General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRalph Nader's Open Letter to former President George W. Bush: "The Country You Destroyed"
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/01/03#.UscnosC-gbE.facebook
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MADem
(135,425 posts)He doesn't read "Common Dreams" either, I'll bet.
He probably put him on the mailing list for his Presidential Library as a "thank you" for ensuring he got elected in the first place.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)It's an Exceptional Watch at the "RNN Link" and you can find it posted in DU Group "Progressive Media Resources" here on DU!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1269494
Here's the one part. He does a great watch interview with Paul Jay of RNN about the accusations that his Third Party Candidacy was responsible for Bush's Win in 2000. Most of us Lefties know it was the "Punch Card Ballots" the Supreme Vote Decision to Stop the Counting and Al Gore's relying on his Handlers to not be more Aggressive. Yet there are those who throw stones at Nader to this day...blaming him for failures of our Supreme Court, Democratic Party not being behind the Recount and those trying to expose the Punch Card Voting and the Electronic Voting Machines.
Scroll through the interviews with Nader here at the Link: About the Florida Election and the Accusations against Him: Segment with Nader and the Florida Recount is in Part 2 of the RNN's Interview of 3 parts with Nader:
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11229&updaterx=2013-12-19+11%3A18%3A07
But, for us Older Democrats ....THIS INTERVIEW is the NADER WE KNEW...and it's lovely to remind those who didn't know of how "WE DEMS" Admired Ralph Nader and how the Consumer Movement that has and is being trashed by the RW and their Think Tanks and Big Money Funders (who also fund Democrats) have worked to tarnish Nader's Achievements in starting so much of what we Left Dems are still fighting for these days.
===========
The Nader You Didn't Know...Are Nader-Like Reforms Still Possible? - on "The Real News Network!"
Are Nader-Like Reforms Still Possible? - Ralph Nader on Reality Asserts Itself
On "Reality Inserts Itself" with Paul Jay, Ralph Nader says the reforms of the 1960's and 70's are no longer possible as Congress is bought and sold by a small number of very rich people and commercial interests - December 19, 2013
LINK:
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11229&updaterx=2013-12-19+11%3A18%3A07
TRANSCRIPT:
Bio
Named by The Atlantic as one of the hundred most influential figures in American history, and by Time and Life magazines as one of the most influential Americans of the twentieth century, Ralph Nader has helped us drive safer cars, eat healthier food, breathe better air, drink cleaner water, and work in safer environments for more than four decades. The crusading attorney first made headlines in 1965 with his book Unsafe at Any Speed, a scathing indictment that lambasted the auto industry for producing unsafe vehicles. The book led to congressional hearings and automobile safety laws passed in 1966, including the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. He was instrumental in the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CSPC), and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA). Many lives have been saved by Nader's involvement in the recall of millions of unsafe consumer products, including defective motor vehicles, and in the protection of laborers and the environment. By starting dozens of citizen groups, Ralph Nader has created an atmosphere of corporate and governmental accountability.
Consumer advocate and author Ralph Nader says that the anti-communist “reign of terror” inaugurated in the 1950’s by Senator Joe McCarthy intimidated activists from advocating for “any kind of systemic public philosophy to change things for the better.”
“So they just became very empirical,” says Nader. “They'll try to get a labor union organized or try to get better working conditions or something like that because they didn't want to be accused of ‘isms’, you know, like ‘socialism’ or ‘communism’. And the other side was, of course, they were all about capitalism.”
“We went after the auto companies' unsafe cars. No ‘ism’ there,” he says.
Paul Jay asked Nader why his run of legislative accomplishments—including the Clean Air Act, Occupational Safety and Health Act, Freedom of Information Act in 1974, and the Clear Water Act, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Mine Safety and Health Act—culminated in the 70’s.
Nader said this was because the Democratic Party had then started to accept corporate funding, making it “harder and harder to get congressional hearings, harder and harder to get decent judges to hear your case, harder and harder to get regulatory agencies to issue safety standards or even to make investigations.”
“The Constitution starts ‘We the People’, not We the Corporation,” says Nader. “They don't even mention the corporation or a company in the Constitution. So why do they rule us?”
“Because we have disempowered ourselves by making excuses for ourselves. Oh, it doesn't pay to vote, because it doesn't mean anything to us. Oh, why go to a city council meeting? It doesn't matter. That's exactly what the big boys want you to do. They'll pay you to be cynical if you don't do it free," says Nader.
THE VIDEO At the Site is Great View..if you have the Bandwidth...If not...go to the link to read the FULL TRANSCRIPT ...: [/]b
PROGRESSIVE MEDIA RESOURCES GROUP...(Democratic Underground)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1269494
-------
MADem
(135,425 posts)engaged in yet another pointless, vanity campaign, Al Gore would have been President, punch cards or no. I have no respect for the bullshitting old multi - millionaire who plays at being an everyman while investing like a corporatist and living like a lord.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)I could express it as effectively as I've seen you do on other issues, I would do so. As it is, you are a much better writer and see the big picture better than I do.
I'd love to see a letter like that.
Itchinjim
(3,085 posts)
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)You are supposed to point out that Gore lost because he put Libernuts on his ticket. Or that Gore didn't win his deeply conservative home state. Or that Gore didn't win New Hampshire due to the same reason why he lost Florida. Just don't explain that if just 1% of the 97,000 people in Florida who foolishly voted for Nader had instead voted for Gore, we wouldn't have had G W Bush. The Nader apologists will rip you a new asshole for pointing out the last possibility, or that Nader AGGRESSIVELY ran against Gore but gave Bush a pass.
After reading what I wrote, you've convinced me. Fuck Nader.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)He was to Shrub, What Ross Perot was to Clinton .
