Am I allowed to be ticked at the "no difference" crowd yet?

[vi5]

This isn't going to be a Green or Nader bashing thread. They did their share of spouting the "no difference" republican talking point with Gore and with Kerry vs. Bush, but they were by no stretch of the imagination the only ones. I also knew plenty of independents who said the same thing and just didn't vote, and I also knew plenty of DEMS who spouted this line and didn't bother to vote. But I also know people who spouted this line all through both campaigns but STILL ended up voting for Gore and/or Kerry. And as far as I'm concerned they did just as much damage because it gave creedence and support to people who believed this and may NOT have at the last minute decide to vote for Gore or Kerry.

Well a right wing, corporatist, anti abortion judge on the supreme court was what we feared and now that's what we'll get. For all the dems spinelessness and republican light tendencies there is no doubt in my mind that neither Gore nor Kerry would have nominated someone like Roberts.

Rant over. Go ahead and flame, I guess.

[Inland]

1. Right there with you. nt

[TheWraith]

123. Amen.

Many of the Democrats are imperfect, but to say that there's no difference between them and the Republicans is to say that there's no difference between a pickpocket and a child rapist.

[acmejack]

2. Permission to be ticked granted.

They'll get all the "no difference" they can take in the next 30 or so years.

[annabanana]

3. anyone claiming "no difference"

Just doesn't want to be bothered with the whole "citizen" thing...(too much work)

[wli]

6. they don't want citizenship for anyone noticing the difference

Patriot II grants them the power to rescind the citizenship of anyone meeting their broad definition of a "terrorist," which includes anyone the Shrub uses an executive order to declare a terrorist and other incredibly broad criteria. And it's passing in bits and pieces.

[malaise]

4. You have that right but

remember that it was more than a few Democratic senators who gave Roberts a free pass to the DC court.

[vi5]

5. Like I said, enough blame to go around.....

..but the bottom line is if we had a republican president there would be no Roberts nomination to begin with.

[madinmaryland]

7. We were ranting at those people five years ago.

Continue to rant!

[punpirate]

8. It's so Republican...

... to blame the victim. And now, so Democratic, too. Does that explain to you why people found some rational basis for not voting for Democrats in 2000. And, I might add, the Nader effect was entirely non-existent in 2002, and negligible in 2004, but the Democrats lost ground in both elections, in the House, in the Senate and in the White House.

Maybe the Democrats are fucking up--as Howard Dean has suggested--and the Republican-Lite wing of the Democratic Party can't admit their role in that.

Maybe they're the problem, not the voters.

Cheers.

[annabanana]

9. sigh

I know, I know, You're right of course...
But I understand why people are relieved with half a loaf..
(I get so discouraged sometimes)

[vi5]

11. Half a loaf?

Christ, I'd accept ANY of the loaf right about now.

I'm not even making apologies for spineless dems. I'm talking about supreme court nominees plain and simple.

[punpirate]

19. They aren't getting...

... half a loaf--they're not even getting crumbs. I'm sad to say it, but I can't think of one piece of legislation that benefitted exclusively the ordinary people in the past several years. And given what Congress and Bush have been up to otherwise, that's a crime.

[vi5]

10. I think I made it very clear I wasn't blaming the Nader effect....

...and how am I blaming the victim? I consider myself to be the victim here. I consider my daughter and wife to be the victim. And I'm sure not blaming myself.

I'm talking about a very specific issue right here and that is a supreme court nomination. And whenever anyone tried to say there'd be "no difference" those with clear heads always pointed to the very likely possibility of a far right nominee to the supreme court which would have the power and right to trump every other issue and turn back any piece of democratic favored legislation. Now we've got the first of what will likely be 2 far right nominees to the supreme court who will be doing just what we feared.

[punpirate]

17. You started out by saying that...

... but your argument was directed at everyone who did not fall into lockstep with the machine politics of the Democratic Party. C'mon, that's not a legitimate argument, it's a rhetorical device--nor does it explain why Democrats lost. And, it doesn't really address the real problem, does it? The Democratic Party, compared to what it was, is moribund, and precisely for the reasons I described.

And, yes, you're talking about a SC nomination, but you're looking for someone to blame for it. I'll make a prediction here and you get back to me after the confirmation vote. I'll bet enough Democrats in the Senate vote for his confirmation to make it a lead pipe cinch, even if that's just a few, because enough in the Democratic Party won't dare support a filibuster--which is more than necessary in this case.

Be sure to get back to me, because this depends upon what Democrats in the Senate do. Tell me if those representatives of the Party are worthy of your respect after it's all over. Every goddamned one of them should be fighting this to their utmost, right down to the wire, challenging it for all they're worth. Let me know if they do, because I'm not so certain they'll do the right thing.

Cheers.

[vi5]

20. It's not a matter of lock step...

I don't march lock step with the democratic party. You want my dirty little secret? I'm not even a registered democrat. But I think we ultimately have more of a chance to affect any kind of change with them in power (in any branch) then we do with them out of power.

I think it's ultimately much easier to hold someone's feet to the fire when they are trying to retain power than it is when they are trying to GET power (just look at how the repubs still cowtow to the religious right).

I personally thought Gore was a crappy candidate who ran a crappy campaign. I thought Kerry was a good candidate who run a crappy campaign. But even at their rock bottom worse, they would still nominate a better pick for the supreme court than Bush would.

I agree there will be many dems who cave and I will be just as pissed at them without a doubt. Rest assured of that. But just because I'm pissed at them and think they are one of the reasons we're in this mess, doesn't mean they are the only ones and it doesm't mean I can't still be ticked at OTHER people who I think bear some of the brunt of this responsibility. I don't see why it has to be an either/or proposition.

[punpirate]

23. It's not an either/or proposition...

... it's the way you phrased the argument. You want to blame someone for this. But, you don't want to entirely blame the candidates or the party machine. That means you want to blame someone else, too, and in this process, that means the voter. And the voters are the ultimate victims in any election boondoggle.

If you want to blame someone, fer chrissakes, blame Bush. Ultimately, that's where the blame for this SC nomination decision resides. It was his decision.

[vi5]

25. I don't ENTIRELY blame anyone.....

There is enough of that to go around. Bush is getting away with what he was given the power to get away with.

I'll even meet this halfway and say that after the 2002 election debacle and even in 2004, that the dems in power bear the vast majority of the blame if not the whole enchilada. I agree that with select few exceptions (and Kerry's presidential campaign is most definitely NOT one of the exceptions), the cowtowing and cowering caused them to lose power and seats consistently and amounted to them basically throwing away any veto power they had to keep Bush in check.

