Bill Clinton or Ralph Nader: Who did more damage to progressive causes?

[JackRiddler]

Discuss.

[FreakinDJ]

1. You mean Nader the Traitor

on so many different levels

[elocs]

12. Mr. "Look at me!" "Look at me!" The Harold Stassen of our era

except Stassen actually managed to get elected to something.

[Deja Q]

95. So he wasn't allowed to run in 2000?

:eyes:

No revisionist history, here's a refresher of some of the key elements:

Nader ran. Like how he's legally allowed to.

Got like 2~6% of the vote depending on the state one was in. It was something like 5% in Florida. Wow. 5%. He's so big and powerful and tender and juicy too. :eyes:

Gore's job during the campaign was to convince people he was the better candidate. Gore essentially ran a lackluster campaign. Go watch some youtube clips, particularly of the debates. Gore was FEEBLE in the debates. Very odd given the Lewinski affair was still fresh in peoples' dirty minds; Gore should have seen the obvious and figure it out he, by association, had more work to do. Like it or not, Gore didn't. Indeed, only when there's no sign of consequence does Gore actually say anything with meaning. Even then, that's constrained to only political issues. Remember, lots of people (and on DU so go search) were saying (paraphrased) "Where was this attitude during election 2000?"

The US Supreme Court made the decision.

The 'Popular vote' was ignored. Must've been a good legal reason; isn't the 'popular vote' tallied by legal officials as well? Or has the 'popular vote' no legal bearing at all?

Florida ran by the corrupt and/or inept.



There were MANY factors afoot. The least of which was some guy choosing to run, even if he was a big evil republican plant. Why don't you find a democratic plant for election 2012 then. :eyes:

In short, don't get pissed off because somebody from a third party came in and won 5% of the vote. Nader's involvement was tangential at best.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

2. Oh FFS. nt

[BGoldsteinish]

3. The most loaded question ever...lol

[JackRiddler]

16. Nah, best popcorn thread ever.

Welcome to DU, BGoldsteinish.

[XemaSab]

4. .

:popcorn:

[Orwellian_Ghost]

5. Clinton, Republicans agree to deregulation of US financial system

Clinton, Republicans agree to deregulation of US financial system
By Martin McLaughlin
1 November 1999

An agreement between the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans, reached during all-night negotiations which concluded in the early hours of October 22, sets the stage for passage of the most sweeping banking deregulation bill in American history, lifting virtually all restraints on the operation of the giant monopolies which dominate the financial system.

The proposed Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 would do away with restrictions on the integration of banking, insurance and stock trading imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, one of the central pillars of Roosevelt's New Deal. Under the old law, banks, brokerages and insurance companies were effectively barred from entering each others' industries, and investment banking and commercial banking were separated.

The certain result of repeal of Glass-Steagall will be a wave of mergers surpassing even the colossal combinations of the past several years. The Wall Street Journal wrote, "With the stroke of the president's pen, investment firms like Merrill Lynch & Co. and banks like Bank of America Corp., are expected to be on the prowl for acquisitions." The financial press predicted that the most likely mergers would come from big banks acquiring insurance companies, with John Hancock, Prudential and The Hartford all expected to be targeted.

<snip>

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/bank-n01.shtml

[mod mom]

9. and helped out media consolidation w Telecom Act of '96

[Radical Activist]

10. Plus NAFTA

Those three longest lasting impacts of the Clinton Presidency were all pretty destructive. I don't think you can measure how much progressive ideas are suppressed due to media consolidation.

[mod mom]

11. worse than NAFTA-MFN Trade status w China:

BYE BYE MIDDLE CLASS JOBS (Note: there was opposition by the Dems):


Clinton to renew Normal Trade Relations with China



June 2, 1999
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 2) -- President Bill Clinton will notify Congress Thursday that he is renewing China's most-favored-nation (MFN) trading status -- now known as Normal Trade Relations (NTR) -- for another year, CNN has confirmed.

MFN/NTR status offers low tariffs and treats countries as normal trading partners.

The formal notification, required by the Thursday deadline, is expected to trigger a major debate in the House and Senate due to allegations of Chinese espionage against the U.S. and other recent diplomatic tensions, including charges China tried to influence the 1996 presidential election with illegal campaign contributions.

One of the first speak out against Clinton decision, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-California), derided the president for making the decision near the 10th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

-snip

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/02/china.mfn/





Clinton Proposes Renewing China's Most-Favored Trade Status

Congressional reaction mixed amidst larger China policy issues


WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 3) -- President Bill Clinton on Wednesday proposed renewing most-favored-nation (MFN) trade status for China, saying it was "clearly in our nation's interest" as he urged Congress to support the request.

-snip

House Speaker Newt Gingrich welcomed Clinton's recommendation for renewing MFN status for China, and vowed to work in a bipartisan manner to ensure that China receives it from Congress.

Gingrich, joined by Reps. Bill Archer (R-Texas) and Philip Crane (R-Ill.), made his comments in a letter to Clinton.

-snip

House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt issued a statement Wednesday opposing Clinton's plan to extend China's trading status for another year.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/03/china.trade/

[FreakinDJ]

14. Ralph under a RATpubliCON controlled House and Senate

would have been much worse I'm afraid

Judging purely from his actions during his most resent attempts to presidential politics. Even when he knew full well RATpubliCONs were financing his run in an attempt to "Split" dem votes he condoned their actions and advocated for his right to usher Bush into office

[JackRiddler]

17. So you're positing a hypothetical Nader presidency as worse than the Clinton reality?

That's your defense of Clinton?

