Looks like the right is making a concerted

[applegrove]

effort to pick off a small percentage of the far left vote to make up for the small percentage of latino and womens' votes they have lost to Democrats in the center. So too if african americans vote with the same enthusiasm and anger at voter suppression in 2014 as they did this past fall the right needs new real estate. Rand Paul certainly is gunning for those lefties who are almost libertarians. And now this NSA/Snowdon scandal will just anger and depress Democrats. Keeping a % from voting. We have to fight for our coalition on the margins. We have to expose Rand Paul for the dangerous tool he is. We have to have that open discussion on metadata soon.

[Recursion]

1. I don't know. There are people on the left who despise incremental progress.

I mean, really, really despise it, because it delays the glorious revolution they think must surely come.

[LisaLynne]

25. You just blew my mind.

I ... seriously, I have never thought about it like that, but wow, I think you have a point there.

[davidn3600]

2. Obama and Democrats are handling this scandal horrifically

Forget about 2014.

[okaawhatever]

5. So you aren't a democrat? Explains your previous comments. Perhaps there is a website

for members of your political party.

[davidn3600]

18. I don't have to prove my party membership you

I am a registered Democrat. But understand that I am a liberal before I am a Democrat. And I will not hesitate to criticize my party when they do stupid shit like this.

[Egalitarian Thug]

58. A petty and very weak argument. Got anything worth wasting our time on? n/t

[treestar]

30. The true intent of the whole thing

Expressed in a nutshell.

Nope, not buying.

[Gravitycollapse]

3. I'm one of those far left and I would NEVER vote for Ron Paul. Never ever ever.

I think it's wrong to assume that the far left are only one or two steps away from supporting Ron Paul. He represents everything we hate. His anti police state views are not unique to his platform and so are incidental.

[applegrove]

4. But Rand is being handled and has

dialed down the crazy talk. He's obviously running for President and introducing Rand 2.0. I'm not worried about someone like you. I'm worried about a few low information voters who happen to be on the far left who may have connected to Rand this week. Or who may choose not to vote.

[Art_from_Ark]

6. Well, if it's only just a few low-information voters

then it probably wouldn't make a difference one way or the other.

A lot of people don't vote in mid-term elections because they don't have the same type of public attraction that Presidential elections do. It's like smaller lotteries don't attract the same number of participants that the mega-million-dollar jackpots do. So voter turnout is lower in mid-term years than in Presidential years. And a lot of that has to do with the mushy middle, that is, people who vote in Presidential beauty contents but often stay away from mid-term and off-year elections. In other cases, it is because the local races aren't too interesting, or maybe even there is no opponent for some local or even national offices.

At any rate, the trend is against the Democrats for the next two elections, regardless of what people on this message board say. First, the party in the White House almost always sees a net loss of combined House/Senate seats in mid-terms, as has been the case for at least the last 100 years. Second, the trend since Eisenhower has been 8 years of a Republican White House alternating with 8 years of a Democratic White House. The only exception since 1953 has been the 1977-1993 period, when the Democrats only had the White House for 4 years.

[pnwmom]

8. A few voters in the wrong state can turn an election. Witness Florida's 500 voters in 2000. n/t

[Fumesucker]

10. There were only five voters who mattered in 2000 n/t

[pnwmom]

11. It would never have landed on their Court if Nader hadn't drawn 9500 votes in Florida. n/t

[Fumesucker]

13. It also wouldn't have happened if Democratic voters didn't vote for Pat Buchanan

It also wouldn't have happened if Republican voting suppression techniques were not effectively deployed in 2000.

Your desire to let the Felonious Five off for the theft of the 2000 election is noted.

[Jim Lane]

15. I have a couple questions for you about the 2000 election.

You and pnwmom each noted causes of the 2000 disaster other than the votes of five Supreme Court Justices. So my first question is: Does noting such other causes (Nader's decision to run, Harris's decision to purge thousands of black voters, etc.) constitute letting the Supreme Court off the hook? My own opinion is that the conclusion doesn't follow -- one can identify multiple causes without exonerating the Court or Harris or anyone else. If I'm right, then your criticism of pnwmom makes no sense; if I'm wrong, your criticism is valid but would be equally valid if applied to your own post.

My second question notes the context in which this came up. The point of pnwmom's post was that a small number of voters can swing an election. Do you disagree with that point? If you can't dispute it but just can't bear to see anything that might remotely be construed as criticizing Nader, then think of Al Franken's win in the Senate election.

[Fumesucker]

16. Anyone can and many do cherry pick reasons for what happened in 2000

But ultimately the responsibility for the results of that election comes down to the Supreme Court shutting down the counting of the votes.

