Party Over Principle: Democrats Going All Scientology on Nader For 11 Years Now

[AlabamaLibrul]

Like he's a suppressive person or something.

Ralph Nader used to be the shit! Remember Unsafe at Any Speed? We used to love that book. At least, before 2000. Now, there are two conflicting "altruisms" about the 2000 election, that is:

a) Bush stole the election

b) Nader made Gore lose the election (presumably, this means Nader got enough Dems' votes to spoil the whole thing, causing Bush to win fair and square)

So what is it? Why so much hate? Why so "fair game"?

Is it the lack of a major party's letter behind his name, which has developed into little more than a cruel joke played on the American public every election cycle? It can't be that, I mean, we've thrown "our own" under the bus before i.e. Stupak, and we've taken in left-leaning independents i.e. Sanders.

So what gives?

[sudopod]

1. True enough. There are nuttier figures out there.

You don't see many people work themselves into a froth over Larouche these days, and his crazy credentials are legendary.

[white_wolf]

2. I think you mean Gore instead of Kerry. Other than that

I completely agree with you. I wonder which of our own the the Left will turn on next?

[AlabamaLibrul]

3. Yes, I did. Thank you.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Skip Intro]

5. Nader helped make it possible for bush "win" in 2000.

Now sure, Gore shares much blame for the outcome, but Dems pleaded with Nader to withdraw just before the election, and it was clear Nader had no chance to do anything but tilt the election toward bush. He refused. I've really cared little about what he's had to say since.

[ThomCat]

12. Overall, his influence on the election was minor, and that grievance

is sour grapes.

We still would have won if;

1. Gore had campaigned harder, and pulled in any possible favors with people with media ties to influence editors to get the blatantly fixed media hostility either squashed or equalized.

2. Gore had accepted Bill Clinton's help campaigning.

3. Our party had fought like hell in Florida and never given up the fight to count every vote.

Blaming Nader is a continuation of the ongoing trend to constantly bash anything and everything that comes from the left as the bane of everything Democratic.

The Democratic party can never seem to take responsibility for anything, and certainly not for it's own actions and decisions. Isn't it about time now for our party to start to start acting like it is run by adults and start admitting some responsibility?

[rpannier]

14. You could add

If Gore had won Tennessee, West Virginia or New Hampshire. 3 states that Clinton won both times.
He only needed one of those states
on edit: I always find it odd when a candidate can't win his own state

[ThomCat]

22. I should also add 4. Contested blatantly stolen votes.

Our party has yet to seriously come to terms with the fact that the Republican party blatantly steals votes, and electronic voting machines flip, or lose large numbers of votes to benefit republican candidates.

Exit polls are definitive proof of this. Our party should have been hammering this night and day. Constantly. Without let-up.

Our democracy has been compromised. But the Dems who have managed to get into office have not taken this seriously BECAUSE they managed to get into office. Nobody wants to challenge the system in which they were able to win. If they were able to win they figure the system is okay.

It wasn't okay. It's not okay.

[FLAprogressive]

15. No, Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, and the SCOTUS did

[Ramulux]

24. So you are against democracy

You dont want anyone to be able to run as a third party candidate for president. Its fucking insane to get mad at someone for running a principled presidential campaign. You want to get mad at someone, get mad at the people who voted for Nader. He did not force anyone to vote for him. If people wanted to vote for Gore, they would have voted for Gore, they didn't want to so they voted for Nader.

I dont get what you dont understand about the term "representative democracy". Multiple candidates run for a position and the people vote for the person they like best. In 2000, a lot of people liked Nader best so they voted for him. Its pathetic to blame Nader for having people vote for him.

[Skip Intro]

27. Yes, of course I am.

:eyes:

[Jim Lane]

40. That's like our saying that you're against the First Amendment.

If Nader can meet the legal requirements to get on the ballot, then, yes, he has a right to run.

And we have a right to say that his decision to run was catastrophically wrong and that he should have known better.