[FreakinDJ]

26. No one's defense - Just saying Ralph would have been Worse

Ralph enabled Bush II's entrance into the oval office and defended his actions for doing it. Nadar's ego was so out of control I shudder to think of the possibilities he could have perpetrated when his ego was fully drunken with assumed power

[defendandprotect]

54. I doubt you have the faintest idea of the platform that Nader ran on . . .

However, GORE WON, including in Florida according to the press recount --

Further, 300,000 "Democrats" voted for Bush in Florida --

Pat Buchanan picked up 3,000+ "butterfly ballot votes" not intended for him ---

Various other third parties took 18,000+ votes -- Libertarians/Socialists --

600+ illegal military ballots were counted for Bush --


Top that off with a GOP fascist rally which STOPPED the recounting of votes in Miami-Dade

County mandated by the Florida State Supreme Court. NO police interference with this

riot rally.

And, finally, the Gang of 5 on the Supreme Court put W in the Oval Office ---


In the end, Gore would not even agree to a challenge of any kind to the Bush "win."

And what is it that you think Ralph Nader had to do with any of this ????????

[creeksneakers2]

65. Ralph made it all possible

And Al Gore did everything he could. How can you say Al did not agree to a challenge of any kind? It went all the way to the Supreme Court. What should Al have done from there? Appeal to God?

Stop pointing fingers and admit that without Ralph Gore would have been president. The same people who voted for Nader will do everything they can to destroy Obama too. They hate anybody who doesn't back the far left agenda 100%.

[defendandprotect]

71. How . . . ???

Are you ignoring the fact that Gore Won, including in Florida -- no matter

how the votes are counted?

Because Gore has to have LOST in order to Ralph to be scapegoated.

Baloney-- First thing Gore did was to stop the protests in the butterfly ballot

area -- sent Jesse Jackson home.

Gore's legal advice was very poor resulting in a limited request for recount rather

than full recount. Kind of like the Reid arguments . . . lame/ineffective.

Pressure should have been put on Scalia to recuse himself considering the involvement

of his sons with law firms connected to Bush/GOP.


And, as I recall it, Gore did not take case to Supremes -- they injected themselves in

stopping the recount and then themselves took up the question of how Bush's loss of votes

would "harm his presidency" -- !!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore



Briefly, Al Gore believed that since the Florida machine counts were so close, there was a very good chance that there were enough uncounted legal votes to change the outcome of the election. He asked the Florida supreme court to order a manual recount of those votes. The Florida supreme court agreed and ordered a recount of the undervotes in all counties in Florida on December 8th. The recount was proceeding in a timely manner until the US Supreme Court halted the vote on December 9th saying, in essence, that Bush's "presidency" may be harmed if it turned out that he didn't get the most votes. After waiting most of 3 and a half days to issue a ruling, at 10:00PM on December 12th, the Supreme Court ruled that the winner had to be determined by midnight of that same day, that the recount might treat different voters' ballots differently, and that there was no way to remedy this violation of the equal protection clause and complete the recount in two hours. The Court, therefore reversed the Florida court's order for a recount, effectively declaring the election over and George W. Bush the winner.

http://home.pacbell.net/jmax7/BushvGore2000.htm


And, here are some facts on Florida --

GORE WON, including in Florida according to the press recount -- no matter how its counted.

Florida facts . . .

Further, 300,000 "Democrats" voted for Bush in Florida --

Pat Buchanan picked up 3,000+ "butterfly ballot votes" not intended for him ---

Various other third parties took 18,000+ votes -- Libertarians/Socialists --

600+ illegal military ballots were counted for Bush --


Top that off with a GOP fascist rally which STOPPED the recounting of votes in Miami-Dade

County mandated by the Florida State Supreme Court. NO police interference with this

riot rally.

And, finally, the Gang of 5 on the Supreme Court put W in the Oval Office ---


In the end, Gore would not even agree to a challenge of any kind to the Bush "win."

And what is it that you think Ralph Nader had to do with any of this ????????


Democrats have still since 2000 done little or nothing to stop GOP steals --!!

Where's IRV voting, for another for instance. . .?

[creeksneakers2]

73. Gore did not win no matter how the votes were counted

He won three out of nine ways a newspaper consortium counted it. If the votes were counted again they'd get a different result. The truth is, nobody will never really know who won because the margin of victory was smaller than the margin of error of the vote counting.

Nader wasn't scapegoated. He drained off enough votes from Gore to make all the rest possible. No matter how many fingers you point, you can't change or defend what Nader did. Just point fingers and try to distract attention away from Nader's destructive actions.

Nothing could be done about the butterfly ballots. What good was Jesse Jackson doing? He was probably just a loose cannon. What possible difference could Jesse Jackson have made?

Gore never asked that the recount be limited. All the other counties save one that Gore didn't go after already had machine recounts. Gore asked the Florida Supreme Court for all votes to be manually counted. What more do you want?

Pressure was put on Scalia. No amount of shame would have caused Scalia to recuse himself. The man has no conscience.

There were probably Republicans who voted for Gore too. They would have been enough if Nader hadn't siphoned off votes.

What challenge did Gore neglect? You can go to court. Where else can you go?

The Nader people who won't admit their responsibility now weren't singing this tune before the election. I remember them saying that their strategy was to make Gore lose by enough votes for the Democrats to realize they were a few short of a majority without the Greens. The Greens hoped that the Democrats would submit to the Greens to ever win and then the Greens could force their fringe beliefs on the rest of the Democratic Party and then take over and have the country run by fringe kooks who were out to destroy every business in the country. It was all really stupid because the Democrats weren't about to let the kook fringe Greens take over and if they did they'd lose all the rest of their votes and get the kind of results the Greens get in national elections. 0.0!

They wanted to make Gore lose and they succeeded. Now they say Gore should have done more. Look at the ignorance of these Green people! They are all sickeningly holier than though about it all too. Still pointing fingers.

[defendandprotect]

107. The press reported Gore won . . ..

"no matter how the votes were counted."

Additionally, Gore had the popular vote so we are only talking about

state electoral votes which were obviously rigged, especially in

Florida.

You're ignoring everyone else who took votes from Gore in Florida --

including 300,000 "Democrats" who voted for Bush.

