You know, I used to be really pissed at people that voted for Nader in 2000

[no limit]

I was young and didn't quite understand, all I knew is it was the reason Florida went for Bush (well ok it never actually officially did, but that's for another discussion). The point is Nader took a fair chunk of Gore voters.

And I just couldn't understand, why would the liberals do this. Now 18 months into Obama's administration I think I'm finally getting it. After you get thrown under the bus over and over again and then when elections come around all the sudden you matter again I can see how someone might get upset after that kind of constant abuse. I don't think I can blame Nader for what happened in 2000, I blame the democratic establishment and all of their apologists. If you refuse to listen to your base and you take them for granted why in the hell would you be suprised that when elections do come around they take frustration out on a third party candidate? And I don't care how loud you scream "the other guy is worse" that's not going to make the pain of being pissed on year after year go away.

So I finally get it. But apparently the democrats still don't. We'll see how that works out for them in 2016 (or maybe even in 2012).

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. You don't *get* squat.

In all of this nonsense, no one can draw a roadmap to the 60 Senate votes necessary to "not be thrown under the bus". If you're tired of being pissed on, try changing some minds. Try attacking the right. Try convincing people in places like Nebraska or Louisiana that they should vote for progressive, liberal Democrats instead of Republicans or Blue Dogs.

[no limit]

3. Not once did Obama even ask Liebermann to support a public option. Also reconciliation

so your argument is bullshit.

Then there are those things we don't even need reconciliation on. Such as Obama signing an executive order to allow gays in the military.

But by all means, keep riding that 60 votes train. Republicans in the last decade never had that kind of majority, yet they had no problems getting us in to 2 wars, giving the rich a huge tax cut (twice), along with all the other shit they pulled.

[DailyGrind51]

71. In all fairness, "we" really don't know about what was communicated privately.

[no limit]

78. According to Liebermann Obama never once asked him to support a public option

now I know, I know, Liebermann isn't the most trustworthy source. But the white house didn't deny his claims.

[GOTV]

We know this. Lieberman paid no price for his opposition.

[DailyGrind51]

244. The WH has already cut deals with "Big Insurance" not to push for a PO.

The WH would not deny his claims in any event to avoid making Lieberman out to be a liar.

[Lars39]

4. Hard to convince people to vote for progressive, liberal Dems

when the Obama administration denigrates progressive, liberal Democrats.

[Cherchez la Femme]

7. Right! It's not the WH's fault, it's the OP!

How could I have missed that?! :crazy:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. 60

Talk about "roadmaps."

[griffi94]

12. right because nothing in the history of american politics

ever got passed without a super majority. like the super majority gwb had.

[Caliman73]

120. EXACTLY

The whole super majority argument is crap. The republicans did not have anywhere near a super majority when they passed through the legislation that finally killed off the New Deal in the 1980's and 1990's. Hell in the 80's during Regan's assault on the economy, the Republicans held only marginal majorities or split Congress. Even the "Republican Revolution" of 94 yielded no more than a whopping 55% majority in the Senate and 11% in the House. It is ridiculous that people are saying that it is about numbers. It is about integrity and leadership.

[Bluebear]

17. "Try attacking the right" - - -that's great advice. For the WHITE HOUSE

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. They do it every day, but thanks for playing.

Read the transcripts of their remarks - you'll find at least one shot on them daily.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

35. That's too bad - I was shooting higher than that.

Some deserve to be dismissed.

[Bluebear]

129. And some deserve to be ignored. Like you!

Bye!

[Lost4words]

130. some deserved to be flushed, some just throw crap, over and over and over

you are really predictable and a bore

[Bluebear]

137. Excellent, so ignoring him was a good decision :)

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

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

[joeybee12]

41. How stupid, try asking the WH to ask the RIGHT to compromise once in a while...

inseatd of ALWAYS saying those on the left need to compromise...it works both ways...nothing would get done without either side giving in, but this WH bends over for the Blue Dogs while shitting on the progressives.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[no limit]

63. It's been posted above what happens from there. You pretend as if it hasn't

reconciliation. Or at the very fucking least put some pressure on, not once did Obama even ask Liebermann to support a public option.

Then there are things you don't need any senate votes for, such as allowing gays in the military by signing an executive order.

Why did you ignore me when I pointed this out to you above and now you are calling someone a dipshit when in fact it is you that can't address a simple fact?

[derby378]

263. Reminds me of what Herr Decider told that one gathering of GOP billionaires

"Some people call you the elite. I call you my base."

And he damn sure never did anything to piss them off. Hey, even a wannabe dictator needs to keep on the good side of someone.

[Better Believe It]

47. Will the Democratic Party be running "progressive, liberal Democrats" in most states anytime soon?

[moksha]

58. 60 don't mean shit. Repukes did it without 60. Dems are spineless and

ineffective.

The 60 votes excuse if fucking pathetic.

[Orsino]

231. No.

What the GOP did is what plenty of Dems want, anyway.

Guts is not the distinguishing factor here...corruption is.

[JoePhilly]

234. You are wrong.

The Dems and the GOP have historically respected the majority in the two houses ... after all, that is what the voters decided.

But this GOP is not only filibustering everything, they are also slow walking EVERYTHING. As a simple example, the Senate allows for one side or the other to call for a stop in the afternoon, the GOP is now using it almost daily.

The level of obstruction from this GOP is more than historic.

Which means, that the Dems need to march in lock step to get anything done. And don't hold your breath for that. The problem with a bigger tent is variability.

And the GOP is exploiting that ... and the more we fight with each other, the easier the GOP's job gets in that regard.

[Luminous Animal]

235. They haven't filibustered a thing. They've invoked a procedural filibuster and the Dems roll over

to their threat.

Make them do it. The Dem leadership can force, per Senate rules, an actual filibuster.

[JoePhilly]

236. And that would speed things up how?

The GOP does not care.

[Luminous Animal]

239. Progress doesn't require expediency.

The GOP and their constituents might care when the cameras are rolling on their obstructionism on issues that the vast majority of U.S. citizens support. This Dem congress has allowed them to keep their obstructionism mostly unnoticed by merely threatening a filibuster that is not a filibuster.

[JoePhilly]

240. Progress requires MOVEMENT.

The GOP does not care. They would filibuster for real if made to do so. The American people do not watch C-SPAN. Most would have no idea that it was happening.

The GOP would LOVE it ... they would use that to go slower. Do less ... and then claim that the Dems are ineffective.

[truth2power]

250. I don't see how they could go slower than they already are, or

do less than they're already doing.

Make them filibuster for real.

[mcollins]

103. Have you been through Western Nebraska?

circa 1920s.

[sendero]

132. This suspect assertion..

... assumes that Obama would have done anything substantially different if he had more votes. THERE IS NOT ONE IOTA OF EVIDENCE THAT IS TRUE AND PLENTY THAT IT IS NOT.

Please, come up with another argument.

[GOTV]

169. Was it the 60 votes that forced him to advocate for offshore drilling?

Was it the 60 votes that forced the admin to fire Shirley Sherrod?
Was it the 60 votes that forced him to oppose same sex marriage?
Was it the 60 votes that forced him to keep people in prison without trial or charge.
Was it the 60 votes that forced him to give a pass to Bush admin crimes?
Was it the 60 votes that forced him to advocate to killing Americans without due process?
Was it the 60 votes that forced him to continue warrant-less wiretapping?

I guess we can blame the filibuster for all these things?

[MadMaddie]

242. This is the right answer!

We also need Reid in January to change the number of votes from 60 to 51.

[Laelth]

248. Try attacking the right? Good idea. Tell that to Gibbs and Emanuel. n/t

-Laelth

[rhett o rick]

251. The Admin should " Try convincing people in places like Nebraska or Louisiana

that they should vote for progressive, liberal Democrats instead of Republicans or Blue Dogs." But instead the Pres attacks the left and enables the Republicans.

How can we convince the public to move to the progressive side when the Pres does the opposite?

[Subdivisions]

257. No, YOU don't *get* squat! n/t

[spiritual_gunfighter]

262. We know you

Believe me we all know what you are.

[JTFrog]

268. Yea, we know you too.

You're "done with DU"!

:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

269. Nope I am still here

You can try and get rid of me but I am not playing your fucking game.

[JTFrog]

270. Lol! Those were your own words!

And it will be an epic-flameout of your own making.

:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

271. EPIC-FLAMEOUT

[JTFrog]

272. LOL!

[YOY]

265. You'd call Reagan a frickin "progressive". As for "Liberal"...you ain't it.

n.t.

[zipplewrath]

2. Sorry, that's what primaries are for

In our system, that's what primaries are for. Nader should have ran in the primary. Truth is, he should have run in the primary for senator. Nader never seriously considered being president. It was a platform to try to move the discussion to the left. Instead, it just had Gore trying to move a touch right to find the sweet spot between Bush and Nader.

[no limit]

5. What liberal candidate stood a chance in the primaries? Obama was the most liberal of them

of the ones that actually had a chance. And how did that work out? He's on the road to being more conservative than Clinton which says a lot.