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Seriously, Ralph, shut the fuck up.
sendero
(28,552 posts).... the Corvair was a fine car, a first attempt at a high fuel economy sporty vehicle, and you killed it. The VW bug was a much more dangerous car, where is "Unsafe in Any Bug"?
I have zero, and I mean zero respect for Nader even though I agree with many of his political positions.
catbyte
(34,367 posts)Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)I did not vote for Gore because I had an overpowering
visceral repulsion re Lieberman, everything he said
and appeared to stand for. The choice of him for VP
undid any confidence I had in Gore. I was less politically
informed at the time, in my defense, and I did not
vote in that election. But I have read quotes from Gore
himself saying Nader had taken away more votes from
Republicans than from Democrats. And I figured he
was likely to know. Also don't see any value in hating
Nader who did in fact contribute a lot to this country.
But I loved your funny post.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)He's the reason GWB was selected in 2000.
malaise
(268,907 posts)The Supreme Court selected George W Bush.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)malaise
(268,907 posts)Nader had the same right to run for the position as anyone else.
Sorry - The Supremes and Florida ReTHUGs stole that election and for what - an illegal war and enriching cronies by privatizing significant important parts of government.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)We have a two party system. If someone doesnt get a majority of electoral votes available, the people no longer get to choose the President, it gets thrown into the House of Representatives.
So, if a third party candidate actually was able to get some electoral votes, he makes it a high probability the President isnt going to be chosen democratically.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)but it's a lame argument against third (or fourth or fifth) parties. You don't vote third party (or not at all) if you find a major-party candidate palatable. By the time election day rolls around, people know whether or not their preferred candidate has a hope in hell of winning. A vote for a no-hoper third party candidate is a statement that neither of the major party candidates are acceptable. You may disagree with that as a voting decision, but let's not pretend that someone willing to vote for a no-hoper candidate will transfer their allegiance to a major-party candidate if there is no third choice on the ballot.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)have the right to change it. If the people choose a president, let's say Bernie Sanders eg, who is not a member of either party, neither of which has satisfied the people, they ARE simply employees after all and CAN be fired, THAT would be Democracy at work.
Are you suggesting that if someone like Bernie Sanders was chosen by they people, that is NOT democracy? As far as I am aware, the FFs actually warned about partisanship, warned against a two party system. I am also aware that SOME Democrats have joined the anti Constitution movement on the right by attacking the FFs' personal lives.
But until we come right out and declare the Constitution, which does not require that a canddate belong to one of two parties as far as I know, we are stuck with that Constitution.
If Bernie Sanders does run as a Socialist Democrat, I for one will be supporting him and the Dem Party hopefully would support such a President as the people's choice, AND because he espouses the Democratic Principles the Dem Party claims to support. I can't think of a single issue on which Sen. Sanders differs from the Dem Party Platform.
If the Dem Party wants to win, they need to stop supporting and promoting Third Way Candidates, that game is OVER.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
Vogon_Glory
(9,117 posts)Agreed. Ayatollah Ralph's vote-splitting ego trip made it possible for the GOP to steal Florida's vote.
Sorry, kiddies, but the 2000 election helped end any illusions I had about Ralph Nader's saintliness.
Gothmog
(145,111 posts)Nader attacking Bush is sad given that the Iraq war is solely due to Nader's stupidity
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Not. True. No. Matter. Many. Times. It. Gets. Repeated.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)belltower
(74 posts)The Supreme Court wouldn't have gotten that choice if not for the rigged voting machines.
Point is this: it was a multitude of factors that established the need for the Supremes, it was the Supremes whose decision was operative, not a bunch of punk'd Floridians.
Geez how many times do you need to be told the facts?
G_j
(40,366 posts)and I agree with your assessment. Welcome to DU.
gopiscrap
(23,747 posts)progressoid
(49,976 posts)Even Buchanan admited he shouldn't have gotten those votes.
Response to malaise (Reply #5)
Name removed Message auto-removed
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to ''count all the votes.''
Response to stevenleser (Reply #37)
Name removed Message auto-removed
jeff47
(26,549 posts)is that FL law and Federal law would have required a complete recount. And that same study showed that Gore would have won a statewide recount.
Team Gore asked for a limited recount in an attempt to negotiate with Team Bush. The idea was Gore to say "recount these" and Bush to say "No! Recount these!". Then they could compromise with a statewide recount.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)"Al Gore spent too much time listening to his handlers instead of listening to himself."
You know who told me that? Al Gore. 
MadashellLynn
(411 posts)gotten it from Al Gore but he got that from the Media. The drumbeat of that shit about his campaign, clothes, hair, ties, makeup and on and on for the entire election was unprecedented. They pecked at him
like a hellish host of rabid ducks quacking away on every channel 24 hours a day 7 days a week while telling all the joe six packs over and over how Bush was someone to have a beer with. I have never seen such horse shit in 50
years of watching horse shit that passes for news coverage. The job they did on Gore's campaign was something I WILL NEVER FORGET.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The biggest crap coverage of a Presidential election ever.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)....what a picture you paint!
True dat.
dsc
(52,155 posts)He started 16 points down to Bush, his comeback was the third best in the modern era. First place would be Truman, 2nd would be Bush the elder, third, or more fairly tied for third is Gore (he is tied with Ford in 76). In addition he out ran every single Democratic candidate for President, win or lose, from Truman to Clinton with the exception of Johnson in 64 and Carter in 76. Johnson was heir to a martyr and ran against the most extreme candidate in US history while Carter ran against the man who pardoned Nixon. Yeah, totally crap campaign.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)If he'd run a good one, people wouldn't still be scrabbling around trying to hang 2000 on everybody else.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)If you don't admit your mistakes and learn from them then you are just spinning your wheels.