And, evidently, Nader pushed the Supreme Court to intervene -- and

to decide in Bush's favor!

The butterfly ballots were the subject of a lawsuit for a new election

in that area. Of course something could have been done. But not without

protests.

Gore did NOT ask for a total recount.

Evidently, you don't understand the recounts, nor machine failures to

count ALL votes.

What pressure was put on Scalia prior to the decision? None.

Only afterwards was that information made clear to the general public.

Insiders, of course, knew the facts.

And, additionally, the GOP's fascist rally had nothing to do with stopping

the recount . . . only Nader is responsible for that!

Evidently you also do not know that there was a challenge in Congress to

the decision and all that was required was that ONE Senator join the

challenge. Gore did not stand against it.

Nader nor the Greens ever said that their aim was to make Gore lose.

Rather, the Democrats infiltrated the Green Party -- and scapegoated them

as well for the Gore loss.

And, given your existence on the "fringe" -- you're now on ignore.

[vanderBeth]

6. Yummy, Popcorn.

:popcorn:

[Wetzelbill]

7. woa... this would be a good one for me to stay away from,

I will watch for the entertainment though. :)

[Radical Activist]

8. The Greens owe more to Clinton than to Nader.

Clinton's move to the right, and the fact that the party during his time ignored the issues of many progressive voters including young people, provided a rationale for people to join the Green Party.
Nader couldn't even be bothered with party building activities after he ran in 2000. Every Green should thank Clinton for the existence of their party because it certainly wasn't due to their brilliant organizing.

[defendandprotect]

55. The Greens were threatened by Democrats co-opting their party . . .

and by post-2000 threats which made them fear allowing Nader to run as a Green again --

unless the US moved to IRV voting.

Note that the Democrats have done little or nothing about vote steals --- which certainly

didn't begin in 2000 or 2004!

http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm



Nader is a prime target of Democrats as he is one of their toughest critics.

Nothing worked better for them than "scapegoating" Nader for 2000 --

yet the Democrats did nothing to protest that huge steal!!!

[creeksneakers2]

66. Dems did nothing to protest that huge steal?

They did everything that could have been done. Florida had a GOP governor, secretary of state and legislature. They controled the whole thing. Gore went as far as the Florida supreme court in state and won. The case went to the supreme court of the United States. What was Gore to do then? Start a bloody revolution?

Nader activist blame Gore for not fixing the intentional damage Nader and his followers did to all liberal causes. How sick is that? I break your window in the middle of winter, then blame you when it gets cold in your house for not fixing the window fast enough. Geez!

[defendandprotect]

68. BS . . . Gore caved immediately --

and his lawyers were useless -- if he was following their recommendations about

requesting a recount and any other advice.

The 3,000+ votes picked up by Pat Buchanan in Florida were "butterfly ballot" sabotage

by Theresa LaPore later connected to GOP --- BUT THE BALLOT WAS APPROVED BY DEMOCRATS!

Where were protests of the GOP-sponsored riot/rally?

It's more game playing along lines of "we just weren't strong enough" which echoes the

way GOP can always control USHR/Senate whether they are minority or majority . . .

because of Democrat failure to fight.


GORE WON, including in Florida according to the press recount -- no matter how its counted.

Florida facts . . .

Further, 300,000 "Democrats" voted for Bush in Florida --

Pat Buchanan picked up 3,000+ "butterfly ballot votes" not intended for him ---

Various other third parties took 18,000+ votes -- Libertarians/Socialists --

600+ illegal military ballots were counted for Bush --


Top that off with a GOP fascist rally which STOPPED the recounting of votes in Miami-Dade

County mandated by the Florida State Supreme Court. NO police interference with this

riot rally.

And, finally, the Gang of 5 on the Supreme Court put W in the Oval Office ---


In the end, Gore would not even agree to a challenge of any kind to the Bush "win."

And what is it that you think Ralph Nader had to do with any of this ????????


Democrats have still since 2000 done little or nothing to stop GOP steals --!!

Where's IRV voting, for another for instance. . .?

[creeksneakers2]

74. Now its supposed to be Gore's fault because he listened to

his lawyers.

[creeksneakers2]

75. It must save wear and tear on a keyboard

to cut and paste the same list over and over again and never bother to directly address what is being said.

[Frances]

13. Stupid poll

It was thinking like this that got w into office.

People who equate Clinton and Nader are like the people who think FDR caused the great depression. Factually challenged.

[JackRiddler]

15. Factually challenged? How are these for facts?

FDR didn't cause the Great Depression.

Clintonian neoliberal policies of corporate globalism and financial deregulation helped cause the present crisis as a predictable consequence. He rendered great service to the Bush mob by letting their first set of outrages go well-rewarded. Other than relative fiscal responsibility, his eight years fit almost seamlessly in the progression from Bush to Bush, and it's no wonder he now travels the world with Bush Sr. as his good friend.

Certainly no one equates Clinton with Nader.

One is a dishonest opportunist who catered always to the rich and powerful. The other is a brilliant and tireless reform crusader who at worst can be accused of putting the courage of his convictions above the need for compromise. The country's tragedy is that its people do not live up to his example, or even understand what he says.

How people stand on these two figures tells you about a real and important divide among those who avow belief in the progressive cause.

[niceypoo]

127. So Bill Clinton is responsible for the last eight years?

"Other than relative fiscal responsibility, his eight years fit almost seamlessly in the progression from Bush to Bush"

That is hands down the most ignorant statement Ive ever seen on DU.

You have driven right off a cliff, havent you?

:rofl:

[FLAprogressive]

18. NAFTA, deregulation, lifetime fodder for right wingers

yeah I think it was Bill Clinton

[rvablue]

19. Nader is a trust fund baby. It's so easy to stand on the side lines and take pot shots

at everyone for not being as great as you are.

What concrete contributions has Ralph Nader made to anything, besides ensuring that we suffered 8 years under the Bush administration, in the past decade.

