Nader urges lawmakers to challenge Alito on corporate power

By ROSA CIRIANNI
Associated Press Writer
November 3, 2005, 6:28 PM EST

TRENTON, N.J. -- Consumer advocate Ralph Nader is calling on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee to challenge Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. about his position on issues involving corporate power in American society.

Alito's background raises questions about whether he would be "a fair, impartial, open-minded jurist on the key issues of corporate power and domination in our country," Nader said Thursday during an appearance at the Statehouse. <snip>

"It is more important than ever for a Supreme Court justice to have the inclination and wisdom to realize that our democracy is being eroded by many kinds of widely reported systemic corporate excesses," Nader said. <snip>

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newjersey/ny-bc-nj--alito-nader1103nov03,0,3662189.story?coll=ny-region-apnewjersey

that's the same judge Gore would have appointed, right mr. Nader?

But, isn't Nader a bit kooky on this, considering that he claims Gore and Kerry would name fascist judges, too, just like Bush?

Good try.

One half of one percent of those votes could have changed the world.

29,702 (Palm Beach) + 28,601 (Miami/Dade) + 26,909 (Duval) + 14,622 (Broward) + 9,172 (Hillsborough) + 6214 (Jefferson) + 3722 (Glades) + 2085 (Gadsen) + 810 (Hendry). Anf guess which way they leaned?

See http://www.newsaic.com/f911chap1-1.html

About 4 - 6 million uncounted votes nationwide in that same election. See http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/07/16/voting.problems/

Let's be angry at our real enemies ...

Those 90,000 voted for Nader. Get over it.

Lots more people think those people had their heads up their asses. Get over it.

He could have used his peak of power at that time to become a voice in the House or Senate. But no, his goal was total chaos and he got his wish.

Now he's a joke. A joke that will cost us for decades.

and the other factors had infinitely more power than he had.

But I am aware of Nader's duplicity too.

It does not change the fact that given the chance to lie to voters or not lie to voters, Ralph chose to lie to voters.

:shrug:

the so-called "lies" that you allege of Ralph, and that so enrage you, pale in my mind beside election fraud and wars conducted on false premises for political purposes. So, perhaps, there is some other agenda here ...

Now go away.

Go Cheney yourself Ralph

Ralph's fault that so many Democrats gave Bush support for the war?
Ralphs fault so Democrats want to STILL win the war in Iraq?
Ralph's fault The telecommunications bill, signed into law by Billy Clinton, gave so much power to media monopolies?
...

E. David Klonsky
University of Virginia

<snip> CONCLUSIONS

More than 44,000 Florida voters were disenfranchised because their votes were cast using faulty Punch Ballot technology.

More than 22,000 votes for Gore, 19,000 votes for Bush, and 2,000 votes for third-party candidates were not counted due to machine error.

Machine error cost Gore about 2,500 votes more than Bush -- at least four times Bush's official margin of victory. <snip>

Al Gore lost the 2000 Presidential election because more of his supporters cast their votes using faulty machines.

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~edk8e/undervote.html

...is not make a conscious and deliberate decision to lie about the difference between Republicans and Democrats and make this "machine error" a factor.

we get close elections or even lose.

Ralph complained, as clearly as he could, about Ds playing R's game.

The party didn't listen, with predictable consequences.

Rs, as a corporate party, were happy to blame Ralph, and Ds were happy to blame anybody but themselves.

Want to win? At least understand what Ralph's saying.

Where were these stoners during the primary? People don't vote primarily because they are LAZY.

Ralph also lied. He's a political child molester.

.. it's just silly to blame Ralph: the nonvoters were saying "There's no difference" long before Ralph came along, and they'll be saying it long after he's dead. By the way, it DOES have something to do with the perception that corporate elites own the pols ...

Nope!

The more voices speaking out in the media, the better.

Go away. A fucking 6th grader has as much insight about this as you do, so please don't consider yourself special.

You may disagree with his 2000 candidacy, but your statement is incorrect. Or maybe you're too young to remember the seventies?

It doesn't take a genius or a political strategist to see that someone like Alito is bad news for, well, practically everything that is nice about the USA.

And yes, I remember the 70s. :eyes:

I can't take your words in good faith any more.

