Skip to main content

Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission shreds the fabric of our already weakened democracy by allowing corporations to more completely dominate our corrupted electoral process. It is outrageous that corporations already attempt to influence or bribe our political candidates through their political action committees (PACs), which solicit employees and shareholders for donations. With this decision, corporations can now also draw on their corporate treasuries and pour vast amounts of corporate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars.

This corporatist, anti-voter decision is so extreme that it should galvanize a grassroots effort to enact a Constitutional Amendment to once and for all end corporate personhood and curtail the corrosive impact of big money on politics....

http://www.prnewswire.com/...

Umerm, Ralph, do you now think there might have been a major difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush back in the year 2000?

In October 2000, at the largest Super Rally of his campaign, held in New York City's Madison Square Garden, 15,000 people paid $20 each to hear Mr. Nader speak. Nader's campaign rejected both parties as institutions dominated by corporate interests, stating that Al Gore and George W. Bush were "Tweedledee and Tweedledum." A long list of notable celebs spoke and performed at the event including Susan Sarandon, Ani DeFranco, Ben Harper, Tim Robbins, Michael Moore, Eddie Vedder and Patti Smith. The campaign also had some prominent union help: The California Nurses Association and the United Electrical Workers endorsed his candidacy and campaigned for him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...

What do you think now, Ralph?

Do you think elections have consequences?

Hmmm, President Al Gore.

Would we have had Iraq?

Naw! I don't think so.

Just think, no Iraq, no Abu Ghraib, no massive spending on a stupid war, hmmm, do you think the events of September 11 would have happened with Gore as president?

Do you thinkg Al Gore would have taken so many vacations?

Um, what about Katrina, Ralph? That was pretty awful, wasn't it?

Just think, what if September 11, 2001 had not happened?

What if, Ralph?

What if?

Originally posted to Karen Hedwig Backman on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:22 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Exhibit A (20+ / 0-)

      Justice Roberts

      Exhibit B
      Justice Alito.

      (-7.00, -6.21) Jobs, Liberty, Peace.

      by Nulwee on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:27:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh my goodness... (7+ / 0-)

        Starting a list of exhibits. This could go on forever.

        Exhibit C
        The war on Iraq

      •  Yup. THAT'S the difference in Citizens United. (8+ / 0-)

        If Al Gore had been President from 2001-2009, we would have a different Chief Justice - Breyer, maybe? - and two liberal Associate Justices rather than Roberts and Alito. This decision would have upheld limitations on corporations rather than rejecting them.

        Thanks a lot, Ralphie. Thanks a lot, purity-über-alles leftists. This is your fault for "going Green" instead of joining the progressive coalition and voting for Al Gore in 2000.

        Call Congress and demand 2 Senators, 1 VOTING Rep, and full home rule for DC citizens. Anything less is un-American.

        by mistersite on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:46:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'd be willing to bet............... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          corvo, Nulwee, BYw, Ezekial 23 20

          ................. there were far more caged votes in Florida, than votes for Nadar.

          And it was the Supremes that took the vote out of the hands of the Florida voters and handed it to King George.

          Corporate donations to elections is not free speech, it is legalized bribery.

          by socks on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:53:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Both of your points are well taken. (7+ / 0-)

            At the same time, it was pretty clear a few weeks out from the election that it was going to be a close one. Nader knew, as any third-party candidate knows, that he had no chance in hell of winning. If he'd cared more about his country than about his ego, he would have dropped out and enthusiastically endorsed Gore as part of a grand progressive coalition.

            From the perspective of October 2000, maybe Nader could think that dropping out wouldn't make a difference - but it would have made a hell of a lot more difference than what he did do.

            His failure to put country before ego, and the decade of nightmares that resulted from that failure, should render him unforgivable among progressives.

            Call Congress and demand 2 Senators, 1 VOTING Rep, and full home rule for DC citizens. Anything less is un-American.

            by mistersite on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:57:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  If that's your standard for unforgivable (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AbsurdEyes, Fabian, corvo, Nulwee, lib overseas

              I can think of an awful lot of politicians on both sides who should be unforgiveable.

              Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God. - Thomas Jefferson

              by Ezekial 23 20 on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:59:53 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  The point of my comment.......................... (0+ / 0-)

              ................. was to show how misplaced this witch hunt for the Nadar scalp is.

              After Clinton sold America on Globalism and its profound effect on our economy is now evident going back into this hate Nadar fallacy is horribly unjustified and has little value in ongoing conversations to get us back on track.