At least Bill Clinton for all of his faults and mistakes has undertaken trying to eradicate AIDS in Africa.

And even though he did wrong during the primaries, he later stood up and extolled the virtues of Obama on the campaign trail while Nader was busy calling him an "Uncle Tom."

Nader is a loser. A big one.

ed:clar.

[mitchum]

27. Maybe that's why "Poor Little Bill From The Wrong Side Of The Tracks"...

was easily bought by the ruling elite?

[Hippo_Tron]

34. He was bought by public opinion

You can't govern to the left in a time when the country is moving right (which it was during the 80's and 90's). Dukakis was destroyed because he was painted as too liberal and in all honesty he wasn't even that much more liberal than Clinton. We're slowly starting to see this country shift away from the Reagan bullshit that we've been fed for the past 30 years but during the 90's that was not the case.

The fact is that in a democracy people get the government that they want and the people didn't want a serious reformer, they wanted a centrist like Clinton.

[Radical Activist]

37. People voted for a progressive candidate in '92

who ran on a progressive platform. They didn't get what they wanted. And whatever else Perot may have been, he was most certainly a reformer.

[mattclearing]

47. "It's so easy to stand on the side lines and take pot shots at everyone for not being as great as

you are."

Perhaps you should apply that to yourself.

I'll take the guy who gave us seatbelts over the guy who gave us Clear Channel anyday.

Even so, has it occurred to you that Nader equated Democrats and Republicans because neither Democrats nor Republicans would give him the time of day?

Lobbyists were more important to Bill Clinton than a living legend consumer advocate with decades of real activism and accomplishment and an army of activists behind him. That is a big knock on Bill Clinton's progressive credibility.

Does that excuse Nader's handling of Bush and the 2000/04 elections? Of course not, but at least he didn't hand over fifty years of progressive work to corporate fatcats on a silver platter.

Bill Clinton did, and the fact that he could be friendly to the Bushes while they were doing what they were doing to America is not a positive in my book.

Nader can be forgiven for growing old and bitter in a world that ignored his reasoned and well-meant advocacy. Can Bill Clinton be forgiven for selling us all down the river to people like the Bushes and then golfing with them afterward? If you saw Nader and GHWB in the golf cart together, you'd be pretty pissed off, no?

[defendandprotect]

56. Unfortunately . . .

you make very clear that you know nothing of Ralph Nader's history in educating

this nation as to corporatism over the decades.

And next time you think about 2000, think about this info on FLORIDA . . .

GORE WON, including in Florida according to the press recount --

Further, 300,000 "Democrats" voted for Bush in Florida --

Pat Buchanan picked up 3,000+ "butterfly ballot votes" not intended for him ---

Various other third parties took 18,000+ votes -- Libertarians/Socialists --

600+ illegal military ballots were counted for Bush --


Top that off with a GOP fascist rally which STOPPED the recounting of votes in Miami-Dade

County mandated by the Florida State Supreme Court. NO police interference with this

riot rally.

And, finally, the Gang of 5 on the Supreme Court put W in the Oval Office ---


In the end, Gore would not even agree to a challenge of any kind to the Bush "win."


And what is it that you think Ralph Nader had to do with any of this ????????

Some day take a look at the platform Nader ran on in 2000 --

People who believe this "scapegoating" of Nader are the "losers" . .

[Greyhound]

86. Oh yes, the child of Lebanese immigrants, who's father worked in textile mills is a trust fund baby.

At least look up the man on Wikipedia before you start making up bullshit.
:eyes:

[jeffrey_X]

101. "What concrete contributions has Ralph Nader made to anything?"

I sometimes wonder where you people come from. Do you really not have any idea of the contributions he made during the 70s only to be shot down and halted by the Reagan and the beginning of the neo-con movement of the early 80's.

Regardless of what you think he did or didn't do during the this decade, the man has accomplished quite a bit more than a lot of people who have held public office.

[Uncle Joe]

20. I can't vote because, I view the damage as equal. n/t

[burythehatchet]

21. Nader regulates. Clinton deregulates. You tell me what's more harmful.

[FLAprogressive]

23. my question is: "why is this so fucking close?"

some people are so blinded by Clinton love....hero worship if you will

even though they rail against the same things he supported.

[burythehatchet]

24. Party over principle.

[FLAprogressive]

25. people who think that politics is a game and as long as the ones in the blue jerseys are winning

they don't care who's actually in the blue jerseys.....

[Hippo_Tron]

28. Because if Nader had not run in 2000 Al Gore would have been President

And that means no Iraq War, amongst other things. Not that I blame Nader entirely for Gore not becoming President, there were a lot more factors than Nader. But the fact of the matter is that with extremely close margins in New Hampshire and Florida, Gore's probability of winning would've been very high with Nader not in the race. I'm not accusing Nader of intentionally subverting progressive causes but unintentionally he certainly did.

[FLAprogressive]

30. Bill Clinton's disastrous Republican policies.....

contributed to the economic crisis

[Hippo_Tron]

33. Lots of things contributed to the economic crisis

But there would have been no Iraq War without a George W Bush Presidency and there would've been no George W Bush Presidency without Ralph Nader. The question isn't who is more progressive, the question is who has done more damage to progressive causes. Whether intentional or not, Ralph is responsible for setting back progressive causes quite a bit.

[JackRiddler]

35. Gore won. The country and Florida. Bush stole it. Nader had nothing to do with it.

Don't tell us about how Nader reduced Gore's share. How do you know Bush wouldn't have stolen it even given a higher total for Gore? They were losing hundreds of thousands of ballots and fixing the vote in the counties based on what they saw actually coming in.

Millions of registered Democrats voted for Bush. Blame them.

Lieberman sabotaged Gore. Blame him.

Gore picked the wrong recount scenario and in the end folded when he still had a chance. Blame him.

Above all, blame the criminals of the Bush mob, who actually perpetrated a coup d'etat.

