On Nader, Camejo, and 'drawing liberal votes away'

[Ein]

Ok, I understand your point when you say Nader lost the 2k election, and I strongly disagree.

Ok, I understand your point when you say Camejomight draw votes away, and I strongly disagree.

Heres my deal...what do you guys want? The term 'drawing' seems very misleading to me, like the true liberals are supposed to vote for someone but an evil figure lured them away.

Why the fuck would ANY real liberal vote for a Democrat with a liberal candidate on the ballot?

My basic conclusion from all of this is I believe its time for the Democrats to realize they have been hovering in the center so long, they cannot take it as a foregone conclusion that all liberal votes are going to go to them. It's not thier territory anymore, they didn't lose it, they (or more specifically thier elected officials) threw it away. In fact, I'm actually rather sure that Democrats only cling to true liberals by repeating over and over that it's the ONLY way... every other option is idiotic.

Well if we keep things in the center, tell everyone Dean is the only one who can beat a half-popular incumbant whose wrecked economy (coupled with rising state taxes) is about to juice his ass, then we're starting out right in the Center, not in the left with the early Clinton? Well, what happens in the future? Are we going to get a worse neocon? Is the American empire going to be a major player in armaggedon or march itself into the fate of past empires? Everything has to stay the same?

The Greens and I (that I've talked to) aren't about a name, they are about liberal politics. The Democratic party could easily pull all of us in by going to the left, and supporting the working man. I submit that would be a much better option than treating us as a true opposition party, which would serve to alienate and divide even further.

Just how I see things.

[Democat]

1. The Green Party is helping the GOP

How is the Green Party helping liberals by getting right wing candidates elected?

Have liberals been helped by Bush's presidency?

You can talk about principle all day long, but helping the GOP does not help liberals.

[Ein]

2. Explain to me how they help that

If you could, include numbers of Democrats that voted Repub in 2000. They are a liberal party, which I believe is sorely needed when we have a far right wing CIC.

Thanks, you're point hasn't been proven to me, as the first sentence of my post remarks.

[Democat]

4. This is an argument of real life versus idealism

Would liberals have been better off with Gore as president or Bush as president?

[Ein]

5. Non-sequitor

Prove the first statement, as you haven't proven the Nader/Green votes caused Bush to be president. Keep in mind I've read of several other states in which the vote was odd in 2000, on this site in fact.

They'd be better off with Nader, I'll say that much.

[Democat]

7. You think Nader had any real chance to win in 2000?

Same argument we've all been having since before the 2000 election. Nothing said in this thread is going to change anyone's mind on either side.

If Ralph Nader wanted to make a real difference, rather than just see his name in the newspaper, why doesn't he become the left's Newt Gingrich and lead a Democratic Revolution from within the Democratic Party?

[Ein]

I think...

Nader gave me a reason to delve into liberal politics and has worked for your consuming needs his whole life, he is one of my heroes, he hasn't done anything half as bad as NAFTA or denying Africa the access to cheap AIDS medications. I think the Greens are aiming at 5%, possibly like the reform party, which I really know nothing of.

[Democat]

17. I do not discount the far left, I do think Nader's strategy has failed

Look at how the far right has become such a powerful force in America.

They didn't do it by leaving the Republican Party, they did it by taking over the Republican Party.

I would love to see Nader and his supporters put together a plan to gain influence within the Democratic Party. If they did that, then they would have real power and they could force real change in America.

The Green Party as it currently operates is causing real change too. Unfortunately for everyone on the left, the change is that they are helping Republicans get elected.

[Ein]

19. I see that to a point

The republican party was overthrown 3 times, right?

Federalists
Whigs
Republicans

I believe at such a point an outside force would be the best choice, if a 2004 Dem president maintains our status quo. I mean, didn't Clinton make a record for how many times he deployed troops.

[Terwilliger]

31. wrong

why do you keep saying that? There were very few Greens around in 2002...or do you blame Greens for that loss too?

Frankly, I'd like to know what constitutes "far left"

[Terwilliger]

16. because the Democratic party is TOO FAR TO THE RIGHT

and he knows it, 56% of DUers know it, and you're not going to get a seat at the table when you tell the rich fat-cats that they're part of the problem.