[LostinVA]

13. Obama was NOT the most liberal

DK was, and Hillary is on some social issues. Obama was to the right of HRC on some things and the same on others. I never understood why people thought this, especially after Obama went on the 700 Club and after Donnie McC.

I apologize if this seems like I'm rehashing the primaries, because I am sincerely not. Your OP was very sincere and touching to me. I voted for Gore, but really wanted to vote for the Greens.

[no limit]

20. I totally agree with you on DK, my point is about electable candidates

as much as I would love to see DK in the white house lets not pretend that was really an option.

And Obama was extremely liberal during the campaign. We can break it down on all the issues but lets just look at healthcare. He constantly beat Hillary Clinton over the head with the fact she wanted mandates and he didn't. His arguments against the mendate were brilliant back then, and what do we have as part of his big healthcare bill? A mendate.

[LostinVA]

30. Ah, sorry -- misunderstood!

I don't think DK is electable. The most liberal electable candidate right now is probably Howard Dean, although he also isn't a flaming liberal!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. And DK got less than 3% of the vote. (nt)

[zipplewrath]

24. You switched primaries now

The liberals can take a clue from this past primary. Candidates are developed. You want a liberal candidate, you have to develop one. Remember when Feingold considered a run? Very likely he didn't run because he didn't think he could generate the monetary support he needed, especially early on. You like it that Kucinich runs every time? There's a very good chance he basically "sucks all the air" out of the liberal end of the room. Maybe liberals should consider getting someone else to run, and suggesting to Kucinich he hang it up.

I will acknowledge that the DLC has gotten control of alot of the party apparatus and as such tends to "run things", which is how an Obama gets invited to speak at the 2004 convention. We had Dean in the DNC, but he actually used it to build the party, as oppose to just advancing the liberal wing. Pick a member of the congress you consider sufficiently liberal, and encourage the to head up the DCCC.

And as is often mentioned around here, while you're going to the booth and voting for that 3rd party candidate, vote for the liberal for that local office with a D next to their name. That's where these things get started.

[bvar22]

33. Develop a Liberal candidate?

or do you mean "Finance One".



It is tough to match the funding from Wall Street, The Health Insurance Industry, and the MIC.

[zipplewrath]

44. Roughly the same thing

There are other demands as well, but I heard somewhere that Early Money Is Like Yeast.

Dean went a long way, before he ran into the DLC buzz saw, that only Gibbs knows who funded.

For example, right now, who would you like to see run for national office? Who would be a good standard bearor? What do you suppose you should be doing, right now, to encourage them, and people like them?

[LostinVA]

39. Last paragraph is right on

The Green Party should concentrated on State and Local runs, or whatever liberal third party develops.

[GreenArrow]

16. Maybe, if Gore had been smarter

he'd have moved to the left, rather than making a point of moving even further rightward. Remember the second Presidential debate where Bush and Gore "agreed" on issue after issue?

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikes-letter/george-gore-meet-al-bush

Gore would have been well served to disagree a wee bit more, and chosen to compromise with the left rather than the right. It makes little difference though; both parties serve to perpetuate the status quo.

[AnArmyVeteran]

72. Gore was a totally inept candidate and debater v

And Gore was terrified having Nader in the debates. But Nader would have done what Gore was incapable of doing, he would have debated Bush and exposed him to be the fraud he was. I remember watching those debates with a lot of friends and we all wondered why Gore wasn't even challenging Bush. Most of us thought Gote did so bad he was deliberately throwing the election. A high school debater could have done ten times the job Gore did.

[GreenArrow]

109. Can't really disagree...

even worse was the Lieberman/Cheney "debate".

[Raineyb]

Nader got the Green party nomination. He didn't run as a Democrat then decide

to go third party because he didn't win the nomination. And if Gore chose move right to find a sweet spot between Bush and Nader then he would have deserved to lose (if he had lost which he hadn't) for making such a bonehead move. You don't attract the left leaning wing of the party by tacking right. I don't know how many times the party has to be told that before it penetrates the rather hard shell of stupid that surrounds their group-think.

[zipplewrath]

246. In the general, it's not about party anymore

No, Nader didn't run in the democratic primary, that time, but he had before. And that's sort the point. The way our system is set up, it begs for 2 candidates. There are rare exceptions, but when it gets to the general election it isn't really about parties anymore, it's about the person. And we are all compromising in our choices. When you have three, what tends to happen is in order to maximize your votes, you look for the spot that puts you furthest from both of your opponents. You don't go trying to poach your opponents supporters that are closest to him, you try to get those furthest from him. The end result is that 3rd party candidates tend to force someone towards the "middle".

The natural political reaction to Nader was for Gore to stay as far to the right of him as he could to pick up the moderate middle, while drawing off just as many left leaning folks as necessary.

In the end I tend to agree with your larger point, and the one that Nader was actually trying to make, which is that both parties have moved way to the right and no one is pulling the democrats back to the left, especially the DLC. The issue was that many thought that the WRONG way to pull politics in general, and the Democrats specifically, to the left was a third party candidate.

[Raineyb]

252. Considering that the left was just slapped with yet another insult from the Democratic party

when all they are doing is trying to pull the administration to the left, I don't see how anyone is going to buy the argument that the best way to push the part to the left is from within the party. It implies a level of respect that OBVIOUSLY does not exist. It's obvious that the party doesn't give a shit what the people think and as long as that's the case staying within the party to move to the left just may be a fool's errand.

In other countries the politicians fear their electorate because they know that the people can vote them out. Our politicians have no such fear so they do whatever the fuck they want while sneering at you that you have nowhere else to go. Well there are other places to go and people should probably start considering those options because the party made it clear that if you don't have large amounts of money they don't give a shit what you think so long as you do as you're told and vote for them over and over again. Otherwise, the party will continue to move to the right and nothing will stop it.

[zipplewrath]

253. It is a difficult call

It's the old insanity definition, keep doing things expecting a different out come.

Truth is though that politicians follow votes and the winners write the rules. The tea party nutjobs are losing elections and soon will be a passing fad. As soon as a liberal wins a major election, there will be a massive shift left. Just gotta find that liberal.

[sharp_stick]

6. Oh the abuse, it's just unbearable

oh woe is me... help help I'm being repressed.

[LostinVA]

15. What in the OP warranted that response?

It was a sincere, non-snarky, non-flamey OP.

[Bluebear]

31. Squat! Nonsense! Thanks for playing!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8926367&mesg_id=8926407

This is how they operate anymore.

[sharp_stick]

229. Probably from this line in the OP

"After you get thrown under the bus over and over again and then when elections come around all the sudden you matter again I can see how someone might get upset after that kind of constant abuse."

[griffi94]

try this instead

help i don't have a job and am being foreclosed on..yeah that's funny.

[Ignis]

74. +1. It's not "a pony" for many Americans; it's one paycheck away from homelessness.

[sharp_stick]

227. Shit where exactly did you find that much straw?

For fucks sake the reply doesn't even make sense, not a single word in the OP relating to your reply.

[sinkingfeeling]

8. When did liberals become the Democratic base? What year did this happen? I've been a Dem for

over 40 years and recognize that the Democratic Party leans more to the liberal left, but hasn't been made up of only liberals for the last 65 years or so. Those in the center, which included every candidate (think there were 10) for President in 2008 with the exception of Dennis Kucinich, make up the majority of the party. I have been happy that the party still can include liberals, moderates, and conservatives.

You poor baby, being thrown under the bus over and over again. Exactly what have the actions taken by this administration done to you personally? Or is it that you just haven't gotten everything you wished for? Or did the mean old Gibbs call you (but only if you make your living being a left wing activist) to task?

[EFerrari]

What you don't seem to get is that "liberal" now means

"anything the administration doesn't want to tackle". It has nothing to do with actual liberals. It's just an excuse to cede ground to the right and save face.

[LostinVA]

19. OLYMPIA SNOWE is a liberal on many social issues

My God, Laura Bush and Cindy McCain are for marriage equality. TED OLSON IS FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY, and I think he is borderline evil.

[Jamastiene]

217. EVEN the Devil's own certified replacement in Hell is for marriage equality.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/01/cheney-offers-his-support_n_209869.html

:wow:

[LostinVA]

233. Jesus Christ

*faint*

[Jamastiene]

260. That surprised the hell out of me too.

Like :wow:

[no limit]

14. You want to know how Obama's actions affected me personally? I'm glad you asked that question

My little brother will be making around $10 /hr when he hits the work force around the time the healthcare bill fully becomes law. My little brother will as a result of this healthcare bill have to coem up with around $100 a month that he doesn't have (this is after subsidies) to buy health insurance.

If this healthcare bill was law 2 years ago I would have been in the same shoes. I sure as hell couldn't have afforded an extra $100 a month because I was already coming up short at the end of each month. Lucky for me I got a promotion and a nice raise, won't be the case for my little bro.

So I'm glad you asked that question.