...a lot of bitterness towards Nader, but when he's right he's right, and he is here. We all labor under corporate tyranny in America now---we should speak out against it. It's a viable basis on which to attack Alito's nomination and would probably resonate with most Americans.

So nobody really wants his advice.

...but I think it's useful to evaluate his remarks on their own merit without regard to what one may think of the man himself.

It's just we're not going to congratulate him for it.

<snip> Yet these same pundits didn't give a puff about a far wider electoral divide that I think poses an actual crisis for our democracy: the more than 100 million votes that went astray on election day.

These votes weren't "lost" to misaligned butterfly ballots, pregnant chads, or some conniving election official who deposited them in a closet. Rather, these were the uncast ballots of almost half of the American electorate who chose not to vote this year, largely because they feel they've been cast out of the process by a vacuous, cynical, and elitist political system that no longer addresses their needs and aspirations.

These mostly are middle and low income folks, people making less than $50,000 a year. While they make up some 80 percent of the U.S. population, exit polls on November 7th found that for the first time they've fallen to less than half of the voting population. As the Clinton-Gore-Lieberman Democrats have jerked the party out from under this core populist constituency, pursuing the money and adopting the policies of the corporate and investor elites, the core constituency of the party has-Big Surprise-steadily dropped away from the polls. In 1992, the under $50,000 crowd made up 63 percent of voters. In 1996, after Clinton and Gore had relentlessly and very publicly pushed NAFTA, the WTO, and other Wall Street policies for four years, the under-$50,000 crowd dropped to 52 percent of voters. After four more years of income stagnation and decline for these families under the regime of the Clinton-Gore "New Democrats," the under-$50,000 crowd dropped this year to only 47 percent of voters. At the same time, those who are prospering under the Wall Street boom, cheered on by the policies of both the Republican and Democratic leadership, have become ever-more enthusiastic voters. In 1996, voters with incomes above $100,000 made up nine percent of the turnout; this year, they were 15 percent of the turnout. <snip>

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2000-12/05hightower.htm

Had the Democrats listened to Ralph, we could have won ...

Given the choice to lie to voters or not lie to voters, Ralph chose to lie to voters.

One strike and you're out.

In fact, I'll no longer acknowledge him at all.

As I mentioned below: he's beneath contempt, not worth my time or energy.

Hope this pleases you.

Hatred like this is not something you can reason with. Fact is, the Dems voted to confirm Rhenquist, Scalia and Thomas- knowing their history and EXACTLY what sort of justices they'd be. They voted to conform Bush's political hack Roberts, even though Bush witheld scored of documents.

They confirme Owen, Brown & Pryor- three of the most extreme judges EVER nominated- to lifetime seats on the federal bench.

And, as cowardly as they have been over the past 5 years, they'll probably roll over on Alito too.

And people scream at Nader. Amazing.

Oh, that must mean they are liberals!

Apples and oranges here. Ginsber's not an ideologue in the mold of Scalia- or a political hack who actively supressed minority voting rights in the 60's like Rhenquist.

Nope, the Dems only have themselves to blame for allowing people like that on the federal bench.

....and then there's hysterical screaming.

I don't trust people who do the latter. I don't think hatred is appropriate in a political discussion.

Thanks, Ralph!!!

:yourock:

Every thing Ralphie says anymore sounds to my ears like:

"Someone should straighten out this mess that I helped create!"

He should just go the fuck away.

That's how they bagged Robert Bork, was his inconsistency when judging corporations. He deferred to them in contradiction to his own stated judicial standards. Or something like that, but in legalese.

Now Ralph has gone and spoiled it by instantly making it a lunatic idea.

The Dems LOST and keep LOSING because they no longer stand for traditional Democratic principles.

Simple as that. As long as the party keeps pandering to the right, they'll remain irrelevant. And they'll deserve to lose.

Nader had very little to do with it. Not in 2000- and not now.

As it is, people don't have much reason to vote for them. Their biggest claim to fame is that they're not Republicans (although quite a number of them sure do vote like Republicans).

We should declare what he did a sex crime, so that he can end up on the sex offender registry.