[Hippo_Tron]

63. Definately Not True

Americans don't go for extremeism, so therefore the Democrats need to move to the center to be a serious political party (Republicans are beginning to realize this as well). I mean look at Bush he hasn't done half of the ultra right winged shit that he really wants because he knows Americans won't go for it. At the same time extreme leftism won't get a presidential candidate elected. I don't think that you need to be an extremeist to get the green party vote you just need to show them that you have better ideas than Ralph Nader. And if you don't get someone to come up with some ideas for you, that always works for politicians.

[jiacinto]

9. Nader wanted Bush to win

That says enough about what his intention with his candidacy was.

Source: http://web.outsideonline.com/magazine/200008/200008camp_nader1.html

"When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush." Not that he actually thinks the man he calls "Bush Inc." deserves to be elected: "He'll do whatever industry wants done." The rumpled crusader clearly prefers to sink his righteous teeth into Al Gore, however: "He's totally betrayed his 1992 book," Nader says. "It's all rhetoric." Gore "groveled openly" to automakers, charges Nader, who concludes with the sotto voce realpolitik of a ward heeler: "If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win." "

[Ein]

11. That was his interpretation of a situation....

while under duress. Not like that is an excuse, but I share his concerns about status quo vs. the far right, I wouldn't vote for Bush, but I wouldn't vote for Gore either.

And Bush motivated me into activism and politics. Of course, because of Nader I actually got into politics.

"I hear you say often that you're not turned on to politics. Well, let me bring to bear the lessons of history. If you're not turned on to politics, the lesson of history is that politics will turn on you. So, let's start the countdown.

Those who are excessively greedy and excessively powerful must give up their privileges, must give up some of their power. Big business has been colliding with American democracy. And American democracy is losing.

We can have a democratic society, or we can have a concentration of great wealth in the hands of the few. We cannot have both. Now imagine what can happen if political campaigns began paying attention to controlling what we own. We'd have our own radio stations, our own television stations, our own cable channels. It is time for a change. The system is not working."

edit: More like something of a wolf in sheepskins clothing deal. Do you want to know your enemy, or do you want him to be hidden?

[jiacinto]

18. BS

I have other statements on Nader's parts that indicate that he was running so that Bush could win:

Here is the link:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/24/24/moberg2424.html

At an editorial meeting of the Capital Times in Madison, Nader talks
about his encounter as a Princeton undergraduate with longtime
Socialist presidential candidate Norman Thomas. Hinting at his own
possible strategy, Nader recounts asking Thomas his greatest
accomplishment, to which Thomas replied, "having my agenda stolen
by the Democratic Party." Yet Nader, who argues the Democratic
party is irremediably corrupt, also talks about leading the Greens
into a "death struggle" with the Democratic party to determine which will
be the majority party.


snip

He acknowledges that if he were voting in the district of a
progressive Democrat congressman, like Rep. Henry Waxman of
California, he would support Waxman. Then again, if there was a
Green candidate, even a weak one, he said he would vote against his
longtime ally. "There's an overriding goal here, and that's to builda
majority party," he says. "If you're going to build a new party, you go
all the way."

"I hate to use military analogies," he continues, "but this is war onthe
two parties. After November we're going to go after the Congress in
a very detailed way, district by district. We're going to beat themin
every possible way. If winning 51 to 49 percent,
we're going to go in and beat them with Green votes. They've got to
lose people, whether they're good or bad. They've got to lose people
to be put under the intense choice of changing the party or watching
it dwindle."

snip

Nader is willing to sacrifice progressives like Russ Feingold in
Wisconsin or Wellstone, though he also believes that the Green threat
will give them bargaining power within the Democratic Party. "That's
the burden they're going to have to bear for letting their party go
astray," he says. "It's too bad. It isn't that we haven't given them
decades, and they got worse and worse. It isn't like we have a
choice. Every four years they get worse."
---------------------------------------------

[Ein]

21. lol

"At an editorial meeting of the Capital Times in Madison, Nader talks
about his encounter as a Princeton undergraduate with longtime
Socialist presidential candidate Norman Thomas. Hinting at his own
possible strategy, Nader recounts asking Thomas his greatest
accomplishment, to which Thomas replied, "having my agenda stolen
by the Democratic Party." Yet Nader, who argues the Democratic
party is irremediably corrupt, also talks about leading the Greens
into a "death struggle" with the Democratic party to determine which will
be the majority party."