If I "couldn't bear to see anything anything that might remotely be construed as criticizing Nader" then I wouldn't be on DU in the first place and obviously I've been here for a while although for the last couple of years I find myself wondering more and more why I bother. At this point my still being here is more of a testament to sheer force of habit than anything else.

[Jim Lane]

24. It's cherry picking to single out any one cause where "ultimately the responsibility" lies.

Nader made his initial mark (in the 1960s) in tort law. That field teaches us a useful lesson: its recognition that an occurrence can have more than one proximate cause.

If Katherine Harris had not abused the power of her office to wrongfully disenfranchise thousands of people, Gore would have become President.
If Nader had chosen to run in the Democratic primaries instead of in the general election, Gore would have become President.
If the Supreme Court had decided the case on the law rather than on stark political maneuvering, Gore would have become President.

With all three of these statements being true, none of the responsible parties can completely escape blame by pointing the finger at one or both of the other culprits. The Supreme Court acted last in time but that doesn't erase everything that happened before.

[Fumesucker]

32. The SCOTUS overruled all else

They weren't just last in time, they were the Supreme power and as you said they decided it strictly on the basis of political maneuvering which is directly antithetical to why SC justices are given lifetime appointments, in order to keep naked politics out of the court.

Nader did nothing wrong, he ran for office which is the right of any American citizen. Arguably Harris and others acted improperly but the SCOTUS was by far the most culpable office in throwing that election since they acted exactly opposite of what they are supposed to be doing which is ignoring politics and ruling strictly on the law.

[Jim Lane]

41. You write, "Arguably Harris and others acted improperly...."

Wait a minute, "Arguably"? The impropriety of Harris's purge is just about the clearest aspect of the whole Florida 2000 tangle.

As a lawyer, I would find it hard to write a brief defending the outrageous decision in Bush v. Gore (if I somehow got stuck with such a task), but I would find it even harder to write a brief defending Harris's action. In fact, there was litigation about the latter. The result was that the purge was eventually undone, though not of course in time to affect the (s)election of Bush as pResident.

As for Nader, his wrongdoing is certainly different in kind from Harris's, in that he did not violate any laws. He had a legal right to choose to run. Similarly, Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have a legal right to spew their garbage over the radio. We can acknowledge the existence of those rights and yet judge that individuals, in choosing whether and how to exercise their rights, have chosen wrongly.

[Fumesucker]

54. Do you think that Nader's alleged "wrongdoing" rose to the level of that of Harris and the SCOTUS?

Because I certainly don't see it that way, Nader may have exaggerated on the campaign trail but he is by no means alone in that, it's a remarkably common failing in politicians including Gore and Obama. Any campaigner who tells the blunt truth and nothing but the truth is highly unlikely to be elected.

[Jim Lane]

56. The issue isn't that Nader "exaggerated" or even, more accurately, that he lied.

His campaign speeches were despicable, but that's not the main point. More important is that he chose to run on a third-party ticket when it was reasonably foreseeable, and was foreseen well before November by many of his vocal critics, that the practical effect of his decision would be to help Bush, and that his help might even turn out to be decisive.

Of course he had the legal right to choose to run. He had the legal right to contend that there was no significant difference between Gore and Bush. We can, however, fault him for his decision to do so. We can pass moral judgment that his choice was wrongful even though it was legal.

No, he did not tell "the blunt truth" unless you think that Gore would have invaded Iraq, slashed taxes on the rich, vitiated environmental protections, etc., etc. Fortunately, people have seen through Nader's BS. Note the huge falloff in his vote from 2000 to 2004. His problem in getting elected isn't that he "tells the blunt truth" -- it's that, in between saying a few insightful things, he founded his candidacy on equating Gore with Bush, and Bush's first term showed most of Nader's voters that it was a false equivalency.

Now, getting around to answering your question, it is to some extent a comparison of apples and oranges. Harris and the Supreme Court majority held public office and therefore had certain legal and moral obligations. Nader held no office, had no such obligations, and therefore didn't violate any public trust. From that point of view, his fault is less. That's why in my previous post I left him out and focused on Harris.

On the other hand, all these people were political actors. Harris and the judges acted in ways that advanced their political goals. Nader acted in ways that harmed his goals. If he had instead run in the Democratic primaries, he would have gotten wider exposure for his views, he would have mobilized more progressives who would have been in position to fight the intra-party battles against the conservative Democrats in later years, and he would not have risked tipping a close election to Bush. (He would even have had a better chance of becoming President, let's say one percent instead of one one-thousandth of one percent.) So, when you ask, in effect, whose fault is greater, I can't help but think of Peter O'Toole, as King Henry II, saying (in the film Becket): "Don't be nervous, Bishop. I'm not asking for absolution. I've something far worse than a sin on my conscience: a mistake."