Nader charged that there was no significant difference between the two major parties. He has a right to say that (and keep saying it). We have a right to deride his claim as idiotic. We can criticize Obama because he's a center-right politician instead of a progressive, while still pointing out that center-right is significantly different from batshit-crazy.

At any rate, Nader is now largely irrelevant. The precipitous decline in Nader votes from 2000 to 2004 shows that even his prior supporters have now seen the absurdity of his view.

If only Nader had chosen to run in the Democratic primaries in 2000. He would've gotten his views out to more people, he would've done more to move the Democratic Party and the country to the left, and he would even have had a better chance to become President. Lightning striking to make him the Democratic nominee was obviously unlikely but not as unlikely as his winning on the Green Party line.

[ProSense]

6. Nader: Impeach Obama for 'war crimes'

Nader: Impeach Obama for 'war crimes'

Republicans are trying to repeal Wall Street reform and attacking Elizabeth Warren in the process.

Ralph Nader wrote an open letter to the President to appoint Elizabeth Warren to head the consumer bureau, which was made possible by the President's Wall Street Reform bill that Nader repeatedly denounced.

Fuck Nader!

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThomCat]

16. That wall street reform bill

does not regulate derivatives at all.

does not remove any of the conflicts of interest that prevent the SEC from being able to police wall street to even the slightest degree.

does not re-install Glass-Steagall, or anything equivalent.

does not prevent the creation of new market bubbles that could decimate the economy. In fact TWO are already being inflated. One in food commodities and one in mutual funds. Food prices are rising uncontrollably and many cities and towns are going bankrupt as a result.

As a result of all these weaknesses, experts have been right to criticize the supposed wall street reform as nothing more than smoke and mirrors that accomplish nothing. Nader among them.

The "reforms" merely create an appearance of reform, so that the public will leave wall street alone to conduct business as usual, mistakenly thinking the business of reform has been done.


The issue of war crimes is an entirely separate issue that has nothing to do with Wall street. But this is legitimate too.

Given that Obama has made Assassination official policy, in violation of American and international law, despite the fact this amounts to extra-judicial execution.

Given that Obama falsely claimed that the US does not support torture while the US was still torturing people in Iraq and Afghanistan, possibly in Gitmo, is still torturing Manning in Virginia, and is still turning over people to authorities in Iraq we know will be tortured as a matter or routine.

Given the documented cases of US forces killing all civilians caught outside, or even found inside in given areas, even though we were official there to protect those civilians. And given the pentagon's record of always either denying that any civilians were killed, or else claiming they were all insurgents, even when on-site video shows they were all women and children, or a family events like a wedding party.

Given the high levels of background radiation being found throughout Iraq and Afghanistan now because of the use of depleted uranium, which will cause radiation poisoning and cancer in civilians for thousands of years to come.

For all of these reasons, and others, war crimes trials are appropriate. Both the Bush and Obama administrations should be on trial answering for everything that has happened during these wars.

The Bush administration has far more to answer for, but the Obama administration has its share of questions to answer for too.

[ProSense]

18. "does not re-install Glass-Steagall, or anything equivalent."

Nonsense.

Robert Kuttner

<...>

The miracle of Dodd-Frank is that it got stronger as it moved through the process. The question now is whether that forward momentum will be reversed. Because the factions in the executive branch mirror those in Congress, it's worth looking back at the legislative story.

<...>

Reformers ultimately prevailed on a few key issues, including tough regulation of financial derivatives, the Volcker Rule, and Warren's consumer protection agency, while the moderates and their Wall Street allies were able to block other proposals outright, such as breaking up the big banks. But time after time, to gain the support of key swing votes, the bill's managers had to punt details to the executive branch

<...>

The premise behind the Volcker Rule, like Glass-Steagall before it, is that there is a fundamental difference between commercial banking and investment banking. Commercial banking requires detailed local knowledge and patience. Nobody gets filthy rich lending to ordinary businesses. Investment banking, by contrast, is a trading culture. You don't need to know much about the underlying business if you have a feel for doing deals and reading market trends and can make a quick fortune. In the old days, investment bankers took these risks with their own money. Since the repeal of Glass-Steagall, giant outfits like Citigroup and Bank of America do both kinds of activity, putting their customers at risk and the taxpayer on the hook.