Nader is an independant LIBERAL INDEPENDANT. <--- Yea. I would love to have my party's agende taken up by the Democrats, love it.

"He acknowledges that if he were voting in the district of a
progressive Democrat congressman, like Rep. Henry Waxman of
California, he would support Waxman. Then again, if there was a
Green candidate, even a weak one, he said he would vote against his
longtime ally. "There's an overriding goal here, and that's to builda
majority party," he says. "If you're going to build a new party, you go
all the way."

Who is his longtime ally? Waxman or the Green candidate. At first read I took it to mean he'd vote for the Democrat. And even if it was the other way in fact... he was in a progressive area, which would gaurantee an electoral vote. There is no danger in that method, it gives the Greens power, nothing else.

"I hate to use military analogies," he continues, "but this is war onthe
two parties. After November we're going to go after the Congress in
a very detailed way, district by district. We're going to beat themin
every possible way. If winning 51 to 49 percent,
we're going to go in and beat them with Green votes. They've got to
lose people, whether they're good or bad. They've got to lose people
to be put under the intense choice of changing the party or watching
it dwindle."

Everyone needs a strategy.

"Nader is willing to sacrifice progressives like Russ Feingold in
Wisconsin or Wellstone, though he also believes that the Green threat
will give them bargaining power within the Democratic Party. "That's
the burden they're going to have to bear for letting their party go
astray," he says. "It's too bad. It isn't that we haven't given them
decades, and they got worse and worse. It isn't like we have a
choice. Every four years they get worse.""

That implies he IS WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU.

[Terwilliger]

20. I really don't see what was wrong with what he said in the post above

Bush won (stole the election) and now the Democatic party is finding out that they're being eaten from within by these corporate wonks. Even Howard Dean has had to employ a "leftist" message (even though I think it's FAR from leftist) to separate himself from this cadre of monied interests. I dont believe that the monied interests are not being served, but thats the message he's trying to give.

[Terwilliger]

14. oh goody! simplistic questions explain the lack of leadership by Dems!

I KNEW there was an answer!

[ShaneGR]

27. Give us all a break

These arguments might have held some truth in 2000 but these days they are exposed as utterly ridiculous.

[Ein]

51. Tell me how...

Nader costs the Democratic party to lose the election. Consider everything. Around 4% of the vote killed your party! OH NO!

[Devlzown]

6. The Greens didn't put Bush in office.

Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush did -- along with their friends.

[jiacinto]

10. Nader wanted Bush to win

see my reply in this thread. That clearly blows that defense into the water.

[Devlzown]

22. Nader didn't say he wanted Bush to win.

Besides, it doesn't even matter what Nader wanted, it matters what the voters wanted. But all that aside, blaming Greens for throwing the election to Bush is unfair to them and excuses those who were actually to blame. The election was STOLEN. What Ralph Nader wanted for Christmas doesn't change that fact.

[jiacinto]

26. Bluntly

Nader made it close enough for Bush to steal. I truly believe that had he not been on the ballot in Florida and in New Hampshire Gore would have won.

[Ein]

28. Search for voting irregularoties in other states in 2k

I've seen discussion on it here at DU. Nader got what... 3 1/2% of the vote? So 3 1/2% of everyone that voted, voted for Nader. How many Dems voted repub, and how many people voted Reform?

[Terwilliger]

34. and he's wrong

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=3&kaid=86&subid=84&contentid=2919

The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. -- Al From, DLC super-wonk

[Devlzown]

38. Well I don't have to make guesses.

I've read Greg Palast's book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy." His research and documentation are excellent. The Governor and Secretary of State of Florida had thousands of people -- about half of whom were black -- wrongly purged from the voter rolls. Even if only half of those black voters had voted for Gore, he would still have won. After all, Bush "won" Florida by 537 votes.

[jiacinto]

41. Spare me

Had even just 1% of the 96K who voted for Nader supported Gore the outcome would have been different. So yes I do blame Nader for his role in what happened.