But this problem was nowhere near as pronounced in the 2000 election and I remember having the Supreme Court nominee argument with countless people back then and maybe those are the ones that I'm still bitter about. Back then it was painfully obvious what Bush would do to the court if he won. And people ignored that and I ultimately think that is what got this whole snowball rolling downhill.

[LoZoccolo]

28. You're wasting your time, vi5.

Every Naderite knows what they're doing. It's not a matter of reason to them; the same reasons have existed plain and clear since 2000. They love it when people beg them to act responsibly, as if they hold the fate of the world in their hands or something; it makes them feel important.

[punpirate]

29. So, you want to blame someone, but you don't exactly know who...

... to blame. You know who you've left entirely out of the equation? The simple-minded on the right who believed every bit of Bush's lies and bullshit and got him close enough to steal it all.

There's about 50% of the population that you've left out of this--along with a press that repeated every lie Rove issued about Gore's record, and that didn't like Gore because he wasn't a good ol' boy like Bush, and then buried the evidence that Gore would have won had the vote been counted according to Florida law.

It's not as simple as one might wish. As I said, this SC nomination is now, not 2000. It's Bush's decision. Blame him. He's responsible for it, not Gore and not Kerry. Blame this white, rich-boy cocksucker of a president for pandering to the minority religious right with this decision.

[LoZoccolo]

32. WHAT??!!

You say you had NOTHING to do with it? I could see not taking complete blame (but you still take resposibility, seeing as you were able to respond), but it's just ignorant to pretend that Nader and his political pedophilia (convincing impressionable college students that there's no difference betweent he parties) was NOT a factor, and not a factor preventable by people like you.

"this SC nomination is now, not 2000."

Nice try. Everyone knew this was coming up back then. It doesn't make a difference.

That's like saying Bush* isn't responsible for global warming because the things he's doing now won't have such a terrible effect for a few years.

Don't bother with this guy, vi5.

[punpirate]

36. False analogies all around...

... and desperate attempts, once again, to find someone to pummel other than the Democratic machine--and the Republicans who threw the election, and the press who didn't report on the candidates fairly and accurately.

You want to blame Nader. Fine. Go ahead. But, the moment you start blaming a small percentage of individual voters for their choices in that election, you've veered off into the sort of nastiness I normally attribute to the Repugs.

You want someone to hate about this--and I do mean hate--so hate me. That's okay. But as long as you hate, you'll never be able to think clearly enough about the reasons for why the 2000 election happened as it did. You'll always blame a person who was simply availing himself of the democratic process and blame his supporters. You'll never, ever understand the real reasons why things have turned out the way they have. The mind consumed by hate is clouded by distraction.

Let me add one simple fact for consideration. John Kerry had an equal or better chance to best Bush in the 2004 election compared to Gore in 2000, and Nader was not a factor in his loss. This SC nomination did not occur in Bush's first term. It has occurred in his second. Why then is Nader still being scourged for his effect in the 2000 election when Kerry had an opportunity to end Bush's occupation of the office in 2004? The answers to that are complex, but Nader does not figure into them at all. The Democrats, and their positions and beliefs, however, do. Very much. Can you rationally explain to me why Nader is at fault for Kerry's loss of the election in 2004?


Cheers.

[LoZoccolo]

39. Actually, the reasons for the 2000 election are irrelevant now.

Seeing as the results weren't repeated in 2004. This is because people woke up and saw Nader as a spoiler and gave him little if anything. So you could say my line of reasoning had a more lasting effect than yours.

[punpirate]

41. Then why did not Kerry obtain the vote...

... sufficient to overcome Bush, despite the same sort of shenanigans exhibited by the Republicans as in 2000?

That is my point, in part. You continue to blame a man who had no demonstrable effect on this particular nomination because he was not a factor in the 2004 election. Kerry, and the Democratic Party, however, were the major factors, but you don't blame them for losing the 2004 election and thereby bringing about the circumstances resulting in this SC nomination. Why?

If you say fraud, the same might well apply to the election in 2000 as being an as large or larger factor in Gore's loss in Florida, as it might well have been in Ohio and Florida for Kerry. With that logic, the Republicans are to blame, in both instances, not Nader, or his supporters.

[LoZoccolo]

44. Because Gore would have been the incumbent...

...and Bush* wouldn't have been given four years of free press coverage campaigning due to the fact that he was, nor the advantage enjoyed by just happening to be the leader during 9/11 or the Iraq war.

[punpirate]

56. {laughing} You do try hard...

... don't you? It's still sophistry, though. And you evaded the question, rather than answer it honestly. A not-so-recent habit of Democrats.

How about another question? Why is it that whenever the subject of third-party candidates come up, I never, ever hear any complaints about Ross Perot's candidacy in 1992 and 1996?

None. Nada. He had a constitutional right to run, too. Never heard any complaints about that. Especially didn't hear people say it was democratic to try to destroy him. He got enough attention that no one paid any attention to the fact that Ralph Nader also ran in 1992 and 1996. Y'know? I don't ever recall hearing a word then from anyone that Ralph Nader threatened the candidacy of Bill Clinton by running in 1992 and 1996.

Or, perhaps, it's about the need to find a scapegoat when we lose, because we can't bear to look at what the party's become over time--to examine it and the candidates it promotes--and can't or won't do the things to change it.

When Democrats stop being the lesser of two evils and start being the best the country has to offer to the people, rather than to the moneyed interests of the country, the Democrats will win again. And win big.

Until that time, it will be a preoccupation of some to find scapegoats and excoriate them for the party's failings. It's much easier than introspection and a lot more fun.

Cheers.

[LoZoccolo]

60. Of course I'm not going to complain about Perot.

That's because I wanted Clinton elected. I am not arguing against someone's right to run. And for you to act as if I am is a lie. But this is stupid, you knew what I was talking about and why. You're wasting my time, and that's why people don't like to engage with your ilk. If you really want to get something done you wouldn't sabatoge your own credibility.

I say to you as I said to your confederate: no one cares about your disingenous ways of steering the argument away from the hard fact that it was stupid to vote for Nader, and creepy to go around telling young people that there's no difference between the parties. Not many people here like what you did. Find out why.

And no, I don't blame the Democrats for not embracing a fringe who is willing to let people die rather than get a little bit of what they want done. That would be insane, plus why would they want to rely on people like that? You never know when they're gonna pull another suicide party.

[Inland]

131. Yeah, I blame Perot for getting Clinton elected. Should I send flowers?

Every third party candidate has to take responsibility for the outcome of their candidacy. Perot has to live with himself for getting Clinton elected. Lucky him, his candidacy didn't deliver the nation into the hands of the worst president ever, so I'm not going to bust his chops for it.