<...>

Panel Begins to Set Rules to Govern Financial System (Volcker Rule)

[ThomCat]

20. The Voker rule got watered down to almost nothing.

Loopholes were deliberately added that make it so only the small banks are actually prohibited from doing anything.

The largest financial corporations all qualify for the loopholes.

You will notice that citibank, for example, is still one of the largest depository banks in the world. They still have billions in derivatives, even in compliance with the new Volker rule.

A depository bank can't engage in trading. That rules out small banks.

A depository banks can't own a subsidiary that engages in trading. That rules out small companies that own one or a few subsidiaries.

But a large holding company that isn't itself a depository bank can still own both a depository bank and a financial trading company. So the large financial firms are still free to continue doing everything they were doing before. It is a loophole you can drive a large number of armored trucks through, all filled with quite a lot of profit.

[ProSense]

23. Nonsense

Goldman Special Situation Profit Seen at Risk With Volcker Rule

[ThomCat]

26. Got even the slightest bit of evidence for that?

:rofl:

[defendandprotect]

34. Exactly -- and in fact Rahm Emmanuel "crows" to business about how much more they'll

like this legislation!!

[PufPuf23]

17. In no way am I calling for POTUS Obama to be impeached

I expect to vote for Obama in 2012 though I would rather have a choice that was not a neo-liberal and had more integrity and better politcal associates.

I thought Obama intended top be tranformative like Reagan not try to be Reagan's handler's wet dream.

Most of Obama's touted accomplishments are steps that harm the USA for special interests with a few crumbs like Warren for window dressing.

On the other hand, POTUS Obama is guilty of war crimes in not prosecuting Cheney, Bush et al and by some actions as POTUS like the drone program and Gitmo.

War crimes are OK is the new norm.

Nader was in his day was more scientifically literate and game changing than Gore.

I have never voted for Nader and have voted for Gore 3X.

Elizabeth Warren is cool. I made one of the earliest detailed research posts on DU about Warren several years ago. Look back in my journal.

POTUS Obama's economic policies have made things worse and are croneyism rather than sound economic theory.

Now much effort for research at DU is fruitless. Look at how many bright posters have left or are mocked or silenced.

[defendandprotect]

35. Obama/Dems have kept these wars going now two years past Bush -- why?

They are two immoral and illegal wars based on lies -- and lie of 9/11 --

[defendandprotect]

30. The Wall Street Reform Bill is more reform that isn't -- and it's by Sen. Dodd -- !!

for Wall Street -- !!!

Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime!!

And wasn't that Obama we saw out there setting up another trade agreement --

with Korea this time!!

:nuke:

[Shiver]

7. Nader was great when he was just a consumer advocate.

Since he started running in various elections, I've found him unbearable. He comes across as.. smug, and just rubs me the wrong way.

And the "altruisms" don't really conflict - Nader cost several thousand votes that would likely have gone to Gore, making it easy for Bush and SCOTUS to steal the election. Not saying I really agree with that, that's just the reasoning I've heard.

[EFerrari]

10. There was absolutely no way BushCo was going to let Gore win that election.

No way. Nader or no Nader.

People can't seem to deal with the fact that an election was stolen right in front of their faces by the Supreme Court in collusion with the Bush crime family.

It happened. And it can happen again. Florida is, if anything, worse than it was 11 years ago.

[ThomCat]

21. This is very true.

[defendandprotect]

37. Nader has always been concerned with civil rights, human rights, issues of justice ...

everything that we're all concerned with --

and has written many books on all of these subjects --

including media -- and every other issue.