MadashellLynn
(411 posts)I remember Nader saying at every stump speech, every interview, and in everything he wrote that there was no difference between Bush and Gore, and no difference between Republican and Democrat. The only way to change things was to vote for him even though he KNEW he couldn't ever win even one state let alone the Whitehouse.
We ALL knew it would be a close election and that he WAS pulling some votes that would have gone to Gore.
The hypocrisy of this letter is only surpassed by his denial of the fact that he is also needs to accept responsibility for a lot of dead soldiers and Iraqis civilians, not to mention the worst Economic Recession since the Depression and the largest leap in income inequality in decades because of the 'Bush tax cuts' ... unless he still thinks that Gore would have governed the same way Bush and Cheney did.
madinmaryland
(64,931 posts)What ever happened to there is no difference between Bush and Gore.
Again..
FUCK YOU, Ralphie.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)if he hadn't been running. We do know that, for whatever reason, Gore failed to convince those voters that he was the better choice. I think Nader's a blowhard but the 2000 election is not on him: Gore didn't seal the deal, possibly because too much of the electorate saw it as a continuation of the Clinton Administration.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Even Nader knew it and didn't give a shit claiming it would be a "cold shower" for the Democrats. Nader also ran against Gore rather than running against Bush. The man always was and always will be a fraud and an asshole.
Letter to Nader from Carl Pope, director of the Sierra Club. It's worth noting that all of Pope's predictions came true.
...
You have also broken your word to your followers who signed the petitions that got you on the ballot in many states. You pledged you would not campaign as a spoiler and would avoid the swing states. Your recent campaign rhetoric and campaign schedule make it clear that you have broken this pledge. Your response: you are a political candidate, and a political candidate wants to take every vote he can. Very well -- you admit you are a candidate -- admit that you are, like your opponents, a flawed one.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/102700-03.htm
Nader was in it for Nader. Always has been, and always will be.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)People knew Nader couldn't win, yet still they voted for him. To them, voting for a no-hoper was a better use of their vote than voting for a "viable" candidate. That's a condemnation of the "viable" candidates, not the "spoiler" candidate.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)When the director of the Sierra Club basically calls the Green Party candidate an asshole, there is a lesson to be learned somewhere.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Gore only needed about 1% of Nader's voters.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)If we're going to play the "if" game, I'd say Gore would have had a better chance of getting people to the polls who wanted to vote for him, but not strongly enough to turn out than he would have had of switching the votes of people committed enough to turn out who didn't want him.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)is more than 1% of Nader's voters turning out for Gore.
Exit polling showed Nader didn't bring non-voters to the poles. He mostly poached Gore voters.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Think about what you're saying: people who voted Dem regularly chose not to do so. That implies they were a whole lot of unhappy with the Dem candidate, enough unhappy that they voted for a nonviable candidate. Instead of trashing third party candidates and the people who vote for them, it might be more productive to think about why people felt that alienated from their usual Party.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)In fact, I actually do have a pig in this poke. Whatever a poke is. And I must be a good friend of Michael Vick if I "don't have a dog in that fight".
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)The attitude that Dem (or Republican) candidates somehow are "owed" the votes of people who usually support that party is counterproductive. People who indulge that belief tend to blame the third party and/or third party voters when their candidate loses instead of thinking about why traditional Party voters went elsewhere and what might be done to regain those votes in the next election. It's rather like the GOP perpetually concluding that they lost an election because they didn't explain themselves properly to the public and not because people simply didn't want what they were selling.
belltower
(74 posts)would we have ended up? You bet Gore would've sent in the troops after 9/11 - he's a hawk from the same school as Cheney, no question about it. And Lieberman of course couldnt resist throwing money at the military. If you don't think we wouldve been in Iraq you don't know who the behind the scenes patrons are.
So yes I agree with Ralph, after many years of being a yellow dog Dem, hardly a hill of beans different. In fact, last election I was so pissed at the Dems I voted 3rd party for the first time.
Oh, you think Gore wouldve focused on climate change? Gee you may have forgotten who pays his bills, the MIC, which sees nothing, absolutely nothing, but OPPORTUNITIES FOR MORE POWER in a climate-changed world. I suspect that the current President is just as committed to progressivism as Gore, but the reality he is as hamstrung by the same forces as would have been exerted against Gore.
Bottomline, it was the Supremes who decided this one, not Ralph. Suggest you all stop being so childish on this matter.
Response to belltower (Reply #20)
Name removed Message auto-removed
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Dick Cheney is a Misanthropic Asshole without a Heart and wouldn't make a pimple on the ass of Al Gore, Chicken Hawks hide from active duty, then want war, your welcomed.
pitchforx
(49 posts)if that's what you are trying to say. nader ran an ego driven vanity campaign. He had no chance in hell, and plenty of reasons to do the honorable thing and drop out. Like another poster said, he knew how the game was played, and had to be slightly aware of the stakes. Every progressive, liberal, Democrat, and Green Party member knew kid Bush was a dangerous idiot.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There was an "almost 9/11" in 2000. "All of the lights were blinking red" then too. Clinton's team had the relevant agencies meet daily to share information until they unraveled the plot, and LAX didn't explode.
Team Gore would likely have followed the same pattern in 2001, resulting in no 9/11.
but it's funny to notice how much liberals fidget and squirm when assessing blame for Gore's loss, when the blame is clearly on themselves for not having worked hard enough to *ensure* his election. And I voted for the guy, not for Nader who wouldn't have been able to cobble a political coalition, and especially not for the criminal who 'won'. I voted for the guy because I read his books, I respected his intelligence integrity and compassion, a polar opposite of the criminal who got the job.