[Fumesucker]

59. I thought I indicated that Nader's campaign was not in complete congruence with objective reality ?

None of the campaigns were in complete congruence with reality, to blame the entire election loss on Nader is as you say a mistake.

And let's not forget Gore's choice of the despicable Joseph Lieberman. Here we are talking about Nader's fault in the election and yet Gore's hand picked VP running mate campaigned at the 2008 RNC for Weathervane McCain and the Thrilla from Wasilla.

What, you think Joementum wasn't as transparent as intergalactic vacuum in 2000? Voters ran from Holy Joe, a political black hole from whom not a scintilla of charisma, empathy or honesty can escape because it was obvious to anyone who paid the slightest attention that he is a loathsome waste of maggot droppings.

The election was Gore's to lose, the campaign he headed for the Democratic party in 2000 with Holy Joe at his back ready to slide in the shiv and snivel the Joebituary in the end just didn't cut the Grey Poupon when it came up against a stacked deck.

According to the Christian faith there once was a perfect person who never made a mistake.

[Jim Lane]

63. You're very charitable toward Nader's folly.

One might also say that Bush's scaremongering about Iraq's WMD's "was not in complete congruence with objective reality."

Your description of Nader is technically accurate, but it would also be accurate, and more informative, to say that the whole fundamental rationale for his campaign was totally misguided.

As for Lieberman, I share your disdain for him, but he doesn't factor into this discussion. Nader decided to make his third-party run long before Gore picked Lieberman. Nader can't point to Lieberman as justifying his choice.

If anything, the causation ran the other way. Gore, being a practical politician, wanted to expand his support. With Nader, a well-known and popular figure, running on his left, he could reasonably conclude that an appeal to progressives would be less effective than if Nader were on the sidelines. The logical response would be to look to his right, and to name a running mate who had more appeal to centrists (who might otherwise vote for Bush).

You also seem to imply that Gore's selection of Lieberman hurt the ticket's electoral prospects. That's far from clear. Lieberman was indeed highly regarded by many conservative Democrats. Gore was campaigning in the shadow of Clinton's adultery, and Lieberman, who had an image of rectitude and had been stronger in condemning Clinton than had most other Dems, probably helped the ticket with a lot of people who knew more about blue dresses and cigars than about privatizing Social Security.

Then there's Florida itself. In early 2000, IIRC, the consensus was that the four biggest states were locked up -- California and New York for the Democrats, Texas and Florida for the Republicans. It was something of a surprise that Florida was in play. Lieberman probably had something to do with that -- he struck a chord among the Jewish population as well as among the social conservatives who had trouble getting past Lewinsky. It's quite possible that, with any other running mate, and with the loss of several thousand net votes to the Nader candidacy, Gore would have lost Florida honestly.

If the "any other running mate" had been Kerry, though, would his over-the-border strength in New Hampshire have brought the ticket the few extra votes it needed there? Gore-Kerry might lose Florida by 20,000 votes but win the election by flipping New Hampshire. Even now, with the benefit of hindsight, we don't know if that would've happened.

What we do know is that none of this is relevant to assessing whether Nader acted rightly or wrongly. The same is true of "Gore didn't even carry his home state." (You left that one out but Nader defenders often bring it up.) Nader's decision carried the foreseeable risk of splitting the anti-Bush vote and helping Bush become President, and that's what happened.

You seem upset that "Here we are talking about Nader's fault in the election...." One reason to talk about it is that the third-party silliness is still with us. Progressives should learn from 2000 that, on this subject, the boring old conventional wisdom happens to be correct, and the bold, daring, we'll-create-a-new-kind-of-politics romance of the third-party approach is wrong.

We talk about Nader's fault so that it won't be repeated.

[Fumesucker]

65. Eh, Gore couldn't even win his home state of Tennessee

And as for Clinton's popularity, it was the highest on leaving office of any postwar President at 66% and by postwar I mean WWII.

And the fact that conservadems liked Lieberman is an indictment of conservadems not an absolution for Joementum or Gore. Indeed, the fact that conservadems liked Lieberman bolsters some of what Nader was saying during the campaign and shows that he was less far off the mark with his comments about the lack of substantial differences between the parties than many here wish to believe.

You keep trying to bring my personality into this, is that how they teach you to debate issues in law school?

[Jim Lane]

66. I don't see where I brought your personality into this.

All my comments were directed at specific comments of yours. I made no generalization about your personality.