              Whither or not you agree, Ralph was trying to put out a warning about how off course American policy was and his value to liberal Constitutional values has been beaten to pieces by the hate-Nadar crowd. I think he was following his innate political philosophy.

              It might be far more productive to blame the actual causes of Bush being our last President.

              Maybe there are a few that have jumped on this bandwagon, but I am not one of them. And if facts matter to good problem solving, then let us use them and get off this pet peeve that is just not grounded enough in what actually happened to deserve this diary.

              If conservatives spout off about legislation from the bench, now is the time to cram down about how the Republican side of the Supremes has gone off track, not only yesterday but also when they robbed Florida of its vote and placed King George into public office.

              Ralph Nadar is small cheese in the equation.    

              Corporate donations to elections is not free speech, it is legalized bribery.

              by socks on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:25:44 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  let's not forget New Hampshire (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Nulwee, BYw

            Bush (273,559) - Gore (266,348)  =  7,211

            Nader (22,198)

            Source

            Do you think it's possible that 2/3 of the Nader voters preferred Gore over Bush?  If so, then Gore wins New Hampshire; the actual minimum percentage needed is 66.245%.  If Gore wins New Hampshire, he wins the Presidency.

            Thanks again, Ralph.

            grok the "edku" -- edscan's "revelation", 21 January 2009

            by N in Seattle on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 11:11:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  That man has not been villified enough. (10+ / 0-)

    Not even close.

  •  No flame is more eternal... (16+ / 0-)

    ... than the fire of hatred for Ralph Nader that burns in the hearts of a certain breed of reality denier.

    Please pay attention...

    IF YOUR CANDIDATE HADN'T LOST HIS OWN FUCKING STATE BY 4 POINTS RUNNING AGAINST A CHIMPANZEE IN A BUSINESS SUIT, NO ONE BUT POLITICAL HISTORIANS WOULD GIVE A SHIT WHAT THE VOTE COUNT IN FLORIDA WAS.

    •  Couldn't agree more. (6+ / 0-)

      All the hate towards Nader seems to be absolutely misguided, sorry.

      •  Hatred of Nader & the schmucks who voted for him (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hedgerml

        ...is actually  a very good thing -- an ongoing climate of hostility will help dissuade the next leftist jackass contemplating a third party run from doing so.

        Ralph Nader is a GOP whore -- bought and paid for.

        •  Well... (0+ / 0-)

          Is there any way to resolve the conflict between wanting a viable multi-party electoral system with not wanting to concede power to the opposition by splitting the friendly electorate?

          (Seriously, I'd love to know.)

          There is no goal in the "War on Drugs" that couldn't be more effectively met by legalization & regulation.

          by EthrDemon on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:00:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  In the United States version of democracy... no. (0+ / 0-)

            In the European parliamentary system, governments are formed after the election, frequently as coalitions of more than one party.  In the US, the government in its entirety is immediately handed over to whatever single party did best in the election.  Thus, the option of a more left-wing party running against a less left-wing party but then joining it in the government that follows the election in exchange for cabinet posts and policy concessions is business as usual in Europe but absolutely impossible here.  It is a peculiarity of our winnner-take-all system of democracy, resulting from the presidency as an expression of the combined will of states rather than parties.  

            Naderites are fond of saying that the two party system persists because corporate Amerca likes it that way.  In truth, corporate America would LOVE a flowering of many, many parties -- one party on the right and a thousand parties on the left.  No one was happier with the results of a fractured left in 2000 than all those corporations that Nader professed to oppose.

            We mock teabaggers, but they are vastly wiser than the Greens -- they are attempting to take over the Republican party, not to form a sure-to-be-doomed third party.  Similarly, the only way a party more left than the current Democratic Party can come about is if leftists take over the Democratic Party.   That of course is hard, hard work -- the parlor progressives would rather bitch about the Democrats, vote for an thoroughly ineffectual third party, and then congratulate themselves on their moral purity.

            I approve of instant runoff, but not because I think it would topple the Democrats.  It won't -- it will just reduce the hold-your-nose factor for unhappy progressives who wish there was an alternative as they pull the lever marked "D."  

    •  Does Gore's inability to carry an increasingly (13+ / 0-)

      red Tenn. mean that Nader's (demonstrably) spoiler presence in Florida is politically null?

      No flame is more eternal than the fire of righteous self-justification of Ralph "I Was Right!" Nader, who, to this day, accepts no responsibility for the last, dreadful decade.

