't like politicians whose main appeal is "lip service" given to popular causes. They also look to see if the talking points are then backed up with any real achievements.

And it could be that many of those who voted third party would not have bothered to vote for anyone at all. Close to fifty percent of Americans usually don't bother to vote.

We don't have to go far back in history to see how the item suggested in paragraph one my reply here is done: Barack Obama managed to show enough interest in the third party voters that some 62.4 percent of all voters showed up or mailed in ballots in 2008. He realized what his message needed to be, and it worked.

This 62.4% was the most people who had turned out for an election in over 45 years! People who normally vote third party voted for him. Hell's Bell's, my RW Tea Bagger neighbor believed in him, gave him his vote, and even sent him money.

In off year elections, some districts show only 18 percent of all voters showing up or sending in the mail ballots.

telling them that there was no difference between Gore and Bush.

You can't blame Nader for that.

I swear, some of the Establishment Dems talk about Nader the way Napoleon in Animal Farm talks about Snowball.

Enough votes were divereted to Nader in New Hampshire to throw the state to Bush.

I am also very upset with the Bush appointments to the courts. Citizen United and Shelby County are two examples of the consequences of Bush having the ability to fill judicial vacancies

He's never apologized, by the way--he's still a crappy "free trader", who most recently grifted US tax dollars to plow into a failed automaker in Finland (Fiskers, now bankrupt).

and start worrying about the (far more numerous) registered Dems who voted for Bush.

My theory is that those voters were sensible centrists who thought Bush would be a "compassionate" conservative and that Al Gore would go "too far" with the global warming thing.

Or who simply didn't vote, as they didn't see much difference between the two men.

That Bush/Gore election did not have the big turn out that we saw in 2008, for instance. Many people stayed home.

But I do want to point out that Al Gore's Big And Huge Climate concerns didn't involve him until quite a while after that 2000 election.

In fact, early on in the Clinton Presidency, Gore helped the Big Industries and their bad practices by being the president of the Senate on the day of a tie-breaking vote. Had he voted for the Anti Pesticide bill then, we environmental activists would have secured the policy of Proven Safety - a policy that guides the European Union. In this policy, a chemical has to be proven safe before it can be used, rather than in our "wait and see" policy where companies can use a product until the bodies start piling up, or until some important aspect of the environment, for instance, the bees, are irreversibly harmed.

Besides this vote in the Senate, Gore also manipulated officials in France into letting Monsanto's Gm seed into their nation!

More than likely a single individual volunteering for Gore for a week or two in Florida would have helped Gore much more than Nader hurt him. There are many factors that come into play when the race is that narrow, but it always easier to blame others than to think about how you could have been more effective.

It was well known before the 2000 election that Nader had no chance to win and could only be a spoiler to Gore in key states. That happened in Florida and New Hampshire. Everyone has the right to vote for whomever they wish. But at least take responsiblity for the consequences of that vote. Like little spoiled children, Nader voters refuse to do so.

One that Democratic leadership is avoiding dealing with.

In some states there has been a loss of 14% of all Congressional seats - or more!
(Pl refer and read the Rolling Stone article linked to in the OP.)

And yet the Dem leadership would rather rant and rave about Nader.

Are still ranting and raving about Nader?

And what does gerrymandering of congressional districts have to do with the 2000 election?

On this board about the evils of the Nader candidacy.

And the evils of those voting for him.

Visit any thread that has come up recently on this very board that is discussing someone other than Pro-Corproate Policy Hillary Clinton, and you will read how awful it is that Sanders might run against her, or that some here are considering supporting Elizabeth Warren.

NMeanwhjile in the real world, the actual problem to Democratic success has been the very successful, almost unopposed gerrymandering efforts that have gone unchallenged by Democratic leaders.

Which Dem Leaders? Any of those that have positions inside the Democratic Party at the state or federal level in the six states where the vote count was much higher for Democratic candidates, but offices were lost on account of the gerry rigging gerrymandered voting districts.

As explained in the RS article I mentioned in the OP, here is a bit of what you might find of interest:

In Pennsylvania, Democratic candidates took 51 percent of the vote across the state's 18 districts, but only five of the seats. In Wang's model, the odds against Democrats emerging at an eight-seat disadvantage are 1,000-to-1. And Pennsylvania was not alone. According to the Election Consortium analysis, gerrymandering helped Republicans secure 13 seats in just six states – including Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina – that, under normal rules of engagement, Democrats would have won.