[Zodiak]

99. This post is wisdom n/t

[CWebster]

40. Exceptionally well thought out

It will assuredly be ignored.

[LoZoccolo]

45. What do you mean ignored?

I had already responded by the time you did!

Not surprising, though.

[Mairead]

72. I think maybe CW doesn't consider what you did to be a response

[LoZoccolo]

85. I don't really care.

Most people here don't consider what she did to be an argument.

[Mairead]

91. Most people? Even if it were true (I doubt it), it would attest only to

a drop in modal DU intelligence.

There are a lot of crypto- and not-so-crypto rightwingers at DU these days claiming to be 'moderate' and 'centrist' Dems. They've certainly done the place no good, but I prefer to think all is not yet lost.

[LoZoccolo]

94. Go back and look at all the Nader threads you want.

I invite you. You won't find much sympathy for him or the disingenuous line of argument he's pushed out into the world. And you certainly won't find many people who'll waste their time listening to someone who uses one example of one Democrat who agrees with a Republican to establish that there's no difference between the two parties.

Actually, CWebster is one of those people who you asked me to name. She said "no difference".

[Inland]

130. If Gore had won in 2000, then certainly Bush wouldn't have won in 2004

Do I have to explain that one? But of course, one of the great conceits about Nader is that a conservative win actually helps liberal candidates, becaue conservatives make people angry and there's always next time. So LOSING by voting for Nader and getting Bush is WINNING. Sorta.

Well, it's not true. Bush got in power and although he doesn't know shit about pleasing people, he knows about power, how to grab it and how to hold it. Nader pretended that Bush was just another alternative, let him slip in and Bush played every card, beginning with his tax handouts and continuing through 9/11 through redistricting the House through media consolidation through Swift Boats through the permanent war. Any incumbent has an advantage, but Bush...

Sorry, Nader has to take blame for asking people to vote for someone other than Gore, just like anyone else who did.

[vi5]

33. You obviously don't know me.....

I guess if you did you would know my contempt and blame for that 50% of the country knows no bounds and goes completely without saying.

[LoZoccolo]

27. Nah, it's you.

You knew what would happen, and you did it anyways.

Does that explain to you why people found some rational basis for not voting for Democrats in 2000.

There was no rational basis. You knew that voting for Nader/Bush would get you less of what you want.

The gall of these people to continue to shirk their responsibility.

[punpirate]

34. Thanks for once again...

... blaming the victim.

And there was a rational basis for not voting for a Democrat in 2000. It was the determination of the voter to pick a candidate which most represented their aims for the country--one who would keep corporations under control. If you deny that, you deny the spirit of democracy.

Attacking Nader voters after almost five years belies a fundamentally undemocratic value--that ordinary people cannot have views different from the two major parties--no matter how closely those two parties resemble each other.

I notice that you are not complaining about the Florida votes cast for all the splinter parties, even a small portion of which would have made the difference for Gore, if they had voted as you insist. You'd rather attack an anti-aristocracy candidate. Perhaps you like the system we have now, in which the Republican Party is the aristocracy and the Democratic Party is the petit bourgeois begging after their crumbs, and they reverse roles every few years?

I don't see you railing against the Constitution Party, or the Reform Party, or the Mugwumps, for that matter. Your hatred is not for those. Your hatred is special and pure. Your hatred is for people who could have voted Democratic and didn't.

I've got news for you--everyone could have.

[LoZoccolo]

38. Attacking Nader voters is a fundamentally /democratic/ value.

As in, I have a right to criticize people's political decisions under the first amendment of the US constitution.

It was the determination of the voter to pick a candidate which most represented their aims for the country--one who would keep corporations under control.

It was the determination of the voter to show off and do something they knew would hurt people, when they knew they could do something better. Voting for Nader is a white middle-class college-student male priveledge. Take some responsibility.

I notice that you are not complaining about the Florida votes cast for all the splinter parties, even a small portion of which would have made the difference for Gore, if they had voted as you insist. You'd rather attack an anti-aristocracy candidate. Perhaps you like the system we have now, in which the Republican Party is the aristocracy and the Democratic Party is the petit bourgeois begging after their crumbs, and they reverse roles every few years?

They don't hang out on this board. Plus the Nader people were the most responsible, having been the least far gone (though still gone), spreading the argument that there was no difference between the parties, and being the biggest bloc of people who could have done better.

And you can call it blaming the victim and come up with all these convoluted arguments, but you might as well argue that the earth is flat. I've heard it all before, and I'm not gonna get roped into this nonsense once again. People here generally don't believe these things you say, so you should be prepared for dealing with the fact that people will be holding you accountable for your continued actions against them and their interests.

[Zodiak]

102. Nasty generalizations, name-calling, and accusations

Actually, you're whole line of reasoning hurts the cohesion of the party, generates the circling firing squad for those that would normally be political allies, and exhibits a nastiness that does not represent honest discourse. The generalizations, strawman arguments, distractions, and nastiness come from you. If you want to gutter-snipe, that is fine, but please be honest and do it with some air of righteousness.

Please don't include me in your "most people on DU" statement. No one person here can claim to have the pulse of this website. To do so is dishonest and indicative of taking a tenuous position.

And no, I'm not a Nader Voter or a Green, but I recognize that both groups have valid points and not-so-valid points. I save my mendacity for Bushies and those those elected officials within my party that refuse to stand and fight.

[Inland]

127. Criticizing those who vote against democrats hurts party cohesion?

Somebody tell me what party cohesion is, if it includes voting against democrats but not criticizing those who vote against democrats.

Maybe it's *republican* party cohesion.

[Inland]

126. Undemocratic? Pointing out that a vote was dumb isn't undemocratic

Nobody's saying you can't have views or vote how you want. You can. You just have to accept that others will note the consequences of your vote.

For republicans, the consequences are clear enough. They at least got what they THOUGHT they wanted, namely, Bush.

But Naderites cast their votes in a manner that helped Bush as well. That's why it's so crazystupid. We know Naderites didn't want Bush or Gore, but they knew their votes would only get them halfway, that is, they wouldn't get gore but they would get BUsh. They knew their vote

That's why you can't criticize the splinter parties. We don't know them so we don't know whether Bush was their second choice after their nutbag splinter candidate. Therefore their choice to vote for the splinter and let the chips fall where they may might have been consistent with their own values.

But we DO know that Gore was the second choice after Nader===if it wasn't, then that makes the voter the very "no difference" kind of idiot the OP complains of===and since everyone knew Nader was unelectable, the decision to vote for Nader becomes irrational as a matter of electoral politics.

The only Nader voter that could rationally have voted for Nader the purist, ideologically driven activist that would rather be under Bush's thumb than dirty himself by voting for someone who could win. Those people have simply made the values judgment that they would rather hold themselves up as superior while watching the country burn. Thankfully, almost every Naderite has grown up in the last couple of elections and such are few and far between.