As we've seen in the past 5 years, on issue after issue- there really hasn't been a dime's worth of difference between the parties.

Harry Reid our ostensible "leader" even crossed party lines to vote for the bankruptcy bill!

Until the party gets serious about reigning in its DINO's and repudiates the DLC, it's going to keep losing national elections- just as it has for the past 11 years.

YOU...HEY PEOPLE, GET A LOAD OF THIS GUY!

OH SHIT I CAN. NOT. BELIEVE. YOU.

Most of Ralph's comments have proven to be accurate by the Dem's own actions over the past 5 years.

Some.people. are. in. denial.

That shit ring a bell?

Fucking waste of my time.

Call me petty and grudging, I don't care. He fucked us over for his own egoistic reasons. I'd probably give the original poster's article a fair reading if it came from anyone else's mouth. Daffy Duck! I don't care. Knowing it came from Ralphie just puts me off the message. I don't know why I even respond to Nader threads anymore. Just can't help myself. He's beneath contempt, not worth my time or energy.

It's a visceral thing for a lot of people, but the fact remains that the Dems need to get their own house in order, if they're ever to become a force in national politics again.

As long as the lectures don't come out of Ralphie's piehole.

So why should we worry?

:eyes:

some of you really act more like fundie haters who thrive on the kind of hate and bile to be found on limbaugh.

If you can't accept Nader, how the hell can you welcome former republicans to a new vision of america?

Those who cannot let their hate of Nader go, really need to find some other way of expressing their hate. You are only doing the progressive cause a disservice and alienating many good people who have supported Nader in the past.

GET OVER IT!!!!!!!

...and be like "I don't like these consequences". Especially with a "get over it" attitude rather than a "I'm sorry" attitude.

Nader himself was not sorry for running in 2000.

to be gained by this constant screaming about Nader?

Sure, he thinks he was right to run. Anyone should be able to run.

If anything, we should be engaged in altering the winner take all election process so all those with legitimate agendas are not shut out by the megalithic 2 party system both run by corporate interests.

...are instructing people how they will get treated should they pull this stunt again, one that has cost thousands of lives already.

rather than alienating those who hold progressive ideals since you seem to want to be the "enforcer".

Plus I can do both.

help with the effort to change the voting process to one of "preference voting" so that this kind of thing will not be an issue.

Serious. I'm not going to devote a bunch of time so that people can run around saying they voted for their favorite loser first and the candidate who could win second. And you know why? Because if someone has their head so far up their ass that they can't see that their Nader vote has cost thousands of people their lives (think about that...their lives), then they're likely to apply that urge to kill to the preference ballot and only vote for their favorite loser. They will turn around and continue to find ways to do the dumbest shit for vanity in any voting system that's put in front of them.

That and it has very little likelihood of being instituted, while I feel the deterrent provided by the social flogging of Naderites is crucial to defeating the Republicans. Societies set up deterrents to destructive behavior all the time.

No. These people do not care about human life, these ones who remain. I am here to show everybody how they can expect to be treated should they not care about whether I live or die. You just don't earn trust that way, and you don't get me to be your friend that way.

only shows you are willing to use the tactics of your enemies to force feed your own vision on your inherent allies.

This isn't a deterrent to destructive behavior. It is a self-defeating hissy fit about people who don't want to fit into your iron-maiden 2-party monopoly.

Limiting their influence will certainly show the DNC to be just as bad as the RNC.....just another torquemada.

Nader preys on people like impressionable college students. These impressionable people are being taught the hard consequences of destructive actions through the social flogging. It's like a "scared straight" program for new and/or flakey voters.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

I know you're new here. I'm guessing you don't realize the emotional content that phrase is loaded with.

Wrong phrase to use in this context, friend.

...what's so hard about getting over the fact that some wonky consumer advocate ran in them and got a negligable amount of votes? :shrug:

I will not get over the two stolen elections.

Nor will I get over Ralph's role in them.

"Get over it" is code for "sit down and shut up." (e.g., "Gore lost. Get over it.")

If poster didn't know that, he or she should have.

Nader did not steal the elections. Bush did.

"Get over it" means "quit whining about Ralph and face the real problem, because if you don't you are part of that problem."