Now sit here with your condescending remarks about us being "poor poor babies" and see how that works out for you in 2012 or 2016. And I don't think you quite understand what political base means, you might want to look it up.

[LostinVA]

21. Good post

[zipplewrath]

26. Tell 'em not to pay it until he needs it

it'll be cheaper. Drop it as soon as he's done needing it too. Again, it will be cheaper. Pay the fine.

[no limit]

29. And that's what he will do. But the fine is still there, and it's not insignificant

[zipplewrath]

53. I know

I'll be interested to see what authority the IRS is given to enforce collection. It isn't clear they have been given the authority to enforce the measure. He should research his options in detail before paying up.

[no limit]

65. My experiance with the IRS is if you forget to pay something they'll just fix that error up for you

and send you the bill. I would imagine it will be the same here but I don't know.

[zipplewrath]

70. Right, I just don't know the penalty when you don't pay

I don't think anyone will know for a few years, the regulations haven't been set up and it doesn't kick in until 2014 or something like that. Heck, the various lawsuits might get an injunction to prevent enforcement of the mandate for several years.

[no limit]

76. Ahh, I get you. I'm pretty sure I read 2.5% of income but I could be wrong on that.

[sinkingfeeling]

38. So what would your little brother be doing without the healthcare bill? At $19200,

according to this calculator, your little brother will receive $2473 in government subsidy for his insurance and pay $917 per year.


http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

[no limit]

45. If you are going to post that awesome calculator atleast quote it correctly

$1,127 a year, not $917. Or almost $100 a month.

And what would my brother be doing without the healthcare bill? Do you really need to ask this question? He would not be getting health insurance because he wouldn't be able to afford it. Which is exactly the same as it will be with this healthcare bill. He won't be able to afford to pay the $100 a month so they will fine him for his inability to pay that $100 a month. The end result will be the same, no health insurance. But thanks to our wonderful democrats he will have to pay a fine on top of that. I guess he should send Obama a thank you card.

[sinkingfeeling]

54. Sorry, I put in an age of 27 and income of $19200. I would suggest that he apply for Medicaid.

[no limit]

69. Great suggestion only problem is he doesn't qualify for medicaid.

[BzaDem]

201. I think you are somewhat missing the point.

The government is subsidizing 71% of his insurance. Would it have been great if we could have gotten through higher subsidies so people like your brother wouldn't have to pay $100/month? Absolutely.

But that didn't happen.

So should we therefore say because some people still can't afford 100/month, we should raise the price for similarly situated people back to almost 300/month? Of course not!

The truth is, prior to the Bush tax cuts, your brother would be paying around 70/month more in taxes (whether or not he could have afforded it). In single payer countries, his taxes would be much higher than simply 100 per month to cover the healthcare (even if it isn't specifically listed that way). So whether or not it is easy to part with 100/month, getting single payer or any other healthcare system wouldn't really make it free. Physicians for a National Health Program would result in an additional 7% payroll tax, which would cost your brother $121 per month (whether or not it was easy to afford).

[JoePhilly]

238. That is a great breakdown of the situation.

Free Health care isn't free. No matter how you do it.

[druidity33]

243. in that single payer/other system

you don't pay enormous co-pays or have deductibles. When EVERYONE has the same healthcare choices, the cost to run the system is less. There are more issues that directly affect the societal costs associated with private (for profit) vs. public HC systems, but i'll not detail them for you. I agree that i'm not sure what the OP is complaining about, b/c his brother will likely be marginally better off with the new bill. But i strongly disagree that this new health care scheme will be in any way comparable to a legitimate HC system for a first world nation.

:shrug:

[hfojvt]

255. maybe you could sell your crystal ball to help him out

since you seem to be able to see into the future.

[murdoch]

34. Being elected doesn't matter

Being elected to power does not matter much. Let us consider post-war Western Europe.

In 1948 the communists in Italy had the elections stolen from them, pretty much. The communists almost won the elections again in 1976. This was a time when the Socialist Party of Italy had a hammer and sickle in its logo, incidentally, and was initially cooperating with the communist party.

Postwar, the communist party was the largest political party in France. I know this was the case in 1956.

West Germany reinstated the Nazi ban on the communist party in 1956 so obviously the elections were a certain way.

Spain and Portugal were dictatorships for most of the Cold War because if there were elections, the left would have come to power.

But anyhow - the political parties that the majority of working class people in Western Europe belonged to post-war, the communist parties, were never in government (except very, very briefly in France after liberation). This did not affect things much, they have stronger social safety nets and so forth. This idea of needing sixty senators and so forth is nonsense. Once you get that you then start having the Ben Nelson's join in filibusters and the like. So even getting everything plus sixty senators does next to nothing. A lot of wasted energy.

Wasted energy on electing a sell-out party. People banding around Nader actually stand for something. Actually, this type of talk is banned on DU according to the rules so I'll stop here, my speech and thoughts are restricted here.

[bvar22]

49. When were Liberals the Democratic Party Base?

Ever since the 30s.
The sell out "Centrist" Democrats were unknown before Clinton and the creation of the DLC.

Get a load of THIS:

"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.”<2> People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."--FDR

Now THATS what a "Democrat" should sound like.
I don't even recognize these "New Democrat" Centrists.
What was wrong with the "Old Democrats"? :shrug:

[sinkingfeeling]

82. So not true.

[TheKentuckian]

73. Best of luck with President Barbour then. We can go for Bachman if "sensible centrists" want too

The left will get power the same way the right did, thugthizzle the shit. We'll just take our marbles and blow the motherfucker up and stick to it until there is better balance at the table, at the very least.

I have zero expectation that we can bring the corporate fueled money train to bear on the situation but the hardcore tactics are a horse of a different color.

I'll also remind you that nearly the entire establishment is well to the right of yesterday's mainstream.

[EFerrari]

10. No, they still don't get it. n/t

[LWolf]

11. My votes are earned, not owed, and it enrages the partisan

establishment to the point of rabid mouth-foaming to be reminded of that.

For the record, I voted for Gore. I've never voted for Nader. But I sure as hell understand why people did, and I don't hold them responsible for Gore's loss.

You are absolutely correct. Loss of the left-wing vote is to be laid at the door of those who didn't earn it.

[Uncle Joe]

18. I've never been pissed at Nader voters, they voted their conscious, that doesn't mean

I agreed with them.

Each election is different and what happens in 2010-2012 will be the legacy of the current administration and Congress, not that of 2000.

Thanks for the thread, no limit.

[CakeGrrl]

23. Did Nader win? n/t

[bvar22]

25. As much as some would like to believe,

Nader was NOT some Superman who single-handedly knocked the wheels off the whole Democratic Party.

Nader was created by the "Centrist" Democratic Party Leadership of the 90s who did little to reverse the damage done by Reagan, and in fact, escalated the deregulation and Union Busting Free Trade of the Conservatives.
The Centrist Democratic Party Leadership of the 90s created a BIG Vacuum on The Left which Nader filled.

If not Nader, it would have been someone else.
Nader did not "take Gore's votes."
Those votes were discarded.
No Vacuum = No Nader.

As "Centrist/DLC" as the Clinton Administration was,
they NEVER openly ridiculed The Left from the White House.
We were simply passively ignored in the 90s.

The current Centrist Democratic Party Leadership has created an even stronger Vacuum on The Left,
and it will have the same results.
Vacuums will be filled.
Its Physics.


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[zipplewrath]

40. There is truth in what you say

Third party challengers, and primary challengers come along BECAUSE you are weak, they do not MAKE you weak. The complaint about Nader voters isn't that they somehow "stole" the election from Gore, or that they "gave" it to Bush. It is more a case of choosing one losing candidate over a weak candidate. It isn't clear that was a "good" choice for them, individually, in the long run.

Never know though. Clinton tried to pass much of the Patriot Act after Oklahoma City, but the GOP stopped him. Don't know what Gore does in Afghanistan, I'm fairly sure he doesn't go into Iraq. But we might be "bogged down" in Yemen, or Somalia or some other location that Al Queada likes. Doubt he would have significantly change the regulatory environment for banks. Would have been friendlier on the environment, but probably would have had similar troubles with Kyoto. I'm dubious we'd been all that better off on renewables, maybe the BP oil spill never happens, maybe. Probably don't torture or create Gitmo. Terri Schiavo dies in peace. Stem cell research gets a bigger head start.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[no limit]

37. You're absolutely correct, none of us on the left have any valid points or ideas

we're all idiots.

Let me know how that attitude worked out a few years down the road. Thanks, bye.

[geek tragedy]

42. It's not a matter of valid ideas. It's the whining and self-pity

as if the President has personally beaten or raped you because he disagrees with you.

You may be right on any number of issues, but when you start pretending to be a victim it gets real old real fast.

[no limit]

51. So single people making $10 an hour aren't victims as a result of this healthcare bill?

The people getting foreclosed on because Obama couldn't deliver a better support package to home owners aren't victims?

When the economy crashes again because the banking system hasn't changed at all the people that will be put out of work as a result aren't going to be victims?

