Sid

TYY

Ralph Nader or the Third Way/DLC?

See the 2000 election. He split the Dem vote to make it easy to steal.

The Third Way/DLC crowd have led the Democratic Party for more than 20 years. Ralph Nader probably had zero affect at all, but might have had an affect in one election, but if he did have an affect it was less than, say, Al Gore running as a DLCer ("We'll #$%^ you too, but less than the Republicans&quot

I happen to live in FL, and was living in FL during that election.

We lost FL because of Nader. Fact. DLC has been defunct for years now. Why are we still talking about it?

I was watching as Fla. went from electing Gore to Bush suddenly like someone threw a switch. The repugs would have stolen the election whether Nader was there or not. The Repugs cheated on every win since Ike. Nixon made a traitorous deal with North Viet Nam, pulled the Southern Strategy (both assassinations or attempts) and Reagan made a traitorous deal Iran, conned the people, and Bush I had his aggressive war. They cannot win on real issues, it's always a con.

The SCOTUS gave the election to Bush.
SCOTUS owns the 2000 election results, not Nader or Gore.

Nice job.

Nader makes it easy for them to hide their true convictions.

If Nader hadn't split the vote, it wouldn't have been close enough to steel. Which is what I said in my first post to Manny on this topic.

Because I didn't reiterate that statement, I now have an agenda to not blame those that stole the election.

There are 2 guilty parties, neither of them are Democrats.

If he wanted the votes that went to Nader he'd have had to convince them he was a better candidate than Nader. He didn't. He lost.

If Gore had won his own state, this election would have been a footnote in history.

Blaming Nader, who has worked tirelessly for progressive causes, is misguided.

The election was stolen by Republicans. Nader was entitled to run and get his votes.

Nader was right, as we saw when the election was stolen with the help of the SC.

They never reply to you with, "oh right he did or yeah he won"...they just pretend those words never got typed. Thankfully they are easy to see through. I think some of them don't understand or like democracy very much and they take shots at it whenever there is an opening.

Giving them the opportunity to steal the election. Had he not split the vote, the count wouldn't have been as close.

People change, sometimes for the worse.

Period.

sure, he probably is why we had the disastrous 8 yrs of W and so on but history will correctly show his immense accomplishments as well

this is about history, not whether or not we like him at this moment, sure we dont cuz he is kind of an idiot lately

They violated the Constitution in order to help steal that election to install the Cheney/Bush administration.

Nader merely ran for office, a completely legal enterprise in any Democracy.

hell, just eliminate the butterfly ballot in palm beach county and no W

or not have a corrupt and viciously racist secty for state, katherine harris

...sounds sincere."

<snip>

"We’re in crisis because of all our broken systems; because we still let big banks prey on homeowners, students, consumers and retailers; because our infrastructure is decrepit; because our tax code breeds inefficiency and inequality; because foreign interventions bled us dry. We’re in peril because our democracy is dying. Reviving it will take more than deficit spending and easy money. It will take reform, and before that, a whole new political debate..."

Good points.

Good article.

Thanks for posting.

Another interesting snip:

"It’s hard for Democrats to see that their problems arise from their own mistakes. Obama called the 2008 recession “the worst since the Great Depression.” It wasn’t; by most measures — jobs, wages, exports — it was the worst since 1982. The valid comparison to the 1930s is that now as then all our vital institutions are broken. Our healthcare, banking, energy and transit systems are badly broken. Our defense policy is obsolete. Politics is a cesspool. Oddly, the one system working relatively well, public education, is the object of our only sustained reform effort.

Mistaking the nature of the crisis, Obama mistook massive fraud for faulty computer modeling and a middle-class meltdown for a mere turn of the business cycle. Had he grasped his situation he’d have known the most he could do by priming the pump would be to reinflate the bubble. Contrast him to FDR, who saw the systemic nature of his crisis. To banks Roosevelt offered only reform; financial help went to customers whose bad mortgages he bought up and whose savings he insured. By buying into Bush’s bailout, Obama co-signed the biggest check ever cut by a government, made out to the culprits, not the victims. As for his stimulus, it didn’t cure the disease and hefty portions of it smelled like pork."