Posters here don't owe you a damn thing. The Reichwing does not own figures of fair & balanced speech. Get over it.

"Posters here don't owe you a damn thing." Show me where I said I was "owed" anything. The phrase "get over it" has become a famous put down used by RWers to try and shame liberals into not complaining about past wrongs. I suspect poster chose that phrase deliberately, fully mindful of its divisive and hurtful nature. I suspect you did too.

"Quit whining about Ralph" and "face the real problem"?! The "real problem" is multifaceted. Part of the "real problem" is when egotistical, vain celebrity figures inject themselves into close elections with the sole purpose of being shit disturbers. Another part of the "real problem" is the base of impressionable doofuses who support said public figures, in opposition to any rational thought: just because it's really really groovy. (And won't it piss off Dad and Mom!)

So you see that "whining" about Nader is indeed a very important part of facing the "real problem". Nader voters are seeing the consequences of their actions and not liking them very much: but instead of regretting their role in creating the consequences, they're telling others to "get over it".

And don't presume to tell me I'm part of the "real problem", especially just for not drinking Ralphie's Kool-Aid and joining his cult of personality.

You do this by imagining he's some big bad boogeyman in spite of his irrelevance.

"Get over it" is a phrase. It does not belong to the Repukes, and it needs to be flung right back in their faces as they wail about all their leaders being prosecuted.

But hey, if screeching at the marginalized is really your thing, have at it. It certainly is far easier than confronting the ones who are in power.

You seriously think that confronting Naderites constitutes "screeching at the marginalized"?

Un-fricking-believable.

Have a nice evening.

Nader didn't even get the Green Party nomination.

You are being very irrational, and that's a damn shame.

Good night.

HE PUT BUSH IN POWER AND GOT RICH OFF OF IT, PAID BY REPUGS, FUCK HIM!!!!

Both political parties are more alike than people know. Hillary supported the invasion of Iraq, just like John Kerry. WTF? "Stay the course," MY ASS!

Otherwise we will lose our democracy!
We must not distrust our good and faithful Party leaders, for they know what is good and right.
:sarcasm:

All politicians' mistakes are EXACTLY the same: completely equal in consequence, circumstance, and gravity.
Therefore all politicians in both major parties are EXACTLY the same.
Just as St. Ralphie told us.
Ergo: St. Ralphie is to be exalted above all.

'Scuse me while I :puke:

Your Supreme Court did that, GORE won the popular vote...

had nothing to do with Ralph, had a full recount been done, GORE would have won...

Look someone has to stand up to this nomination, God knows no democrats are....

And as far as all this being Nader's fault, that's really convienent for you to say, considering, that all the vote counters went home over the Thanksgiving Holiday, with a deadline looming...

So Guess what, if those vote counters stayed, Gore would be President...but let's continue this cry baby mentality...

All the major media ended up reporting that had a full recount been done, GORE would have won, but oh no, it's Nader's fault...

Or if one member of the Senate would have signed the petition decree on accepting Bush as President, guess what, GORE may have been president, but again, NOPE it's all NADER's fault...

Pleazzzeeeeee!

Get over yourselves....if one democrat had the balls Nader had, Bush would have been gone a long time ago!
Let's be glad somebody is standing up against this Right-Wing Nomination!

Peace

...Nader chose to run and lie.

Nader used that opportunity to run for President and to speak about issues that neither candidate dared to discuss or bring up...

Look I agree, I would much rather have GORE but it's not Ralph's fault...
If GORE's people would've had demanded that they stay and recount the votes OVER the Thanksgiving Holiday instead of go home, it would be President Gore right now...not dumya....i mean look, all the media even reported that Gore would have won under a full recount, now how is THAT Nader's fault, GEEZ!

Then why did people go ahead and vote for him? Why was he telling people to vote for him?

He had a choice. He made the wrong choice as well as the people who voted for him. People like me are here to make sure no one makes that wrong choice again.

He's a liar. There is a difference between the parties. It just might not be apparent to white upper-middle class college students who vote for him.

would love to see some proof on that....
Look I'm with you on Gore should have been President...

But Buchannan got a 7,000 votes in Floriday that year, so you can also go after his butt...

