Anyone else understanding the Ralph Nader voters more now?

I am sure to get ripped for this post but I don't really care.

I think the Ralph Nader voters were in the "We need REAL change, not another Corporate democrat again" and I am starting to understand that logic more.

I guess some people would rather vote for a real progressive candidate than another corporate democrat even if it meant throwing their vote away.

I am not there yet but I sure the hell see why people get fed up with dems who are not really liberal.

We needed real change but Ralph Nader was not the candidate to deliver it imho. Weak though his campaign was, Gore was the better choice of the two. But again, where would the real change have been? Not from either man, so there it is.

I understood them then and, today, am 100% with them in their unwillingness to vote for the status quo, regardless of political party.

I do the math and vote practically though. I ALWAYS wish I had better choices.

run again I think he'll get his butt kicked this time even more than all the other times, but then again, that's Ralph for ya.

Nader is in a cage of his own design and maintenance. He speaks for and to people who already agree with him, and persuades no one else.

He is, arithmetically and politically, a loser.

God, will that gadfly go somewhere already? He's just wanting to screw up the Dems enough that we can't see straight anymore. If he really wants to help America, forge an alliance with Perot & Bloomberg to start a 3rd party before 2012. We could always jettison SlowBama but keep the House/Senate Dems.

'Gadfly' is about right. He has this truly sharp mind and yet quite the twisted intent.

I have respect for that level of intelligence but none at all for the shitwork he visits upon public discourse, braying as he does like a jackass at corporations in which he holds significant stock.

Again, welcome.

I've known since 2000 that they're ineffectual shit-for-brains losers.

Schadenfreude. Fuck yeah.

but nice try.

NOT 2 YEARS.

It always takes longer to rebuild than to destroy.

It could take another 4 years to get us back on track.

I give President Obama props for putting pieces in place to allow our economy to bounce back over the next couple of years.

That would include, I will note, 8 years of Clinton who didn't do a damn thing to reverse the damage Regan did.

He pushed through an economic plan that the entire Republican Party voted and ran against that started to reverse Reagonomics (sound somewhat familiar?), at least slightly. Then, the $%$%*$%&* Republicans controlled Congress for the rest of his eight years in office. What exactly did you expect him to have achieved in terms of reversing Reagonomics with a Republican Congress, a hostile one at that? :shrug:

NAFTA, Welfare "reform" and Graham Leach Bliley. He didn't HAVE to pass these things but he did so please spare me the spin about Clinton being a victim of circumstance when he was instrumental in passing things that were Republican wet dreams when he didn't have to. Democrats who pass things Republicans want when Republicans couldn't are still aiding and abetting Republican agendas.

You can't argue you didn't help it along when you pass things that do exactly that. If he had actually put up a fight and attempted to reverse it that would be a completely different story.

but I don't think he could've necessarily reversed it much without having a Democratic Congress (with the exception of NAFTA, of course- during which time he DID have a Democratic Congress).

who voted for Bush in 2000? Do you really think that had nothing to do with Bush gaining the presidency?

Shame on you for putting it all on Ralph Nader and leaving Joseph Leiberman, Dubya and the Supreme Court off the hook.

Party will be using you for voter outreach! By any chance do you work for the State Department Diplomatic Corp?

In the 1932 presidential election you probably would have told those who voted for Herbert Hoover in 1928 to "go fuck yourselves Republican whores". That would have gotten lots of votes for FDR. You sure know how to reachout and influence people.

:)

"Shame on you for putting it all on Ralph Nader and leaving Joseph Leiberman, Dubya and the Supreme Court off the hook."

Oh, they're all equal scumbags.

Those "Democrats"? The ones who for some reason don't ever bother to re-register as Republicans?

The posters who talk about the "Democrats who voted for Bush" over and over seem unwilling to look at actual election results from Florida. Which would show a number of counties in North Florida where there is a larger percentage of registered Democrats than the percentage which votes for Democrats in election after election, year after year. These people simply aren't Democrats--they don't vote for Democrats.

It is all on Ralph Nader--he cost Gore Florida, and last I heard--that was where Election 2000 was lost.

Doesn't matter how much you try to divert, it was Nader.

and his campaign co-chair was in charge of counting the votes and setting arbitrary deadlines, and the Miami-Dade vote counting was disrupted by Republican operatives, among other things, had nothing to do with the phony-baloney final vote tally in Florida?

the fact that 9 more votes in each county would have won the election for Gore.

In a very conservative county in the state where I live, I know at least 9 people who voted for Nader. Statewide, I believe that there were considerably more Nader voters who like to call themselves "progressives".

In fact, many of them remembered during 2000-2008 that they were Democrats and complained long and loud about those they'd helped put in power.

Even with the Nader votes the bush machine would have just upped the cheating until they "won". They knew what the numbers were before they came in and they cheated enough to win.

Is Nader liberal, or self serving?

Greens this side of the Atlantic.

Nader did not help them when he headed their ticket, and they totally bought the farm with McKinney last time.

There seems to be a serious insight & judgment problem with the U.S. Greens.

jack shit.

I'd rather have someone who has worked FOR the people and the country than someone who has to sell out his ideals and morph into a party zombie. The reason why we get one inept or corrupt leader after another is because people give all their loyalty to a political party rather than people who can make a difference to improve the country. Face it, to be included and accepted by a major political party candidates have to sell their souls and their complete allegiances to that party if they want to seriously run for office. The two party system is a failure because both are owned by corporations and the rich. As long as the two major parties know they have peoples' votes in their pockets without having to represent them they will continue to ignore them.

If a competent, intelligent, honest person with visionary ideas wants to run for office in one of the major parties they have to sell out to the highest bidders. We don't have a government "of the people". Our government is controlled by corporations and the rich. The only way to purge the prostitutes from our government is to have strict campaign finance laws, like the ones championed by the Reform and Green parties. Until that happens we the people will continue to have a government ran by political prostitutes. Unfortunately, people keep voting the same way and expecting different results, which is a symptom of insanity. Neither major party wants campaign finance reform or changes in the way candidates are elected because they CONTROL the process.