Explain to me how you know that the alleged 537 votes that Bush won with in Florida

had anything to do with Nader?

Were Nader's fingerprints on those votes?

Meanwhile, 300,000 "Demcorats" in Florida voted for Bush --

but guess they left no fingerprints?


:rofl: if it wasn't so pitiful!

[Shiver]

47. Yeah, he's concerned with busting unions too.

Busted two of them at businesses he ran when employees tried to unionize.

[defendandprotect]

48. What businesses did Nader ever run that weren't public citizen organizations?

And when you get time, explain whose fingerprints you found on

Bush's 537 vote "win" -- !!

[onehandle]

8. Nader is for Nader. nt

[defendandprotect]

32. Obama is for Obama --

:eyes:

[upi402]

9. Choicepoint (DBT) stole the election, along with

Kathleen Harris and Jeb Bush. Nader didn't help, but he was right about the 2 parties being 2 sides of the same coin.

[slay]

11. Bush stole the election - Gore won once count was final. Nader had no effect

on the outcome unfortunately. Nader was right then, and he's right now.

[The Second Stone]

19. Nader is a fraud and always was

The Corvair was no more dangerous than any other vehicle of the time.

Nader favored air bags over seat belts.

Nader breaks unions of organizations he is in charge of.

Nader intended to spoil the 2000 election and had 100,000 votes when a 524 would have made a difference. He was responsible for taking the actions he did. Nader stated he wanted it to get worse so it would get better. He certainly made it a whole lot worse.

[defendandprotect]

38. Nader has been one of our major truth tellers for decades -- and as we can see right now ...

as the politics -- not the country - have been shifted to the right more and more

Americans are waking up!!

Sad it had to come down to that -- but Nader was right there again!!

[Ramulux]

25. Democrats dont believe in democray

when there is a left-wing 3rd party candidate who might funnel off liberal votes from the democrat. Its that simple. We love it when a far-right 3rd party candidate funnels votes away from a republican, but we think its the most horrible unforgivable thing in the world when a leftist does it.

Its pathetic watching liberals turn on Ralph Nader for saying stuff that almost everyone agrees with, simply because he didn't run as a democrat.

[upi402]

28. Truth hurts

People shoot the messenger in this party rather than face the truth of it.

[defendandprotect]

29. Democratic Party scapegoated Nader to avoid having to face questions re 2000 --

they set up the hue and cry re Nader to avoid it all --

and, btw, anyone notice that they're still ignoring the GOP computers --

especially odd since most of us care quite a bit about them!!

[phleshdef]

31. Nader doesn't care about achieving progress toward principle, he just cares about pushing whats his.

Its all about his ego now. He doesn't give a damn if anything actually gets done. He represents everything thats wrong with the fringe wing of the left, the idea that beating your chest the loudest and hardest is more important than incremental progress towards tangible results. If he had really given a damn, he would have worked his way into being in a viable position to get people to vote for him. He is in love with the smell of his own ass and there is nothing more to him than that.

[defendandprotect]

33. Nader cares -- that's why the Democratic Party wants to knock him out ... too many embarrassing Q's

Too much waking up the public --

If there is any difference between these two parties THEY ARE FADING FAST!!


:nuke:

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[ReggieVeggie]

51. Calling Nader "fringe left" is like calling Obama a socialist

Nader is a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist, so I guess your perception of "far left" is askew

[phleshdef]

55. I'm not talking specifically about him, but more about what comes out of his mouth.

[BzaDem]

41. How are those conflicting statements? Had Nader not run, there wouldn't have even been a recount.

He single handedly had the power to ensure Gore would be inaugurated instead of Bush, and he chose to instead do everything he could to ensure the inauguration of Bush.

[TheKentuckian]

42. Like they couldn't steal a paltry and mathematically insignificant number of votes to make up for it

and get to the recount phase and we'd see Gore and Lieberman roll and lick Bush taint, in the face of the Reich Wing Court.