But ya know, Gore WAS a hawk. Gore DID select an uber-hawk as VP. Gore WAS a corporate third-way guy. Gore WAS the know-it-all kid we didn't particularly like in school. These reasons were constantly cited by those voting for Nader. And if Gore (or his female clone Clinton) were running today, liberals would be writing in Warren's name, pretty much for the exact ... same ... identical ... reasons. Think about that, hmm?
So please stop all this dishonest Nader bashing. It was the ignoranti within the campaign, the electorate, the press, both parties and the SCUS **pius the understandable lack of support from liberals** who gave us the ignorant child-thug George Bush.
Instead let's heartily laugh at men who stare, pridefully but pitiably, at flowers. Meanwhile, Gore's a civilian, and I love him so much ever more[1]. If Gore were to run, I'd definitely return to the Dems but with his bad caricature surely to be the candidate, I'll stay with a third party, for the second time in my life, thank you. And I will vote for the person I think best fit for the times.
But know this. I will continue to despise most prominently those who want to REDUCE choices on my ballot. Yes, you, you fucking royalists, how DARE you call yourselves "democrats" huh?
[1] http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/27/2843011/gore-climate-crisis-passionate.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)9/11 angle didn't work out, huh?
Yes, it's entirely a vacuum where another liberal candidate who's "There's no difference between the parties" schtick resonates with a large segment of disaffected liberals.
Oh wait, that's actually the opposite of reality.
There were multiple factors in Gore's loss. Nader was a large one. That doesn't mean he was the only one. But take out any large one, and Gore would have won.
You want to drag the party left? Do it in primaries. Contrary to popular belief, you don't have to have party backing to run in a primary.
MadashellLynn
(411 posts)that 9/11 would have happened at all with a different president. Gore was no Bush, who's admin ignored the outgoing Clinton's warnings about Al-Queda and pushed on the afghans telling them he would carpet their county with gold or bombs to get an oil pipeline put in their country.
Bottomline, we all have opinions and just because you don't agree with someone else's doesn't make them childish. We will never know what Gore would have been able to do because Nader put the ball in the supremes Court. (Pun intended)
belltower
(74 posts)
regnaD kciN
(26,044 posts)FU, Nader. And your little lockstep Naderites, too!
PlanetBev
(4,104 posts)"That Goddamned Nader...I'd like to string him up--he knows how the game is played."
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)pitchforx
(49 posts)met, being in the thick of Florida I4 politics that year, his siphoned off votes were heartbreaking on election night. We fought so hard for Gore votes. Gore did run a horrible campaign, but we all had an idea of how bad Bush could be. But now that Ralph is so old i will probably just step on his foot. I certainly don't want to hear his handwringing over a situation that he was complicit in.
shraby
(21,946 posts)put in the caveat that their decision was never to be referred to when making another decision. That's because what they did was unconstitutional on it face, on its back and on its soles. They were wrong to do it and should have been impeached for it.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But some folks don't want to admit it was a coup.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)malaise
(268,907 posts)and we must never forget that frightening moment in history.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)...the Supremes shouldn't have have taken Bush v. Gore.
"It took the case and decided it at a time when it was still a big election issue," O'Connor told the Chicago Tribune editorial board in an interview. "Maybe the court should have said, 'We're not going to take it, goodbye.'"
"Obviously the court did reach a decision and thought it had to reach a decision," she said. "It turned out the election authorities in Florida hadn't done a real good job there and kind of messed it up. And probably the Supreme Court added to the problem at the end of the day."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/sandra-day-o-connor_n_3177322.html
Got news for you, Sandra, the Florida election officials weren't the only ones who "messed it up."
rustydog
(9,186 posts)
iandhr
(6,852 posts)You helped him become President.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)siphoning votes away from Al Gore?
During the election Nader said that Bush would be the better candidate for the environment!
Ralph Nader has turned into an opportunistic egoist!
Leith
(7,808 posts)and he went a long way in destroying the US, too. Dante couldn't even conceive of the level of hell he and his cronies deserve to end up in. The most emotionally impacting scene of Fahrenheit 9/11 was the middle aged lady crying about how her life and the lives of everyone she know were destroyed. Nobody seems to remember that part, but it is the greatest point made in the whole movie: what the US did and why they hate us.
In 2000, I was living in the solidly red North Carolina. Nader didn't even get enough signatures to get his name on the ballot in that state - so I wrote his name in. While I'm not proud of voting for him, I'm certainly not ashamed of it, either. My vote may have been thrown away, but it was my way of protesting.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)It has all been swept under the rug now. There is no way we can hope to fix the hell they created.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I'm so glad he's continuing to get rich off a problem he helped create. After all, free publicity for his books is why he ran in the first place, fully knowing it was going to be a close race.
Fuck Ralph Nader (and the horse he rode in on).
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 4, 2014, 01:36 AM - Edit history (1)
Mine would be . . .
Joe Lieberturd
Katherine Harris
Sandra Day O'Connor
Jeb Bewsh
John Prescott Ellis
Fox News
Jack Welch
. . . . and somewhere well below them would be Ralph Nader.
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)couldn't even campaign for his own VP. That's pretty sad. But he could campaign for Lieberman when time blew the stink away.
jmowreader
(50,552 posts)HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)I meant John Prescott Ellis - the cousin at Fox who was at the Election desk and leaked information against the rules.
Don't know why he was referred to as "John Ellis Bush" in the movie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Prescott_Ellis
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Bush DID destroy the country, and the Republicons had their cronies in Florida there to make sure that the vote was not counted, and Shrub could be anointed by the Supremes.