[Terwilliger]

48. jiacinto fails to mention here that all 97K were NOT Democrats

some of them were...not anywhere near all

but hey, lets look at it...lets say that half of these 97,000 votes were from Democrats who would have voted for Gore (by no means certain and highly contested) Then 1% of that would be 485. And Gore would have lost.

But THAT doesn't help when you find out that TWELVE TIMES the number of Democrats that voted for Nader voted for George W. Bush. Why aren't those Democrats called to account?

[Iverson]

74. We've seen this argument before.

"But THAT doesn't help when you find out that TWELVE TIMES the number of Democrats that voted for Nader voted for George W. Bush. Why aren't those Democrats called to account?"

The answer is that Democrats who vote conservatively are given a free pass, probably because they've been doing it for so long, presumably in reaction to the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Thus, for reasons of seniority, they are out of the reach of criticism.

Voting for a candidate whose agenda is actually similar to yours is considered a perversion of democracy in this ethos, and is therefore unthinkable to the point of apoplexy.

[jiacinto]

75. They aren't really Democrats any more

The only Democrat who could win their votes would have to be pro-gun, anti-gay, and anti-abortion. Only Zell Miller could get the votes of those Dixiecrats.

They may vote for Democrats in lower ballot races, but even then they will only vote for conservative Democrats. They aren't given "a free pass"; but, based on their voting histories, they were not going to vote for the party's presidential candidate in any event.

So the Green point on them is misleading. They aren't really Democrats anymore and probably only keep their registration so that they can vote in the primaries in local races.

[Iverson]

77. a fine example

You make my point for me by rationalizing them as a lost cause. I'd call that a free pass, even if you deny it. It places them beyond criticism, but they still get to be Dems. Your argument will be persuasive on the day that you reserve as much juvenile venom for them as you do for Greens.

[jiacinto]

85. They are a lost cause

Any Democrat who would get their votes is someone like Zell Miller. I am not rationalizing them. Their behavior has been established for 30+ years now. And they weren't going to change in 2000.

[IndianaGreen]

24. Voting for the Iraq war

doesn't help liberals either!

[Democat]

25. Bush organized the Iraq war

Do you think Gore would have started the Iraq war? I do not.

[Ein]

30. It's not so much about Gore winning

as it is the divide that is b/t Democrats and Green, and really, many Dems voted for war. Thats nuts. Nader didn't SELECT Bush.

[Terwilliger]

3. Thanks, Ein!

and...

Why the fuck would ANY real liberal vote for a Democrat with a liberal candidate on the ballot?

Right on!

[dsc]

8. Camejo supported the recall

that makes him unfit for public office in a Democracy (not to mention the ultimate sore loser).

[Terwilliger]

12. Well, I'm glad we don't live in a free society then

he might actually get away with that :eyes:

[Ein]

13. I believe

a Recall is a good thing if regulated. The bribery and possible out of states votes involved in CA immediately rule it out. But if I was in Cali, didn't like Davis, and an opportunity to oust him, I would take it.

[ErasureAcer]

15. I agree...

the day I vote for a pro-death penalty, pentagon whore, is the day I sell my soul.

I'm not selling my soul for Howard Dean or anyone else with those Bush-Lite views.

Dean can rot in hell for all I care. He's not a progressive voice. He is a lying SOB who much like Bush has gotten everywhere in life by being placed on 3rd base.

Give me someone who will take this nation in a new direction and away from Empire.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

23. You are right. Why shouldn't California resemble the rest of free

America.

[JackSwift]

29. Who cares what you think?

I certainly don't and neither does our Furher, George W. Bush. And who really cares how strongly you think you think it? Greens don't think, they stink. Nader will never be President. Camejo will never be Governor. Your entitled to your opinions, and I'm entitled to mine, but I don't answer to non-democrats.

I will never vote for a Green, I will never support a Green, I will never give a Green the time of f****** day. Greens elected Bush, just like Ralph Nader wanted to.