We need a system where all elections are publicly financed with no political advertising. We need to have a system where the media is forced to air debates between all candidates during prime time and limit the lengths of campaigns. If we can't have public financing of elections we should prevent anyone from donating to a candidate unless they can VOTE for that candidate. I'm sick of having money spew into my district or state from other parts of the country to pollute and corrupt my local elections. Until 'we the people' take back control of our elections from the rich, the corporations and the two major political parties our voices will continue to be silenced more and more every day. No real change will come until the people take back control of our elections.

How will people "take back control of our elections?" It won't happen by writing letters to the editor about how the system is broken. It won't happen by running ego campaigns that have no chance at winning.
It will happen by organizing well enough to get people in office who will pass real campaign finance reform. That isn't going to happen in Green Party fantasy world because they can't organize their way out of a wet paper bag. Ralph Nader chose not to help make the Green Party become a serious political force that could get people elected into office to make the kind of changes you want.

A "competent, intelligent, honest person with visionary ideas" at least has at chance getting elected as a Democrat. Running as a Green guarantees they'll waste a lot of time and spend several years after they lose complaining about how the system is stacked against third parties. I'm not into wasting time and giving righteous excuses about why we lost again.

'Wishing' for Obama to do what he promised to do during the 2008 campaign has also turned into a fairy tale. He's sold out to the rich and powerful and threw his supporters with a few crumbs of legislation all of which were watered down so much they are almost useless. That's what the corrupting influence money has on our electoral process. Do you believe a major party is going to willingly change a system they own, along with their pimps? Without changing our electoral process this country will continue to deteriorate. But the major parties couldn't care less about the long term. All they care about is winning the next election, and unfortunately, they keep getting the same people to mindlessly vote R or D without even a thought.

They ran a token presidential campaign in both 2004 and 2008 and were able to weaken, disrupt and eventually destroy the Green Party from within as a viable and independent political organization. That was their objective.

his associative intelligence, or his perceptive intelligence, but I'd also question anyone who thinks he's going to make a thimble's worth of difference in determining public policy in the United States.

make any more sense now than they did at the time ten years ago. Voting for Nader in 2000 advanced progressive goals not one iota, and gave eight years of aid and comfort to those who were violently opposed to a progressive agenda in any form.

Voting is about making the country as good as it can be for as many people as possible. It is not about making yourself feel warm and fuzzy about your choice. Nader voters still don't get that.

about unappealing choices on election day, but the fact remains that either Gore or Bush was going to win in 2000, and all the wishing in the world wasn't going to change that. Your only choices at that point were to help Gore win or help Bush win. Voting for Nader meant choosing the latter.

Any president would have been strongarmed into attacking Aghanistan. Iraq was different, of course - although I don't recall a lot of Senate Democrats raising much fuss.

Wishful thinking, IMHO.

Wishful thinking, IMHO.

The fact that they pulled it off owes a lot to a series of complete blunders, any one of which would have stopped it. So, yes.

Speculation like this gets us nowhere.

If you really want Obama to win in 2012, give progressives a reason to vote for him. Leave triangulation and bullying to the Clintons.

Any one of them, had they been allowed to function as they do every other day of the year, would have stopped it from happening.

I'm no fan of triangulation and bullying. But I'm also no fan of wishful thinking. The cold equations are 1 vote +-1 vote = null decision; no vote +-1 vote=-1 total. People who just can't be bothered are letting the other side win.

If voter turnout were anywhere near 100%. In an election with high turnout, about half the adult population actually bothers to vote. So why single out the people who voted their conscience rather than those who never bothered to show up at all?

And the whole "Gore could have stopped 9/11" thing seems the height of wishful thinking.

I hold everyone responsible if they don't vote. That's the meaning of the phrase "If you don't vote, you don't get to complain."

Also, it's not that Gore could have stopped 9/11, it's that 9/11 shouldn't have happened the way it did. I personally think anyone else, anyone at all, would have responded to the August 6th briefing by saying "look into it", rather than "OK, you've covered your ass".

From the standpoint of 2000, I had a choice between an ineffectual Republican and a "New Democrat" who seemed perfectly fine with continuing to leave the left base of the party at the back of the bus. I could not have predicted a) the country would be attacked, and b) the Democrats would roll over on pretty much everything Bush wanted. I chose neither, and that's my right. Don't patronize me or blame me; get out the vote the next time. However, it's been much easier to blame Nader.

Perot took many more votes from the Republicans than Nader did from the Democrats. That just fired up the Republicans to get out the vote. Democrats, it seems, just feel like smacking their base around or else ignoring them.

Everyone who didn't vote for Gore in Florida in 2000 is responsible. It's that fucking simple.

If I didn't have Nader, I would have not vote. No way in Hell would I have reward Gore for choosing Lieberman.

If I didn't have Nader, I would have not vote. No way in Hell would I have reward Gore for choosing Lieberman.

Sucking up to the right-wing Cubans over Elian, chastizing Clinton over the Lewinsky scandal...

couldn't vote for the democratic ticket in 2000. Anyone paying attention knew exactly what Lieberman was. I suggest you read Nader's book "Crashing The Party". What Nader voters were seeing then is what many people can't miss now.

That level of assholery can't be hidden forever, but he did manage to hide it for a while.

I think we would have been very sorry had he become VP.

And he deliberately scolded Clinton in order to show his "moral cred". He's been an opportunistic dick for years.

effort. It would have been a lot better for Democrats in general.

Maybe, if you know that there are only 2 choices for all practical purposes, and one of those 2 will win regardless, and one is uninspiring but the other one is a psychopathic monster, then maybe, just maybe, voting takes on more importance at that point.

To me, he was just an ineffectual idiot at the time. And Gore did a lot to make himself rather unappealing.

It was a very different world in 2000. Fresh in my mind was stuff like both Gore and Lieberman toeing the same line as the Repubs on Elian Gonzalez, among many other sops to the right.

But he had his history. Maybe it wasn't great, but it was so far superior to Bush's that there was simply no comparing the two. Gore didn't do great in the debates - he was stiff. But he wasn't a clear idiot. Still a big difference.