Bush belongs in jail, and Nader is a hero for bringing the crimes to the attention of the public.
pnwmom
(108,974 posts)to put him into office. All his lies about how Bush and Gore were the same -- and now he's saying Bush ruined the country. It's a little late for him to figure Bush out.
But just in time to peddle his own new book.
NBachers
(17,098 posts)
BlackM
(26 posts)...with everything Nader writes in his letter, let us not forget the NSA and the advancement of the police state under Bush. Much of the Snowden disclosures are over policies and legislation put in place between 2001 and 2007.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Its run its course. Its boring. Its anti-intellectual. Its knee-jerk. It means nothing by now. Its annoying. It makes DU look terrible IMHO.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)what Ross Perot was to Bill Clinton, that's not a humble opinion, that's a fact .
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Facts are pesky. What you presented was an opinion wrapped in an analogy.
I'm not going to carry on. When I said anti-intellectual, I meant it. I don't think there is much to be gained by presenting real facts.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I merely referenced the percentages earlier to show that Nader was a negligible factor in the race compared to Perot, who immensely influenced the election in multiple states. I did not mention the popular tally to suggest it determines the winner.
Your question should have been: "By how many EVs did Bush beat Gore". The answer to which is: 5.
Gore's home state of Tennessee was a 11 EV swing, which should have delivered the White House to Gore. Gore lost by ~4%. Nader was negligible in the loss of these EVs, with a measly ~1% of the Tennessee popular.
Yes, the continued hate is anti-intellectual. And that's why this time I'm done for good. Enjoy your night
progressoid
(49,976 posts)You'll also notice the roll of Katherine Harris scrubbing thousands of eligible voters from the rolls and the butterfly ballot giving thousands of Gore votes to Buchanan.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Ralph Nader abused his position to make a statement about both parties, and ignored the fact he was enabling the worst Misanthrope in American history . His " Open Letter " to the idiot king just amplifies his role in the " New World Order " where Corvairs will be a high quality product .
https://www.google.com/search?q=ralph+nader+and+corvair&tbm=isch&source=iu&imgil=h2MflUTlktpPyM%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcRyCnxqQ7ylf5codeQzMBp3gPZXSRMDfraU-KL8y2J8daZpDqux%253B310%253B463%253BNhKGV1ukHgT05M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252F%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.pophistorydig.com%252F%253Ftag%253Dralph-nader-corvair%3B310%3B463
progressoid
(49,976 posts)Harris' voter scrub illegally removed tens of thousands of voters, mostly minorities and the poor (Democrats). http://www.salon.com/2000/12/04/voter_file/
The butterfly ballot (introduced by a Democrat) gave thousands of Gore votes to Buchanan. Even Buchanan admits those votes should have gone to Gore.
Or, how about if Gore had won his home state. Those electoral votes would have made him the President, Ralph Nader notwithstanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Tennessee,_2000
Nader wasn't the only variable in 2000.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)he was only one variable, coupled with the MSM witch hunt of the Clinton's and Poppy usurping the opportunity to serve the 1% via shrub and doing his part he benefited 1% of the population, and lets not forget the ineptitude and Apathy and lack of Courage Democrats displayed .
pitchforx
(49 posts)as a consumer activist Ralph was a hero and a pain in corporate asses. as a politician he turned out to be a tiring, egotistical dud.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)But the money started flowing, and he lost that.
Now he does things like claim to live in a very humble house....yet he spends all his time at a house owned by his brother, yet his brother doesn't spend any time there.
That kind of thing just seems to happen over and over with Ralph these days.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I've never sat down and hate dinner or a beer with any active politician. That's why I don't spend time presuming I know how genuine any of them are, though I admit, my biases tend to think 99+% are full of shit.
In any case, people love throwing these full of shit egomaniacs under the bus when it no longer serves their purpose to anoint them, while outright worshipping the other full of shitters who still have some use in their mind. And that is something I find real interesting.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)You try to say he's living off his brother or is taking speaking engagements from Goldman-Sachs for 200.00 a pop like Hillary Clinton?
Are you saying his money is stashed in Caymens and he has a job on Wall Street he got for Running in 2000? He lives like a king somewhere and runs an offshore hedgefund or something?
Check out where the Clinton folks went and Bush and Obama cabinet members have gone in the Revolving Door. Check out where "Holy Joe Lieberman" has wound up in todays LBN on DU.
So...Ralph has done better or on par with these folks?
Give the links from reliable sources...and back that up with how we laud our Dems who Profit from Politics...and then pile on Nader when his lifestyle doesn't seem to support the flagrent 1% (in your face) of our recent Democrats.
But...hey if you have some links that support equal of Nader to Clintons and those Leaving Obama Administration...then that's worth a look.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)The thing with the house and brother: he wants to keep his "street cred" by appearing to live in less opulent conditions - "It's not my house! It's my brother's!"
The other reason you know Nader doesn't really believe anymore is who he attacks. Democrats. Only. You'd think he'd have a thing or two to say about Republicans. For example, Michael Moore does criticize Democrats, but he also criticizes lots of Republicans.
As for links, it's something that came out during the 2000 election, so it would take a bit to find. Since I doubt you'd believe even if I dug up links, we could just skip to the part where you insist it isn't true.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)when they opposed his environmental activism post election. I did not see it as valid then and I'm not all that impressed with it now.