If given their simple crime and the great complexity of the situation otherwise you pick out Nader as the one to blame, it's because you don't like him or his politics, not because he was in any way responsible for the coup d'etat of 2000.

[Hippo_Tron]

36. New Hampshire was well within the Nader margin

And unlike in Florida, New Hampshire had a Democratic Governor and their Secretary of State is non-partisan. Bush did not have the infrastructure to steal that state.

[defendandprotect]

61. The press recount reports that GORE WON . . . no matter how it is counted . . .

GORE WON, including in Florida according to the press recount --

Florida facts . . .

Further, 300,000 "Democrats" voted for Bush in Florida --

Pat Buchanan picked up 3,000+ "butterfly ballot votes" not intended for him ---

Various other third parties took 18,000+ votes -- Libertarians/Socialists --

600+ illegal military ballots were counted for Bush --


Top that off with a GOP fascist rally which STOPPED the recounting of votes in Miami-Dade

County mandated by the Florida State Supreme Court. NO police interference with this

riot rally.

And, finally, the Gang of 5 on the Supreme Court put W in the Oval Office ---


In the end, Gore would not even agree to a challenge of any kind to the Bush "win."

And what is it that you think Ralph Nader had to do with any of this ????????


Democrats have still since 2000 done little or nothing to stop GOP steals --!!

[Hippo_Tron]

92. Gore won but he was never inaugurated

And one of the things that could have changed that is Ralph Nader not running. It is a fact that Gore won. It is also a fact that if Nader had never run, Gore would have been President. I don't see why that is so hard to accept.

[defendandprotect]

59. Personally, I don't think you're giving the GOP sufficient credit for stolen elections . . .

Gore had career long benefits from relationship with an oil company --

The oil industry has largely controlled government --

These wars are about OIL and drugs -- a larger footprint in the Middle East/OIL areas --


Meanwhile ---

GORE WON, including in Florida according to the press recount --

Florida facts . . .

Further, 300,000 "Democrats" voted for Bush in Florida --

Pat Buchanan picked up 3,000+ "butterfly ballot votes" not intended for him ---

Various other third parties took 18,000+ votes -- Libertarians/Socialists --

600+ illegal military ballots were counted for Bush --


Top that off with a GOP fascist rally which STOPPED the recounting of votes in Miami-Dade

County mandated by the Florida State Supreme Court. NO police interference with this

riot rally.

And, finally, the Gang of 5 on the Supreme Court put W in the Oval Office ---


In the end, Gore would not even agree to a challenge of any kind to the Bush "win."

And what is it that you think Ralph Nader had to do with any of this ????????



Democrats have still since 2000 done little or nothing to stop GOP steals --!!

[creeksneakers2]

77. Would you mind repeating that?

I missed the first ten times.

[Hippo_Tron]

91. New Hampshire was well within the Nader margin

And New Hampshire had a Democratic Governor and a non-partisan Secretary of State. There are many many factors that could have caused the 2000 election to go the other way and Ralph Nader is one of them. Regardless of Florida, New Hampshire would've put Gore at 270. And Gore challenged until it was impossible for him to challenge anymore. Realistically there is nothing more that he could have done.

[Individualist]

29. The DLC contingent always rallies around Clinton threads

[FLAprogressive]

31. yup...their astoturfers usually come out in full force

[JackRiddler]

50. What's that? Ass-toe turf?

[bobthedrummer]

45. Yep.

"Inconvenient truths about the New Democrats, the Third Way, Democratic Leadership Council, etc" (started 3-7-08)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2973191

There was a coup in 2000 that installed the Bush/Cheney criminal administration.

I would like to see Ralph Nader as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

[defendandprotect]

60. Agree . . . entirely--!!!

[defendandprotect]

58. And so blinded by the scapegoat that the Democrats gave them . . .

in Nader. Of course, Nader is one of the biggest critics of the corporate-Dems . . .

and they fear the public could catch on!

Democrats also infiltrated and tried to co-opt the Green Party . . .

Democrats did little or nothing to remedy election steals or stop them in future!

[NoPasaran]

22. I'll be damned if I'm going to vote for Nader

Fie on your silly tricks!

[JackRiddler]

38. curses - foiled agin!

[hiphopnation]

32. yes n/t

[JI7]

39. NADER, Clinton never claimed to be a liberal

but Nader got people to vote for Bush by telling them he was not so bad since he was just like Gore.

[JackRiddler]

40. But that's not the question.

Regardless of what one claimed, who did the greater damage? Who deserves our condemnation?

[JI7]

41. Nader for the reason i gave

[iamthebandfanman]

42. yikes, wheres the both option?

then again, ive never really thought of clinton as a liberal...


as far as nader, his ego has been his biggest downfall..

[Jack_DeLeon]

43. Clinton, if he didnt fuck around on the job, we could have had Gore in 2000...

and not have had 8 years of Bush.

[JackRiddler]

44. Democratic Underground lives!

Clinton 64, Nader 55 -- as of 5:12 pm Feb. 21st.

There's still some "underground" here, it seems.

[omega minimo]

123. Depends on your view of the continuous corporatist state that Obama now gets to preside over

(or is it under) :yoiks:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. The Clintons are to progressive what decaf is to coffee.

[scarletwoman]

49. Amen!

:thumbsup:

[Occam Bandage]

63. Tastes a bit weaker, but doesn't keep you up with anxiety all night? nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

67. Like Decaf, it doesn't just taste weaker, it is weaker.

And, neutral in it's effect.

[leftstreet]

48. Finally. A vote for Clinton I can feel good about

:hide:

[Ichingcarpenter]

57. LOL..... me too!

[ThoughtCriminal]

51. IBTL

:eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

52. Bill even admitted that he screwed up

KING: Do you resent it when the Bush people say that this problem started with you, it started in your administration?