Interesting how the blindering of the Democratic party he talks about is so predictably replicated in many of the replies in this thread...

Or do I mean "sad how....," etc.?

I liked what followed it also:

Populist rage against the bailout and stimulus saved the Republican Party. In 2006 it had lost Congress, in 2008 the White House. Younger voters recoiled from its racial and religious politics. Middle-class decline had even devout Christians focused on family finances. That’s when Democrats handed over title to economic populism. Absent the bailout and stimulus it’s hard to imagine the Tea Party being born, Republicans retaking Congress or the government being so utterly paralyzed.

Liberals have spent the intervening years debating macroeconomic theory but macroeconomics can’t fathom this crisis. This isn’t just a slow recovery from a financial sector collapse, or damage done by debt overhang or Obama’s weak tea Keynesianism. We’re in crisis because of all our broken systems; because we still let big banks prey on homeowners, students, consumers and retailers; because our infrastructure is decrepit; because our tax code breeds inefficiency and inequality; because foreign interventions bled us dry. We’re in peril because our democracy is dying. Reviving it will take more than deficit spending and easy money. It will take reform, and before that, a whole new political debate.

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/27/my_party_has_lost_its_soul_bill_clinton_barack_obama_and_the_victory_of_wall_street_democrats/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

I did not vote for Nader, but the article is right on. And Nader is one of America's great heroes, the 2000 election notwithstanding.

that it saved the Republican Party.

It was from his legal action about product safety, and setting up organizations to continue that work.

Not from gadfly presidential campaigns while practically disappearing for the four years in between them.

at 'The Left', they already have the Right, attempting to blame Nader rather than the actual criminals on the SC, for the theft of the 2000 elections.

He attacked Corporate interests, therefore he must be smeared. Too bad a few on the Left bought it. They KNOW how to emotionally manipulate the people, don't they?

then he also should be held responsible for 9/11, the Iraq War, the Great Recession, John Roberts, Sam Alito and every other piece of idiocy we endured under GW Bush.

Guess there really "is" a difference between the parties afterall.

A great leader once told me that if I was going to take credit for my success, I couldn't place blame on others for my failures.

I agree with the previous poster..."EFF Nader"...we're still paying the price for his 200K votes in Florida!

to Bush? You learn something new every day here.

Nader had nothing to do with stealing that election. Why would try to cover for the real criminals by pointing elsewhere, which of course is what they wanted? I don't get that at all. All Nader did was engage in a perfectly legal, democratic process. Unlike the crooks who are actually responsible.

Btw, Gore WON that election, I thought at lease most Democrats knew that. The SC took it away from him, not Nader.

My ribs hurt

That got us w. bush and one disaster after another.

So, yeah, Nader was very influential in US history, but on the whole not in a good way.

violating the Constitution when it was clear Bush was going to lose. Nader had zero to do with that. And Dems let them get away with it.

Polls were showing bush and Gore were neck and neck there. Yet Nader campaigned there claiming there wasn't a bit of difference between the two. If Nader had any sense, he would never have campaigned in Florida or any toss up state. Instead, he chose to play the spoiler. We will never know how many votes his actions cost Gore, but Gore may never have lost the vote count without Nader's involvement. And if he clearly won that vote count, bush never gets in the White House.

So, I think Nader did get tarnished by that. We'll have to agree to disagree.

As said upthread, 'Fuck Ralph Nader.'

But since I'm the only one who seems to remember, THIS, if any single thing, cost Gore the 2000 election:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Music_Resource_Center

I would recommend reading the article, no matter how we might feel about Nader.

paragraphs of the article. They need to read the entire article.

It is not just a love song dedicated to Nader. It's much more, and it is very important for Democrats to read it -- all of it.