Supporting the rabid anti-Cubans in Florida over the Elian fiasco, trying to get records censored, trying to make the death penalty seem "progressive" by promising it would be used to fight crimes like the murder of Matthew Shepherd... I'm sorry, I did not like the man's politics in 2000. Maybe he's changed. But I distrusted him in 2000. He lost my vote. Nader didn't "steal it."

You did say downthread somewhere that, had you known what would have happened after 2000, you might have thought differently.

Well, this is your chance. Remember, the original point of this thread was that, given the way things are going now, voting for Nader in 2000 was understandable. This implies that it makes sense now, in our situation now.

I submit to you that if you believe that Harry Reid is the same as Sharron Angle, or Tarryl Clark is the same as Michelle Bachmann, and that voting really doesn't matter when the Repubs who have been turning patently evil and racist WILL WIN, and thereby be rewarded for being evil and racist, thus encouraging more of them to be more evil and racist...then you are no progressive. If they win the House back, and people who know in advance that those are the real world choices still make the choice to let the fundamentally evil people win and take over the country by not voting, I will hold them responsible.

As I said before in this thread, the proper place for making the progressive cause is in the primaries. If the progressive doesn't win in the primaries, so someone says they will sit out the election and intentionally let psychopaths win because "that'll learn em!" then there is no difference whatsoever between them and a supporter of the evil people. I am now personally stuck with Scott Brown because people made that choice. I have more respect for people who voted outright and backed outright Scott Brown than I do for people who threw a tantrum.

I will gladly vote against Steve King. But you don't get people to vote for your guys by calling them crybabies and jerks. (no, not you personally, the other people on this thread)

But I draw the line at holding people responsible for not voting. It's their right to vote or not. If they're not voting for the candidates you want, convince other people to vote. It's not like the US has 100% voter turnout..

Because it is a duty to vote. Every person that stays home and says that they're just not interested because they don't see the difference between someone who is at worst uninspiring and someone who is pathologically insane, as we're seeing today, is a vote FOR Boehner to be Speaker and McConnell to be Majority Leader. So, these people who say that the DLC Dems aren't progressive enough think they're going to help the situation by making sure the most conservative people available take over? How exactly is that supposed to work?

People all over DU have been saying that someone has to earn their vote for them. If that's the case, why don't people earn their vote AGAINST them? It's the other side of the same coin. How am I supposed to respect someone who lets Sharron Angle win because they think that Harry Reid is boring? That's so irresponsible that I can't.

Gore did not earn my vote. Neither did Bush. I don't owe the Democrat my vote every single time.
If it worked that way, we would get the same crappy right-tilting Democrats every time.
What Obama did right is getting out people who have never voted at all by targeting them and making sure they showed up at the polls. That's what got him elected, not sayng "BOOGA BOOGA! McCain will win if you do nothing."

A vote for a candidate is a vote for a candidate, and not voting for a candidate is not voting for a candidate.It's not automatically a vote for the other guy.

Roughly half of eligible voters vote. Instead of tapping that pool, you insist on browbeating the people who actually voted their conscience.

And again, all Gore had to do was win his home state - something every other president has done.

the thousands of service men and women who died for nothing in a shit war on the wrong country after 9/11, not counting the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children who were also killed or maimed.


Yep...Nader voters got their message across loud and clear: "We care more about making a point than about trying to keep the people likely to do the most damage to this country away from the reins of power".

and a lot of people willing to forgive congressional Democrats, you know, the ones whose votes on Iraq were actually counted.

the PNAC would have disbanded, not put any pressure on the president to go into Iraq?
You cannot predict the future. 9/11 happened a year after the election, and while it *might* have been stopped if Gore was president, you can't know that for sure.
I did the "right thing" in 2004, and I proudly voted for Obama in 2008. It seems just obnoxious to harp on the people who voted for Nader when the election was stolen without them (and, as many people pointed out, many registered Democrats actually *did* vote for Bush(

as a Senator, and as Clinton's VP. He was a huge cheerleader for the equally egregious and unnecessary "Gulf War I", using virtually the same rhetoric in support of it that supporters of GW II (same war, really) used in favor of that.

that whatever Democrats voted for the war wouldn't even had had the chance to vote on that war without Bush starting that war in the first place.

We can't ever know what Gore might have done...perhaps 9/11 might not have happened. We don't know that, either.

But out of the two of them...Bush and Gore, I would bet MORE money on BushCo starting any war than I would on a Gore administration. With BushCo, it was pretty much a given.

But you're blaming Nader voters? What an idiotic line of crap pretending to be logic

I'm going to vote.

I'm going to vote for whoever can beat the republican candidate.

You can't stop me.

However, I'm not anymore.

I support Obama. He's not perfect, but he's way better than anything the Republicans have to offer. At least we're starting to move in the right direction.

Nader was and still is right about the two party system. Until there is a way to block unlimited campaign cash, we'll suffer.

Don't give up on Obama just yet. I'm as cynical as anyone, but I still think we're better off with him as Pres as any Republican.

naive, childish, self-absorbed rebels without a clue. Their "protests" had precisely the opposite results they intended, when they had any effect at all.

I was raised to think that the normal state of things was that you got fucked. You could maybe rise to be one of the fuckers, or maybe you could deal with it all and make some sense out of it, but life was basically one big fucking. You just deal with it as best you can.

I was also raised to understand the concept of Hobson's choice. Even better yet-- Morton's Fork.

And the very simple concept that as bad as things may be now, they can always get worse-- as they surely would with Speaker Boehner.

Gore didn't "own" my vote. It was mine to give freely to whomever I wanted.

If Nader wasn't on the ballot, I would have not voted.

(My Mom was on my case about it, but she wrote in Eugene McCarthy in 1968...)

If the Democrat representing your district is a member of the DLC or the Blue Dog Coalition, chances are you voted for the opponent in the primary if there was one, or you are going to sit out this election because neither the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate earned your vote.

I have always understood Nader voters...they liked and admired GW Bush.

they loathe him as much as you do.

and that's a reason to hand the government to the Republicans.

Think of all the people killed in Iraq just because some people thought Gore was too corporate.

and the Greens in general.