      Corporations are people? How many immortal, psychopathic trillionaire friends do you have? __________ Songs at da web site!

      by Crashing Vor on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:36:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Responsibility? (5+ / 0-)

        Well, that's just ridiculous. PLEASE let out your anger at the people who brought about this mess. I have no idea how Nader comes into play here.
        I don't like him very much, but he was well within his rights to seek the presidency if he thought that neither Democrats nor Republicans are worth supporting.

        btw: I Can't believe I'm defending Nader here.

        •  If Ralph Nader had done the progressive thing... (7+ / 0-)

          ...and dropped out of the 2000 race and enthusiastically endorsed Al Gore, Gore might have won and we would have been spared the last decade of nightmares.

          Instead, Nader decided that his colossal ego was more important than the well-being of the country, in an election that everyone knew was going to be a close one (despite not knowing exactly how close).

          We shouldn't ever forgive him for that.

          Call Congress and demand 2 Senators, 1 VOTING Rep, and full home rule for DC citizens. Anything less is un-American.

          by mistersite on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:49:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  A secret: (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Fabian, corvo

            ALL politicians that seek such high offices have a colossal ego. How else would they have come so far? That's just how politics works, like it or not. Nader isn't all that different from your mainstream politician.

            And why would he endorse Gore (enthusiastically!) if he didn't believe in him?
            Gore had many paths to victory in such a close election, even with Nader on the ballot. What about New Hampshire?

            Can't see how you can blame Nader here, that's just too easy.

        •  Naderite excuse #17 (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SilentBrook

          "Saint Ralph had every right to run."

          Of all the Naderite excuses, this is far and away the most childish.  No one questions Nader's right to run -- many question the wisdom of it.  In a democracy, you have the right to do all sorts of stupid things.

      •  "Demonstrably"? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fabian, corvo, Crashing Vor

        Look, if it will make you happy, I'll agree for the sake of argument that everyone who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore if Nader hadn't been a candidate - thus putting Gore over the top.

        Will you agree in turn that the people who voted for Nader did so because they wanted to - for whatever foolish or contemptible reason, as you see it? I hope so.

        Then what you're saying amounts to: the Nader voters shouldn't have been allowed to vote for him - even if only by Nader himself, by the act of ending his candidacy.

        Which begs the question: Who the hell are you to say that 97,000 Floridians should not have been allowed to vote for who they wanted?

      •  Ralph is certainly an ass (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo, Crashing Vor, Ivan Jones

        and behaved like an even worse one after 2000, but blaming him for the lost ignores the far greater number of voters disenfranchised by dirty tricks, or the dubious SC decision to stop the recount.

        You could also simply blame Gore for failing to enthuse an additional 800 or so Floridians to come out to the polls for him.

        Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God. - Thomas Jefferson

        by Ezekial 23 20 on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:02:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The template for most Naderite excuses: (0+ / 0-)

        "Saint Ralph didn't cost Gore the election -- if [some other factor] hadn't happened, Gore would have one.

        It is certainly true that a large number of things had to happen to put Ralph Nader in the position of putting Bush into the White House.  But those things in fact DID happen, and Ralph WAS in the position to put Bush in the White House -- and he did.

    •  True, Nader was only one factor in an election (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hedgerml, SilentBrook

      that could have, and should have, many would say did, swing the other way.

      But, he was a factor. And I have yet to hear him admit that he was wrong that there was no substantive difference between Gore and W. We are all responsible for what we say and what we do.

      And the nihilistic denial of the difference between the two was, in part, responsible for the outcome of that election.

    •  bullshit, Ivan (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hedgerml

      Gore 'lost' Florida by 537 votes.  Nader got 100,000 there.  Nader purposefully called Gore and Bush 'the same.'  He should burn for what he did to this country.  

      Andrew Mellon & GOP: 'In a Depression, assets return to their rightful owners'

      by Tuffie on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:11:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Some musings... (0+ / 0-)

        Vilifying someone for participating in the political process (albeit in a Quixotic way,) because it hurts your own electoral chances seems to me both undemocratic and immature.

        Nader offered a bill of goods, and some voters bought it; Gore's inability to persuade people that his vision was better is what lost the election, not Nader's mere presence.

        For that matter, had Nader not run, do you think the leftist that supported him would have voted for Gore, or some other non-viable, third-party protest candidate?  Assuming those votes were solidly in the
        "D" column to begin with is unrealistic.