[geek tragedy]

81. No.

People making $10/hour are getting very large subsidies under the health care reform act. look it up--use google.

People are getting foreclosed on because they don't have jobs, not because Obama failed to wave a magic wand to keep people who can't afford their mortgage in their homes.

Your third citation is a future event that may or may not happen.

[no limit]

87. People making $10 an hour will need to come up with $100 a month

can you tell me what magical tree that grows money I need to go to if I don't have that $100 dollars?

A lot less people could have been foreclosed on if Obama extended protections for homeowners as part of the stimulus, which alot of liberals were asking for at the time. Instead Obama decided to use $350 billion for tax breaks while giving something like 20 billion for homeowners.

And the third thing will happen, because as I just told you and you can't refute the system that lead to the collapse in 2008 is virtually exactly the same.

[geek tragedy]

90. People are getting foreclosed upon because they don't have jobs.

Nothing can be done for them. Sorry.

$85 a month for health insurance is a fucking bargain. Ask any working parent who needs to purchase it how much it costs now.

[no limit]

95. $80,000 for a ferrari would be a bargain too. Lets force everyone to buy one and give a subsidy

this idiotic argument is so out of touch with reality yet I hear it here all the time. if you don't have $100 a month you don't have $100 a month. How is this difficult for you to understand?

Many people were out of jobs temporarly. Their homes could have been saved. And you are here saying nothing could be done for them as people that did have jobs got $350 billion in tax cuts. Stay classy.

[geek tragedy]

98. Are you under 26? If so, you don't have to pay a dime for

health insurance. You can stay on your parents' policy.

[no limit]

100. Again, how out of touch you people are is amazing to me.

What makes you automatically think my parents can afford or are willing to put me on their plan? I mean honestly, how do you automatically make such an assumption that I find wild?

And if you read above (fair enough if you didn't) I'm not worried about me, I'm worried about my little brother.

[Luminous Animal]

237. I can't afford my kid. Keeping her on my employers group policy costs $483 a month.

That would be on top of my $828 and my husband's $423. My employer only covers $150 a month. The rest we pay out of pocket. So, my husband and I pay $13,200 + co-pays a year for subpar coverage. If we added our daughter it would cost us 19,000 a year.

[LostinVA]

43. Winning hearts and minds -- good job!

:thumbsup:

[geek tragedy]

48. I don't seek to convert Nader voters.

I just make it clear that they can't claim to be the base. They're not. They're the enemy just like Republicans are.

[no limit]

56. Who said I was a Nader voter? I wasn't even old enough to vote back then

But great argument brah.

[YOY]

267. You don't seek to retain Democratic votes either.

And yes. They are Democrats. They want their party back.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[moksha]

101. It is part of who they are.

They can't help it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. I voted for Nader in 2008 and survived!

And, amazingly, so did America, the rest of the world, and Robert Gibbs to tell me that I'm a "professional leftist" drug addict. Of course, Spiro Agnew said much the same, back in the day, with similar results.

[geek tragedy]

46. You're just like the Republicans to the White House, so why should

they treat you differently?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. You mean they should court the votes of the left like they do the Republicans?

I'd sure love to see that for a "change".

[geek tragedy]

80. We win elections without your crowd all the time.

You're part of the problem, not a solution.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

84. Oh, well.....then you needn't worry about the left.

Ask LBJ how that worked out for him.

[geek tragedy]

99. You never vote for Democrats, so obviously

we don't need you.

[LAGC]

108. That's very condescending.

The point is, if the Democratic Party quit caving into the right, maybe we'd be able to attract more of those disaffected Nader voters.

[geek tragedy]

115. No, Nader voters are going to be Nader voters.

They were indifferent between Bush and Gore and between McCain/Palin and Obama. Fuck em.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

171. In the 45 years I've been a Democrat I've probably voted for more Dems than you have.

[geek tragedy]

208. So did Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman.

Doesn't make them Democrats in good standing or people worth listening to.

[McCamy Taylor]

221. It worked fine. He decided not to run in 1968. If he had, he would have been reelected.

I have no gripe with the left. I am a Marxist. But I hate it when people try to rewrite history.

[Raineyb]

182. Well then there's no need for your pissy little tirades is there? Because the people you're talking

about are of no import.

Yet here you are pitching yet another fit in some pathetic attempt to thump your chest and prove you're right.

When all you do is prove the point that was made in the OP in the first place. I hope the Democratic party isn't depending on you to GOTV because you'll turn off more people than you attract.

[geek tragedy]

209. In real life, I don't bother talking to Naderites, Greenies, and Republicans

about politics.

[Yavin4]

119. "I voted for Nader in 2008 and survived! "

"And, amazingly, so did America, the rest of the world,..."

Not so much the people on 9/11, or in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, or the people in New Orleans during Katrina.

But you did okay though, and that's all that matters huh.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

183. 9/11? Iraq? Afghanistan? New Orleans?

What in the hell are you talking about?

BTW..All of the events listed, occurred before 2008. Are you going to blame Nader for the Civil War and Tea Tax too?

And, how did you do, after you voted? We're you OK. Is that all that matters? Or, are you willing to take the blame for Obama's blunders, sell-outs, and the blood on his hands in Afghanistan and Iraq?

[Jamastiene]

218. I guess they'll blame Nader for the extinction of the dinosaurs next.

:crazy:

[mdmc]

50. cheers

[no limit]

67. Thanks, right back at you

:toast:

[truedelphi]

52. May I point out something about those of us who voted for Nader?

Point number one: In a year when over half those eligible to vote didn't bother (And their friends who voted for Gore didn't seem to mind that,) we actually went to the polls and voted.

We understood the issues. Some of us understood that Gore had lost any credibility he might have wanted when as Pres. of the Senate, he voted against the "Precautionary Principle" inclusion in a "Pesticide Reform" bill. That vote ensured that our scientists would be corporate owned, lapdogs of the Pesticide and Pharmaceutical industry. As a result, we have the continuing rise of autism, and continuing sell out of the public on behalf of the pharmaceutical companies. Just witness that we the people are the guinea pigs, only after enough of us die or are maimed from their Viox and other poorly researched drugs is there a recall.

We then witnessed a lackluster Gore whose total disinterest in the outcome of the Gore vs. Bush debacle of Florida.

Nader has always been about real science. He has always been about real consumer protection. he has always been against CorpoRATe Whoredom.

I can only imagine the type of Health Care reform we would have had under Nader, the type of financial reform we would have had under Nader, the economy we would have had under Nader.

But as long as most people allow themselves to be continually scared into voting for "the Lesser of Two Evils," we will always have an evil government.

If you don't think our government is evil, than consider how the Senate just voted in 59 billion bucks for DynCorp and Blackwell to continue their grifting upon the treasury of this nation, while civilians in other nations die for the privileges and profits of our Defense Industry.

[no limit]

60. Thank you for your post.

[truedelphi]

232. And thankyou for yours.

I gave it a recommend.

When we now have inner members of the DLC telling us that we cannot consider FDR's version of the Democratic Party to be its true and guiding principles, but only a glitch that happened that one time under FDR, then what else can we do except start to think outside the Box?

[apocalypsehow]

59. Nader voters in 2000 gave us eight years of George W. Bush. If you really feel that way, then you

should own that reality & take responsibility for it, just like the actual Nader voters of 2000 should (but rarely do).

Deal?

[Ysabela]

62. Incorrect. The GOP illegally putting 90,000+ black voters on felons lists...

just for having the same first initial and last name as a felon in other states, is what gave Bush the election. Nader was a non-factor, and if you believe that Nader voters had ANYTHING to do with the 2000 election, then you've been completely hoodwinked by the corporate media.

[apocalypsehow]

75. It is correct, and you have posted nary a thing to disprove that irrefutable fact.

I understand the Nader voters who gave us eight years of George W. Bush are touchy and defensive about it: I would be, too.

But that doesn't change the historical record.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. Disenfranchised voters

Voter suppression, and Bush V Gore... but somehow it is the fault of the voter.

What color is the sky in your land?

[Ysabela]

88. As I said, completely hoodwinked by corporate media.

And the fact that you resort to an Ad Hominem attack because your viewpoint holds no water, just emphasizes the fact that the MSM has got its hooks into you. I was 16 in 2000, and could not vote. Therefore, I'm not 'defensive' because I'm a Nader voter, I'm 'defensive' because I have to put up with your level of ignorance on a daily basis. I bet you think the 2004 election was won fair and square by GWB as well, despite all the evidence to the contrary (read Greg Palast's 'Armed Madhouse' book about the 2004 election). Or maybe that was all just Cynthia McKinney's fault too that Bush stole THAT election in 2004.

[moksha]

116. See post #93

You are not holding an irrefutable fact. You are holding a delusion that has been pimped to you.

[Ysabela]

143. Referring back to a previous post that was devoid of data does nothing to bolster your argument. n/t

Edit: sorry moksha, meant to post this in reply to apocalypsehow's idiotic "see post #77"

[moksha]

145. .

delete. Mistaken post.