Note to Mods: No, I'm not going to advocate for the GP here on DU.

I understand what they meant years ago now. But I also wish Ralph would just stick to consumer advocacy and not dunk around with the Greens. He really did split the left vote in some ways. And while I'm not a Green I don't want to see him mucking around with them and possibly bringing GOP backing $$$ to them. That would be a perversion of their use in a democracy.

Back in the 80s I had the pleasure to meet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra_Kelly">Petra Kelly and talk to her. My then hubby and I went to an alumni dinner for his college and she, also being an alumna, was the guest speaker that night. I loved her and wished there would have been other times to speak with her, but there was only that dinner. She was fierce, whip smart, funny, engaging, human, and knew policy like the back of her hand.

It makes me horribly sad that she came to such an awful end. She was one of the early signposts on my political journey, letting me know that I was on the right path.

who knows what point we'll have to get to before some people finally open their eyes.

In a primary, work like hell to get your guy elected. Absolutely. Go for it.

After that, in a world with a tea party in it, it really does become us against them. And if you get mad because your guy didn't win the primary, so you're not going to vote at all, then how are you different from the teabaggers that scream that they have no representation just because their rep doesn't do what they want over the wants of the majority that elected him?

vote Democratic in the general election.

AFAIC, too many Nader supporters act like "purity queens" and spoiled children in this regard.

(and, speaking of your namesake song, Bob Weir was absolutely spot-on in his assessment of Nader years ago:

Rolling Stone magazine, issue 959, page 70. (2004)

"Ralph Nader is the most arrogant and narcissistic guy I've ever met. I had a meeting with him in the early nineties. I was jazzed going into the meeting, and I was disgusted leaving. I don't think I've ever met a bigger asshole. If he hadn't run in the last election, we wouldn't be in Iraq and thousands of people wouldn't have died needlessly. And still he's well pleased to go in and be the spoiler again!


:evilfrown:

Sid

they are satisfied thinking they are better than others. the fact that Gore would not have went into Iraq does not matter to them. as their personal feelings about themselves matter more .

have done nothing, because he was not ever, nor will he ever be, anywhere near to power.

He talks to groups of people who are intelligent and insightful and so politically marginal that they have next to zero influence everywhere they appear or cluster.

Nader has no clue how to mobilize ideas into meaningful reform. He knows how to talk to people who are equally clueless and equally without influence, despite their brains.

That's what Nader would have done. Nothing.

He would not have started a lie campaign that went on for over a year to force public opinion into believing that Iraq attacked us on 9/11.

That's what Gore would not have done.

I know this because Cheney would not have been vice president had Gore been in office.

But, the military industrial complex goes on,whether there is a Democrat or Republican in office. It's Why We fight.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436971/

I do think that Gore was more liberal, a better environmentalist than Obama, and not cut of the same corporate cloth. I guess we'll never know. I think he learned a lot from Dean, how to speak with passion, and backed Dean in 2003. And Nader backed Dean in 2003, until Dean was foiled by the dirty politics of Kerry and Gephardt. There are real differences within the same broad tent party, from Kucinich to Lieberman.

This is because President Bush is presenting us with a proposition that contains within itself one of the most fateful decisions in our history: a decision to abandon what we have thought was America’s mission in the world – a world in which nations are guided by a common ethic codified in the form of international law -- if we want to survive.

which I think describes the situation quite well.

Lieberman would have been. So we would have been spending seven years in Iran instead.

Lieberman was just as anti-Iran then as he is now.

We may have it now, but we didn't then. That "Iraq is our mortal enemy" idea came directly out of Gulf War I. So it doesn't take being a psychic, it just takes paying attention.

Which is why I said we wouldn't have gone to war in Iran.

In any case, I'm getting a mixed message here... they were supposed to be good Democrats and vote for Gore, so you insult and blame them and expect them to vote for Democrats again?

I'm willing to admit that Gore would have been better... now. But to put 10 years of experience on 2000 Gore is just bizarre, especially when we're supposed to ignore 10 years of Lieberman.

"There's no difference between Bush and Gore." Remember that? Naderites are as reponsible for Bush as any Bush voter.

Sometimes, you may not like the consequences. You might even hate the consequences. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. Nader voters were told at the time the consequences of what they were doing, and they get EXACTLY what they aided and abetted. While it is hard to find any silver lining to the horror of the Bush years, if one exists, it is probably that most of the Nader voters learned their lesson by 2004, by which point 90% of them abandoned him.

an invasion of Iraq?

This Gore voter did not.

and voted appropriately.

not Nader voters.

is illogical and mildly obscene.

Kinda spooky in fact.

the party's feet to the fire.

I guess consequences and blame are for the small people.

With that attitude, I certainly hope you're not on the phones getting people to vote you'd be a miserable failure.

Read my other post in this thread. But you can continue to blame Nader but he was the last great REAL progressive candidate this country has had. The Rs and Ds are both owned by the same corporate masters.

Media Consortium Statewide Count of "Undervotes" and "Overvotes" Proves Gore Won Under ANY Standard
The Media Consortium hired the National Opinion Research Center to examine 175,010 ballots that were never counted in Florida. The investigation took 8 months and cost $900,000. No matter what standard for judging ballots is applied, Gore wins.

http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181

president without Supreme Court decisions and after the fact investigations.

Bush's brother and crew had disqualified as many votes as they could without it becoming really suspicious. Without Nader campaigning in Florida and proclaiming that Gore = Bush, there is no recount, no Florida SC decisions, no Bush v. Gore.

Gore simply wins.

Gore failed to even debate Bush or expose any of his inept and corrupt records while governor of Texas. In fact, Gore didn't even mention Bush's horrendous record in Texas where he sold out to 830 of the worst Texas polluting businesses by giving them exemptions to environmental laws. And in exchange for selling out every Texan, Bush received millions in campaign money in which to run for president. Because of Bush's collusion with corrupt oil and chemical companies Texas became number one in the nation in air, water and soil pollution. Asthma rates skyrocketed because of the toxins in the air under Bush. Many people who were vulnerable died because of the levels of pollution. But Gore never said a word.