This tilting of the electoral playing field was the result of a sophisticated campaign coordinated at the highest levels of Republican politics through a group called the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) – a Super-PAC-like entity chaired by Bush-era RNC chairman Ed Gillespie and backed by Karl Rove. Shortly after President Obama's first election, the RSLC launched the Redistricting Majority Project (REDMAP) with an explicit strategy to "keep or win Republican control of state legislatures with the largest impact on congressional redistricting." The logic was simple. Every decade following the census, the task of redrawing federal congressional-district boundaries falls (with some exceptions) to the state legislatures. If Republicans could seize control of statehouses – and, where necessary, have GOP governors in place to rubber-stamp their redistricting maps – the party could lock in new districts that would favor Republican candidates for a decade.

state the names of any specific Democratic leaders. FAUX anchors do the same thing without ever naming someone specifically.

And the gerrymandering of congressional districts has nothing to do with the results of a Presidential election. A state's electoral votes are in most states based upon the statewide vote winner, not on the winner in congressional districts. So I still fail to see how gerrymandering is in anyway relevant to Nader and the 2000 election. It is intellectually dishonest to conflate the two.

But hey, that is just a confidence, right?

Nader promised not to run in states where it might hurt Gore, and broke that promise.

Nader said that he WANTED Bush to win, to teach the country a lesson.

It is clear that Nader knew his actions would help the Repubes.

And some on the Left still defend him.

Fuck that millionaire dilletante asshole.

Of course Nader supporters tend to ignore these facts.

It remains we as a society endure the impact/affects of zealotry of all stripes, including philosophical & political.

But it's interesting that the matter of Zealotry of any stripe, is often not recognized (as is the case with many other emotional issues) by the ones pointing the finger with that charge.

Zealotry doesn't make allowances for evidence to see things from another pov on any subject, or to even draw different conclusions based on actual facts, rather it thrives on denial of evidence which would clearly disprove previous assumptions, a lot interest in maintaining a false narrative has been heavily invested in this matter- making it all the more improbable to coming around to a understanding there is possibly a different reality - based on a different (or perhaps more complete) set of facts - other than the ones that are held on to so dearly as to be blinded to the notion that full story' is at best incomplete.

In this case, Nader is a useful bogyman to a much more important and complicated political reality in our country, that is so often touted as the "best democracy in the world". Yet, the contrary is perceived by most of the 98%.. I think the extremely low voter turnout even in presidential elections over my entire lifetime proves that over and over and over again, 2008 being the exception with a better turnout than most, but still woefully inadequate for any form of democracy.

Nader gave voice to socio-economic justice and values which other contenders were either ignoring completely or gave standard lip service to, but were not represented by their own actions and or policy making. It serves no one to be dismissive of these realities or to deride those that raise concerns regarding these and many other unmentioned issues of concern, I don't think.

It would seem to me, that it would be politically more beneficial to put aside those grievances, and perhaps welcome a much broader discussion/political activism/electoral politicking with those that were once Nader supporters. After all, the vast majority of registered Green Party voters were disaffected registered Democratic voters, who naturally voted in the D column for other races.

But that's just the way I see it, your mileage may vary.

...cheerleading for a Bush victory, and breaking promises he made: all in 2000.

Those are substantive matters that deserve a response.

Nader is not a bogeyman: he is and was a real person who did real things in 2000. Things that made a difference.

He was not the only factor in 2000. But he was a factor. And, the main factor that the Left had a hand in creating (gerrymandering, vote fraud, registration scrubbing, etc. were done mostly by the Right).

And, frankly, a pro-Nader thread should expect to have to deal with fact-based issues like these. And Nader supporters who avoid the topics decrease their crediblity.

Among other things, this accounting of history is woefully lacking in facts. so I bid you adieu.

The DOJ is fighting gerrymandering the courts. The Texas a Democratic Party and other good Democrats are also fighting gerrymandering the courts. We are also trying to get more democrats elected like Wendy Davis.

What possible good will THAT do?
What problems will THAT fix?

It is the Party Leaderships JOB to convince people to vote for them.
If people do NOT vote for them,
it IS a Failure of Leadership.

If the Party Leadership can address the real problem,
and are willing to take responsibility for their failures,
then the problem can be solved.

Blaming the voters may feel good to the blamers,
but it NEVER solves the problem.

Al Gore, in an appearance on Jon Stewart's Daily Show, said that himself.
When Jon said that many Democrats blamed Nader,
Al Gore laughed and said,
That was my fault. I didn't do enough to convince them to vote for me.


I am convinced that if Gore just ONE TIME, had turned to The Left
and said,
I hear your voices. Maybe NAFTA and Free Trade hasn't been so good for Working People. I promise YOU, your voices and your votes are IMPORTANT to me,
and I will see what I can do.
If Al Gore had ever said anything close to the above, he would have been President in 2001.

You can't ignore, marginalize, and discount these voters,
and then expect them to carry your water, year after year,
election after election,
insult after insult....

...but keep up the good work insulting and ridiculing the people your want to vote for your candidate. 3rd parties appreciate your hard work for them.