In our version of democracy, a plurality wins, and all the folks who strategize know that. That is why the lefties (or righties on the other side) have a primary: to decide who to put forward, and then to all get behind that one candidate. Another leftie running in the general election splits the vote and allows the right wing fascist to win every time. What the Greens have done is said: the leftie primary isn't good enough for us, we prefer to split the vote and elect the fascist. That is the Greenie's legal right. But I have the right to my own opinion on the moral consequences of those actions and to judge Greenies by their actions: they are scum.

I would like to know where any Nader voting Greens are buried after they die, because I will cheerfully piss on their graves.

The Green party in this country has only one accomplishment of which they may brag: they were a concurrent cause of electing George W. Bush. The smart ones are proud of it, the dumb ones are in denial.

I wish all Greens could take the place of our soldiers roasting in Iraq now, because they sure as hell deserve it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

32. IT'S DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN!!!

[Democat]

35. Someone should combine all the Nader 2000 threads on DU

The posts, laid end to end, would wrap around the world four times. :)

[Terwilliger]

37. yes, and NOTHING has changed

stupid Democrats cant figure out that someone was trying to tell them something and he was right

[Democat]

42. In 100 years if the Green Party is still at 3%, will you reconsider?

The way to force real change is for Nader and his followers to try to influence the Democratic Party, not to try to destroy the Democratic Party.

Helping elect Republicans doesn't help liberals or moderates.

[jiacinto]

46. They really aren't interested in the Dem Party

And by the time most of these young trust frunds brats grow up they'll be right wing Republicans.

[Ein]

47. lol

"trust frunds brats" (sic) <--- You have no clue what you're talking about.

[jiacinto]

52. Yes I do

I just graduated from a major university here in DC and I see what most of the Green extremists are like: pot smoking trust fund brats from affluent families.

[Ein]

60. Nice generalization.

I love it. Did you see thier quarterly fund reports?

[ulysses]

72. Carlos occasionally forgets

that his experience does not constitute universal truth.

[JackSwift]

50. I think it is a safe bet that in 100 years

I'll be dead, and so will everyone else here. This is exactly the kind of stupid fantasy that Greens substitute for rational thought. Ralph Nader is already more about 70 years old. He isn't going to ever be elected President.

Now if the Green party gains strength over the years, can it change things? I suppose so, but not by electing Republicans. The Leninist "enhancing the contradictions" crap that Nader was spouting has never been proven to do more than just make things more miserable.

[jiacinto]

54. We don't live in a parlimentary system

And frankly, judging by the mentality of some of their strongest fans here, I doubt the Greens have what it takes to be a major player on the political scene.

[JackSwift]

62. I agree with you there

I've yet to meet a Green even understands what a plurality system means for their electoral chances. They can't address the issue any more than Arnold Schwarzenegger can.

[jiacinto]

76. No, Jack, because it means they would have to deal with the

truth. Their party can barely even win races for dogcatcher, yet they act like they are major players.

[Julien Sorel]

69. The Greens will never be a major party in this country unless

there's some kind of catastrophe. That's one of the reasons I despise them -- they are like vultures. You can see it in some of the posts here. They want the system to blow up, so they will finally have a real shot at power. The grownup thing to do is to work to prevent the blowup, of course, and some Greens think they are doing that. But recent electoral history suggests otherwise.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

43. Ter...you really are grabbing here aren't you

I will congratulate you on October 8th when Arnold gets elected. I will revel in your result. I'm sorry this strategy backfired once. You aren't a Green. You are a Republican.

Insanity is doing that same thing over and over expecting a different result.

[Terwilliger]

53. like Democrats

and I think they've failed miserably, and they'll show the country, once again with this recall mess, that they're not able to satnd up and lead the country.

Prove that I'm wrong! "Oh woo woo woo, we Democrats are kind and loving and thrifty and..." WTF cares?! You're losing! You're losing again! What does it take to say that you don't know what you're doing politically?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

58. The California Dems won every major office . I am sorry you

can't distinguish that. They lost in court over a recall that SHOULD NOT be conducted as it is but for the partisans on the court. The Chief Justice in California DID want to hear the cases.

I really don't know what to say to you. It must be easy to holler out all this shit when your party only knows how to divide the liberal vote and can't get elected.

It's real easy to defend your record when you have none.