Ralph Nader was prevented from debating in the 2000 debates because both major parties conspired to exclude him (so much for a fair election). The Commission on Presidential Debates, a corrupt front group ran by the republican and democratic parties deliberately excluded Nader because they were TERRIFIED of Ralph Nader's progressive message and how he would expose the status quo of corruption. Ralph Nader would have literally destroyed Bush in a debate because Nader wouldn't have agreed with everything Bush said, as Gore did. And the beneficiary of Bush's destruction would have been Gore. Since Gore had no intention of exposing the corrupt and inept past of Bush that gave Bush a total pass. Even a high school debater could have done a better job than Gore did. In fact, I watched all of those debates with groups of people and we sat there stunned because Gore actually looked like he was deliberately throwing the election by not even confronting Bush. It was an embarrassment of the highest order.

Ralph Nader called Bush "A corporation masquerading as a human being". Nader called Bush 'the bungling governor of Texas'. Ralph Nader KNEW Bush's horrible Texas record and would have exposed Bush to the nation. But Gore did absolutely NOTHING to expose the true story of Bush, from the destruction of the environment to the destruction of public education in Texas.

It was obvious Gore had no clue what Bush's record was and if he did he never brought it up. Nader didn't lose the election for Gore, Gore did. And had Nader been allowed in the debates the election wouldn't have been close enough for Bush to even steal. Hell, Gore couldn't even win his home state of Tennessee which would have given him the presidency. And Gore made another huge blunder when he called for the recount of just a few counties in Florida instead of a state wide recount, which would have given him the state and the presidency. The case would never have reached the Supreme Court had Gore asked for a state wide recount and that would have prevented the Supreme Court from stealing the election

Face it, Gore ran a horrible campaign. Anyone who couldn't beat Bush would have to have a blunder filled campaign, and Gore certainly did.

Again, Nader didn't give Bush the election, Gore did. The Green Party members were told to vote heavily for Green Party members in red states that wouldn't have made a difference in the outcome of the presidential race. How many other parties would direct their supporters to be so generous?

If you and others want to blame someone, blame Gore for completely blowing the debates and by cowardly colluding with the republicans to prevent Nader from participating in the debates. Nader would have certainly done what Gore could not and would not do in the debates, expose the inept and corrupt Bush for what he was.

Lastly, when Nader said Gore and Bush were virtually the same he was absolutely right in one major area. They were both funded by the same corrupt rich and corporations. That's what Nader meant when he said that. It was true then and it's becoming more and more true by the day because elections are constantly being stolen from the people by those who have the money to pollute and corrupt almost every election in the United States.

Nader was the ONLY candidate pushing for strict campaign finance laws which would have prevented the stealing of elections by the corrupt wealthy, but people choose to vote for one of the two major parties which will never change the corrupt system they own. As long as people keep voting in the same way and expecting different results they will continue to get the same corporate prostitutes in office. What's sad is that while they ensuring that only one of the major parties can win they are harming their country and they are taking rest of us down in their sinking ship.

BUT

The fact is, anyone who honestly said there is no difference between Gore and Bush in 2000 wasn't being honest. Anyone who said that at the time was delusional, stupid, or lying.

Ralph Nader shares the blood on AWOL Bush's hands.

Everyone knows damn well the Supreme Court handed the victory to GWB, NOT Nader voters.

At least everyone who has the capacity to think.

You'd realize Nader and his dumbass voters made the Supreme Court relevant to an election that would have been clearly Gore's without them.

candidate?

Just because you want something doesn't meant that thing is going to happen. There is a difference between wanting and getting that most people learn by age 5. When a five year old gets angry that they aren't getting what they want, they might start jumping up and down or trashing the room. But in the end, they still don't get what they want (in addition to a trashed room they have to clean up).

Nader voters really exhibit the same behavior. They are angry they are not getting what they want, so they trash the country by aiding and abetting a right wing candidate. Yet in the end, they just end up FURTHER AWAY from what they want, with the right wing candidate they enabled in power.

and one of his close friends is Grover Norquist.

So what? Until we get public financing, our elections will continue to be cr@p.

Ralph Nader did not know that a very significant percentage of his monies were GOP monies and that in spending them he was doing more to damage the Democratic Party than advance his own hopeless quest.

He knew what he was doing. He knew the money's source.

They all take money from someone. That's what I mean about public financing.

likely to change much just because you and I oppose it.

Nader's investments in the corporations he claims to assail are smarmy.

He's self-promotional and marginal.

Nader Donates More Than 80% Of His Substantial Income
by Mike Allen
Published on Sunday, June 18, 2000 in the Washington Post

After 35 years of bashing big business, rumpled Ralph Nader is worth at least $3.8 million and is heavily invested in technology stocks.

For decades, Nader refused to reveal even the name of his stockbroker, let alone any personal financial information, leading to criticism from conservatives that he was building a secret financial empire (sometimes derided as "Nader Inc.") even as he called for greater disclosure by government officials and business executives.

But Nader, who is to be nominated next weekend as the Green Party presidential candidate, offered a detailed picture of his wealth in several interviews, including two with The Washington Post last week, and in a 21-page filing with the Federal Election Commission that was more extensive than required.

"Ask anything you want," Nader said, seemingly intent on demonstrating that his presidential campaign is serious this time and that he is willing to undergo the requisite scrutiny.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/061800-01.htm

As far as being self-promoting and marginal, that really isn't a critique as much as simply an insult. He's a brilliant man who has had a long, distinguished career as an activist. And that's how he will be remembered.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/28/stocks/print.html


http://www.bushwatch.net/nader2000.htm


-- and does not suggest a man entirely pure of the warped benefits of owning stock in corporations he assails.

Is it Allen's notion, a decade ago now, that corporations are not affiliated with technology? That's total bullshit.

There is the lone voice crying in the wilderness. In this case an intelligent voice, but again, he's deep in the woods. Lo, but the villagers cannot hear his call.

I know you don't think he's going to be president. You don't believe he is going to significantly influence public policy. I bet you don't even think he is electable on any statewide ballot.