Just asking people to take some responsibility for the consquences of their vote. I've seen Bush voters who have taken responsibility for what Bush did to the country quicker than Nader voters have. In fact it is Nader voters who seem to be the ones who point the finger the most, blaming everyone else for the results of the 2000 election. Just like little spoiled children do when they do something wrong.

Bless your heart.

some of them might feel some shame and refrain from repeating the same mistakes in the future.

This actually worked. In 2004, Nader got far fewer votes even though the Democratic Candidate was (in my opinion) to the right of Gore.

And to heck with "the party leadership's job". The LTTE that I wrote to the Mason City Globe Gazette in October 2000 could very well have won Iowa for Gore. Certainly I wrote it to convince readers of that paper to vote for Gore. I said "quite frankly, a Bush presidency scares me". I knew in my heart that a Bush victory would be very very bad for this country, and I was certainly proven right.

No way to know how many voters I convinced, but a good portion of Gore's very tiny victory margin in Iowa came from Cerro Gordo, Floyd, and Mitchell counties where the Globe Gazette is the main paper.

And as far as turning to the left. I thought Gore's convention speech was very populist and progressive. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/61

If bush won....their dogma was way more important than the welfare of America. The Nader voters are more responsible for Iraq war than bush.

Since that was (by a nose) the most idiotic and unsupportable claim I've read all day, I wanted to highlight it. You'll get full credit, of course.

Nader happily turned the election for Bush, saying that there wasn't any difference between Bush and Gore.

He's no ally.

It's the nominee's job to persuade voters to vote for him/her. If he fails to do so, he/she loses.

Concisely to the point.

of success there. Nader entered that race for the express purpose of being a spoiler. He took funding from the GOP, who are theoretically opposed to everything he purports to stand for. The man was a useful tool for the Rove machine. He has no integrity any longer.

Could it be that they thought that Nader better represented their principles than Gore or Bush did?

And, why shouldn't he take funding from any source that offers it....just like the the establishment parties do?

And fucking those who support him.

I appreciate your cogent analysis, but shouldn't you be directing your ire at traitorous registered Democrats?

and the douchebags who support him.

Better?

And his Moran apologists.

That meme was a attack conceived and carried out by conservatives and Republicans. It is the Democratic Party and they are Democratic Party Leaders.

Since you can not get the parties name right and insist on using a Conservative/Republican meme to refer to them, I just don't take the rest of this seriously.

Paraphrased from "Nobody's Perfect," a 1968 movie about a US Navy ship named the "Little Bustard."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063361/

How ever good your intention if you voted for Nader you did not vote for President.
It impossible to know what would have happened if Nader hadn't run. Possible his followers would have stayed home.
But please don't say Nader would have been better than a Dem. For all his idealism, the system is bigger than any one man.

Those who want to push Nader's progressive credentials should read the following article.

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2011/06/27/ralph-nader-turns-rightest-on-cisco/

way to audit them? The suddenly not allowing exit polls in 2000 or 2004. Where there were exit polls done, they sometimes wildly did not agree with the vote count in important polling precincts.

Ahh, never mind, it was all Nader's fault anyway.

JMO.

Just wondering.

Julie

unions, workers, living wages, education, SS, single payer healthcare, didn't support bad trade agreements, and didn't take so much damn money from lobbyists and write legislation for corporations based on those lobby checks. We have been screwed since Reagan and the democrats have done nothing to make it better. So, if we are to blame anybody it should be the politicians themselves, not the voters or the other candidates that offer something different.

The Republican politicians who fund the Green Party.

This was a great investment for the GOP

The Republicans and Democrats were and are majority parties, so many people who belong to those parties believe they are entitled to votes, and so when someone who doesn't belong to one of those parties runs, and gets some of those votes, then that person is viewed as bad and oppressing the majority.

Alito & Roberts. Have at it! No amount of revisionism will ever cleanse the blood on the hands of the folks who thought Gore wasn't "pure" enough, because some old has-been reappeared on the political stage to tell them "there's no difference between Bush & Gore". Ironically, most of those folks are now climbing all over themselves to kiss Al Gore's ass.

If Gore wanted the votes of the left, he should have campaigned for them. He didn't.

left either. The country's living through that nightmare right now, they're known as the Tea Party. They're small, vocal, and if the polls are to be believed, the American people can't stand 'em.

Let's hope the Democratic Party doesn't make that mistake. Fuck Nader, and all who sail in him.

Fuck the 3rd Way and all who sell out to them.

You and the other party purists.

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

I didn't realize that only party-line thoughts are allowed here. And, I don't try to tell people how to vote.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

If all the Dems had stood firm (and even if none of the Republicanites had switched), the vote would have been 52-48 AGAINST.

So it's Nader's fault that the Senate Dems were scaredy-cats.

As for the Supreme Court justices, again, the Senate failed in its duty to block unworthy candidates.

I've been on DU since March 2001. I spent Bush's entire two terms railing against DEMOCRATS who did the Republicans' work for them.