I respect Nader, he's done good for the country, but he's sick of the weak Democratic Leadership, and it's time for DEMS to kick some butt!

That was his given justification for running, and for voting for him.

I mean GORE did little to help himself when he debated BUSH, they agreed more than they disagreed...i remember i watched it and I kept saying, GO AFTER HIM!

I imagine Nader would have signed the Do Not Call List bill just like Bush* did.

You saying Nader and Bush are a lot alike?
LOL

We know they're not.

And again in 04. (MN was a pretty safe place to do so, had I been in Florida or Ohio...)

I never went to college...

Have 2 months..

I signed it! :)

ThreadKiller003

You're not the only one. It's some 'cultural' thing that I
just don't get.

:hi:

He claimed that there was no difference between Gore and Bush. That's out right fraud, and we have dead bodies from our Gulf Coast in the U.S. to the Gulf in the M.E. to prove it.

Also, people here need a civics lesson. We don't live in a parliamentary system where you get representation based on your percentage of the vote. We have two parties because presidential elections are decided by electors on a "winner-take-all" system. That's the system that we have. A presidential candidate can win California by 10 votes, but he or she gets 54 electors.

That's why it behooves people to work within a party and compromise within a party structure in order to get the best results. When you start an independent party, you weaken the party which better approximates your views. It's that simple.

Look, no one gets as angrier at the Dem leaders more than me, but destroying the Democrats with a weak, unfocused, "celebrity" candidacy is idiotic, and it opens the door to fascism.

.. about him during the election seasons in either year.

But he's NOT the reason W is President. Nor did RN "destroy the Democrats." Most people aren't voting -- and that isn't RN's fault.

To win, we need analyses based on reality: we need to learn lessons from history. Fantastic analyses promulgated by the mass media cannot help us win, because those fantasies serve specific interests, which are NOT our interests. So I see no upside in helping to propagate such analyses.

RN had something important to say. Ds have ignored that message increasingly in recent years, and it has cost us the Congress, the Presidency, and now the Judiciary. We continue to ignore that message at our peril.

Yes, Nader did have a vital message, but he chose the wrong venue to deliver that message. If he had stayed out of the race in 2000, Gore wins Florida, end of story.

Winning the presidency is a difficult challenge. You have to win a majority in enough states to get the 270 electors to win. It's not a popular vote race. Taking away votes, however small, can cost a candidate an entire state, which is exactly what happened in Florida.

If you think the system is flawed, then work to change the system. Running a celebrity presidential candidacy is not changing the system.

I have my complaints with the Dems as well. However, they are a far, far better alternative to the naked fascism that we see everyday from the Republicans. People are literally dead in NY on 9/11, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in New Orleans, etc. People are in tortute prisons around the world. Christian Fascists are populating our judiciary. The Dems may be bad, but they're not that bad, not by a long shot.

The first step towards changing things is to seize power, and then pressure the people in power that we elected to change.

.. are responding, the key to winning is realistic thinking.

You don't have to persuade me to vote Democratic, to volunteer for Democratic campaigns, to be involved in the Democratic party structure, or to give money to Democratic candidates. You don't have to persuade me about the importance of mainstream politics. I believe in going up to The Hill to lobby Congress and in organizing people to apply pressure. I've done that for years and will continue to do so.

I'll say again, if we want to win, we must be able to reach the nonvoters, many of whom will say "There is no difference between the Parties." Ralph didn't teach them to say that: they've been saying it for decades. Ralph got a few of them to vote for him in 2000, but there's no evidence they would have voted for anyone else.

Blaming Ralph is not evidence of realistic thinking. Rather it's a fantasy analysis, which serves specific rightwing objectives. In particular, it takes the spotlight off the corporatist DLC agenda that helped the rightwing consolidate media power in the Clinton years, and it attempts to split those concerned about corporate power away from the Democratic base. Blaming Ralph also takes the spotlight off Republican election fraud. Cui bono?

Nader took GOP money to put himself on the ballots through the country, he said harsh words towards DEMS when he should had been cridical of GOP and I'll never, ever, forgive him for this!

Go away, Ralphie boy. Nobody wants to play with you.

And don't try to steal the ball when you leave. The rest of us still want to play.