CLINTON: Well, they don't have much evidence for that. I always answer, does anyone seriously believe if the team I had in place had been in place for the last eight years that this would have happened?

And the answer to that is no. We had a much more vigorous regulatory environment with the Securities and Exchange Commission. We were watching these derivatives. I do think we should have done more on derivatives.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0902/17/lkl.01.html

[No.23]

53. What an incredibly assinine question.

Bill Clinton was the key supporter of an economic sanction that directly affected the deaths of almost a million Iraqi children.

It was his pen that drew their blood.

You are not "progressive", in my lexicon, if your actions directly result in the unnecessary death of legions of children.

Ralph Nader's hands, at least, don't have the blood that Clinton's hands do.

[JackRiddler]

72. But I agree with your views.

Ralph Nader has always been a true champion of the good.

Bill Clinton was a disaster. I hope popular pressure and a conscience cause Obama to follow a different path, though it will be dangerous.

The question is a key one in the context of DU, to which you are apparently new. For me, it crystalizes one of the central conflicts here: between progressive politics and cheerleading for a party. Between those who praise accommodation to the murder-system as necessary or "realist," and those who demand peace and justice, period. Between those who want to fight Goliath and those who want to make of David a scapegoat, since Goliath is so much more scary.

Welcome to DU, No.23.

.

[No.23]

76. Thank you, JR.

For two things in particular.

1) That you were able to differentiate my criticism of the question (which it was) from criticism of the questioner. Your ability to do that, which is not a common ability, draws my initial respect at the get-go.

2) For your concise yet precise description of the current process of self-evaluation that DU is undergoing. It takes a lot of courage for its participants to become engaged in it, I'm sure that you will agree. Providing that they are able to differentiate, as you are, the point from the point-maker.

Thanks again.

[creeksneakers2]

79. Its a battle between the reasonable

and the sanctimonious fringers.

[JackRiddler]

80. Sanctimonious fringers? You mean, like the DLC?

[creeksneakers2]

88. The DLC is right of center

The real right wingers are the fascist guys that the Greens want to get elected.

[No.23]

89. I'm glad to see that someone else also sees...

the weed of facism doesn't only grow in non-liberal/leftist gardens.

It grows in all gardens, if you are a control freak in your political inclinations.

[bobthedrummer]

116. "Know Your DLC: Current DLC Leadership Team and other Democratic Leadership Council links"

This is one of the threads I started last year about the "right of center" political machine inside the Democratic Party.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5396391

[creeksneakers2]

119. Lots of interesting information on the thread

I know generally who they are. They represent corporate influence in the party. I don't put them entirely on the right because they pay lip service to many liberal causes. As I've watched them, they seem to only care about conspiring to preserve the military industrial complex and to continue free trade policies. Like it or not, those are mainstream positions.

I don't think the DLC has the influence it once had. I don't think they were ever as powerful as posters here thought they were. Everything that goes against the conventional wisdom at DU gets called DLC. Its a cheap way to avoid debating an issue.

Here's the last time I responded to a DLC:

(see bottom)

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2009/02/post_16.php

Just because I don't agree with the DLC doesn't mean I like the far left. The public neither wants the corporate embrace of the DLC or the reflexive anti-business attitude of the far left. Moderation is the key.

[BlooInBloo]

62. Fuck Nader. Fuck Nader voters.

[No.23]

64. No thanks.

We don't like being screwed.

Which is why we didn't vote for a blue or red penis.

[Deja Q]

97. Yeah, but a green penis suggests lots of mold or fungus or STD or something...

I prefer white penis...

:rofl:

Welcome to DU!

:party:

[Strong Atheist]

100. Welcome to DU!

:party:

[Deja Q]

96. Wow. People tell me I need to 'get laid', but you're offering to give free lays to people?!

(I voted for Gore, but lamented at the time the only person with a more sterile, robotic personality when compared to Gore was Nader. I was surprised at how many voted for him despite having the charisma of a Commodore Vic 20.)

[bobthedrummer]

121. With what???

:silly:

[mdmc]

69. What damage did Nader do?

:shrug:

[Yukari Yakumo]

70. He gave us 8 years of Bush. {nt}

[Ichingcarpenter]

78. Gore even disputes that nonsense.

I believe Gore before you.

[JackRiddler]

81. Excellent point! Gore doesn't blame Nader...

So why can't the hardcore haters here let go?

[Ichingcarpenter]

82. Nader's analysis of what has been going over the years has never missed its mark

in regard to his understanding of corporations.


He just sucks as a politician



'Corporate Socialism'
By Ralph Nader

Thursday, July 18, 2002; Page A29

The relentless expansion of corporate control over our political economy has proven nearly immune to daily reporting by the mainstream media. Corporate crime, fraud and abuse have become like the weather; everyone is talking about the storm but no one seems able to do anything about it. This is largely because expected accountability mechanisms -- including boards of directors, outside accounting and law firms, bankers and brokers, state and federal regulatory agencies and legislatures -- are inert or complicit.

When, year after year, the established corporate watchdogs receive their profits or compensation directly or indirectly from the companies they are supposed to be watching, independent judgment fails, corruption increases and conflicts of interest grow among major CEOs and their cliques. Over time, these institutions, unwilling to reform themselves, strive to transfer the costs of their misdeeds and recklessness onto the larger citizenry. In so doing, big business is in the process of destroying the very capitalism that has provided it with a formidable ideological cover.

Consider the following assumptions of a capitalistic system:

1) Owners are supposed to control what they own. For a century, big business has split ownership (shareholders) from control, which is in the hands of the officers of the corporation and its rubber-stamp board of directors. Investors have been disenfranchised and told to sell their shares if they don't like the way management is running their business. Nowadays, with crooked accounting, inflated profits and self-dealing, it has proven difficult for even large investors to know the truth about their officious managers.