Bush and Gore" destroyed his legacy of ever having done anything worth while in his life.
The harm he contributed to by helping to elect Bush far outweighs any good he ever did.

these false memes here. Nader had zero to do with the theft of the 2000 election. I am always stunned by anyone who was THERE who witnessed the theft of minority votes, who saw the manipulation of the machines, all Republican owned btw, who is to blame for that outrage in a democracy btw, certainly not Nader, and then, when all their dirty tricks designed to steal that election still didn't work, the SC felons stepped in, illegally, and handed it to Bush.

And Dems let them get away with. Nader isn't even a factor in all of this, but it's odd to see any Democrat trying to cover up all the crimes committed during that entire process by laughingly trying to blame Nader.

recounts. If those votes and gone to Gore (even at the rate of 75-25%, which is highly likely if not a greater margin), it would not have been close enough for the recounts and manipulations that ensued.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but Nader gets his share as well. He knew how close it was and could have thrown his support to Gore a week before the election... but he didn't.

Yeah.

That's the only thing they can do, if they're going to maintain their delusions.

the more-liberal-than-thou crowd uses to rationalize their failures.

Accept responsibility for your own inadequacy.

...CREATED Ralph Nader's candidacy.
Had Clinton acted like a Democrat,
or had Al Gore acknowledged there were problems with Free Trade, Deregulation, and Privatization...
=NO Ralph Nader.

that changed the course of the party. unfortunately, it is real.

smell the same.

ills one doesn't have to fight the real enemy. They can be taken care of, like a puppy. And, as this and following generations have shown us, the protestors and those who think they "provide" alike, pretending to change is far and away more profitable than being honest and telling the patient that the cancer is incurable. It's always easier to support the work of the Master's house instead of tending to your own and that of your neighbors, as Malcom X said.

How it is in this one I have no idea. Org behavior is an interesting field.

Accept responsibility for your own inadequacy. < with a world that teaches you to avoid this like the plague, seems a tall order to ask

But there is some truth in your words...

with the devil -- big corporate money. The big corporate money is given to Democrats to shift control from the people to the corporations.

I wonder whether you read the entire article. Did you? Because it explains quite clearly that the problem is the corruption in our institutions. Much of the corruption of our institutions and laws occurred during the Clinton administration.

I think that Hillary Clinton would make a terrible president at this time, and that article explains why. We need to revamp some of our institutions -- like banking, the press, education (especially the financing of education), rethink how we express our values in our laws and political culture. Hillary Clinton is too bought into the status quo to be able to do that. So was Obama, sadly.

It's nice to talk about hope and change, but there can be no hope or change in our nation until we rethink how our institutions and laws affect the lives of ordinary people. We need so much reform it isn't funny. And many of the laws that need to be reformed were signed by Bill Clinton -- the Telecommunications Act and the repeal of Glass-Steagall to name just a couple of the big ones.

Everything you just said is dead on!!!!!!!

I was writing.

You also seem to presume that I agree with the author. I do as far as Nader, still a supporter, but not with the author's analysis of what it will take to fix it. Because first and foremost any party needs to put people together who believe the words being spewed out of their mouth, and I see more used car sales people than populists. The author wants to point fingers, which is fine except that EVERY time one does that there are three pointing back at one's self - thus, if you really want to know where the real responsibility lies, look in the mirror. Whether one is making excuses about how things aren't going the way they think and pointing at the tea party, or some institution, or the Democrats or Republicans that won't do what you like, it's still just making excuses.

As long as we have a two-plantation system, it won't matter which candidate wins or which side.

it was no more unsafe than any other car on the road at the time. It was rear-engine, some people shouldn't drive them. Great mileage and air-cooled.

He was a hero of the Revolution until he turned traitor. History remembers him correctly just like history will lay GW at Nader's feet. We couldn't do any thing about Guv Jeb, Kathleen Harris, or the Five Supremes, but Ralph could have stopped GW single handedly.

where it belongs. Gore won that election, it was stolen by five treasonous felons on the SC when it became clear that all the other criminal, dirty tricks played to steal it were failing.