[CWebster]

12. Just maybe if

they had put as much effort and enthusiasm into challenging Bush and standing behind their own convictions as they did into attacking and marginalizing progressives who challenged Bush and the war, the Democrats could've mustered more than the ABB vote. Voters would've recognized the Democratic values and grasp on reality. Instead, the centrist leadership, with the media, labored to bring down Dean because he was threatening the status quo by punching a big hole in the Democrats triangulating strategy of emulating Republicans. Now Hillary advocates for the war, rallies around Israel, panders to corporate interests, dilutes Democratic issues and measures "values" by violence in videogames, the appropriate softball issue for the little lady. Her win will be because it is set up as inevitable and it will be victory be default due to the gradual erosion of Republican leadership--even though the Democrats were often complicit. The fix is in.

BushClintonBushClinton.The ruling dynasty.
What a disgrace.

[jonnyblitz]

14. THANK YOU!

:thumbsup:

[malaise]

35. That simple

Time for the Dems to follow Conyers and Dean, get back to basics and play hardball. Too many are in bed with big business and are soft on serious issues.

[johannes1984]

13. all the frustration is as righteous as it gets

it's not a thing which can go without some good old angry fucks and other exerts .But let's not forget the reason 't has come this far , that reason is power horny christian racist bigots and worthless sack of shit mignions who destroyed the rep. party and forged an alliance between different self serving interests under that name .So if you look at the america and feel the need to go ape-shit about what they have done to the nation ,go ape-shit against all those who destroyed the morals of governance in a manner that would make emperor caligula and consorts blush .

No offense but in 20 to 30 years when the problems they are creating now have grown catastrophical for this great nation , i hope they get what's comming to them .

I don't feel that way about anyone who was just too depressed or frustrated by it all to vote .We can be as angry as we want , but they saw the outcome beforehand , and no matter what they had done , odds are these fuckers would've still screwed us over .'t is quite easy if you are pure evil .


However H.Dean is party chairman now , and who knows , it might still work out .

[sendero]

15. I'm miffed..

.... whether I'm "allowed" to be or not. Actually, "miffed" would be the understatement of the decade. :)

[union_maid]

16. I've been ticked since 2000. Still ticked

I'm not DLC fan, but this was predictable and so were the death and destruction visited on the world by this administration. As were other judicial appointments which continue to push this country farther to the right.

To anyone who could clearly see what was going to happen, the Nader vote in 2000 was the most frustrating, infuriating, self-inflicted wound imaginable.

Even if Gore was the lesser of two evils, and we'll never know if he was, this is Planet Earth. Utopia would not have happened no matter what the outcome of the vote. The lesser of two evils is still less evil visited upon the world. As it turns out, much, much less.

[Mad_Dem_X]

18. I totally agree

I hope the "no difference" crowd is happy with the way things have turned out. :-(

[pnorman]

21. If I may quote [or paraphrase) John Kerry and others

regarding their vote to essentially give Dubya a go-ahead on his invasion of Iraq: "If I knew then what I know now ..."

All during the 2000 campaigning, absent clairavoyance, there was damn LITTLE perceived difference between the two. But had Gore run as a DEMOCRAT, the outcome might have been totally different. This is NOT 20-20 hindsight; many others thought so at that time.

I supported and voted for Nader, although admitedly in a "safe" state. The hope was that Gore's margin of victory would be narrowed enough to give him and the DLC some food for serious thought ---- ie: grow some balls or else! The "strategy" if it could be called that, was successful, but unfortunately the margin was narrow enough for the Reptilicans to feel they could steal the election AND GET AWAY WITH IT! They were right of course, and Gore & the DLC have yet to grow the necessary BALLS. Likewise with last year's election, although there are some promising signs.

pnorman
"Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the law." --- John Paul Stevens, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Dissent Opinion on Florida Vote Recount.

[vi5]

24. But the argument about the Supreme Court still stands....

...bush made no secret about what type of justice he would appoint. And maybe that's where I differ with the "all or nothing" crowd. That difference alone was big enough for me to have it trump all other concerns.

[Q]

22. It seems to me that the 'no difference' crowd...

...was mostly right. Of course there are differences between the parties. One side calls themselves Republicans and the other Democrats. But they have BOTH become pro-war, anti worker, corporate shills.

Yes...there are MANY great Democrats...but they have been shoved to the sidelines and out of leadership positions. Who did the shoving? We all know the answer to that: the corporate-backed DLC.

No...the DLC doesn't eat babies...but like the Neocons in the GOP...they have a firm grip on the leadership of the Dem party. And oddly enough...they have the same goal as the RWingers in that they want nothing to do with the poor, working class or minorities seaching for equal rights.

And unless liberals and progressives are welcomed back in the LEADERSHIP of the party...there will be a great uprising in 2008 when the DLC shoves another one of their chosen candidates down our collective throats and are left wondering where all the voters went.

[LoZoccolo]

26. Some people have the nerve to turn around and threaten...

...not to vote for the Dems if they don't stop the SCOTUS nominations, or if any of them vote to confirm, conveniently forgetting that Al Gore would be picking them now if it weren't for Nader.

[Q]

30. It's not about the SCOTUS...

...as much as it is about four years of Democrats licking Bush's boots and allowing him to set up shop as a virtual dictator.

Many of us simply don't expect the Democratic party to fight for US anymore.

The Dem leadership/DLC should be ashamed to even brng up Gore's name. Everyone knows they left him to swing in the wind before, during and after the 2000 election. Once Gore threw off the DLC shackles and began talking about making corporations accountable...the Lieberman Bunch turned their backs on him and exiled him from 'our' party.

Some Democratic 'leaders' have no right to even bring up Gore's name. They threw him to the wolves and to this day trash him for his 'populist' campaign and still insist that he didn't win despite overwhelming evidence of election fraud and Bush dirty tricks.

The SCOTUS thing was a done deal in 2000. Why are some whining about it NOW?

[LoZoccolo]

31. Uh, yes the SCOTUS thing was a done deal in 2000.

That's what I'm saying!

As far as the rest of whatever, I'm not going to argue something I know you've seen over and over again.

[CWebster]

37. There would be no third party threat

IF the Democrats were more than a ABB vote.

[CWebster]

42. Here you go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4145906

You were saying something about differences?

[LoZoccolo]

53. So?

Gore would be picking the SCOTUS justices, not Lieberman. And everyone knows you pick your VP candidate partly to round out the ticket for another voter segment, in this case a more conservative one.

So?

[CWebster]

55. So?

So much for the differences, huh?