        I, for one, will continue to place the blame for Bush squarely on the the shoulders of Bush, and those who voted for him.

        There is no goal in the "War on Drugs" that couldn't be more effectively met by legalization & regulation.

        by EthrDemon on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:09:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Naderite excuse #37 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tuffie, SilentBrook

      Of all the excuses offered up by the St. Ralph's groupies, the "He lost his own state" excuse is the most politically cynical.  (This same sort of cynicism applies to Naderite excuse #45 -- Gore would have won if he hadn't lost all those Democrats in Florida who voted for Bush).

      In the 1990s, Tennessee followed the rest of the South and turned to the right.  Two years after Al Gore became vice-president, both of Tennessee's US Senate seats went from the Democrats to the GOP (the election included a race to full the remaining years of the seat Gore vacated when he became VP).  It is hugely likely that had Gore not been on the ticket with Clinton in '92, he would have lost his Senate seat two years later.

      In short, the only way Gore could have won Tennessee in the 2000 presidential race is if he ran as a conservative Democrat ala Ben Nelson -- and here is where the complete hypocrisy of the Nader groupies comes in.  In general, they say Gore lost because he was insufficiently left -- but to criticize him for his loss in Tennessee is to in effect say he was insufficiently right.  They will of course never admit to that, but Ivan Jones accidentally reveals his awareness of the weakness of his own argument by typing it out in bold caps -- the equivalent of someone who thinks a poor argument becomes a persuasive one if you shout it at the top of your lungs.  

      Of course those who were infantile enough to vote for Nader are naturally going to be too infantile to acknowledge the consequences of wht they did.

      •  Completely wrong. (0+ / 0-)

        Al Gore lost Tennessee, simply because he didn't campaign at all in that state.

        You ignore West Virginia, which had gone Republican only 3 times in 100 years.

        You ignore New Hampshire.  

        And you fail to mention that Democratic congressional candidates won handily in many of the states that Gore lost. This easily disproves your assertion that the south swung to the right.

        No Nader voters that I know contend that Gore didn't run left enough in the south. What we recognize however, is that Gore barely campaigned at all in states like Tennessee and West Virginia, both of which would have won the election.

        Furthermore, your diagnosis utterly ignores the very plain that Al Gore won the popular election, and was the very clear winner of any number of sanctioned recounts in Florida after the election.

        You are obviously enjoying pointing the finger at those of us who tried to make this a better country, so I'll let you continue......

        "From each according to his faculties; to each according to his needs" - M. Bakunin

        by DJamesGoodwin on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:32:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your ignorance of history is hilarious... (0+ / 0-)

          ...or perhaps you are just pretending to be stupid, because there is no non-stupid way to defend your position.  A hugely fundamental shift in the American political landscape that took place over a generation and resulted in the most profound regional change of party identification since the Civil War could have been reversed with a couple of campaign appearances?  No, no, you MUST be pretending you are this stupid -- in real life, no one could be this dumb and still have enough brains to breathe. In any event, Gore would have been more likely to make those campaign appearances if Nader's deliberate efforts to campaign in swing states hadn't forced Gore to put more of his time and resources in places like Florida than he otherwise might have done.

          What's weird about the Naderite clowns is that they openly campaigned in 2000 on the idea that the Democrats were insufficiently left and had to be punished for it -- that punishment being leftists voting for the Greens and thus costing the Democrats the election.  Yet having achieved that goal and becoming the first third party since the Bull Moose to genuinely effect the outcome of an election... the Nader clowns immediately washed their hands of their incredible victory.  I guess it gradually dawned on them that the rest of us weren't grateful.

          So spare us your self-congratulatory ode to how hard you're working to make this country a better place.  The blood of Iraq is on your hands, along with all the other horrors visited on America during the eight years your tactical allies ran the White House.  You don't give a shit about this country or this planet -- basking in your moral magnificence is your only true passion, and this country has paid plenty for your infantile self-indulgence.  That's not finger pointing -- that's reportage.

          •  You are a complete incompetent...... (0+ / 0-)

            Your overgeneralization, and name calling (might I add), are childish and inept. Clearly you are the one who has no grip on reality and Southern voting history.

            There are two clearly misguided points in your reply to me. The first is that you maintain that there was a large shift in voting preference in the South, which there was, of course - but you tell me that I'm ignorant because I expected that to change with a couple of campaign appearances....

            To respond, I have to point out that West Virginia voted Democratic in 1988, 1992, 1996, and has been majority Democratic on the State and Congressional level since the 1930's...... that is, until 2000, where Gore barely lost.