(Disclosure: I voted for Nader in 1996 but not in 2000. However, I completely understand why the Nader voters did what they did. Note that Nader was a non-issue in 2008, when the Dems had a candidate who SEEMED to respect the left.)

We can play this game all day.

the real life we all lived through as opposed to the hypothetical alternative reality Gore presidency that the Nader haters imagine, the Senate Dems had the opportunity to block both the Iraq War and the appointments of right-wing judges and they did not do it. In real life. Not to recognize their share of the blame is sheer wishful thinking.

After Nader and all his sycophants made possible? That Supreme Court? They owe us & the world a huge apology, but they're insufferably smug, so that'll never happen. They now deluge us with all the tricks Dems "should have" pulled out of their asses after they made Bush possible. In real life, they have the blood of both Americans and Iraqis on their hands. And besides, this is still "Democratic" Underground.

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

"because they were going to be appointed anyway."

Yeah, those guys.

guys would win a fuckin' election, so we can see how your utopia would actually function.

nor did he force them to vote for the Iraq War.

The Dems did that all by themselves.

A lot of Establishment Dems are constantly telling us that "Obama can't wave a magic wand and get what he wants."

Well guess what, Bush couldn't either. But the Senate Dems acted as if he could and as if resistance was futile.

And that's a fact.

The series of excuses that the Establishment Dems gave through the years went like this:
1. We can't resist Bush, because he just assumed office and we don't want to seem obstructionist. Then it was
2. We can't resist Bush because we don't control both Houses of Congress. Then it was
3. We can't resist Bush because even though we control both Houses of Congress, we still have Bush in the White House. Then it was
4. We control both Houses of Congress and have Obama in the White House, but we don't want to steamroller our agenda. Then it was
5. The Republicans are threatening to filibuster. Oh noes! Run home crying because the big meanie Wepubwicans are fweatening to fiwibuster!

Nader is a has-been. I fault him for just popping up every four years and not working on building a real political party. I'm not convinced that 2001 is Nader's fault (seeing that Gore could have tried harder to differentiate himself from Bush and to win his home state and to convince the undecideds that there WAS a difference).

But everything from January 2001 onwards is at least partly due to the Dems caving in to Republican temper tantrums and not acting like an opposition party.

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

You're the one who's blaming Nader for everything but the sun spot cycle.

is "complicit" in the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
I imagine that includes you!

the financial collapse and all those people who lost their homes etc. can blame you?

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

a spouse (let's say this spouse is named "A" to avoid getting into gender-specific cases) who neglects the other spouse (whom we shall call "B&quot , blames B for everything that goes wrong, including things that A is partly responsible for, notices B only when some errands need doing or some extra money is needed, puts the needs of other people ahead of B's needs, flirts openly with people who don't like B, and joins other people in disrespecting everything B holds dear. In general, A acts more comfortable and congenial with people who don't like B than with B.

So along comes C, who says to B, "I understand why you're unhappy with A, and I agree that you have good reason to be unhappy. But I understand you. I appreciate you. I agree that the whole household would be happier if we did things your way, and I'm not ashamed or afraid to say so. Come over to my place for a quiet talk over a glass of wine."

So A finds out about this, and instead of wondering why B, the spouse of so many years standing --they're an old married couple, really-- is unhappy, instead of doing a little soul-searching, lashes out at C for being the one who ruined everything. As B tries to explain, A dismisses all of B's objections as "wanting a pony," "being unrealistic," etc. and makes lame excuses for behaving like a neglectful spouse.

Although B returns home, it is with no great enthusiasm, and the atmosphere is poisoned. It is now twelves years later. A has not apologized for a thing and continues to blame B for everything that goes wrong. Every time B notes that some of the neighbors are getting obnoxious, A says, "This wouldn't have happened if you hadn't gone off with C."

It is especially annoying, since B is no longer interested in C. In fact, B is thinking about other alternatives, such as leaving A permanently and taking up with D or E, who like C, share the same values as B. One the worst days, B is so disgusted as to think of joining a celibate cult (i.e. totally ignoring politics).

But in A's mind, everything is still C's fault.

Those voters wouldn't find the need to vote for a third party.

I heard him say he might run next time and while that sounds crazy...think of how many people angry at both sides might vote for him?

Nader started out with some good ideas, but the day he took money from the republicans I lost all respect for him.

We voted for Gore and I can tell you the media did a great job of convincing everyone Bush and Gore were the same.. At the time I wasn't following politics and I think only people who were would have known the truth.

I woke up like many did when Bush won.

I am a bit worried myself about third party next time because although if stuck with Hillary I will vote for her, it would not be happily at all. I want a better candidate.

I have never seen anything like that before or since.

Yes, the media were against Gore, but he didn't seem to work very hard to overcome it.