That is the point of the post.

[LoZoccolo]

58. You just don't get it.

You point out this thing about Lieberman, but he wouldn't be picking the SCOTUS justices.

Anyways, use any tricks you want, but if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, see what it gets you from your fellow liberals. Try and find people who'll wanna talk to you then.

[CWebster]

66. He is a Democrat, suggesting potential candidates

that should be unacceptible to Democrats ergo no difference between the two.

[LoZoccolo]

67. Oh please! EVERYBODY LOOK! GET A LOAD OF THIS!

Because of one guy agreeing on one thing, there is no difference between the parties.

Oh shit!

:rofl:

Let this be a lesson to all you tempted by Naderite rhetoric - this is the kind of thing it devolves into when questioned!

[CWebster]

68. Woman, that is. And it is example in today's news.

Where's yours?

[LoZoccolo]

69. Where's my what?

OK, Gore and Bush* disagreed on the Iraq War, which because you can use one example to establish such things, it means the two parties disagree on everything now.

:rofl:

[MadHound]

43. Sure, get huffy and puffy if you want but it isn't going to change reality

And that reality is that there is very little difference between Dems and 'Pugs, hasn't been for the past fifteen years, since both are beholden to the same corporate masters, who interests they put above and beyond the rest of us. You don't have to go any further than Clinton, the great "liberal" hope of the ninties, whose record includes such atrocities as NAFTA, the '96 Telecom Act, welfare "reform" among others.

Then we can look at Gore, whose loyalty to the boys at BP Oil cost him nearly 600,000 votes in Florida alone(so you can stop mindlessly repeating the Nader meme, OK). A man who, though he was served up the facts of the Florida votescam on a platter, allowed his handlers make all the decisions, and thus wound up not only losing, but giving us Bushco.

Then there are all those Dems up on the Hill. You know them, the ones who overwhelmingly voted for such obscenities as the IWR and the Patriot Act, along with other corporate friendly actions as the Bankruptcy Bill and the Prescription Drug Bill.

Sorry, but I am not going to willingly ignore what is happening in this party and this country out of blind party loyalty. Yes, there are still a few, very few, Democrats that look out for the ordinary person, who are still old school Dems. But those are becoming ever scarcer, and their place is being taken by New Democrats, that abberative group who thinks that the robber baron is always right, and unbridled capitalism is always good.

I'm looking for real change in this country, not some damn mummers' play of good cop/bad cop. While both sides of the two party/same corporate master system of government continue to distract the masses with their nominally bipartisan rhetoric, those who are the master of both parties continue to divide up the spoils of America, and we the people are left with nothing.

It is time for people like you to wake up and smell the coffee. Millionaires with a D behind their name have as much in common, and as much concern for the ordinary person as millionaires with an R behind their name, ie not one damn iota. Gee, Kerry really moaned and groaned about the tax cut he got on the campaign trail, but did he put his money where his mouth was, and donate that windfall to some charity or disadvantaged person? Hell no, he did what every good moneyed person did with it, investment or an offshore bank.

We're in a class war friend, and we are fucking losing. And the main reason why we're losing is because the working class has allowed itself to be distracted and dazzled by this mummers' play that is a bipartisan effort. It is time that you and others wake up and see what is going on in the world. We the people are being bipartisanly screwed, and even more sad, many of us are so dazzled and deluded by the show being put on that we are willingly participating in our own destruction. It is time to wake up and put and end to the madness. I would suggest that the first step you take is to stop voting for candidates who take corporate lucre. The next step is to push for across the board publicly financed elections, on both the state and national level. It is only when get corporate money out of politics that we will see real change. Until then all we will see is dazzle and diversion, while corporate America robs us blind, with the willing help of both Republicans and Democrats.

[LoZoccolo]

46. If we give the Naderites harsh consequences, we can avoid a repeat.

It is similar to dealing with other destructive regimes.

[MadHound]

48. So in other words, you don't have any reality to back up your happy ass

So you're reduced to throwing around names like "Nazis" at the people who you disagree with, and who, in all of your partisan blindness, see reality a hell of lot better than you do.

Real class act there friend:eyes: Reminds me of the screeching I see on certain RW boards when somebody dares to go against the handed down wisdom.

[LoZoccolo]

50. I do have reality to back me up.

Bush* became president in 2000, not Nader. And now we're seeing him appoint SCOTUS justices. That is reality. You have given me no reality in the form of how a vote for Nader is supposed to do anything but make things worse.

You're the one who said that Nader was running to have himself elected! Reality??!!

:rofl:

[MadHound]

78. And why did Bush get elected in '00?

Nothing to do with Nader friend. Gore sold out his Florida constituency for that wonderful corporate lucre. It cost him almost 600,000 votes in Florida. Gee, there's your election victory. Gore was also handed the entire Votescam scandal on a silver platter by Greg Palast himself. Think about it, a scandal that would have won him the election, brought down both Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris, and banished the Bushes to the political wilderness forever. Yet what did Gore and his DLC handlers do in with this information? Sit on it. Oh, and then there is the small matter of the Supreme Court appointing Bush.

But somehow, someway, it is all the fault of Nader, that horrible, horrible man who received only two percent of the vote, both in Florida and nationwide, whose monolithic power snatched the eletion from the righteous winner Gore:eyes: Give me a break, that myth has been destroyed time and again, and is accepted only in those circles who persist in living in some fantasy world where Dems can never, ever do any wrong. Hell, even that DLC god Al From stated that it wasn't Nader's fault that Gore lost, it was all on Gore.

Oh, and I notice that you've changed your wording in post 46. What, afraid of showing your true colors? Sorry friend, but I have a long memory.

[LoZoccolo]

84. Not many people here fall for that.

Man it sucks to be you on DU right about now.

[MadHound]

92. What, more denial of reality? Suprise, suprise

Not:eyes:

What did I state that wasn't factual, that wasn't in the reality based world?

Gore lost almost 600,000 votes due to his siding with BP Oil? Let's see, you can look up that little gem in Greg Palast's book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" or Jim Hightower's book "If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates"

Or is it the fact that Gore and his DLC handlers sat on the Votescam scandal in Florida? You can also look that up in the Palast Book cited above.

Or do you doubt that From absolved Nader completely? Well, that can be found at <http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2919>, and the exact quote from From is: "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race." Damn friend, even Democratic polls show that Gore did better with Nader in the race!

Look friend, you've been making these baseless assertions all throughout this thread. It is time to back up your happy ass with something besides hot air. I'm looking for sources and cites, either on-line or off. So if you wish to win this arguement, I would suggest that you start providing some. Otherwise, all that we're left with is your opinion, and you know what they say about opinions.