            But I'm the IDIOT still, right? I'm stupid, I guess.......

            Oh, then Tennessee. I willfully concede your point on Tennessee being primarily Republican for 40 years.... that was, until Clinton. Two elections went to Clinton, then the Dems won seats in 1998.

            According to various polls, Tennesseans would have voted for Clinton again, if he could have run in 2000. Yet they didn't vote for Gore. That's interesting, and I'm not sure what to take from it, other than an utterly inept campaign from Al Gore...

            You say Gore focused in Florida because of Nader? Well, that proves to me that you're the ignorant one. You have clearly no clue then......

            Gore campaigned in Florida, because in case you don't recall, GW Bush had a brother in that state, who just happened to be Governor. Do you remember that? Do you recall (by chance) that the Bush machine in Florida was the threat to Al Gore, not Ralph Nader?

            No you wouldn't remember that because your too busy ignoring fact, and positing ridiculous arguments against Nader and his supporters.

            If Ralph Nader did in fact cost Al Gore the election, I would be proud of that. Fact is, we didn't get the 5%, therefore there was little to be happy about. You cannot maintain that Ralph Nader cost a Gore victory, with a straight face.

            The numbers just don't add up, friend.

            I suggest that before you go on a public forum, with your nice little alias, and sharp tongue, that you read a bit, and study politics...... or at the very least perhaps you can just go to Wikipedia and get a lesson in voting patterns in the South since the Great Depression.

            You may learn a thing or two. In the process, perhaps you'll learn to accept that you're not always right, and those who disagree based on fact are not idiots or historical dotes.

            "From each according to his faculties; to each according to his needs" - M. Bakunin

            by DJamesGoodwin on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 08:28:10 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Ralph's not listening (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deepfish, 5x5, rkh, volleyboy1, SilentBrook

    Nor would he agree. He  is much more important (in his own mind) than your petty concerns about wars, supreme court nominees (how many did Bush get thanks to Ralphy boy?) Katrina etc etc etc.

    In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

    by jsfox on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:28:09 AM PST

  •  I demanded he apologize for the war at (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deepfish, oxfdblue, volleyboy1

    an anti-Iraq War march several years back, but the man had no shame and ignored me.

  •  But he was absolutely right. (12+ / 0-)

    I didn't like how things came out, but frankly the stats don't support the idea that it was his fault. In fact there is actually more evidence that the election was stolen. His point was absolutely correct when he said that dems and republicans were the same. The corruption was the same. We have seen how stymied Obama has been, Gore has been a powerful speaker in regard to global warming...but hasn't moved any mountains, (not about intent but corporate corruption as obstacles). Bill Clinton? Come on...the people do not run this country, corporate america and greed are in charge. This was his point. I think he was speaking truth to power and he made his point with me. We'll see where Obama goes from here...I am waiting to see if he gets the banks regulated, and to see if he is able to pass health care...but his first year sure looked like someone "owned" by the corporates, not putting the middle class first.

    We have to accept that our country has been on the path to fascism for a long time. His point was valid.

    The greatest gift you can contribute to the goal of world peace is to heal.

    by wavpeac on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:32:30 AM PST

    •  And, in a functioning Democracy... (7+ / 0-)

      the Democrats would have looked at the Nader 2000 disaster and said "Hmm, maybe courting progressives is almost as important as tacking center to pick up moderate votes."

      Nope. Of course not. That would make too much sense. In American politics: when in doubt, move to the right. One progressive vote will never be as important as one moderate vote. Just ask Joe Lieberman.

      Have the Dems ever lost an election because they alienated moderates? Can anyone tell me if this has ever happened? I don't remember it happening. They lost a very important election in 2000 because they alienated progressives. They've lost elections because they ran cold fish candidates with no personality.

      Unfortunately, that's not the lesson they want to learn from 2000. The lesson they want to learn is to shut progressives up. I voted for Gore in 2000, but still, I've said it before and I'll say it again: Nader didn't cost the Dems the 2000 election. Gore cost the Dems the 2000 election.

      Slow learners will continue to blame progressives, and they will continue to make the mistake of thinking that a moderate vote is more important than a progressive vote, at their own peril.

      Immanentizing the eschaton is a *good* thing.

      by jabuhrer on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:42:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Huh? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hedgerml

      His point was absolutely correct when he said that dems and republicans were the same.