If Ralph Nader were to gather signatures to run for public office where actual, real-life public policy is hashed out, negotiated, and voted upon, he would at some point slam hard against the realities that other politicians encounter. He would have to raise funds. He would have to win endorsements. He would have to pay for advertising and phone banks and paid staff to run the campaign. All of it. He would have to quit to preserve his purist profile or get his damned hands dirty like everybody else.

Instead he exchews the public arena where policy is made and squawks from the sidelines.

He's THAT marginal. He's not a player.

I would have left the space for president blank. If Gore had won, it would have been without my vote.

in Florida, where it counted.

In my state, Gore won without my vote. Whoopee.

Had Gore been president the country would be so much better shape now than it is. A Gore presidency would have made it easier to get more progressive candidates later on

Nader voters only helped to move the country so much to the right that the center became the new left.

I never understood what you REALLY hoped to accomplish by hurting Gore.

Did you really believe that Gore=Bush? Really?

To answer your question, no. In fact, the more time it passes, and the more I see of Dubya's legacy and the spawns it created, the less I understand them.

Not much to understand.

move rightward after he was elected?

and betray their hopes for change, you would say those folks are "savvy voters"?

Voting is a choice between the viable candidates. It is not anything other than that. In particular, it is not a way to soothe your conscious, prove yourself, make yourself feel better, sending a message, etc. It is simply a choice between viable candidates for who you want to govern. One of them will win (by definition of viable), and you have to decide which one. It is always savvy to vote for the less right-wing (or more progressive) candidate if you don't want right-wing policies. As a general matter.

This says nothing about the primary election. In the primary, there might well be viable candidates other than the current one, and there is nothing wrong with voting for those in the primary. But the general is always and everywhere (in this country) a choice between parties, and when one party is more progressive than the other, you vote for the candidate of that party.

If I've been taught through hard experience that my votes for progressive candidates don't result in progressive policies, is my only option to keep going through that over and over?

You might be right that the "lesser of two evils" is the best choice in some elections, but you can't blame people for trying to change a system that fails them, craps on them, and then laughingly tells them to get back in line.

I'm an Obama voter, but I do feel like a dupe.

you like either of them.

You could always vote for a different candidate in the primary. But if you can't convince enough of your fellow Democrats to agree with you, you will not get another candidate. Once the general comes around, you have a choice between two parties whether or not you like either of the parties.

The idea that you have to make a choice you don't like shouldn't be new or surprising. People have to make choices they aren't thrilled about all the time in life.

to stay in that system? Our free will extends to the primaries, but nothing conceivably good could happen if we step outside the bounds of a system that seems to take us for granted, at best? Does that not sound like abusive language to you?

I may choose to vote pragmatically (for the "lesser evil") some times, but by God, I do not HAVE to do anything.

(None of this is support or opposition to Nader, by the way. I'm responding to the OP question of whether we can understand the Nader impulse better now.)

But if you want more progressive policies you do have to do exactly what you describe as "abusive," whether you like it or not.

If you want to change the system, vote for different primary candidates or get a movement going to change the winner take all system. Enabling right-wing candidates doesn't help.

offered an alternative "system" to "accomplish" progressive goals.

You'd think that a lot of progressive who voted in significant numbers for the 8 Democratic nominees in the 2008 primaries would have just FLOCKED to Ralph, given that his system would accomplish the ideology they most closely aligned with.

Turns out, though, almost none of them did.

This is the difficulty with the Left in the United States: it hardly exists. You can grocery-list a few key names, and many of them are bright, insightful, impressive folks, and the sum of them are absolutely nowhere near influence and power.

Let alone Ralph Nader.

Sounds pretty silly to me. If they wanted Bush, it would have been more effective just to vote for Bush directly.

So I'll assume you're not serious.

Such is the reality of a two-party system. Tilting at electoral windmills is for chumps.

My vote was for neither of the two. Gore didn't own my vote, and he didn't earn it.

is NOT entitled to votes they are supposed to earn them.

and not simply choosing between the Democratic or Republican candidate. I am not one of those people who will vote for the "lesser of two evils." I vote for the candidate that most closely represents my viewpoint. If that means voting for a third party candidate, that's is who I vote for. And I don't consider it throwing away my vote. Because my vote is not about picking a winner. It's about picking a candidate that I believe will best represent my interests and when I do that, I'm not losing or throwing away my vote. I am doing what I'm supposed to be doing. Voting for the candidate I want, for the reasons I want.

Can't wait to see what we'll get this time.

Third Party voters caused the Iraq war. :wtf:

You have only two choices, like it or not. Pretending otherwise is the electoral equivalent of believing in unicorns.

who cares what happens to the rest of the country?

I support progressive ideas and actions whenever and however I can. I wish the Congress was filled with Bernie Sanders clones.

HOWEVER, I would never take any actions that would put me further away from my goals.

No matter what pretty language you dress it up in, not voting for Democrats gives the country back to the GOP. Not sure if you noticed lately, but they are pretty fucking crazy and getting crazier by the day.

And cut the bullshit that there is no difference. For example, I think the Dems failed in not giving enough stimulus to directly creating jobs and too much to corporations. However, without them in charge, we would have never gotten the unemployment benefit extensions. Millions of Americans, including myself, are still hanging on because of this action.

Demand more, but don't actually put yourself further behind in the race.

And sorry, there is no glorious revolution coming to create a socialist nirvana in the U.S. -- even if things get really bad. Just look at what's going on now. As people get more desperate, are they coming together to break free from corporatism. No, the are attacking each other -- Muslims, immigrants, gays, African Americans. If you study history, fascists and dictators are MORE likely to fill the vacuum during an economic crisis.

few times Nader ran. The war in Iraq, economic collapse and a huge deficit (because of tax cuts to the rich) is what voting for Nader garnered.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

imagine Al Gore as President nominating a right-wing asshat like John Roberts to the Supreme Court.

Ralph Nader and his voters are directly responsible for the the mess that we are in right now.

something that his detractors and knee jerk haters to this day have difficulty grasping (or are in denial about).

Alienate key groups of supporters- create a political vacuum and someone or some party will fill it.