[Ysabela]

150. Sorry, moksha, that was meant to be in reply to apocalypsehow's "see post #77"

[apocalypsehow]

152. "It has data" - Misinterpreted, twisted, out-of-context data. Quite phony.

"God, this place is a fucking waste."

Sorry you feel that way. You are always welcome to point your browser in a different direction. :thumbsup:

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

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

[Ysabela]

158. Amen.

His post: "I have irrefutable facts! I won't give you any of those 'facts', just my gut feeling that they exist"
Us: "Here's the hard data and statistics from the 2000 elections showing disenfranchisement and erroneous ballots for Pat Buchannan"
Him: "lalalalala I can't hear you *plugs ears* You're a Nader voter!"

[apocalypsehow]

162. That's what folks on the losing end of a debate always resort to, I reckon. Me, I think you're cute

when you get angwy. :hi:

[moksha]

165. Waiting on your anaylsis.

You got nothing.

[apocalypsehow]

168. Oh yes I do - that's why you're sputtering and raging.

:hi:

[moksha]

170. Again, no facts.

You have yet to post one. Run along you little child.

[apocalypsehow]

172. *Yawn*. Another content-free post, another personal attack. Typical.

Have a great day! :-)

[Ysabela]

178. LOL

Your ENTIRE thread of posts has been devoid of facts. Every post has been ad-hominem attacks, calling people Nader voters for pointing out the simple fact, with data and stats to back it up, that Bush stole the 2000 election. Sounds like you're an apologist for the GOP, as you have yet to post ANY data in ANY of your posts. Moksha posted a detailed analysis of the ballots for Pat Buchannan in Palm Beach, yet your reply was to resort to ad-hominem yet again, deriding people as Nader voters despite the fact they've already told you they either voted for Gore or were not eligible to vote in that election.

[apocalypsehow]

181. See post #77. Wash, rinse, repeat. As often as necessary. Really try it this time. n/t. .

[Ysabela]

187. Here's his post #77 he keeps referring to:

"It is true, and you have posted nary a thing to disprove that irrefutable fact.

I understand the Nader voters who gave us eight years of George W. Bush are touchy and defensive about it: I would be, too.

But that doesn't change the historical record."

----

Ad-hominem attacks and zero data.

[apocalypsehow]

192. Thanks for reposting it! It contains nary an "Ad-hominem" (Sic) attack (do you know what that means?

I can provide a link to a definition :thumbsup:) and is simply a statement of fact. Sorry the truth makes you so angry. :cry:

[Ysabela]

198. Ad-hominem: attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

The fact that you REPEATEDLY call moksha and I Nader voters who are defensive, despite the fact that moksha had told you that he/she voted for Gore in 2000 and I was too young to vote at the time, is a CLASSIC ad-hominem attack. Perhaps you need to read the dictionary from time to time, or perhaps read ANY book regarding the 2000 election theft. Had Nader not been on the ballot, the GOP would have simply disenfranchised a few more thousand voters or contested a few thousand more ballots with chads.

[apocalypsehow]

204. Ah, there now. I did no such thing, friend: I simply pointed out that Nader voters *are* defensive.

Where you a Nader voter? I never stated that you were, but you and your chum sure are defensive like one. Odd, that.

It is not an ad hominem attack; it's simply an observation. You think it's an "attack" because you don't the factual content of my assertion. That's your problem, my friend, not mine. :hi:

[Raineyb]

190. He doesn't have any facts just an angry tirade based on bullshit.

He is impervious to facts. Of course I suppose it is hard for facts to penetrate when one has one's head up one's ass so perhaps that's the problem here. But damn it's been a decade that's a long time to be that constipated.

[moksha]

193. Thank you. I began to feel like I had taken crazy pills.

Two different conversations were going on. One in reality. I am not sure of the other one.

[apocalypsehow]

197. Not a bit of it! You tried to post doctored "data" to absolve Nader voters of what is surely a

hefty portion of responsibility for eight years of W, and I cheerily corrected you, as a concerned friend should. :thumbsup:

[moksha]

200. I did not post doctored data. I showed what happened in Palm Beach County.

I'll give you one thing, you are tedious.

And, with that I will go with ignore.

[apocalypsehow]

206. Delete, *dupe*

[apocalypsehow]

210. Then I fear, my friend, that you haven't been keeping up. BTW, you "showed" no such thing:

You posted one chart and distorted the data out of context to fit a conclusion that any reasonable person could see was simply not there.

"And, with that I will go with ignore."

Nooooooooooooooooooooo! Say it ain't sooooooooooooooooooo!


:cry: :cry: :cry:

[Ysabela]

203. Wow he FINALLY responds to the data that was provided...

but immediately rejects it out of hand as "doctored". This is classic authoritarian personality type, he has a pre-conceived idea and any facts and data showing his position to be incorrect is immediately rejected as "doctored". It's all just a liberal conspiracy to him.

[apocalypsehow]

211. Nah, I've been responding all along: you just haven't been keeping up. All caught up now, I see!

:hi:

Love that online pop psychology; it is quite entertaining. Keep it coming! :thumbsup:

[Ysabela]

195. Here's an excellent book about apocalypsehow's psychological profile, "authoritarian follower"

The Authoritarians, by Bob Altemeyer
Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada

He posted his whole book online. It's quite an excellent read, and you'll understand how their minds operate.
http://www.electricpolitics.com/media/docs/authoritarians.pdf

[apocalypsehow]

199. And right on cue, the online psycho-analyzing begins. Textbook!

:thumbsup:

[derby378]

264. The historical fact is that Bush cheated, no matter how much you hate Nader

And I didn't vote for Nader in 2000, either - I voted for Gore.

[sendero]

139. And just what has ANY.

... democrat done about it?

I'm tired, sick to the bone of hearing about all the crimes the republicans commit that no one can or will prosecute.

Obama came into office with a TREASURE TROVE of prosecutable offenses but he decides to "look forward".

[Ysabela]

173. I'm with you on that.

I'm all for investigating and prosecuting those involved in the stolen 2000 and 2004 elections. They also tampered with the 2006 results to lessen the avalanche the Dems had, for example, Florida's 13th district.

"Another Stolen Election in Florida, Katherine Harris' FL-13"
http://www.democrats.com/Another-Stolen-Election-In-Florida

I'd also love to see the assassination of Senator Paul Wellstone investigated, but we all know it will never happen.

[Raineyb]

196. They've done nothing and frankly I don't think they're interested in doing anything about it.

Apparently disenfranchising people is acceptable so long as you don't make it too obvious. We have a problem with corporate owned voting systems in this country. Our vote should not be at the mercy of proprietary software that we can't see the source code to. Our vote should not be in the flash drives or other hardware of computers systems that are controlled by corporations. But neither party will discuss this, Republicans for obvious reasons, the owners of said companies give them a lot of money and the Democrats? I have no idea, it's as though they have no interest whatsoever in fighting for any damn thing except when it comes to fighting against the left wing of the party.

[moksha]

66. That is not true at all.

More votes were messed up in Florida by Dems mistakenly voting for Buchanan due to bad ballots than those who went to Nader.

Further, there is no reason to think that those who voted for Nader would have been Gore supporters had Nader not ran.

[apocalypsehow]

77. It is true, and you have posted nary a thing to disprove that irrefutable fact.

I understand the Nader voters who gave us eight years of George W. Bush are touchy and defensive about it: I would be, too.

But that doesn't change the historical record.

[moksha]

93. I voted for Gore, but Nader did not give us bush.

A few things.

1-You have not backed up the claim that Nader voters would have voted for Gore, had Nader not been running.

2-The election was stolen due to Kathrine Harris and the Supreme Court.

3-Palm Beach County. Pay attention to this part, you will probably learn something.

The infamous butterfly ballot has punch holes running down the center and the list of candidates on pages to the left and right of these holes. Butterfly ballots are the most prone to voter confusion as it is not clear which hole goes with which candidate. Palm Beach County, the one county in Florida that used this system, is a predominantly Democratic-leaning county yet extreme conservative candidate Pat Buchanan had a phenomenal showing there. On the left side of the Palm Beach County ballot George Bush was listed first and Al Gore second. However, the second punch hole in the center of the ballot was for Pat Buchanan, the first candidate listed on the right.

Pat Buchanan himself has admitted that most of his votes in Palm Beach County were meant for Al Gore, saying he "did not campaign and bought no advertising there" (Nichols, 2001, p. 86). He added, "I would say 95 to 98 percent of were for Gore" (id. at p. 89). The day after the election, many people were upset, saying the butterfly ballot was confusing. When the election results were "too close to call," Buchanan worried he would be charged with costing Gore the election. He said he got more media coverage after the election than he did during the campaign (id. at p. 84). The graph to the left showing an abnormally high Buchanan vote in Palm Beach County suggests the butterfly ballot cost Al Gore thousands of votes, more than enough to have won the presidency.



http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html

Nearly 3,500 votes for Buchanan that even he admits should have been for Gore. The state canvassing board certified Bush the winner of Florida's electors by 537 votes. Nader didn't give us bush. Tke bad ballot and the Supreme Court, who stopped the recount did.