      So you're saying Gore would have gone to war with Iraq?  Gore would have gutted environmental laws?  

      I don't think so.

      •  they stole the election. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        EthrDemon, jabuhrer

        corporate america is and has been in charge for a long time. That's my point. NO, Gore would not have behaved this way...but I didn't think Obama would do what he has done in his first year either. (like afghanistan, bailouts, torture cover-up, fisa cover up, no regulation of banking industry, HAMPS a dismal failure cause the banks are doing what they want.

        Maybe O is not really as "in charge" as we would like him to be. Maybe the obstacles created by corporate america are preventing him from doing what he came to do. That was Nader's point.

        Nader didn't say all the dems personally were corrupt. He said that without a third choice, our party, was colluding because it's the only way to get elected.

        The greatest gift you can contribute to the goal of world peace is to heal.

        by wavpeac on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:06:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  He's Scarier than a Corvair now...nt (4+ / 0-)

    Crap on a cracker...and I mean it.

    by trekguy66 on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:33:21 AM PST

  •  The Senate shows Ralph was right when he said... (7+ / 0-)

    The only difference between the Democrats and Republicans is how fast their knees hit the floor when a corporation comes into the room.

    Plenty of Democrats supported W's SCOTUS choices, especially Roberts.

    Big Joe Helton: "I pay Plenty."
    Chico Marx: "Well, then we're Plenty Tough."

    by Caelian on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:35:32 AM PST

  •  Do you think it might have made a difference (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    horowitz, TomP, hedgerml, Ezekial 23 20

    if Democratic members of Congress(including Barack Obama) had been more vigorous in opposing Roberts? I suppose not.

    Corporate Democrats are the velvet glove on the Republican iron fist.

    by Sagebrush Bob on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:37:11 AM PST

  •  This is goddamn hilarious. (5+ / 0-)

    We need a hate Nader diary up as soon as possible.  Nothing unites us more in our hour of darkness than a hate Nader diary.  10 years old.  LOL.

    Since we're reminiscing in our collective hatred for Ralph Nader (And Now for Something Completely Different - the Penguin on Top of your Telly will Explode), let us remember that Joseph Lieberman was Al Gore's VP pick. Ha!
    JOE LIEBERMAN.

    Yea, the two parties are soooo different.

  •  Out of all the people to blame... (7+ / 0-)

    for the current problem of corporate-influence in government - not sure if Ralph is even in the top 5,000.  
    I've never voted for him in lieu of a candidate who could actually win, but I don't think it's productive to attack somebody who single-handedly pushed a previous Democratic Congress to create many of the consumer and environmental protections folks here are now suggesting need to be strengthened and upheld.
    I don't agree with his decisions to run for President, but I think it's more productive for somebody who values consumer and environmental protections to reserve our ire for those who oppose such measures, not those who merely take a different path than we would to strengthening them.

  •  Thinking of voting for Nader again. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, farbuska, lib overseas

    The Dems don't seem to have learned any lessons during the past 8 years other than to move to the so-called center, which by now is actually far to the right of Richard Nixon.

    --Free thinkers shouldn't go around thinking just anything. (Terry Pratchett)

    by HPrefugee on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:48:28 AM PST

  •  Where is Ralph now? (0+ / 0-)

    Ralph is full of shit, we will not see him until the 2012 election.  I am running again, he should be building a party now.  But he dose not try to build support in the 4 years between elections, sits on his ass.  

  •  But Obama is exactly Bush (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rasputin, mnguy66, SilentBrook

    That's why his only SCOTUS nominee dissented in this case. Oh, wait.

  •  Devils in the details (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fabian, corvo, Ezekial 23 20

    Guess who voted for Scalia? Let me help you. the vote to confirm Scalia was 98/0. Guess who controlled the Senate at the time? Let me help you again - the Democrats. Guess who was one of those Senators who voted to confirm Scalia.

    Al Gore (D)
    John Kerry (D)
    Joe Biden (D)

    and on and on.

    Now go check who voted for Alito and Roberts. Take the red pill already.

    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

    by Grassee on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:53:40 AM PST

    •  They were correct in confirming him (0+ / 0-)

      None of those people ever would have appointed him though.  Big difference.

      •  Explain please (0+ / 0-)

        It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

        by Grassee on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:06:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The old "elections have consequences". (0+ / 0-)

          Scalia was more than qualified.  That was their job.  To pin blame on Dems who voted to confirm him is wrong.  They did what they were supposed to do.  There should be nothing political about it.  (yeah, yeah I know it's all about politics but ideally it shouldn't enter the equation)

          •  You are contradicting yourself (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            corvo

            There should be nothing political about it.