I take the man as a whole and don't reduce Nader to 2000 anymore than I reduce Al Gore to 2000, when he ran with Joe, never mentioned Bill, supported DOMA and lost his own State before conceding faster than you can say SCOTUS. Al lost to GW Bush, a thing that should motivate this Party to take care of electoral business that is still left undone while we natter about an 80 year old activist who has had a diverse life that frequently served the public interest. Every year Florida elections are long lines and legal battles. Still. That is not the fault of Ralph Nader, but it is the fault of the Democratic Party of today and of the intervening years.
And you are incorrect that Nader only criticizes Democrats, here is a great piece by him on Paul Ryan from the last election cycle. :
Paul Ryan’s Vicious Budget
by RALPH NADER
The cruel impoverishment of the debate among the presidential and congressional candidates took a gigantic leap into the pits with Mitt Romney’s selection of 42-year-old Rep. Paul Ryan from the deindustrialized town of Janesville, Wisconsin. Ryan is invariably described by reporters as “an intellectual leader of the conservative movement” and by fellow Republicans as a person “who tells the hard truths” to the American people.
The truth is that what has distinguished this fast-talking, glib, Ayn Rand-smitten, congenial young man is that he has a plan for the federal budget. On Capitol Hill that fact alone makes one a “stand-out” in the field of political narcissists whose mental tank harbors gaseous one-liners and kneejerk slogans.
The Ryan budget plan is a Koch brothers’ dream and the American peoples’ nightmare. It leads with a lie – namely to control deficit spending by continuing it for at least 30 more years before his concoction of big tax cuts for the rich, further increases in the already bloated defense budget, and savage cuts in public services for the people, somehow balance the budget around mid-century
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/17/paul-ryans-vicious-budget/
bonzaga
(48 posts)My how short the memories in here. DU itself was founded because of it.
It was stolen. Remember?
tavernier
(12,376 posts)JUST GO AWAY!
pnwmom
(108,974 posts)We'll always be grateful for you calling Bush and Gore, "Tweedledee and Tweedledum." That made everything so clear.
And for running the hardest in the critical swing states. Especially Florida, where you got thousands of votes (and Bush only won by 500). That was really helpful.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)when he's correct, but you wail that we must overlook the bigotry and sexism of some clerical figure because he speaks about one correct thing. An active opponent of equality and women's rights gets a pass for bits of rhetoric, but a guy who ran for office and lost miserably gets no quarter, no context. The homophobe, promoted as hero and his critics browbeaten.
During that election cycle, I was in 'safe' CA, where many people, pissed off about Lieberman and sick of the status quo promoted voting Nader in order to get enough votes for public funding for the Green Party. Thom Hartmann, DUer, promoted this on his radio show. I fought it tooth and nail and salvaged many votes for Gore. But that was long ago, and Nader got almost no votes, not even in Florida where the number of Democrats who did not vote at all vastly outnumbered Nader voters and the number of eligible unregistered people was even greater.
So grinding away at a defeated candidate takes focus off the Supreme Court's betrayal of the country.
But Francis, right now, opposes my equal rights and reproductive choice for women. This you can compartmentalize or excuse in order to agree with him on bits of rhetoric. Seems only fair to do the same for Ralph, to overlook one thing to agree with the other. Ralph never called my family names, I can tell you that right now.
pnwmom
(108,974 posts)Helping Bush get elected was monumental -- as he himself has indirectly indicated. You don't see him complaining about Francis in this letter -- just Bush.
Nader probably realizes that in the short time Francis has been Pope, he's improved significantly on the record of his predecessors. And that his power, unlike Bush's, is quite limited.
reddread
(6,896 posts)but I guess she was only half that equation.
Nobody ever blames Bill either.
Nader sure musta been somethin special.
Clinton should have been smart enough not to get caught with/by a bimbo.
Leith
(7,808 posts)Clinton was very popular but Gore distanced himself from his old boss. If Al had welcomed WJC to the campaign, he may very well had got more votes and won enough electoral votes for a decisive win.
Is there a reason that you dragged Monica into this discussion?
reddread
(6,896 posts)was it really Al's fault?
I wouldnt drag monica anywhere, myself.
All this talk about Nader is just going to empower leftist kingmakers.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)I guess it was Al's fault?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)After 8 years in office people get tired of the incumbent. Nader certainly mentioned Gore's name during his campaign. He ran against Gore rather than running against Bush. He was the best gift dim-son ever got.
Blue Owl
(50,347 posts)And that number is 86.
BeyondGeography
(39,369 posts)You'll never live it down, Ralph. Never.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)adirondacker
(2,921 posts)Bush library.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Go fuck yourself, Nader.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)Bush just made it a little extra special.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)..
During the 2004 election contest, a local AP story from Salem, Oregon, on June 25th, was similarly headlined "Pro-GOP Groups Seek to Aid Nader, Hurt Kerry," and reported, "Two conservative groups [the business-oriented Citizens for a Sound Economy, and the fundamentalist Christian Oregon Family Council] have been phoning people around Oregon this week, ... in hopes of putting Nader's name on Oregon's presidential ballot." Oregon was one of 18 tight "battleground" states in the 2004 Presidential election, and Republicans wanted Nader's name to be on the Presidential ballot in order to draw votes away from Democratic candidate John Kerry, and thus throw Oregon's electoral college votes to Bush, and so make Bush the winner, just as had crucially happened in 2000 in both Florida and New Hampshire. (Here is how Citizens for a Sound Economy explained it to their members accompanying their 27 June 2004 "Phone Script": "Liberals are trying to unite in Oregon and keep Nader off the ballot to help their chances of electing John Kerry. We could divide this base of support" between "the uber-liberal Nader and John Kerry," so as to produce a Republican win.)