I did imply that many third-party supporters (not just Naderites and not just Greens and not just in 2000) take an unrealistic approach, in which they are influenced in part by the romance and excitement of breaking away from the two-party system, but which is unrealistic because it ends up hurting the goals they say they're seeking. I didn't mean to imply that every third-party voter has that personality, though. People supported Nader for many different reasons.

[pnwmom]

20. The Buchanan voters made a mistake. What Nader did was purposeful. n/t

[MNBrewer]

21. The DU "Shoot the Messenger" squad, in action.

[Fumesucker]

55. And Kathryn Harris, was what she did a mistake also? n/t

[Art_from_Ark]

34. The vote counting in Florida was halted before all the votes were counted

The 500-vote difference is a farce. Katherine Harris and others made sure that the counting stopped while bu$h was ahead, and the US Supreme Court made sure that all the votes would not be counted.

[SunSeeker]

7. K & R

[99th_Monkey]

9. Obama seems to oddly be going out of his way to assist in splitting Dems.

Why is that?

[Harmony Blue]

44. It is far easier to blame voters

don't be surprised if a repeat happens with the mid term elections.

[bluedeathray]

12. Gasps from the Good old boy Goons. nt

They're losing their margin and they know it.

The only ways to maintain their power blocs are gerrymandering districts, immoral/illegal legislative attempts, and outright lies that appeal to the last remnants of the small minded, reactive dolts that make up their constituencies (for the most part).

And now there's news of an eventual decline in white population?? News like this gives me hope that we can fight back to regain our democracy.

Then the reality of the secret and surveillance states sets in... The MIC won't go down without a fight.

[Jim Lane]

14. Obama could appoint a Commission on Civil Liberties Restoration with Glenn Greenwald as chair

In his speech announcing this welcome development, Obama would explain that there'd been a gradual erosion of civil liberties, with each step representing no huge change from the one before it, but that he'd come to realize he'd erred in not recognizing the importance of the cumulative effect.

He would recall the views of Professor Obama when teaching constitutional law, and of Senator Obama when criticizing the national-security state being assembled under Bush. He would candidly admit his mistake in straying from that point of view. He would ask the public's forgiveness, and promise to make major changes going forward.

There should be some limited representation of right-wingers on the commission. Maybe give Boehner and McConnell one appointment each. Rand Paul? Why not? Heck, I think it'd be a hoot to invite Sean Hannity to serve. The man who defended NSA surveillance under Bush and then attacked it under Obama could, all by himself, present most of the pro and con arguments the commission would need to consider.

Then Obama would actually do a lot of what the commission recommended. He wouldn't just rubber-stamp it, but he'd do enough to show the concerned civil libertarians that he really was taking the issue seriously. Not everything could be done by executive order, but when the Republicans filibuster the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2014, be it on their heads.

The result? Not only would the right fail to pick off any of our voters, but we'd turn it around and pick off some of the Paulites when he's not the nominee (and he won't be the nominee). Furthermore, a lot of other voters, not paying too much attention to the minutiae of the Bill of Rights, would nevertheless admire Obama's willingness to admit a mistake, and his taking forthright action to correct it.

In addition to these political gains, of course, another result is that civil liberties in America would actually get restored, to a great extent.

If Obama doesn't do something like this -- and my guess is that he won't -- then he's giving the right wing a fertile field to pursue the strategy you outline.

[baldguy]

26. And he could travel around DC in a carriage pulled by a team of unicorns, too.

Greenwald is a selfpromoting bombthrower who makes not playing well with others an essential part of his public persona. And I don't believe he's deep enough to behave differently in private, nor does he possess any of the managerial, diplomatic and political skills to be able to participate in such a commission at any level, much less head it.

[mhatrw]

36. Yeah, Dick Cheney would be the better choice!

[Jim Lane]

40. OK, I'll compromise. Russ Feingold.

My mention of Greenwald was mostly metaphorical. My point was that, if Obama wants to handle the political problem noted in the OP, his best path for doing so would be to make significant substantive changes in his policies. One high-profile way to begin would be to appoint the President's Commission on the Restoration of Civil Liberties.

Back here in the unicornless real world, Obama won't appoint such a commission at all -- not with Greenwald, not with Feingold, not with Rand Paul, not with anybody.

If there were a prospect that it might actually happen, then I wouldn't literally favor Greenwald as the chair. I'd be concerned about the point you raise concerning his managerial skills. He'd make a good member of the commission, though. One way to start returning to a more open society would be for government to accept and even strive for a debate that is "uninhibited, robust and wide-open," in Justice Brennan's words, without tossing around words like "bombthrower" about anyone who steps at all outside the conventional wisdom.