I also find it very telling that more energy is spent on bitching about Nader than on any election reforms including being rid of the corporate Rights proprietary machines.

In fact, Nader gets more heat than the hundreds of thousands of Democratic Bush voters (some of whom have jumped back over the fence and are crying Nader), Gore for his crappy campaign and tactics, or even the criminal Supreme Court.

When after all the reamings we've taken over the years are conservative Democrats going to be raked over the coals for voting Reagan and Bush by the fucking millions? Never, indeed they as "punishment" have been given the keys to the party and every effort is taken to keep the traitors happy.

How does Gore get a pass and I mean a complete pass for not only running to the right but also away from Clinton? Doing both along with selecting motherfucking Droopy Loserman as his running mate was absolute political malpractice but in some circles a (D) absolves all responsibility and accountability.
This now been stretched to the extreme that it is now everyone's job and duty to get out of the way, bite their tongues, and sell toxic shit to drag anybody with that (D) across the finish line and then accept and support any actions or lack thereof, mindlessly.

It is my belief that if Nader is your focus then maintaining the status quo is your prime directive because the entire exercise is to find a goat rather than address systemic and strategic issues.

[BzaDem]

57. The answer is simple.

Nader (who purportedly has progressive views, at least according to him) could have single handedly changed the election. He hated Republicans, and he could have prevented one from being inaugurated.

I don't blame Bush Democrats any more than I blame Bush Republicans, since they are conservative to begin with. (Many of them just never officially switched but have been voting Republican nationally for years.) Of course, I blame them in the more abstract sense of "being conservative" in the first place, just like I blame Republicans. But they do not amount to one person who wanted progressive policies and could have single handedly prevented Bush, but chose not to out of a massively inflated ego.

And no, the election would likely not have been stealable had Nader not run or dropped out. He had 97k votes -- exit polls and polls afterwards stated that a good percentage would have voted for Gore. If even 20% chose to, that would be 20 thousand votes. Other states were won by Gore by much smaller margins and were not stolen.

[ReggieVeggie]

52. bull shit!

you people have been making this argument for 10 years and it's still all bias-based interpretations of what happened

[BzaDem]

56. Sometimes, an argument is made for 10 years because it is entirely factually true.

This is one of those times.

[cali]

43. his arrogance, his taking money from repubs

[ReggieVeggie]

54. uh, you do realize Democrats take money from Repubs, right?

Like Barack Obama does?

[CBGLuthier]

44. Nader is too narrowly principled for democrats to tolerate.

Not a fan of the man but his unbending nature does not sit well with compromise at any cost democrats.

[JTFrog]

45. Nader is an useful idiot's idiot. n/t

[JoePhilly]

46. He's like the ground hog, except he only comes out to see he shadow every 4 years.

The question isn't why Nader is bad, the questions to ask are ...

"If Nader is so great, where are his legion of supporters?"

"Why is he not building an organization of his own?"

"Where's he been since 2000?"

[Arkana]

49. Ralph Nader and his stupid "both parties is the same VOTE FOR MEEEEEEE"

schtick became old and stale after we saw what eight years of Dubya got us. It became moldy after we saw what teabagger governors are doing to their states.

The guy's got an ego the size of Lake Superior.

[BlueDemKev]

58. More like the Pacific Ocean.....

...the size of his ego. The fact remains, when all was said and done, Ralph Nader provided the critical difference in the extremely close election between Gore and Bush in both Florida and New Hampshire in 2000. His ego and stubbornness caused Bush to get into the White House with disastroud consequences for our country.

I will never give one penny to Nader or his causes ever again.

[sufrommich]

50. Please don't confuse democrats with DU's outrage of the day.

I haven't heard Ralph Nader mentioned in a political conversation in real life in ages.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. Ralph Nader is DU's very own Emmanuel Goldstein.