2) Under capitalism, businesses are supposed to sink or swim, which is still very true for small business. But larger industries and companies often have become "too big to fail" and demand that Uncle Sam serve as their all-purpose protector, providing a variety of public guarantees and emergency bailouts. Yes, some wildly looted companies that are expendable, such as Enron, cannot avail themselves of governmental salvation and do go bankrupt or are bought. By and large, however, in industry after industry where two or three companies dominate or presage a domino effect, Washington becomes their backstop.

3) Capitalism is supposed to exhibit a consensual freedom of contract -- a distinct advance over a feudal society. Yet the great majority of contracts for credit, insurance, software, housing, health, employment, products, repairs and other services are standard-form, printed contracts, presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Going across the proverbial street to a competitor gets you the same contract. Every decade, these "contracts of adhesion," as the lawyers call them, become more intrusive and more insistent on taking away the buyers' constitutional rights to access to courts in favor of binding arbitration or stipulate outright surrender of basic rights and remedies. The courts are of little help in invalidating these impositions by what are essentially private corporate legislatures regulating millions of Americans.

4) Capitalism requires a framework of law and order: The rules of the economic game are to be conceived and enforced on the merits against mayhem, fraud, deception and predatory practices. Easily the most powerful influence over most government departments and agencies are the industries that receive the privileges and immunities, regulatory passes, exemptions, deductions and varied escapes from responsibility that regularly fill the business pages. Only those caught in positions of extreme dereliction ever have reason to expect more than a slap on the wrist for violating legal mandates.

5) Capitalist enterprises are expected to compete on an even playing field. Corporate lobbyists, starting with their abundant cash for political campaigns, have developed a "corporate state" where government lavishes subsidies, inflated contracts, guarantees and research and development and natural resources giveaways on big business -- while denying comparable benefits to individuals and family businesses. We have a government of big business, by big business and for big business, even if more of these businesses are nominally moving their state charters to Bermuda-like tax escapes.

"Corporate socialism" -- the privatization of profit and the socialization of risks and misconduct -- is displacing capitalist canons. This condition prevents an adaptable capitalism, served by equal justice under law, from delivering higher standards of living and enlarging its absorptive capacity for broader community and environmental values. Civic and political movements must call for a decent separation of corporation and state.

In 1938, in the midst of the Great Depression, Congress created the Temporary National Economic Committee to hold hearings around the country, recommend ways to deal with the concentration of economic power and promote a more just economy. World War II stopped this corporate reform momentum. We should not have to wait for a further deterioration from today's gross inequalities of wealth and income to launch a similar commission on the rampant corporatization of our country. At stake is whether civic values of our democratic society will prevail over invasive commercial values.

http://www.essential.org/features/corporatesocialism.html


He wrote this in 2002

[No.23]

83. Have you excelled in archery long?

"Nader's analysis of what has been going over the years has never missed its mark in regard to his understanding of corporations. He just sucks as a politician."

Bullseye! Exactly so.

Or, to put it in another way, Ralph is a true-blue truth teller who is lousy at pandering.

All truth-tellers get my support, to some degree, even if they suck at telling people what they want they hear.

Unfortunately, most people rather support someone who tells them what they want to hear instead of the unvarnished truth.

And our country will not undergo a truly substantive, cultural change... until most of us would rather hear the unvarnished truth in place of pandering bullshit.

[Forkboy]

110. because it's far easier to hate Nader than address the split in the party.

I also like the people who blame Nader for all the world's ills since 2000. Funny how for them history started right then, and they don't seem to give a shit about anything during the nineties that led to Nader running in the first place. Nader's runs didn't happen in a vacuum. The split was already there. And this is what the Nader haters either won't, or can't, address.

The split is a tough issue to deal with, and it's far easier to scapegoat and point fingers than try to find some kind of solution that actually benefits Democrats, and hopefully by extension, all Americans.

[mdmc]

109. lol

:)

[Deja Q]

98. See post 95 above. Nader didn't do any. People love to scapegoat him.

And I say that despite knowing how DUers did put up articles showing Nader having his own agenda. That is still beside the point when you consider the raw numbers. Gore's campaign was very stolid and I was surprised how many votes Nader got. And we're talking low-mid single digit percentages here. 4%. Yeah, that's Nader's fault. He is sooooooooooo powerful to have grabbed so many people.

What a fucking JOKE.

[jobycom]

84. Anyone who voted Clinton turn in their progressive cards at the door.

Nader worked his ass off to elect Bush. Whether he played a role in W's "win" is irrelevant. He tried.

Clinton moved this nation left of where it was, with the most reactionary Congress this nation has ever seen. Anyone who voted Clinton is a fool, a dupe, or a conservative. Corporate multi-millionaire Nader is all three.

[Greyhound]

87. Ah, the voice of the "factually challenged" bleats again. n/t

[jobycom]

104. That's why I tried to counter it. nt

[Greyhound]

85. Not even close, it was Clinton. n/t

[McCamy Taylor]

90. Is this poll for real? Actually, neither of them did. This is a divide and conquer poll.

Solidarity Democrats! Nader fucked up, but he is mostly a progressive. Clinton did a whole lot of good.

This is the kind of thing a Republican would dream up, not a well intentioned Democrat IMHO.

:dem:

It is like asking Blacks "who set the Black civil rights movement back more? MLK Jr or Malcolm X?" The answer should be George Wallace.

[JackRiddler]

102. You are in denial.

The installation of Bush in 2000 was a coup d'etat. A certain hardcore at DU and within the Democratic Party have spent the last eight years absurdly, wrongly diverting the blame to a scapegoat who was not in the least responsible for what happened, and in the process beaten down all the good progressive politics he represents. And they did so at a time when the leadership of the Democratic party facilitated the programs of the usurper. They collaborated on almost every major point and made the Bush transformations possible. Now the same people claim we have to go slow, or escalate in Afghanistan instead of establishing single-payer health care at home. And they're still attacking Ralph Nader. How useful he is.

I didn't invent Nader hate at DU.