[sibelian]

17. Sweet Jesus... a "STRATEGIST"...

You seriously believe ANYBODY posting here is going to vote for the Right?

[baldguy]

27. There are many.

A great many.

[geek tragedy]

29. Lots of closeted and not so closeted libertarians. nt

[zappaman]

42. You said it!

Verrry revealing around here lately...

[SidDithers]

31. Yes...nt

Sid

[applegrove]

39. Nope. I'm not talking about people who talk politics online. I'm talking

about low information voters who happen to be on the far left.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Next you will call them commies

Is the HUAC in session?

Free clue, this is the WH doing. If this was the right, Issa would be all over this like a fly on shit.

[applegrove]

46. I'm not saying the right orchestrated this. I'm saying the crisis/scandal plays into the narrative

the right is gunning for. We need to deal with this quick. Before malaise sets in.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Why is Issa not going there?

Oy

[applegrove]

61. I think Issa isn't going there because the right likes the datamining. It is an important

tool for them. This crisis is playing out between Obama and his base and it is smart of the GOP to stay out of it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Well at least you understand this is

Not about the right. It is about the future of the country.

As to obama's coalition...it already shattered.

[HiPointDem]

49. if they're actually on the 'far left,' it's unlikely they're low information voters.

[Scuba]

19. "We have to fight for our coalition on the margins." Wrong ...

... remember, half the population doesn't vote, because neither party offers them squat. That's where the votes are, waiting for the Democrats to advocate for ...

A living wage

Medicare for All

Strengthening Social Security

Legalizing pot

Cutting defense to pay for it all.


Every time a Democrat moves to the right to pick up one vote, he/she loses three. The available votes are further left.

[MNBrewer]

22. ^^^ THIS

[winter is coming]

60. +1. We need to fight for our coalition among the marginalized.

If the Democratic Party feels it's losing its appeal among the marginalized, maybe it should take a long look in the mirror.

[ForeignandDomestic]

23. Backwards...

Standing for civil liberties and the constitution is not a far right principle.

Standing up against the Military Industrial Complex is not a far right principle.

The Democrats who fail to see this are the ones who have been co-opted into a right wing agenda and like frogs in boiling water have no idea this has taken place.

[baldguy]

33. Rand Paul does not stand up for civil liberties and the Constitution.

Rand Paul does not stand up against the dominance of the Military Industrial Complex.

His may say he does with his rhetoric, but the policies he and other RWers advocate would diminish & eliminate civil liberties, destroy the Constitution, and make the MIC and the corporatocracy even more powerful than they already are.

And yet we see supposed Democrats on DU praise Rand Paul & other Republicans - while they denigrate Obama & Democrats - every day.

[geek tragedy]

28. No, the fringe left is just wallowing in its love of fantasy.

These are the people who brought us "Bush=Gore."

They have always been insufferably stupid.

[mhatrw]

37. Are you in favor of the NSA domestic spying programs?

Do you think it is insufferably stupid.to be against them?

[geek tragedy]

38. I think they need to be scaled back and subject to more transparency and controls.

Note that I am not sure that it is accurate to state that the NSA has "domestic spying programs."

[mhatrw]

52. I meant domestic SECURITY programs.

Sort of like Operation Iraqi Freedom or Bush's Clean Air & Water Acts

[geek tragedy]

53. What do you mean by "domestic security programs?"

That's an awfully broad category.

[loyalsister]

35. This has been happening on the ground in my city

A self-identified libertarian ran for city council. I watched his campaign closely. He made a strong effort to court the AA vote with anti- police and anti- drug war positions. At the same time he opposed all taxes and supported the payday loan industry.

After losing that election he ran for state rep and towed the republican line. I expect them to work that strategy more and try to get the student vote.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Simple solution. Shut down the NSA, prosecute banksters rather than whistleblowers.

[avaistheone1]

64. Clearly a game changer.

[flamingdem]

47. Good analysis. They need the Paulbots nt

[liberal_at_heart]

50. Democratic politicians have to start representing the people.

Just campaigning and smearing the other guy will no longer be enough. Politicians will actually have to start earning people's votes. People are angry that politicians no longer work for them. They don't do what the people want them to do. When that happens people stay home on election day. So, if the democrats want people to vote they need to start doing the work they were elected to do.

[Dawson Leery]

51. Yes they are.

They need the Democratic base to stay home, just as they did in 2010.

[JoeyT]

57. These conspiracy theories baffle me.

The. Republicans. Are. Supporting. Obama.
You. Are. Siding. With. Dick. Cheney.

Maybe if we're worried about losing people to the libertarians over civil liberties, we should try *not sucking at protecting civil liberties*.