            Yet this diary is blaming the appointment of rightwing judges on the political act of Nader spoiling it for Gore. The confirmation of Supreme Court judges is ALL about politics. The same Gore that voted to confirm Scalia refused to vote for Thomas.

            Biden has said he regretted his vote for Scalia because of how effective he has been as a rightwing jurist.

            It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

            by Grassee on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:22:23 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Is Ralph being pulled out for a (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fabian, corvo, Grassee, blueoregon

    public flogging just in general, or are we supposed to think that the same Supreme Court that installed Bush by fiat in 2000 would have voted differently on this issue?

    The Supreme Court was broken before the 2000 election.

    Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God. - Thomas Jefferson

    by Ezekial 23 20 on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:53:48 AM PST

  •  Sure, you can blame Ralph Nader for 2000 (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fabian, corvo, Ezekial 23 20, lib overseas

    But, that would be ignoring all the other factors that made 2000 possible. Justice O'Connor, Diebold corp. Jeb & Katherine in FLA. with their infamous & illegal "voter purge", right-wing radio & msm all touting voters wanting "a man they could have a beer with" in office instead of a..."liar" (internet smear)(did you ever see that photo of Bush & an unidentified man having a beer somewhere in the midwest? priceless, Bush looking bored & the poor guy looking off camera range) Full disclosure: I was a Californian at the time and voted for Nader, because i didn't like the DLC and they just ran Gore's campaign like it was Clinton v.2 (Terry McCauliffe earned my eternal emnity when he said progressives didn't belong in the party)
    It's easy to foist all the blame on Nader's shoulders, but it's dishonest.

    "Politics is the entertainment branch of Industry" - Frank Zappa

    by blueoregon on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:53:53 AM PST

    •  I don't think Ralph has anything to apologize (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lib overseas
      for in light of Obama proving him correct, however he was a factor in Florida.  Why deny it.  The power to make the dems lose is what gives a third party oomph!   It is not spoiling however, it is simply a loss!  This is a democracy and the democrats are not entitled to my vote!
      •  Oh he does. (0+ / 0-)

        Not for running for President, nor for winning voters in Florida.  But he was a total jackass in the days after the election, and really should have apologized for that.

        Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God. - Thomas Jefferson

        by Ezekial 23 20 on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:05:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What did you do after the election that (0+ / 0-)
          so pissed you off?
          •  sorry he instead of you? n/t (0+ / 0-)
            n/t
          •  He actually came out and made statements (0+ / 0-)

            crowing about being the spoiler in the race.

            He was proud of it.

            I thought that was totally classless of him, despite being fully supportive of his right to run.

            I want people running for an office because they believe in themselves and their platform, and I feel it was dismissive of his own supporters that he felt it was more important to boast about being a spoiler, rather than simply coming out and tell them he was sorry and really wanted to work for them.

            Not to mention being a slap in the face to all the Gore supporters.

            He did a lot of good things for consumers, he could have stayed classy there.

            Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God. - Thomas Jefferson

            by Ezekial 23 20 on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:15:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  as I said the power of third party is (0+ / 0-)
              in fact the power to make the party it is seeking to coopt or change lose.  I believe implicit threats must be used to make real change. I don't believe it is a matter of converting the oligarchy to your side, with your marvelous powers of persuasion.  My reading of history, shows this has never produced change. I think the oligarchy is representing their interests and they have to believe their interest are threatened in order to get them to change.  

              "As for the telling them he was sorry?" Tell who he was sorry?  What did he have to be sorry for?  He didn't owe anything to Gore supporters anymore than Gore owed anything to Bush supporters. Why would he want to work for Al Gore?  I don't get it.

              •  Let Us Not Forget (0+ / 0-)

                That in the latter days of Election 2000 Nader actually took money from Bush supporters:

                Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader -- still not on the ballot in a single state -- has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party an analysis of federal records show.

                Nearly one in 10 of Nader's major donors -- those writing checks of $1 000 or more -- have given in recent months to the Bush-Cheney campaign the latest documents show. GOP fund-raisers also have "bundled" contributions -- gathering hefty donations for maximum effect to help Nader who has criticized the practice in the past.

                http://articles.sfgate.com/...