Still haven't answered me why you changed your phrasing in post 46 either. That's OK, don't bother, I've got the picture:eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

95. The guy who left for the UK?

Yeah, I would imagine he's as invested in the outcome of the election as anyone living here.

Each individual person who voted for Nader had a choice, and they made an irresponsible one which would get them nothing of what they wanted. Seeing as Nader is a vanity vote, I would not be surprised if Nader voters continued their spiteful tantrum an extra five minutes all the way to the exit polls by saying they would have voted for Bush*. Plus I've seen other polls that said Gore would have had half the Nader vote...probably taken after they realized how much they fucked everything up.

And I'm still wondering how a Nader vote is supposed to get anyone what they want.

I'm naturally reluctant to actually go back and do work in looking up an old post, when I'm speaking to someone who claimed that Nader was running to put himself into the White House.

[MadHound]

100. So I guess I'll still be waiting, eh?

You still aren't providing anything credible to back yourself up with, just air. Not suprising, I've seen it before.

Sorry friend, but hot air and you saying it is so doesn't win you the debate or even points. I've given you well known, credible sources. You know, sources that win awards for their writing, like Palast and Hightower, or who hold positions of power where they are in the know, like Al From. Until you provide such source, all you are doing is coming across like a child who thinks things are a certain way simply because they want them that way. Not good form friend, not good form at all.

But then again, I think you just outed yourself for what you truly are with this gem: "I'm naturally reluctant to actually go back and do work"

So go ahead, get your smarmy, cutesy juvenile last word in. But until you provide some real sources and cites on this thread, I'm done with you, since debating with someone of your caliber is, well, meaningless. Cheers.

[LoZoccolo]

103. I think I've told you, I'm not really interested in arguing with you.

I harbor no illusions about changing your mind. I'm more interested in showing other people how Naderites try to argue when pressed to defend themselves, like how they start saying things like Nader was running to get himself elected. I don't know how much I can do for people who've already gone and done messed things up, but through exposing them, I think I can help a newer generation.

[MadHound]

104. Like how people arguing with you provide sources and cites,

While you provide nothing at all except hot air. Yeah, that's the ticket, that's how to win minds and influence people:rofl:

Big Hint #1: When debating ANY topic, it is good to come armed with reputable sources and cites, otherwise you come across as an opionated know nothing.

Big Hint #2: Crawl out of your shell and do some reading. You'll be suprised at what you learn. Reading suggestions for today: What's the Matter With Kansas, by Thomas Frank. Also, Greg Palast, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.

[LoZoccolo]

105. And you still haven't told me...

...how a vote for Nader is supposed to do anything.

I have never seen a plan from any of you people, that didn't involve imposing more woe on people so they'd give in to you (we call that "terrorism").

[MadHound]

108. Ah, so excercising one's constitutional rights is now "terrorism"

Geez, now tell me, which board am I on?

And gee, what about that hypocrisy. Perot's third party run enables Clinton's win in '92, and Perort is cheered by the Dems. Nader exercises his Constitutional right and runs third party in '00, and he's a "terrorist" You, good sir, have gotten dizzy from all the spin.

As far as a plan goes, I suggest you go and check out the Green's website, plan is all there, in black and white. And one big attraction is that the Greens don't take any corporate cash. To me that is a huge deal, since it is corporate controlled Dems and 'Pugs that have gotten this country into the shape it is in. Yeah, I know, I know, you think it is "terrorism", or that we're "Nazis", or some crazy assed thing:eyes:

Oh, and just a little personal background for you friend. I worked on Democratic campaigns time after time, since I was a kid and McGovern was running. Hell, I even voted for Gore and Kerry, in spite of my better judgement. What have you done, other than whine and moan on anonymous chat boards? How much money have you donated? How much time have you put in? Yeah, I think I've earned the right to bitch about the direction the party is headed, especially when I've already been there, done that on the whole "change the party from within" strategy. Didn't work, so it is time to start the change from without.

But it still amazes me how much power you attribute to a candidate who pulled only 2.74% of the vote. It really is boggling how much power Nader has in your mind. Hell, apparently he has more power than the mighty Clenis, and that's saying something:eyes:

But hey, if denying reality is what gets you through these troubled times, fine. Just don't expect those of us in the reality based world to join you in your dillusions.

[LoZoccolo]

109. I never said you didn't have a right to complain.

Sabatoging, is a different thing.

[MadHound]

111. Oh, so now exercising my right to vote for whoever I wish

Is now considered to be sabotage? Gee, silly me, I thought we lived in a democracy, where we could vote for who ever we wished for. Did I miss something?

By the by, I'm still waiting for sources and cites that back up your position. Or will the crickets continue to chirp on that one?

And what about that hypocrisy I mentioned vis-a-vis Perot?

And again, what have you done for the party other than whine on an anonymous chat board? Can you stack your creds against mine, or are you just "naturally reluctant"?

Inquiring minds wish to know, since after all, you're all about helping out a "newer generation"

[LoZoccolo]

113. I already explained Perot; don't bring it up again.

I never said Perot had a right to run and Nader didn't, and this is the second time I've had to say this. And I never said you couldn't vote for who you wanted. But don't think that it wasn't to do anything but freak out the Democrats at the risk of electing the Republicans.

You are trying to confuse my opinion on someone's rights with my criticism of whether or not their actions advance a progressive agenda, a deliberate distraction.

(See, kids? See what stuff you end up putting yourself through trying to defend working against the only progressive agenda available?)

You still haven't answered my question, about how voting for Nader is supposed to get you anything you object to about Bush* or Gore or Kerry.

And again, what have you done for the party other than whine on an anonymous chat board?

I didn't work to get Bush* elected through Nader.

[MadHound]

115. Excuuuuuusse me.

Sorry, but this is the first time on this thread that you've addressed Perot. My, my, getting a little touchy, aren't we. Of course I would be too if I was trying to hang on in a debate where I couldn't provide any sources or cites to back me up. Speaking of which, I and all the "kids" you're addressing are still waiting for something, anything in the way of sources or cites to back your arguements. Got any? Time's a wastin'.

And when you voice your characterism of a third party vote as "terrorism" and "sabotage", well, I don't think I'm the one who is confusing matters. And again, since you have yet to address the question, why was one third party run by Perot considered a good thing by Democrats, while a different third party run is now, in your words, "terrorism" and "sabotage". And why don't you address Al From's statement up thread concerning Nader's run, ie that if Nader hadn't run in '00, Bush would have gotten even more votes than he received?

And apparently you missed my statement concerning my votes for Gore or Kerry upthread. That's OK, you're missing a lot of things today. But again, I have to ask, what have you done for the party other than posting on anonymous chat boards? Have you ever worked for the party, tried to change things from within, given your all to an election campaign? You say this is all about educating the next generation, well they have the right to know who is educating them.