Let's hope Right Wingers don't get to write that history, because of course they would try to blame Nader or anyone else to cover up that massive crime.

The "liberals" fault for voting for Nader but it is not the conservative Democrats' fault for voting for Bush?? I can never get a good response for that? And more Democrats voted for Bush than voted for Nader.

But, the bottom line is that the SC had no business with their nose in that election and they gave the election to Bush. In other words, they stole the m'f'er.

committed by the SC they had to find a distraction. To get the 'left' to stop obsessing on the REAL crime, they put out this talking point, that Nader, who did nothing illegal unlike Katherine Harris eg, and the SC, was the one to blame.

Despite how ridiculous that claim is, some, not many, but enough actually bought it.

So when you ask them about the Democrats who voted for Bush, or about the SC, they CAN'T answer. Because either they were so totally propagandized away from the real reason Gore was not in the WH, OR they are part of the scam.

Sadly it worked, nothing was done to bring the criminals to justice. But the FACT is, Nader did nothing to 'lose' Gore that election, Gore WON and had the counting continued, which the SC made sure did not happen, he would have been president.

Ask them also about 2004, Kerry was winning, then suddenly he wasn't. Nader was not a factor in that one either but anyone who was watching and we were, very carefully, knows that that election too was stolen.

The Nader talking point is BS but it does stop real discussion of what happened and that was the point of it.

politics and forgetting about his roots.

He wasn't just good at it, he was great at it.

Unfortunately, when he influenced more than 97,000 voters to vote for him in Florida, instead of Gore, that was bad.

put Bush in the WH AFTER they realized that even all the other criminal attempts to steal that election, Gore was still winning.

Covering for that crime is disgraceful. Blaming Nader is doing the job for the criminals, of distracting from the treasonous crime they committed. I wonder, each time I see this ridiculous claim, why ANYONE would want to help cover up that egregious crime by repeating THEIR talking point to do exactly that, distract from the real crime.

To believe this ridiculous claim, you have to believe that Gore lost, you have to believe that Katherine Harris did not deprive tens of thousands of minority voters of their right to vote. You have to believe that the Republican owned voting machines were not tampered with. And you have to believe that the five Corporate owned SC Justices did not violate the US Constitution when they interfered with an election and made THE RIDICULOUS CLAIM that they would be harming Bush if they did not decide in his favor.

And you would have to believe that they did not know that what they did WAS TREASON, when they declared that they were not setting a precedent, that this was a one time thingy.

to even think that Nader had anything to do with that crime is just plain ridiculous but it does and has helped the criminals to get away with one of the worst crimes against this democracy ever committed by those entrusted with protecting it.

And what happened in 2004? Are you going to blame Nader for that too? Having gotten away with it once, they did again, this time they didn't need the felons on the SC.

the one who was within 500 votes of winning the election, Al Gore.

The SCOTUS would never have been able to make their ruling if even a tiny fraction of Nader's voters had voted for Gore instead.

blame someone who did nothing wrong for the treasonous crimes, not just one, but the big one is what I'm talking about, the SC's crime, is like blaming Palestinian children for their own deaths, while ignoring those who killed them.

This old Nader talking point has been debunked so many times, it's amazing to see it dragged out again, and here, on DU where we used to value FACTS over TALKING POINTS from Corporate interests, which is what this Nader 'story' is.

Many progressive groups urged Nader to not campaign in the important swing states, and people were even trying to arrange vote swaps so they could show support for Nader and the Greens without hurting Gore. But Nader ran his HARDEST in the swing states and let people know that he'd be fine with Bush winning. He thought that if the country hit bottom with Bush, it would be sure to shift left. We saw how well that theory worked.

This talking point has never been debunked because you can't debunk something that is true.

Gore was NOT a progressive.

Remember that Gore today is very different from Gore in 2000. I would be happy to vote for Gore today. In 2000, not so much.

Not only did a lot of hair spontaneously combust, but a lot of rectums pinched too.