[Ysabela]

102. No use, moksha. He isn't interested in facts, hence the reason he resorts to Ad Hominem attacks.

If Nader had not been on the ballot in Florida, the GOP would have just disenfranchised a few more thousand black voters and contested a few more ballots with 'hanging chads'. Nader was a non-factor, but the GOP likes to use the "Nader excuse" like a magician's slight-of-hand for ignorant people like apocalypsehow. "Oooh look over here at all the Nader voters that cost Gore the election! But don't look at the other hand that's disenfranchising tens of thousands of black voters!"

[apocalypsehow]

123. See post #77. Wash, rinse, repeat. As often as necessary. n/t.

[moksha]

131. You have absolutely jack shit, and didn't respond to my post.

If you are going to ignore the facts I produce, you forfeit the argument.

[apocalypsehow]

*Tsk, *tsk. Such anger - that can't be good for you. I'm sorry that Nader voters who gave us Bush

for eight years are so defensive & crotchety about it: I probably would be, too.

"you forfeit the argument"

LOL! "Mom, mom, I wons me an argument on the big, bad internets!!!"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

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

[apocalypsehow]

157. What witty, intelligent repartee! About as cogent as everything else you've posted, I'd reckon.

Have a nice day! :-)

[apocalypsehow]

121. See post #75. Wash, rinse, repeat. As often as necessary. n/t.

[moksha]

134. I posted evidence, you chose to ignore it. lol.

You are just making an ass of yourself now.:rofl:

[apocalypsehow]

140. Nah, your phony chart "proved" nada. Give #77 another gander. Read slower this time. n/t.

[moksha]

142. It isn't phony and you have offered nothing but your unfounded and petty

opinion. I can tell you don't understand recent history or politics. The chart proved you are speaking out of your ass!


Nader did not cost Gore the election. To say so is sad and stupid. If the shoe fits, run with it. It was the bad ballot and the Supreme Court that gave us bush, not Nader.

[apocalypsehow]

146. It is phony - you didn't slow down while perusing #77. Nader voters gave us eight years of Bush, and

that's been conclusively proven by countless analyses that do not involve the misinterpretation of one phony chart.

That aside, why so angry? That can't be good for your blood pressure. Calm yourself. If you didn't vote for Nader in Florida in 2000, the guilt for eight years of George W. Bush does not reside with you.

Did you? :shrug:

[moksha]

151. Show me the analysis or shut the fuck up.

[apocalypsehow]

159. And now the descent into issuing orders on the internets! Better & better.

Please review post #77, and take it all in. Pay a bit more attention this time, please. Thank you! :hi:

[moksha]

161. Still no analysis?

figures.

[apocalypsehow]

167. See post #77. Wash, rinse, repeat. As often as necessary. Really try it this time. n/t. .

[Ysabela]

185. Here's his post #77 he keeps referring to:

"It is true, and you have posted nary a thing to disprove that irrefutable fact.

I understand the Nader voters who gave us eight years of George W. Bush are touchy and defensive about it: I would be, too.

But that doesn't change the historical record."

-----

A post of ad-hominem attacks and zero data.

[apocalypsehow]

194. Thanks for reposting it! It contains nary an "Ad-hominem" (Sic) attack (do you know what that means?

I can provide a link to a definition ) and is simply a statement of fact. Sorry the truth makes you so angry. :cry:

[AlabamaLibrul]

166. Only five votes counted in that election, and I'm sick of hearing this meme a decade later. n/t

[apocalypsehow]

179. I don't care what you're "sick" of hearing: the truth hurts sometimes. There would have been no USSC

intervention and "five votes" had Nader voters not thrown Florida into Bush's column. Period.

[AlabamaLibrul]

205. Two point in regards to that.

We will never know how many were in Bush's column because a legal recount w/ a 537 vote difference (out of nearly six million votes, or a .01% difference) was ended by the Supremes.

And there's Pat Buchanan. Of course Ari the liar said that "Palm Beach County is a Pat Buchanan stronghold and that's why Pat Buchanan received 3,407 votes there.", but Buchanan's own Florida coordinator immediately refuted, saying "That's nonsense."

"Do I believe that these people inadvertently cast their votes for Pat Buchanan? Yes, I do," said (Buchanan FL coordinator) McConnell. "We have to believe that based on the vote totals elsewhere."

Buchanan said on TODAY, "When I took one look at that ballot on Election Night ... it's very easy for me to see how someone could have voted for me in the belief they voted for Al Gore."

I didn't even bother to get into black voter disenfranchisement, because it would have only taken 1/6th of Buchanan's votes to be recounted or recast for Gore to have won.

The truth hurts sometimes, but some Dems are still looking for a scapegoat on the "professional left" to pretend the FRAUD and THEFT of the 2000 election didn't happen.

eta titling of Mr. McConnell

[moksha]

212. Don;t waste your time with that one.

They only want to petulantly insist, without a single fact, that their unfounded interpretation is right. If they were interested in seriously debating, they would have offered some kind of evidence much earlier. They want to blame Nader voters for bush. It is unfounded and has been disproved , but they cling to it. Run now, this one is a strange breed.

[apocalypsehow]

216. And here I thought you had me on *ignore*! So delighted to see you didn't do what you stated you

were going to do above!

Stop my fluttering heart, you still care! :hug:

[Raineyb]

186. Wrong. And constantly repeating that lie doesn't make it true. n/t

[K8-EEE]

64. I still am

Equating Gore with Bush or Obama with Bush, that's like being on dru....oh never mind.

[AnArmyVeteran]

68. Nader has 100% progressive values. Obama has less than 50%.

Obama should have made a cabinet level post for Ralph Nader. But instead of honoring his campaign promises he hired corrupt corporate insiders in the health, banking and other sectors. Nader has been a true progressive all his life and he has constantly walked the talk. Now, two years after the 08 campaign we can see how much Obama's talk has walked, and walked far away from what he promised. Nader would have NEVER have surrounded himself with corporate insiders and corporate criminals.

[jpak]

79. Fuck Nader

and the horse he rode in on

yup

[apocalypsehow]

83. +1

[no limit]

89. Fuck the DLC and the limos they rode in

[NNN0LHI]

92. And the rocket scientists who voted for him

[LostinVA]

96. I voted for Gore, but there was nothing wrong in voting for Nader

Nor were most of those voters stupid, as you imply. Most were probably much better informed than most voters.

[NNN0LHI]

104. Nothing wrong if someone liked 8 years of Bush/Cheney

And I realize we have people that post right here who laughed all the way to the bank with their Bush/Cheney tax cuts for the wealthy.

Yea, I can understand that.

Don

[LostinVA]

94. Why?

[LoZoccolo]

110. Global warming claimed an estimated 1,280,000 lives in the eight years that

we lived under a president who did not believe in it, because Nader felt there was little or no difference between him and the most well-known global-warming activist in the world.

[no limit]

111. Obama is a huge global warming believer. What has he done about it?

[Uncle Joe]

113. Obama is not Gore. n/t

[no limit]

114. So if Obama can't do it what makes you think Gore would have?

Gore wouldn't have had nearly the majority Obama had. In fact he probably wouldn't even have had the house or the senate (for sure not the first few years of his administration).

[Uncle Joe]

117. If Obama can't do it what makes you think Nader would have?

Gore was all about global warming climate change long before it was cool, had he come to Presidential Power I believe Al Gore would have used the bully pulpit much more aggressively to seriously change energy/environmental policy.

[no limit]

118. Who said anything about what Nader could have done? Thats not the issue

The person I replied to blamed Nader for global warming during Bush. That poster didn't explain how Gore would have done anything about global warming when Gore wouldn't have had the house or the senate. Meanwhile Obama had huge majorities in both and he can't even get cap and trade passed.

[Uncle Joe]

125. That is the issue, Gore was the most qualified candidate to deal with global warming climate change;

along with the Internet, it was his signature issue.

No doubt there would have been an uphill fight regardless of who became President but with the stakes being so great, my logic dictates having the best and most committed in that position of power to increase the chance of positive change.

[no limit]

127. So explain to me how he would have done it.

Again, based on the 2000 elections if he had won because all those Nader votes went to him he still would not have the house nor the senate on his side. So explain to me how he would have done it.

He was also vice president during Clinton, what did that administration do about global warming?

[Uncle Joe]

135. Under your scenario, dynamics of all kind become altered.

1. Traditionally being President has significantly more power and different duties than those of Vice-President.

2. The Clinton Administration did have Republican controlled Congress in opposition for the last six of it's eight years.

3. If all those Nader voters; had went for Gore, both in their votes and support, several additional states would have swung in his favor giving him an unmistakable mandate especially after enduring continuous assault by a hostile and spiteful corporate media.

4. If Gore had won by this mandate, more Democrats would have been elected on his coattails in 2000 in addition to changing the momentum dynamic for 2002 congressional elections.

5. Gore most certainly listened to the scientists and in some cases was ahead of them in his concern regarding global warming climate change.