[jiacinto]

61. Exactly, NSMA

The Greens can promise everyone everything except the kitchen sink because they know that in the short to medium term they will never be elected to any office with significant responsibility.

I would LOVE to see the Greens get the White House. I would love to see the Greens try to implement their agenda with a hostile GOP-led Congress that would be bitterly opposed every step of the way.

[John_H]

80. I'm unsure of Ter's party affiliation

Most Greens I know are fairly smart. But,even so, it'd be great to hear exactly when the Green party will have arealistic shot of winning statewide or national races.

[lifelong_Dem]

82. You'd like nothing better than for Bush to get a second term, wouldn't you

?

[JackSwift]

55. And stupid and cheap Greens

can't figure out when they are being stupid and cheap. Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid

[Terwilliger]

57. hahahah

is this an appeal to idiocy?

[JackSwift]

68. Cheap

Cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, :bounce:

[bitchkitty]

65. Enlighten me -

what was Nader trying to tell us? All I heard was that Bush and Gore were the same, an obvious lie.

[Ein]

33. Well.

Do unto others as....

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

40. Come on Ein, I have been a friend of Greens on this board but

the burden of proof is on you to shore up your claims.

The Greens must not want people to work. CLinton created jobs...actually GOOD jobs. Davis CREATED jobs and had to enforce cut backs because the Republicans would not go for a shitty little 1/2 cent sales tax that even PETE WILSON enforced as well as raising taxes on higher incomes which I supported even though it would raise my taxes.

Camejo isn't fit to manage a hot dog stand. If he were he could have gotten far more than the 9 percent of votes he got in the last election. Yeah yeah I know he got locked out of the debates...guess what? Nobody watched the friggin debates.

His dumb ass diatribe about how he would have gotten people to oust their boards in order to correct the energy crisis is evidence that he is IMPOTENT on matters of effectiveness.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=166912&mesg_id=166912

Something I have been saying that I would have done, which neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have said anything about, would be to call a meeting of the owners of these companies, which is the pension funds. And I would have proposed to the pension funds that every one of these companies, the four or five key ones that were creating the problems, that we simply vote out their boards, replace their management and put law-abiding citizens in charge.

:eyes:

[jiacinto]

44. You are being too charitable to Camejo

He polled 393,036 votes, which translates to 5.26% of the vote, almost 4% less than you claim.

[Ein]

45. Hmmm

Clinton created jobs and sold them. Nafta's arm has a far reach and was extended just last month by congress to the Phillipines and another country. People I know are in desperate need of jobs.

I don't read nor careabout Camejo, I cannot vote for him where I live. If the Greens over there want to run him, that's fine. If Ralph wants to endorse him, that's fine.

I just don't think a centrist Democrat will suffice for me anymore, at all.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

49. I think you need to do a double take

Clinton created jobs and would have put money into retraining which is NOT being advocated by Bush. People were WORKING when he left office although the market was making a correction. The JOBS that have left left under Bush. BTW, the Greens also have an environmental platform that should be glad the jobs that did leave left. Most of the indudstries gone due to NAFTA were big polluters i.e. manufacturing and mining. Please balance that one for me.

I'll wait up tonight for your response. (NOT)

[Ein]

59. I'd like to see statistics on all of that.

NAFTA didn't end with its passing. I'm not sayin bush is anything short of an economic idiot, but it's taken into consideration by me. Also, I wonder why Clinton was so eager to get it through.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

66. Here ya go

My points followed by supportive documentation
Clinton created jobs and would have put money into retraining which is NOT being advocated by Bush.


THE CLINTON-GORE ECONOMIC RECORD:
THE LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN 30 YEARS
THE LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT RATE SINCE 1969 AND MORE THAN 20 MILLION NEW JOBS. In 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected President, the American economy was barely creating jobs, wages were stagnant, and the unemployment rate was 7.5 percent. His bold, three-part economic strategy focused on three objectives: fiscal discipline, investing in education, health care, science and technology, and opening foreign markets. Today’s jobs release provides more evidence that this strategy is working:

The Unemployment Rate Was 4.2 Percent in 1999 -- the Lowest Since 1969. The unemployment rate was 4.1 percent in December bringing the average unemployment rate for 1999 to 4.2 percent -- the lowest since 1969. The unemployment rate has fallen for seven years in a row. It has remained below 5 percent for 30 months in a row. For women the unemployment rate was 4.1 percent -- the lowest since 1953.