The board of directors of one of these groups, the Koch brothers' Citizens for a Sound Economy, happened to have been headed by two longtime personal friends of George W. Bush: the former Republican House leader Dick Armey of Texas, and the former counselor to President G.H.W. Bush, C. Boyden Gray. It's virtually certain that these two men authorized this backroom campaigning for Ralph Nader's candidacy. Mr. Gray was an heir to the Reynolds Tobacco fortune. CSE was financed by the foundations of Richard Mellon Scaife, of the Coors family, as well as of the Koch families, and by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and the J.M. Olin Foundation. Jane Mayer, on 30 August 2010, headlined in the New Yorker, "Covert Operations" (of the Koch brothers), and wrote: "'Ideas don't happen on their own,' Matt Kibbe, the president of FreedomWorks, a Tea Party advocacy group, told me. 'Throughout history, ideas need patrons.' The Koch brothers, after helping to create Cato and Mercatus, concluded that think tanks alone were not enough to effect change. They needed a mechanism to deliver those ideas to the street, and to attract the public's support. In 1984, David Koch and Richard Fink [whom she called 'the central nervous system of the Kochtopus'] created yet another organization, and Kibbe joined them. The group, Citizens for a Sound Economy, seemed like a grassroots movement, but ... was sponsored principally by the Kochs."
On 5 July 2004, BusinessWeek (p. 53) similarly headlined "Bush Bigs Open Their Wallets For Nader," and reported that among Nader's largest donors was Richard J. Egan, who was a Bush "Ranger," having raised more than $200,000 for his friend, George W. Bush. Egan, whom President Bush appointed Ambassador to Ireland, contributed the maximum allowed, $2,000, to Nader, and Egan's son also did. Unknown other Bush contributors, whom the senior Egan had previously "bundled" into that $200,000+ for Bush, also contributed to Nader. BusinessWeek reported that Richard J. Egan denied being the same person as the Richard J. Egan who contributed to Nader. However, the magazine reported that the Richard J. Egan, whom the records showed to have contributed to Nader, happened to live at the very same address, and that only one Richard J. Egan happened to live there.
...
On July 9th, the San Francisco Chronicle headlined "GOP Doners Funding Nader: Bush Supporters Give Independent's Bid a Financial Lift," and reported that the Nader campaign "has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party," according to "an analysis of federal records." Perhaps these contributors were Ambassador Egan's other friends. Mr. Egan's wife was now listed among the Nader contributors. Another listed was "Nijad Fares, a Houston businessman, who donated $200,000 to the Bush inaugural committee and who donated $2,000 each to the Nader effort and the Bush campaign this year." Furthermore, Ari Berman reported 7 October 2004 at the Nation, under "Swift Boat Veterans for Nader," that some major right-wing funders of a Republican smear campaign against Senator John Kerry's Vietnam service contributed also $13,500 to the Nader campaign, and that "the Republican Party of Michigan gathered ninety percent of Nader's signatures in their state" (90%!) to place Nader on the ballot so Bush could win that swing state's 17 electoral votes. Clearly, the word had gone out to Bush's big contributors: Help Ralphie boy! In fact, on 15 September 2005, John DiStaso of the Manchester Union-Leader, reported that, "A year ago, as the Presidential general election campaign raged in battleground state New Hampshire, consumer advocate Ralph Nader found his way onto the ballot, with the help of veteran Republican strategist David Carney and the Carney-owned Norway Hill Associates consulting firm."
...
On 2 August 2006, Paul Kiel at TPM Muckraker, headlined "GOP Donors Funded Entire PA Green Party Drive," and he reported: "OK, we've done it. We've nailed it down: Every single contributor to the Pennsylvania Green Party candidate is actually a conservative - except for the candidate himself. The Luzerne County Green Party raised $66,000 in the month of June in order to fund a voter signature drive. The Philly Inquirer reported yesterday that $40,000 came from supporters of [Republican] Rick Santorum's campaign. ... Also yesterday, we confirmed that another $15,000 came from GOP donors. ... Today, I confirmed that" the entire remaining $11,000 also did.
....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html
...
This depraved indifference to Republican rule has made Nader’s old liberal friends even more furious. A bunch of intellectuals organized by Sean Wilentz and Todd Gitlin are circulating a much nastier open letter, denouncing Nader’s “wrecking-ball campaign–one that betrays the very liberal and progressive values it claims to uphold.” But really, the question shouldn’t be the one liberals seem to be asking about why Nader is doing what he’s doing. The question should be why anyone is surprised. For some time now, Nader has made it perfectly clear that his campaign isn’t about trying to pull the Democrats back to the left. Rather, his strategy is the Leninist one of “heightening the contradictions.” It’s not just that Nader is willing to take a chance of being personally responsible for electing Bush. It’s that he’s actively trying to elect Bush because he thinks that social conditions in American need to get worse before they can better.
Nader often makes this “the worse, the better” point on the stump in relation to Republicans and the environment. He says that Reagan-era Interior Secretary James Watt was useful because he was a “provocateur” for change, noting that Watt spurred a massive boost in the Sierra Club’s membership. More recently, Nader applied the same logic to Bush himself. Here’s the Los Angeles Times‘ account of a speech Nader gave at Chapman University in Orange, Calif., last week: “After lambasting Gore as part of a do-nothing Clinton administration, Nader said, ‘If it were a choice between a provocateur and an anesthetizer, I’d rather have a provocateur. It would mobilize us.’ “
Lest this remark be considered an aberration, Nader has said similar things before. “When (the Democrats) lose, they say it’s because they are not appealing to the Republican voters,” Nader told an audience in Madison, Wis., a few months ago, according to a story in The Nation. “We want them to say they lost because a progressive movement took away votes.” That might make it sound like Nader’s goal is to defeat Gore in order to shift the Democratic Party to the left. But in a more recent interview with David Moberg in the socialist paper In These Times, Nader made it clear that his real mission is to destroy and then replace the Democratic Party altogether. According to Moberg, Nader talked “about leading the Greens into a ‘death struggle’ with the Democratic Party to determine which will be the majority party.” Nader further and shockingly explained that he hopes in the future to run Green Party candidates around the country, including against such progressive Democrats as Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, Sen. Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, and Rep. Henry Waxman of California. “I hate to use military analogies,” Nader said, “but this is war on the two parties.”