That "constituency" has been around a long time before any of Nader's pointless presidential campaigns.

Barry Commoner tapped that constituency in 1980. His arithmetic was no better than Nader's, although he did a lot better job of communicating with audiences, small numbers of people dedicated to progressive ideas.

You can check all that out under "Citizens Party" on a search engine and you'll find the same constituencies under that manifestation as those under Nader's.

And Commoner was not the first, so far as that goes.

The constituency has been fairly constant in U.S. socio-political life and while the headline figures change, the percentage remains marginal.

Democrats and especially the Clinton administration's repeated pandering to the right and backstabbing of everyone from labor to environmentalists to progressive interest groups opposed to the corporate right deregulatory agenda caused disillusionment and resentment.

People in these groups not only didn't volunteer and turn out in 1994- they looked for somewhere else and someone else that represented and advocated their interests.

Remember the Battle of Seattle? No? Remember 2000, where the Dems center right agenda blurred the differences between the parties turned Oregon (of all places) into a battleground state where the Greens took almost 6% of the vote?

Same dynamic then as now.

Unfortunately, the same sort of people not only failed to learn the lesson (poly sci 101 really) -but were bound and determined to repeat the same political and public policy mistakes and though their arrogance make the situation magnitudes worse.

Commoner and Harris.

Your percentages are graveyard whistlin' tunes. I haven't seen any arithmetic that upends my claim that this "constituency" is marginal.

It was marginal then and it's marginal now.

Were you to scoot back stateside and dedicate all your power and strength to build the U.S. Green Party, you would get no farther than anybody else has so far, including the Citizens Party refugees from the Carter-Kennedy primary spat and Nader's ridiculous self-promotional historionics of more recent years.

Plus, what the hell, you'd whip your frequent flyer miles into shape in the bargain.

LOL!

this constituency (actually this rather broad set of constituencies) is marginal?

:rofl:

Fact of the matter is that time and time again, progressives and :gasp: Nader have been proven correct on public policy beyond a shadow of a doubt. Only to be thwarted by the corporate right in both parties.

IMO if a majority Americans actually believed that they had choice (and a halfway honest and ethical press) they'd toss BOTH of these dysfunctional parties (or large elements of them) out on their asses.

And the nation would be much the better for it.

Nader has not been proven 'right' at all, not ever, in public policy, because he has never made any public policy.

He was notable, though hardly unique, as a consumer advocate, and the work bore some impact on the market and individuals' reaction to that market, much parallel to Madison's notion of an informed citizenry which would inform the survivability of a Constitutional republic. The parallel construction was likely lost on Nader however, and in any case, he doesn't do that line of work any more.

Even less does he do policy. Yes, marginal. Extremely marginal.

You speak nonense, depakid. There is no configuration of events or strategies to make your third paragraph real or true or possible. You would personally delight to see it happen, certainly, but you forget that the majority of people involved in public life are not like you.

And that's a good thing, because their investment is owed more courtesy than your disdain for their investment.

Meanwhile, you would do yourself a favor to read some of Barry Commoner's work. He's an impressive man.

and it's not like you.

I imagine that the upcoming bloodbath has made some folks "pull out their hair" so to speak. I can understand that, having been through (and still going through) our last election. Who can put together the coalition of interests to form government here- and toss old habits (and powerbrokers) in the rubbish bin? We shall see.

btw: I've read Barry Commoner's stuff- though it was a long time ago and didn't have any appreciable effect on the dynamics of center right pandering that have characterized both the Democratic party during the Clinton era and into 2004 -during the current administration (which in some respects is both better and worse in that regard) and with the ALP (the Australian Labor Party).

You wrongly asserted that Nader's essential constituency rose from disenchantment in the 1990s, which is categorically false, then you insist that no one left any Democratic rank to vote for Commoner, who not coincidentally shares a significant overlay of Nader's current demographic support.

Carter had lost the election a long time before national polling indicated he was in grievous straits. There were people in Commoner's circle calling the November election as a Reagan landslide in January of 1980, months before the presidential debates.

I praise Commoner because he was so effective with audiences and far more demonstrably pro-Labor than Ralph Nader. Nader sweet talks Labor but has no real idea what the pro-Labor voter's life is like. He has the textbook polish but not the visceral connection that Commoner had. I watched Commoner walk into a room of men and women who had a 5-star built-in shit detector. They'd been on the union front lines for a couple generations and they loved Commoner. His own terrific education didn't give him the Ivory Tower tone Nader often takes and there was enormous common purpose, particularly in the area of training of workers as Pullman car operators, an issue Commoner owned.

The other end of your argument drops off the boat quickly if you believe that Ralph Nader or another Green candidate is going to put a dint in Democratic voter totals. Greens in California, for example, are much more likely, not less, to vote for Democrats up and down the ballot, and they do so, every cycle. There's no compelling argument for a Green voter to refuse support to Barbara Boxer, on environmental issues alone, or on a woman's right to choose. There are Greens aplenty in Wisconsin, and you just watch them lining up to support Russ Feingold.

There's no arithmetic to back your claims that Nader, or McKinney, or anyone else representing the demographic they represent is going to wound Obama's re-election effort should he decide to make one.

If the Greens in the U.S. were to miraculously peruade all its constituent groups to coalesce around a Green ticket, I'll be the first to post a formal concession and apology, depakid. But I'm not going to waste much time on it now, because I think the odds are remote at best.

And that is why the corporate-owned democratic and republican parties were so terrified of having him included in the 2000 debates. The people didn't have an election in 2000, the corporations did. Nader would have DESTROYED Bush in the debates. Gore couldn't attack Bush because they were both owned by the same corporate masters, or rather pimps. Did you notice in the Gore-Bush debates how much Gore just agreed with almost everything Bush said? Hell, I could have destroyed Bush in those debates, but Gore couldn't and didn't.

Nader eloquently made his case against the corrupt status quo but the corporate-owned MSM were terrified of Nader too. That's why they barely covered him.

That election was rigged from the start. And without thinking people voted like they always do, for the repubs and the dems and it's because of them our country keeps getting sold out more and more every day. I sure wish people would wake up!

owns significant corporate stock.