      •  Pat Buchanan was on the ballot in FLA as well (0+ / 0-)

        are you going to blame him as well? Remember the "butterfly ballots" and all those people who couldn't figure out they were voting for Buchanan instead of Gore? Because Fla. was Jeb's baby, that state was destined to be trouble for the Democrats.

        "Politics is the entertainment branch of Industry" - Frank Zappa

        by blueoregon on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:15:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I wouldn't blame Nader. He had every right (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SilentBrook

    to run if he wanted to do. However, all those purists who voted for him gave up any right to complain about Bush's attack in Iraq, the USSC etc. YOU people made your bed.

    And the same is happening now with HCR; these purists want everything on their wish list + their dumb pony. And as a result they (and the rest of us) will end up with nothing. That's fine; but don't complain. You made your own bed!

    You are not living in reality if you think the Dem party is the same as Republican party. It just goes to show that you haven't learned a damn thing over the last 8 years.

  •  THIS IS ABSURD. CAN WE GET OUR HEADS OUT OF OUR.. (0+ / 0-)

    asses? Once and for all?

    Can you blame Ralph Nader for Al Gore's subservience, and his rolling over and conceding? No.

    Can you blame Ralph Nader for the Supreme Court's decision? No.

    Can you blame Ralph Nader for Al Gore losing three states that hadn't gone Republican since the 1970's, including his HOME STATE? No.

    Can you blame Ralph Nader for the war in Iraq, when in reality Al Gore supported the war even long before it happened? No.

    Can you blame Ralph Nader for Al Gore's absolute incompetence during his campaign? No.

    The simple fact of the matter is that over 200, 000 FLORIDA DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR BUSH.

    HOW MANY FACTORS NEED TO BE PRESENTED BEFORE PEOPLE REMOVE THEIR HEADS FROM THEIR ASSES AND RECOGNIZE THAT AL GORE - AND ONLY AL GORE - LOST THAT ELECTION!!!!!

    "From each according to his faculties; to each according to his needs" - M. Bakunin

    by DJamesGoodwin on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:15:45 AM PST

  •  Two little problems (0+ / 0-)

    with a President Gore (who was elected, after all, and would've been vastly superior to the usurper):

    1. a VP Lieberman, who enjoyed Gore's support;
    1. a Congress that would've thwarted him at every turn: Rethug majority in the House; 50-50 (plus or minus one) in the Senate with the inevitable filibustering of everything.
    •  Not to mention..... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      horowitz

      Al Gore publicly and boisterously supported invading Iraq. He just denounced "the way" in which Bush did it.

      Al Gore supported and quietly lobbied for domestic surveillance programs...... programs that heavily influenced parts of the Patriot Act, instituted by you know who.....

      Al Gore did not become a "so called" bulldog until WELL AFTER the 2000 election, and as with all Al Gore incarnations, it was politically motivated and calculated, and completely and utterly insincere.

      Anybody who WANTED Al Gore to be president should be committed to life in a padded cell.

      "From each according to his faculties; to each according to his needs" - M. Bakunin

      by DJamesGoodwin on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:36:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, I did prefer him to Poppie's Boy, (0+ / 0-)

        and I voted for him, but I expected little of him, just as I was terribly unimpressed by the man for whom he was VP.

        My suspicion is that Gore's latest incarnation is sincere; after all, as a non-politician, he is less tempted to make the kind of compromises (both tactical and moral/ethical) so typical of the vast majority of politicians.

  •  On the other hand, Ralph... (0+ / 0-)

    In 1966, had the right rear tire on my 1960 Corvair blow out at 60+ mph on the Ohio Turnpike and didn't have any indication of trouble until a truck driver tooted his horn and motioned for me to slow down. Only then, did I realize that the tire was flat. So much for your damn book title.

  •  People... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    horowitz

    Get this through your noggins-

    Democrats have to work to get votes. Gore was not entitled to the votes he didn't get.

    Gore blew it, not Nader. Please quit crying about it.

    How do we move the dems left? Not by bellyaching about Nader.

    The Dems have played us all for fools for the billionth time. I'm getting mighty tired of this horseshit.

  •  And to think, Naderism is on the rise on this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AbsurdEyes

    site.

    •   some of the most bitter debates I have seen on (0+ / 0-)

      this site has revolved around Ralph Nader, I am still skeptical that there is much fanfare for him here. Although it might make an interesting straw poll, for it does seem the sentiment of 'both parties suck' has been growing- so maybe you are right.

      "I'm living in an age that calls darkness light" Arcade Fire

      by AbsurdEyes on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 03:36:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site