...
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/ballot_box/2000/10/ralph_the_leninist.html
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)That ass backward philosophy is firmly held by some far Left members of DU. To those members, republican rule will create a sewer so foul that roses will miraculously grow in that sewer and Liberals will come in to lead with admiring adulation from a terrified voting public. And to put the cherry on the cake, any Democrat that didn't subscribe to the far Left's vision of electoral utopia would have been tossed into the pits of hell by voter rejection. The view that somehow letting republican fuck things up to save the country is the same crazed view that Nader had in 2000 and 2004, thousands of American soldiers, American citizens, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, tens of thousands of Afghan citizen died because of Nader's crazed miscalculation. And there are some on DU advocating repeating Nader's insanity during the 2014 midterms.
calimary
(81,207 posts)bush/cheney did a pretty thorough job on our country, too. And they both still walk free...
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)While I feel Nader didn't help things, his role in The Failure Fuhrer's ascendancy to ruination, I feel, is minimal at best.
Truth is, Bewsh the Stupid had so many plants in all kinds of places that, come hell or high water, he WAS getting that Presidency, whether we liked it or not and whether Nader played a role or not. His Besties at Faux News (and let's be frank, more than a few Gore-ribbing corporate channels) before, during and after the election were the fuse, the Florida Fixers Jeb and Kathy were the dynamite, Karl Rove and The Brooks Brothers Bastards were the distraction and the Filthy Five were the insurance.
Let's be frank about another thing: a massive dipshit fuckloser asshole like Joe Lieberturd should never . . . NEVER have been on a national stage as a Democratic candidate. NEVER. I think he played the strongest role in Gore's downfall, because he sealed the Repub-Lite deal (and fueled the "Both Parties are the Same" crew . . . really, how can one blame them???) when we needed a strong left-of-center ticket.
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)Nay
(12,051 posts)nasty, un-Dem Lieberman. WTF was he thinking?? If there was any proof that "both parties were the same," parading that Repub asshole Lieberman as a Dem VP candidate was it. Add in the ballot/voting shenanigans and the Miami mob that stopped the recount and the Dems were toast.
Dems, this is how Pubs work. They attack at every level and from every direction. You cannot make one misstep while running or you will be toast. PLEASE realize that before we get a Clinton/Lieberman (or its equivalent) ticket in 2016.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)A floppy cock at it's most massive.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)progressoid
(49,976 posts)That's funny...
and sad...
mike_c
(36,281 posts)eom
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
longship
(40,416 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Zambero
(8,964 posts)Splintering the progressive vote just enough to put the election within stealing reach for Republicans, not once but twice. And steal it Bush and his cronies did. Gore was not a perfect candidate (has there ever been one?), but he certainly warranted Nader's support given the disastrous consequences of a Bush-Cheney administration, sadly manifested over the course of eight years and beyond.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Surely he would get thorough his little temper tantrum, come to his senses and endorse Al Gore.
Yet the days mounted up, and all the way up to the morning of election day I waited and waited for an announcement that never came.
Thanks a lot asshole. Hope you enjoyed your Bush tax cut.
And every Nader voter I ever met was either a stoned out college student or a pampered rich person who would not have to suffer the consequences of a Bush presidency.
There I said it and I won't apologize either.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)It's shit sideways and go blind time. How did I know this would turn into a grenade-throwing occasion?
pansypoo53219
(20,969 posts)asshole.
reddread
(6,896 posts)If Clarence Thomas hadnt been installed in place of Thurgood Marshall, we would not have had a standing joke for a Supreme Court.
EVERYTHING that has happened in the intervening years rests on the shoulders of the fellow with the capped teeth smile and hair plug hairstyle.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)That piece of shit and his brother in Florida can jump off a cliff one day and do the world some good.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
kentuck
(111,078 posts)We had a duty to stand behind the New Democratic Party (DLC) and to discard the old. Otherwise, it would put George W Bush and the Republicans into power. All of us that voted for Bill Clinton left the Democratic Party behind. We still have it today and we still have the same argument for keeping it.
Our duty was to overlook everything we disagreed with and to vote a straight Party line. Nader was a traitor to question the Party credentials, let alone run against them. Right or wrong, he chose his path. And we chose ours.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)and nobody owns my vote.
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)Martin Eden
(12,863 posts)I wrote what I wanted to say to his face when he left the White House:
I'd tell you to go fuck yourself
But that is much too kind
Because if you could perform that feat
You'd take pleasure in your behind
I'd like to say eat shit and die
But you deserve much more
You should suffer all the grief and pain
Of your misbegotten war
Though I could never make you feel
Or think, or understand
I'll take solace when you hear your name
Cursed throughout the land
From inside a lonely prison cell
Dark and bare and cold
Where every day you pay for your crimes
Till you're sick, heartbroken, and old
Then when you finally leave the earth
You fucked over oh so well
If there is a God and afterlife
You're going straight to hell.
great white snark
(2,646 posts)Little too late Nader.
Gothmog
(145,111 posts)It was Nader who caused Bush to be elected and it is Nader who is responsible for the Iraq war. This letter was really stupid given Nader's role in these disasters.