African American and Hispanic Unemployment Rates Were the Lowest on Record in 1999. The unemployment rate for African Americans has fallen from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 8.0 percent in 1999 – the lowest rate on record. The unemployment rate for Hispanics has fallen from 11.6 percent in 1992 to 6.4 percent in 1999 -- the lowest rate on record.

20.4 Million New Jobs Created Under the Clinton-Gore Administration. Since 1993, the economy has added 20.4 million new jobs. That’s the most jobs ever created under a single Administration – and more new jobs than Presidents Reagan and Bush created during their three terms. Under President Clinton, the economy has added an average of 245,000 jobs per month, the highest of any President on record. This compares to 52,000 per month under President Bush and 167,000 per month under President Reagan.

92 Percent -- 18.8 Million -- of the New Jobs Have Been Created in the Private Sector. Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, the private sector of the economy has added 18.5 million new jobs. That is 92 percent of the 20.4 million new jobs – the highest percentage since Harry S. Truman was President and presiding over the post-World War II demobilization.

Most Rapid Growth in Construction Jobs In 50 Years. After losing 662,000 jobs in construction during the previous four years, 1.9 million new construction jobs have been added during the Clinton-Gore years -- that’s a faster annual rate (5.1 percent) than any other Administration since Harry S. Truman was President.

Fastest and Longest Real Wage Growth in Two Decades. In the last 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased 3.7 percent -- faster than the rate of inflation. This marks the fourth consecutive year of real wage growth -- the longest consecutive increase since the early 1970s. Under President Clinton, real wages are up 6.5 percent, after declining 4.3 percent during the Reagan and Bush years. Real wage growth in 1998 reached 2.6 percent -- the largest increase since 1972.

Inflation-- Lowest Since the 1960s. Inflation remains virtually non-existent, with the underlying core rate of inflation at 2.0 percent this year -- the lowest rate since 1965. In the last four quarters the GDP price index has risen 1.3 percent -- the lowest rate of increase since 1963.
http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000112_1.html


People were WORKING when he left office although the market was making a correction.

Jobless Rate Rises Again: 15.3 Million Unemployed and Underemployed with 6.4 Percent Officially Out of Work



July 3—America’s workers took another body slam in June, when the U.S. unemployment rate climbed to 6.4 percent—the highest level since April 1994, according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report released July 3.



In June, 9.4 million workers were officially unemployed—the highest number in a decade. The 9.4 million jobless include 2 million workers who have been out of work 27 weeks or longer.



http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/jobs/ns07032003.cfm
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.toc.htm

The JOBS that have left left under Bush

editorial note: Keep in mind that industries shifted and their base left during NAFTA but Clinton was still working to CREATE/replace the jobs that were being lost.

BTW, the Greens also have an environmental platform that should be glad the jobs that did leave left. Most of the industries gone due to NAFTA were big polluters i.e. manufacturing and mining. Please balance that one for me.

That last one was a challenge to you.

[Terwilliger]

36. The DLC disagrees

and they have the biggest reason to say that Nader helped Bush win. But, GUESS WHAT, they dont.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=3&kaid=86&subid=84&contentid=2919

The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. -- Al From

[JackSwift]

39. Screw the DLC and screw all Greens

I disagree. But thank you for your logical fallacy of "appeal to authority".

I think Greens are socialist scum trying to destroy America by "increasing the contradictions". By supporting Bush in 2000, they may have succeeded. I see no difference between Nader and Bush, both end up with Bush as President. Nader will never be elected President.

[Terwilliger]

56. appeal to authority? you mean From doesnt know how to read poll data?

are all Democrats that ignorant?

Nader will never be elected president. In case you hadn't noticed, he wasn't trying to become president. OH I FORGOT! You cant read poll data!

[JackSwift]

67. Ad hominem

good follow up.