6. I have no doubt Gore would have used the bully pulpit in the likes of Winston Churchill and the Roosevelts, Gore; knew the power of media.

7. Gore had already established a framework for combating global warming climate change with his strong advocacy for opening up the Internet to the people.

8. Considering those probable dynamics, I believe the momentum for change would have dramatically shifted and a Gore Administration along with an earlier Democratic controlled Congress would have enacted something along the lines of a hybrid Marshall Plan/Manhattan Project in R&D and implementation of switching over to green renewable sources of energy and a smart grid for starters.

[no limit]

148. Then why was the Clinton administration not able to even get the senate to ratify koyoto?

You say the dynamic of change would have been important. I wish I could believe that. The problem is today far less people believe in man made global warming than they did in 2006. And the number seems to be going down year after year.

[Uncle Joe]

180. I said under your scenario.

So explain to me how he would have done it.

Again, based on the 2000 elections if he had won because all those Nader votes went to him he still would not have the house nor the senate on his side. So explain to me how he would have done it.

He was also vice president during Clinton, what did that administration do about global warming?

The Republicans were in control of Congress during the time of Kyoto, but after 2000 those dynamics change especially using your scenario, maybe not all during 2000, but the momentum shifts toward earlier Democratic control either by 2002 or 2004.

As for the polls they always shift especially after the fossil fuel corporate media propaganda war waged against scientists in general, it's the same as what they did to Acorn and to Sherrod, turning mole hills in to mountains, our outright slander, casting guilt and suspicion in order to take down greater enemies and obfuscate critical issues.

Make no mistake about it though, the continually increasing effects from global warming climate change cannot be hidden by propaganda and those polls will shift again, I just hope it's not too late.

[no limit]

188. Koyoto was voted down in the senate unanimously 95-0. That would take one hell of a change

to get where you said Gore could have gotten us, a manhattan sized energy project.

And I'm sure we agree on a lot of issues, I'm just really upset over how fucked our system is.

[Uncle Joe]

202. Your figure is off by 1 and thus it was never submitted to the Senate, but who supported it?

Gore did and he would have been the focal point for change particularly if had come to Presidential Power using your scenario, there would have been a mandate precisely for that kind of change.

The Congress would have seen the writing on the wall if not in 2000 within the next cycle or two.

I agree with you regarding how fucked up the system is.

[no limit]

219. Gore did, but the senate unanimously opposed him

http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html

The Byrd-Hagel resolution passed the senate 95-0. Not a single person voted against it. You are right the actual Kyoto treaty never made it but the Byrd-Hygel resolution is the reason why. So I just don't see how you could go from the senate voting 95-0 for this resolution and only a few years later having a huge renewable energy program the size of the manhattan project. It simply is not realistic. Obama couldn't get something as simple as a cap and trade program (which the republicans ran on in 2008) done with 60 senators.

I just realized I've been mispelling kyoto the entire time /DoH

[Uncle Joe]

254. Al Gore said he could only get one Senator to support Kyoto, to my knowledge

he didn't name the Senator. My gut feeling is that it was Wellstone but I could be wrong.

Out of a 100 seat Senate, 95 votes are not unanimous.

Re: "Realistic" reality would have changed under the scenario you put forth, Al Gore winning by a mandate with Nader voters supporting and voting for him.

The "realistic" that you keep basing your judgment on is what did happen, not what could have happened under your own proposed scenario.

Obama ran on the ambiguous word "change" and to my knowledge he was never a major environmental champion, so even when he won, his mandate re:energy/environmental issues wasn't near as potent as a Gore win would have been. Aside from that their characters and experience levels are different, as I stated before, I believe Al Gore would have been much more effective, forceful and persuasive using the Bully Pulpit as President.

[Jamastiene]

225. I KNOW he would have.

Al Gore was robbed and so were the American people. I will always believe that.

[Jamastiene]

224. You can say that again. n/t

[moksha]

112. Nader wasn't the reason we got bush. But, you know that.

[LoZoccolo]

136. And yet every Nader voter is responsible for their vote. n/t

[moksha]

138. What does that even mean?

They voted for who they thought was the better candidate. It didn't cause bush.

[LoZoccolo]

175. It means they can vote one way or the other, and accept the consequences of either choice. n/t

[Lorien]

189. What policies of Nader's do you disagree with?

Fuck the election; they would have stolen them both with or without Nader. Now let's focus on policy for a moment...or doesn't policy matter anymore?

[eridani]

86. Understandable. But still a strategically poor choice n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

91. Pissed on, are ya? Who are you to blame Obama because you didn't...

get what you wanted the way you wanted it?

NO administration is ever going to agree with me 100% and even then few are going to get more than half of what they want, so I'll take the crumbs and put the blame where it belongs. Besides, who besides you sez what you want is good for the country anyway?

Health care? Single payer was never going to happen. Maybe it will some day, but now is not the time and it was a cruel hoax played on the gullible to think it ever had a chance. Even the public option was DOA if anything was ever going to pass. But do you blame the Republicans and Blue Dogs for that, or the people who busted their asses to get ANYTHING passed?

Gitmo? Go ahead and blame Obama, who tried to close it down but every state in the union refused to let any of them in. I'd like to see us out of Afghanistan and Iraq, but it's a lot easier said than done. There was this crew who destroyed those counties a while back under the US flag, and there is something to be said about not leaving until they are put back together.

Financial crises? Unemployment? Get your calendar out and remember under whose watch things fell apart. Do you have any magic fairy dust to sprinkle and put millions of people to work? Does anyone?

And on and on it goes...

Go ahead and pray for Saint Dennis to win one day and make things right, but between prayers note that he never could get more than 5% of Democrats to take him seriously, much less the larger electorate.

Who's the base now?

[no limit]

105. Your argments are weak. It's funny you mention single payer. Yes, I wanted single payer

but I was willing to live with a public option. Then the public option was scrapped and we were told we might get something like a public option that would cover less than 3% of americans. I was even willing to go for that. You know what happened? We got none of that then we found out the white house didn't even fight for it. And your argument that it was DOA is false, they could have used reconcilation.

I also like how you didn't mention DADT. yes, Obama is pushing for this in congress. But he doesn't need congress, he could chage the law today with a stroke of a pen. yet he won't.

So do me a favor, I'm all for a good discussion. But if you are going to discuss these issues with me do it honestly. For you to pretend like we have no right to be pissed is absolutely absurd.

[TreasonousBastard]

124. Your whining is what's weak. And there's a lot of things I didn't mention...

Truth is, I am not at all happy with a lot of what's going on right now, and I have some serious doubts about Obama of my own. Let's say I like about a third of what he's doing, see another third where he's being hung up by obstructioninsts or major problems, and the last third I think really, really, sucks.

But, and here's the difference, I don't see any purpose in making a big deal over my personal problems with the Administration since there's nothing I can do about it and no positive changes I see any time in the future. I'll support the present administration for the same reason a mother loves her unruly son or a dog loves his master-- because that's the way it is and breaking those fundamental agreements is the way to anarchy. Even the stuff I think that really, really sucks, btw, I don't think is bad enough to start a revolution over-- unlike the last administration, which was so bad revolution might have been a little OTT, but not by much.

I don't like politicians-- any of them. I don't see anyone in the business of politics actually having my welfare as anything but a secondary consideration in the midst of fundraising, lobbyist follies, power grabs, and vote chasing. I have been a Democrat since college because I see the Democrats as, more or less accidentally, agreeing with my view of things and usually having more pragmatic answers to problems. But, I long ago learned not to invite the heartbreak of thinking some politician looking into my eyes and telling me he'll do the right thing will actually do the right thing.

[no limit]

126. I see, your argument is this: "Shut the fuck up and get in line, nobody is perfect"

I know I'm simplifying a bit but I think that's a fair characterization.

You are right, there are a number of things I know Obama could do but he refuses to do. And I'm not about to shut the fuck up abou those things, so my sincere apologies to you.

[TreasonousBastard]

133. Not quite-- talk all you want but when it's Obama and some Republican running...

sitting it out is the whiny, childish thing to so. And you're saying that's what you might do.

In most elections there are only two candidates who have any possibility of winning, and unless one sees them both as equally horrific and looks for rock to hide under until the next election, vote for the one of the two you would prefer to have in office.

That often means that the one you helped put in office will screw you three times out of five, but you have avoided four out of five. Not good at all, but these are politicians we're talking about.

"Protest" votes are as stupid as they are inconsequential. The party you are attempting to spank will never learn its lesson from your little protest, and only cares about its win or its loss. Even if they are tempted to blame those votes for the loss, they look at them as votes they never would have gotten anyway, or if they got them it would be at the expense of far more from other groups that they would have pissed off.

So, it's not so much the yakking about how Obama is so disappointing (all Presidents end up being disappointing to many of their previous supporters) but the very practical point of whether to support him when it counts or let the other guys have an easier go of it.