I also didn't invent the apologia for the president who saved the Bush mob and continued the Reagan policies. NAFTA. "Welfare reform." The Glass-Steagal repeal initiated by Rubin of Citigroup and Goldman.

So I ask a question that shines relevant light on a divide that clearly exists. Maybe progressives, still by far the majority in DU, will decide to stick around when they see not everyone here fronts "blue dog" positions.

[Greyhound]

120. Interesting to see if the "cool kids" ever reply.

Somehow I doubt she will.

[Greyhound]

105. Didn't you just write a very long post extolling the virtues of mandatory health insurance? n/t

[mmonk]

93. Having 2 or 3 movements within the Democratic party is a problem.

The DLC, Blue Dogs, and Progressive Caucus are pretty much the political divisions. When the DLC runs the rules, Blue Dogs matter no matter how small and progressives have little power. In effect, it makes the US have in effect a one and a half party political system. For real changes in policy, both domestically and in foreign policy, we need the two party system to be more adversarial or there needs to emerge a third party which won't happen as long as the two parties control ballot access.

[Lost in CT]

94. Neither

Clinton was a fine President

Nader was a fine activist.

[natrat]

99. both

they both have caused irreparable harm to america

[Skidmore]

103. Clinton...because he held real power and

sold out progressive ideas to corporate interest. Third Way politician deluxe.

[paulk]

106. first you need to define "progressive causes"

discuss.

[JackRiddler]

113. There's a conventional understanding of progressive...

Peace and justice is a good slogan, if you're looking for just two words. Even among those who oppose a progressive program, I don't think the definition is controversial, at least in the broad outlines:

- universal single-payer health care (which if you had a vote would be on its way tomorrow)
- against war, for diplomacy, for rolling back military spending
- higher wages instead of higher profits, unions, more income to the majority, not the rich
- end to corporate welfare, regulation of major corps, industrial policy (instead of Pentagon economy)
- energy conversion away from fossil fuels, to solar wind and efficiency; green industry
- Western European-type social welfare, pension schemes
- more money for education
- some kind of media reform (break up the six media corps, improve media access for more voices)
- acknowledge ecological limits, adjust taxes/charges, prices and regulations accordingly
- public campaign finance or other strong limits on the influence of money in politics
- fair trade as opposed to "free trade"
- globalization as independent development and prosperity from below
- promote mass transit, railways, walkable towns and cities
- promote local and organic farming instead of subsidizing large-scale agribusiness for export, and adapt the foreign aid and policy accordingly ("diet for a small planet")

etc. People will vary in what they think but most who identify as progressive will mean some combination of most of the above.

Personally I'd emphasize: abolish the CIA, renounce all covert operations to influence politics at home or abroad, no secret government, no $35 billion/year to private intelligence contractors (really!).

I know any given short description of these items sounds like a slogan. As with anything else.

What's your definition?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

108. Clinton beat Bush and Dole; Nader gave us W.

The question doesn't even need to be asked.

[depakid]

117. As usual, Dems refuse to take any responsibility for their failures

Nader wouldn't even have had a constituency had Clinton not pandewred so often to the far right- and pushed through their policies.

Now that worked out really well, eh?

If the Obama administration continues down the same path- Democrats will once again suffer the same fate- beginning in 2010.

[bobthedrummer]

118. "Nader gave us W."

:crazy: :silly: :crazy: :silly:

:rofl:

Know Your DLC: Mark Penn (started 4-15-2008)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5515506

:+

[Forkboy]

111. Nader is a scapegoat for the lazy and scared.

Lazy because it's easy to hate, and scared because Nader represents something in the Democratic Party that we seem terrified to address as a whole. And that's that this split existed before Nader came on the scene. He simply exploited it like any candidate would, and should, do. So the question that the haters avoid like the Black Plague is why was that split already there?

To the people who say that Nader is to blame for everything bad that's happened since 2000...you're being simplistic to the extreme. History doesn't work like that. It doesn't follow straight lines from point A to point B. It's multiple events, personalities, etc, that all weave in and out.

We could take this kind of logic all the way back to the start of mankind. "Well, that Adam and Eve..they're really to blame for everything that's happened since". It's a chump's game, and DUers should be a little brighter than that.

Not to mention these people are basically giving the real culprits, GWB and the SCOTUS, a total pass for starting the war (in Bush's case), and being unconstitutional (in the SCOTUS' case). You can hate Nader (I don't especially like him) but he only did what all of us we're told we could do in this country: run for president. No votes are owed to us, we have to earn them. That's on us, not Nader, and if we give a shit about ever getting any of these people back (votes are nice when they're for us...color me revolutionary) we should probably try seeing that the Greens and Dems share about 90% of the same ideals (as opposed to sharing 50%, if we're lucky, with the much sought after "swing voter") and find ways to work together, or even weaken the Green Party and strengthen the Democratic Party...imagine that!.

"Fuck Nader" helps no one, and makes the person saying it look like a simpleton.

[burythehatchet]

112. Karl Rove can only mastrubate when he thinks of Democrats who blame Nader.

[donheld]

114. What an absolutely stupid poll!

[lostnotforgotten]

115. Bill Clinton Was The Best Republican President In Modern History

eom

[Jamastiene]

122. The egg came first!

:popcorn:

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

124. If Bill hadn't sold us down the river, Nader wouldn't have had a basis for running

Bill caused Nader 2000 by being a corporate globalist who took policy advice directly from Dickhead Morris.

[LWolf]

125. Clinton.

Without a doubt, since he actually did things that damaged progressive causes.

:popcorn:

[Orsino]

126. Nader, if we hold him responsible for Bush/Cheney.

That's ridiculous, though. Nader's otherwise insignificant, whereas Clinton bears some responsibility for the Republican revolution he enabled.

[JackRiddler]

128. As of noon on Feb. 23: Clinton 54% - Nader 46%

Democratic UNDERGROUND lives.