He may know how to read poll data, he may not. But that doesn't mean that I have to agree with his interpretation, which is heavily biased. Having a degree in political science that actually involved a semester of studying polls, I can assure you that Nader was indeed a concurrent cause of Bush being President. It is not even close. The argument that the 90,000 Nader votes in Florida would not have broke at least 3,000 in Gore's favor over not voting, or voting for another, just doesn't pass the laugh test: it's statistically improbable.

It's like seeing you post in a few hundred threads and never really dealing with the plurality wins issue. I'm just of an age and intelligence where I understand that I get to choose the lessor of two evils, and not the perfect candidate of my choice who may get 2 percent of the vote. I figured that out after John Anderson's 1980 campaign.

[bitchkitty]

64. Golly! Could it be....

"Why the fuck would ANY real liberal vote for a Democrat with a liberal candidate on the ballot?"

To keep Bush from being able to steal it again?

I long ago made my peace with Greens, since I share many of their views, but Nader is another story entirely. He's not even a Green. Run a real Green, if you can find one who doesn't mind another 4 years of Bush.

[JackSwift]

70. Nader is the real Green deal

He is an anti-corporate socialist, 'cept when it comes to his dividend checks and the non-profit corporations he controls. I've watched the fringe American socialists for a few decades, and they now call themselves the Greens. There are Greens who are poltically unsophisticated who don't understand this, but they are in a small minority.

[bitchkitty]

71. I don't trust Nader.

he's a sly fox.

[Iverson]

73. Ein, this is what you get for trying.

While a few on DU are interested in serious discussion, the majority of postings (if not posters) are interested in reflexive denunciation. I appreciate your efforts, though.

[John_H]

83. No, that's what he/she gets for trying to defend the indefensible

The majority of posters (if not postings) are interested in serious challenges to the right wing. A minority of posters are so idiologically self-absorbed that they prefer to ride their hobby horses off into the fringe sunset. If they sunject California and America

You see folks--They understand that the country is evenly divided with a large block toward the middle--and it drives them nuts.

But they also recognize that it provides them with an opportunity: Playing the margin is the only way they can flex their rather unshwartzegerian political muscles. They fully understand that they'll never get a significant number of voters to actually agree with their agenda (unlike their wingnut counterparts in the GOP who use Jesus to do exactly that). So they take every opportunity to help bring about the very worst thing that can happen, i.e. Ahnold.

The dim bulbs among those who subscribe to this strategy believe that it will create a huge backlash their way. (Of course, what actually happens is the GOP consolidates their control using the built in powers that come with elected office)

The less dumb, if more cynical, Greens, use their enabling of the GOP as flat out blackmail--"you better do what we say or this will keep happening."

This is how they've chosen to play the game, and as a political party that's their perogative.

We Dems have can only do one thing to do-- fight them just as hard as we fight thr Rethugs. They'll kick and scream and rant about Dems
just the way freepers would if they were allowed here. But keep coming at 'em with the facts.

[lifelong_Dem]

84. Very well said

That's the Greens in a nutshell.

[GOPBasher]

78. "The Democratic party could easily pull all of us in by going to the left"

The problem is, if we go left to get those votes, how many do we lose in the middle? Many independents and swing voters voted for Gore in 2000, and I don't think we'd keep these voters with an extremist like Kucinich. In fact even more Dems voted for Bush than for Nader. So, if we go to the left, it looks like we lose much more than we gain.

[Q]

79. The votes from the 'middle' are a DLC myth...

...used to push the party to the right.

- It's time Democrats realize they've been had by the likes of the DLCers.

[lifelong_Dem]

81. Then explain all the Dems who voted for Bush

...as the Green apologists like to harp on over and over and over again whenever the topic of Nader's role in the 2000 election comes up.

What are those votes, if not votes in the middle?

Or are you saying that a bunch of Dems voted for Bush because they thought the Dem party was too conservative? WTF kind of sense does that make?

[jiacinto]

86. The Green apologists use that as a misleading stat

Most of those "Democrats" haven't voted for the party's candidate since 1976. A lot of them probably not even since 1964. They would only vote for a Zell Miller type of Democrat. They may still vote Democratic in local, downballot races; but, on the presidential level, they vote Republican. The only Democrat who could get their votes is someone anti-civil rights, anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-gun, and anti-woman.