-Ralph Nader, on being left out of the presidential debates.

Yeah, some progressive.

Fucker's a real scumbag.

Ralph's problem is that no one can see him and his supporters because there aren't very many of them.

He's hyper-marginal.

Average voters can be taken in by all kinds of politicians, but they seem to suss out the supreme narcissists and avoid giving them their votes.

Nader would have delivered even more votes to Bush if he'd been in the debates.

Which might have been his goal.

Gore or Nader?

Sid

:toast:

Nothing draws out Nader like a camera.

He would have destroyed himself by alienating the Dem base with his racist comments.

(Just kidding!)

I wondered who it could have been..

- - -

I have no idea what the Greens were thinking when they nominated Cynthia McKinney.

By no means a great way to build support for the U.S. Green Party.

Voting third party is a vote for the republican tea party candidate. Why waste a vote on the middle man when you can just go ahead and vote for Palin, etc. directly?

Democrats enabling, legitimizing and adopting Republican policies caused their own problems- and if it hadn't been for Nader (or the Greens) a lot of these folks might not have voted in the first place.

As you are destined to see again on November 2nd.

In no small part due to the influence of the same person who played a major role in the 1994 disaster.

How many times do the Naderites make lame excuses for giving us Bush for 8 years? (might not have voted :rofl: - laaaaame)

You're about to get rolled by the sorriest bunch of nutters and snivelers that ever graced the national stage!

Because you willfully failed to learn a very simple lesson from the 1990's and 2000-04.

See you on November 3rd!

I'm sure you'll be stamping your feet and blaming progressives yet again for your own failures.

:shrug:

I'm a member of and work for the Australian Greens- who just elected a member of the lower house -and captured 4 more Senate seats, giving us the balance of power for at least the next 6 years.

No matter which major party ends up forming a minority government.

btw: Labor plummeted from near historic high approval ratings to nearly losing power outright, due in large part to their failure to stand up and fight for the progressive policies they purportedly believed in.

Something the Dems really ought to have considered, as it's the same dynamic that's cost them so dearly in the past.

(where third parties can join coalitions with other parties) and the American form of government (where progressive third parties do nothing but enable, legitimize, aide, and abet the right, due to the winner-take-all system). In the American form of government, there is no such thing as a viable progressive party other than the Democratic party, and there can never be such thing unless the Constitution and our system of elections is changed dramatically.

This is in direct contrast to the Australian system, which in various forms includes instant runoff voting and proportional representation (features that are required to allow votes for third parties not to aide and abet the right).

Are there people who vote third party or deliberately stay home out of spite in America (i.e. the five year olds who trash the room when they don't get what they want, and then wonder why they end up with nothing but a trashed room)? Of course there are. But that doesn't mean this is legitimate and acceptable behavior of a responsible citizen. Likewise, robbery is a crime that happens. But that doesn't mean we should try to "win the robbers over," or appease and legitimize them.

If there are people not educated about the responsibilities of citizenship or the most rudimentary aspects of our electoral system that limits the viable parties to 2 -- then we should work to educate these people. But anyone on DU is educated enough to know this. So anyone on DU who threatens to stay home or vote third party should not be appeased or legitimized, and should instead be called out as the right-wing enabler that they are.

Blaming the rest of the Democratic party for the actions of the tantrum throwers is the same as blaming the homeowner for the actions of the robber that robbed the home. You correctly identify the tantrum throwers in post after post, but you incorrectly try to appease and legitimize them and get others to do so (rather than holding them accountable for their actions).

apparatchik's and those who knuckle under to their browbeating.

They never learn. Ever.

No matter how many times they make the same mistakes- no matter how many times you alienate your constituencies and pander to the right and LOSE.

Face it- results speak for themselves- your wing of the party is not very bright (and also seem to be riddled with poor character, too- every bit as bad as many Republicans).

That Australians have a choice preferentially- and that we do in fact exercise that choice only illustrates the effect that electoral reforms might have- if the two parties had the courage to implement them and compete on a more level field.

The political dynamics- the rejection of corporate right pandering and corruption is very much the same.

The difference being that Americans end up losing much worse and when they win- win much less.

Thank you for chiming in - I have little patience with those who would throw tantrums and appreciate those who can elucidate the reasons why such behavior is so destructive.

:thumbsup:

Like when right wingers call themselves "liberals", for example. In Australia, that's normal.

Here, it's just DLC spin. :crazy:

politics in the first place. What's your agenda here. Go work in the Australian elections. Thanks!

I tend not to call them out- but instead, attempt to discuss issues, policies and politics- giving everyone (sometimes naively, for sure) the benefit of the doubt.

I mean hey- ya never know who you're interacting with.

For all you know, some poster who you obtusely deride may well have some useful experience with _____ (fill in the blank)

For the more nationalistic- some posters' grandfather not many generations ago might have even put forth the motion to the Continental Congress to declare independence from Britain.

Ya never know.

Which is why it pays to try to keep it cool - and have discussions on the merits (however heated they might become).

is if we have voters who believe that there's no difference between Tarryl Clark and Michelle Bachmann, or between Justin Cossoule and John Boehner, or between Harry Reid and Sharron Angle, or between Jack Conway and Rand Paul, or the same match between decent people and crazystupidevil fucks an any number of elections. Anyone who honestly says "I don't see any difference between Tarryl Clark and Michelle Bachmann, so I'm staying home" will never get any respect from me.

they folded like a cheap suit, while Bush and his people STOLE the election. BTW - Gore WON Florida but the Supremes had other plans.

So no, I think someone with that attitude is being mislead by professional left pundits with an agenda.

I wrote it because I'm informed by something more than the cliche narrative that gets mindlessly passed around by bloggers and pundits who think they're still fighting Bill Clinton.

We already went over some of this once (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8652859#8653928)but you deliberately ignored it and continue with your deliberate misrepresentations. You are not informed at all. Deliberately it seems.

Obama has done NOTHING, absolutely nothing to enact anything Nader and the left wanted. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Window dressing does not count.

Some accomplishment!

Self-righteous scum.