[no limit]

160. The sad thing is in the end there is very little difference in who is in the white house

We can see this by looking at Clinton, then Bush, and now Obama. You wanna compare Iraq? Clinton killed half a million children in Iraq by denying them supplies to treat their water supply and then Albright in 1996 said that the death of those children was worth it.

Today we have Obama pushing many of the same things Republicans were for during the Bush administration (cap and trade, healthcare mandates, etc). Yes, Obama is better in a variety of ways but how much better is debatable. And the reason for this is that they take the left for granted. They figure if they move to the center the left won't have anywhere to go anyway, which is exactly the argument you are making. And the end result is right wing policy no matter if it's a republican or a corporate democrat behind the wheel.

Now with that said if Obama nominates Warren for the consumer protection agency I will not be sitting November out. But if he doesn't I'm just about fed up and don't see a reason to vote. That's just the truth about how I feel.

[McCamy Taylor]

223. So the GOP keeps telling us. And then they work so hard to steal elections.

[Bluebear]

149. As arrogant and dismissive a post as Gibbs himself could have written.

[flvegan]

97. Not enough flames and tears on DU today, I see.

I was never pissed off at the Nader voters. Gore won the election. I blame Katherine Harris, the US Supreme Court, and the ever-so-spineless Dems that did nothing to fight the theft of the election.

But then, it's easy for the usual suspects to blame Nader. Why not blame Harry Browne? Willing to bet that more than half of those 16k votes he got in Florida would have gone to Gore had he not run.

[LostinVA]

147. +1

Did you see the pit bull thread earlier?

[flvegan]

155. No I didn't.

Linky?

[LostinVA]

164. Here you go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8923622

[flvegan]

177. Found it, thanks.

Usual drivel.

[tnlefty]

207. I'll admit that I was pissed for a while, and then when Greg

Palast's work was available to me I was then furious with the felonious five on the SCOTUS, O'Connor in particular.

[Spider Jerusalem]

106. Well, here's one way to look at it.

You're going to get fucked no matter who gets elected. But at least the Democrats will use lube and give you a reach-around, which is a lot more than you can expect from the Republicans--and in a two-party system you really don't have any alternative; a vote for the Green Party, or a Socialist, or whoever, is opting out of the political system by default; it affects nothing and counts for nothing in the larger scheme of things, the only thing it really accomplishes is that you do your bit to see that the least bad alternative doesn't get your vote, which means the worse of the two wins.

[no limit]

107. I actually don't disagree with that but I'm not willing to give up the fight

and maybe if the democrats lose enough times because of how many times they pissed on their base one day something will change.

The republicans always play to their base while Democrats insult theirs.

[Yavin4]

122. I'm Thinking Maybe Gore Reads The NSA Daily Briefings in 2001

and foils the 9/11 attacks. That would have precluded a war in Afghanistan and the later war in Iraq which Gore was opposed to from the beginning. Also, maybe Gore acts a little more swiftly during Katrina and prevented many deaths.

But then again, I understand why people voted for Nader because there really was no difference.

[no limit]

128. Lol, yes. Reading that Osama wants to fly planes in to buildings without any dates or details

would have prevented 9/11. We should give Gore a cape to wear, what do you think?

[Uncle Joe]

141. It doesn't take a cape, Gore would have searched for detail instead of going on vacation

cutting brush.

As for Katrina; Gore didn't need a cape for that either, just a couple of airplanes and their pilots to help rescue 270 doctors, nurses and patients from that catastrophe.

[no limit]

154. I'm sure my 3 year old nephew would do a better job with Katrina than Bush did

and I'm sure Gore would have done a great job.

But I don't believe for a second that by reading the "Osama wants to fly planes in to buildings memo" a month before the attack 9/11 could have been stopped. I agree that Gore would have taken it far more seriously than Bush did but short of shutting down airports the attack would not have been stopped.

[Yavin4]

163. Well, Maybe Gore Would Have Had People More Dedicated To Stopping

terrorist acts like Clinton did instead of looking for reasons to attack Saddam.

We will never know.

[no limit]

174. Absolutely, But in the end I don't think they could have stopped the attack

[Uncle Joe]

191. Even if Gore couldn't stop the attack, we wouldn't be in Iraq, we wouldn't be torturing people,

and we would stayed focused on taking the fight to those people and their backers; that attacked us, instead of raping the Constitution and estranging the world along with the American People from their own government.

But I'm of the mind that Gore could have stopped it, he; would have taken the threat of terrorism much more seriously than Bush or Cheney and listened to his advisers.

[Jamastiene]

226. Gore actually DID go down there during Katrina and rescue some people.

Granted, he did not have any authority to do more and went on his own. Still, he DID do more than Bush.

[Mendocino]

176. The repubs were going to steal it

with or without Nader. Turned into a Karl Rove two-fer.

Karl- "George we've got in the bag, you win and we manage to blame Nader and further divide the left."

George "Heckuva job Turd-Blossom"

So ten years after the fact, these debates still go on.:eyes:

[Lorien]

184. Indeed. I worked for Gore in Florida in 2000 and actually saw the theft firsthand

I put the blame for Gore's "loss" squarely on the thieves and a very corrupt SCOTUS. The fact is that most Nader voters weren't going to vote for Gore no matter what, and BushCo would have found a way to steal it one way or another. That said; NO ONE "OWES" ANYONE THEIR VOTE! Voters are getting sick and tired of simply voting for the "lesser of evils" and are putting their foot down. They want someone to vote FOR, or they don't want to bother at all. That's their right. Obama can choose to earn the votes of non wealthy non corporate citizens by creating policies that make our lives better, or he can continue to "throw us under the bus" in favor of his Wall Street corporate cronies. That's his choice.

[quaker bill]

214. I worked for Gore in FL as well

and I noticed how the ballot was filled with choices for the unfortunate who voted for Nader. The ballot was unusually filled because Jeb and the FL Repugs made ballot access easy for fringe candidates. They did this as one method of many to dilute the Gore vote. Some played their game.

The curious bit is that JEB and the Bushie clan had it all figured out for an early night win. They thought with the disenfranchisement, ballot loading, absentee ballot stuffing, vote-o-matic error and all that, they would have an easy 100,000 margin and that Fl would be called in prime time. We nearly beat them anyway.

[moksha]

215. Good post.

[Agony]

220. Thanks for the reality check.

(Just in case, that was not at all sarcastic)

I am sick sick sick of voting for the lesser evil

Cheers,
Agony

[Jamastiene]

228. Thank you!

2000 was in the bag for Bush no matter what. They stole that election, plain and simple.

[Laelth]

249. +1 n/t

-Laelth

[BolivarianHero]

213. I'm not pissed at people who voted for Nader...

I'm pissed at "Democrats" and Republicans who impose the archaic Electoral College on America along with draconian ballot access laws and a failure to use IRV on the Presidential ballot.

[McCamy Taylor]

222. Wow! What a "Apathy and Despair" zone! 5 "Stay homes" 5 "60 Don't mean shit!"

The RNC delivers a standing ovation. There campaign slogans are really working out for them this year.

BTW, Nader was a part of the Rove/Bush election theft operation. Grover Norquist the arch conservative is the one who got Nader to run. A bunch of conservative publications started doing stories that basically went "Nader can cost Gore the election if he just gets enough money " which was code for "Send your extra dollars to Nader". Nader knew that he was acting as a RW tool. Plenty of us at the time warned that he was playing into the GOP hands.

Nader plus the phony felons list plus the butterfly ballot plus shenanigans at the MSM plus the SCOTUS stole the 2000 election. If any one of those factors had been removed, Gore would have been president. So, Nader is not 100% responsible. He is only 20% responsible. And if he is half as smart as he claims he is he should have seen what was going on around him.

[ibegurpard]

230. Remember this gem?

Gets
Republicans
Elected
Every
November

I used to taunt a co-worker of mine with that piece of juvenilia.
We grew to see eye to eye much, much more from 02 through 06

[GoneOffShore]

241. I'm still pissed at people who voted for Nader

And you should be too.

Sheesh.

[Vickers]

245. I'm still pretty pissed at them, but largely agree with your assessment. n/t

[Laelth]

247. Liberals thought Clinton was an anomaly.

They were wrong. FDR was the anomaly.

I fully understand the desire of many Democrats to vote for real liberals. Evidently, liberals are few and far between in the Democratic Party.

-Laelth

[NJmaverick]

256. So you are saying that some liberals would rather see our nation destroyed by George Bush

then not have everything EXACTLY how they want it under a Democratic President. I think Gibbs is right, those liberals need to be drug tested

[G_j]

258. nice reading dis-comprehension

must have taken a lot of practice

[NJmaverick]

261. Sorry if cutting through the fluff and getting to the heart of the matter

disturbs you. However,it needed to be said.

[Whisp]

259. yes we will see how it works out for YOU too.

must be nice to criticize from some alter universe and pretend chopping off your own nose won't cause you some pain.

but hey, if Obama loses, it'll serve him right! right? you'll show him whose boss!

yeh.

*snort, dribble, spit

[jpak]

266. Nader still sucks

fucking sociopath