They also have the right to know the facts, which I have provided complete with sources and cites. You have yet to provide anything supporting your position other than your own bloviation sans sources. Not a good show friend, especially since you are wishing to help and educate a "newer generation"

[LoZoccolo]

116. I really don't have to cite sources...

...to fight a logically incoherent argument.

I did address the Al From argument. I read another poll which had very different results, and explained the discrepancy between the two.

And again, since you have yet to address the question, why was one third party run by Perot considered a good thing by Democrats, while a different third party run is now, in your words, "terrorism" and "sabotage".

Because one got a Democrat elected, and the other got a Republican elected.

That's OK, you're missing a lot of things today. But again, I have to ask, what have you done for the party other than posting on anonymous chat boards?

Irrelevant. Answer my question.

Tell me why voting for Nader is supposed to get you what you want again?

[MadHound]

118. Well, no, you don't have to cite sources to fight an incoherent arguement,

However friend, you certainly do have to have cites and sources in order to MAKE a logically coherent arguement. And that is just exactly what you haven't done, either come up with sources, or make a logically coherent arguement.

And once again, you're making statements about actions which you didn't do. You have yet to address my question concerning From, you certainly didn't link to any other poll that contradicts my documented sources, and you certainly didn't explain away any discrepancies unless you explained it to the mouse in your pocket. Geez friend, you're getting sloppy! Re-read the thread before you continue to pull mis-statements and falsehoods out of your butt, OK. It makes you look really foolish, and almost makes me feel sorry for you(note, I said almost)

And as far as third party votes goes, it is nice to see you finally come clean on this issue. Yes, you are hypocritical, since you think our Constitutionally given right to vote for whomever we wish is OK if the third party a person votes for is on the conservative side of the aisle, but such a vote, cast for a liberal third party canidate, is also "terrorism" and "sabotage".

What country do we live in friend? Are we still living in the United States? Good, because in the United States I know and love, casting one's vote, FOR WHOEVER THE HELL I FEEL LIKE, is a right. It isn't "sabotage", it isn't "terrorism", it is a right. Got that? That right was fought for, bled for, and died for so that you and I can exercise it. And our forefathers didn't fight, bleed and die for it in order that it could be strictly limited to a vote that is approved and sanatized by some keyboard character assasian. It was a right that is unlimited, it means that I can, and do, vote for whoever I wish, whether it pleases you or not. If you're wishing to vote in a strictly controlled political system that allows only one choice, well, there are several countries that fit the bill, I suggest that you find one. Me, I'm sticking here in the US, because I like having the right to vote for whoever I want to.

I also find it amusing that you dismiss my query of what you have done for the party with a curt "Irrelevant". Tells me volumes about you friend, probably more than you wish, and none of it really good. Tell you what, why don't you go out, try to change the party from within for a few decades, then get back to me? Posting on an anonymous chat board is not supporting the party. Getting up off your ass, working, sweating, bleeding for the party is what counts, and until you've done that for a few election cycles, then you really have no clue as to the frustration I feel after decades of watching the party drift ever rightwards, becoming infected with corporatism, despite everything I and thousands of others have done to prevent it. So I tell you what, go out and get your happy ass on the front lines for '06, and then we can talk.

[LoZoccolo]

119. Probably the fourth time I've had to ask you this, but here goes...

Tell me why voting for Nader is supposed to get you what you want again?

(See kids, there really is nothing behind it.)

As far as you being able to vote for whoever you want, I've never contested that, for at least the second time already, so that's another thing I don't wanna hear again. But I have a right to criticize it as a bad decision, and a betrayal of several groups of people.

And yes, it is a scare tactic which hurts those people. Not the legal definition of terrorism, no, but people see the point. And if a lot of people are trying to get something done and you try to stop it, yep, that's sabatoge. You would halt the efforts of the womens' rights movements in trying to preserve Roe vs. Wade for what?

And yep, what I do beyond voting for Kerry, Gore, or Nader is irrelevant to this discussion. It certainly isn't working hard for the party, telling people there's no difference between it and the other party, so I don't even know why you're trying to compare what I've done to what you've done, so any amount of work I've done is better for the party than that. Plus it's irrelevant.

If you wanna talk about work, let's talk about the hard work the Republicans put in getting Nader on ballots. If you want to bring up how hard work shows how dedicated someone is to a cause, lets consider the question of why Republicans would put in so much work for your guy.

[MadHound]

120. Well, this has been entertaining and interesting

But I've got to fly now. But I'll leave you with a few things to chew over.

First of all, I don't know, nor care what Nader's agenda is/was. I've never hitched my wagon to Nader, as I told you earlier. I am working with the Greens, and as I said earlier, if you wish to know the Greens priorities, go check their website. The biggest thing that attracts me to the Greens is that unlike the Dems, they take no corporate cash, and thus they are only beholden to their true constituents, we the people.

And now you are morphing a Constitutionally given right from "sabotage" and "terrorism" into "betrayal"? Damn dude, put the pipe down, OK. You're really starting to sound like a poster for the other side. I mean really now, dealing in the broad brush, hypocrisy, and absolutes really is more the province of the right.

And again, your faint protests about irrelevance ring hollow. Working for the party, giving the party all you can is relevant. But then again, since you've never experienced that, you wouldn't know now, would you.:eyes:

And again, one last time, I will futiley ask you for your sources and cites to back your so-called arguements. You state that you've "read another poll", well hell then, link to it! Do something that back your happy self up, otherwise you're just another keyboard character assasian, bloviating for the pleasure of reading your own words.

But as I said, it is a futile wish. You haven't provided sources up until now, and you won't provide sources now. How weak, how very, very sad.

So for now, I'll say goodbye. It is time to go, and I have much better things to do that fighting a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. TTFN, I'm sure we'll meet again.

[LoZoccolo]

121. Everyone knows what I was talking about...

...when I used those words anyways, so it doesn't matter.

[LoZoccolo]

97. OK, about #46.

I realized a better example would be Pol Pot, but not exactly, so I made it generic.

[AlGore-08.com]

98. I hate to drag facts into this but Gore demanded an FBI inquiry on 11/13

It's offline now, but...

From the London Times
MONDAY NOVEMBER 13 2000

Gore camp demands FBI inquiry

FROM DANIEL MCGRORY IN MIAMI

THE FBI is being asked to investigate how thousands of mainly black supporters of Al Gore were given ballot papers that had allegedly already been marked for rival candidates.

Yesterday Democrat officials were examining claims that up to 17,000 ballot papers in the Miami area had been tampered with in what they described as "organized corruption". Lawyers from across the United States descended on Miami and were busy taking statements from those complaining that they had been cheated or intimidated out of voting for Mr Gore.

A senior Democrat official in Miami, who has hired a team of 20 investigators to carry out an inquiry, told The Times: "Until now in Florida, we have been arguing foul-ups, human error and stupidity. But this is deliberate corruption to spoil votes for Gore and that must be a matter for the FBI.

"We don’t want to be seen as playing the race card here, but the areas where this happened are in poorer precincts, which are predominantly black areas that would be expected to vote almost unanimously for Vice-President Gore. We are not accusing the Republican Party or any other ethnic groups for being behind this. All we are saying is the vote was corrupted. There are just too many double-punched papers."

Jewish leaders in staunch Democrat areas of the city claimed that they, too, had evidence of voting slips being marked before they reached polling stations in areas populated by retired Jewish couples. At a rally in a Miami synagogue, Lisa Versaci, Florida director of People for the American Way, said: "There can be no innocent explanation for a pre-punched ballot sheet."

Republican leaders in Miami dismissed the allegations as "dirty-trick claims". A spokesman said: "A spoiled ballot is not uncommon. There is no dark plot here."

I'll save you some time by admitting that asking the FBI to investigate whether there was vote fraud was the totally wrong thing to do - - because certainly a criminal investigation would have lead to trials and arrests, which are so much less effective in the long run than standing on a soap box and screaming - - and somebody elected to the office of President of the United States should have known better than to pay attention when he swore to preserve and protect the Constitution, which is full of such DLC Republican lite crap as "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". Yup, if only Gore had had the foresite to ignore the Constitutional rights of his fellow American citizens, he would have proven there really IS a difference between the two parties!

:sarcasm:

[Mairead]

107. And did Gore get Clinton to ASSIGN the FBI to investigate and the AG to

prosecute? No, he didn't. Did he lodge a criminal complaint or help others do so, and make sure it didn't get swept under the rug? No, he didn't.

What he did was turn his back on us all and go on holiday.

[MadHound]

112. Whoops, there it is!

Gore had the power of the Whitehouse to back him on this one, and the biggest soap box of all, but he did very little with it.

Instead, he caved, and left America to its fate.

[CWebster]

54. You mean like how the Democrats deal with the NeoCons? nt

[LoZoccolo]

61. You mean like how the Naderites elected the NeoCons? nt

[LoZoccolo]

47. "I'm looking for real change in this country,"

And Nader will give you that how?

[vi5]

51. That's all well and good...but when the women I know and love...

lose the most basic right to choose what they do with their own bodies, I'm sure they'll console themselves with knowing that their right to choose was sacrificed for the greater good of not letting BP get a bigger tax break.

I'm sorry but on the fundamental right of choice there is a massive difference and all the other stuff takes a back seat in my mind. We can disagree until the cows come home as to which things are more important to each of us. But the fact is a Gore or Kerry presidency would have put 1 and possibly 2 more pro-choice votes on the court and I don't even think that's up for debate.

[LoZoccolo]

52. I'm sure Bush* fixed the BP thing too.

So much for the greater good.

[MadHound]

82. You don't get it, do you?

Roe v Wade is not going to be overturned. It is a red herring, designed to keep the populace all riled up and at each other's throats, all the while, corporate America continues to loot this country and turn it into a serf state. Why in the hell would these people throw away their best diversion?

If the cons were going to toss Roe v Wade, they could have done it decades ago when either Reagan or Poppy Bush was in office. Instead, those guys chose moderate, pro-choice, pro-law candidates who, on such social issues, were devoted to keeping the status quo. Keep the status quo, and you keep the wedge issue alive, dividing the public against themselves for generations to come. These are very pragmatic people friend, these corporatists, and they aren't going to throw away their best tool just to please their fringe idealogues.

[vi5]

83. No, I get it....

I just obviously have a very different take on it. Bush II is not his father and he's not Reagan. He has proven that time and again.

And to everyone who is screaming about a class war and toppling the corporatist movement, they really better figure out where everyone stands. Because I know millionaires who are raging liberals and who are on our side, and I know people makeing $10,000 a year who adhere to anything and everything republicans tell them to believe.

So if that is the be all, end all battle that we're fighting, then whoever our savior is going to be better get things a little more organized and clear cut than they already are.

[Mary 123]

87. I agree

All that talk about the evil coporatists sounds like the same stuff that Dean spouts off about too. No one is ever going to take this party seriously if they keep doing that.

[GreenPartyVoter]

49. Death by a thousand cuts vs death by a slash across the throat

Yes, there are differences but sometimes the differences aren't very large on certain issues.

And sometimes the differences are large but either the spines or majority are lacking in order to do something about it.

And sometimes the little black boxes eat all the votes for the good guys and we get stuck with the bad guys no matter what. x(

[Mairead]

57. Give it up, why don't you. This crap is long past its sell-by date

Nobody says, except sloppily, that there's 'no difference'. What we say is that there's TOO LITTLE SIGNIFICANT difference. If you think I'm wrong, then come up with a list of people who really mean 'no difference at all' when they say 'no difference'.

All you're doing is putting out flamebaiting BS. You should be ashamed.

[union_maid]

59. I disagree

There were those of us who begged and pleaded with the Nader voters not to hand the country over to these people. And for our efforts we were sneered at and worse. You think that's going to just go away? It's not. Sorry. This was the kind of thing that was always a significant and important difference but they paid no mind.Or they knew better. I got called all kinds of things for saying that I couldn't throw my vote away. Not here, but other places.

And now we're here and even the small differences are huge in the effect they can have on the country and the anger is still there. Not at everyone who voted for Nader or who cries no difference. If you were a college kid at the time you were too young and idealistic to know better and Nader counted on that. If you took some repsonsibility later on, then fine. If you're still singing the same song, the anger is there. For me, most of the anger is directed at Nader himself. Every time something like this happens, I think of him. When we invaded Iraq, I thought of him. When they took 2002, I thought of him I put him right on the same level as Bush and the rest of them.

[Mairead]

63. Fine. You're still wrong.

Before you get a pass on blaming people who voted for Nader or Greens or Socialists or whomever, you have to account for the REGISTERED DEMS who voted for Bush. They outnumbered the Nader voters by a factor of Lots.

Til you do that, your complaints are nothing but reality-avoidance.

[union_maid]

80. I think you're projecting.

Nader made enough difference. Registered Dems who voted for Bush made enough difference. Stolen votes made enough difference. Doesn't change a thing about voting for Nader. It was still reality avoidance in the extreme.

[Mairead]

86. Projecting? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I'm not projecting anything.

When you attack Nader voters while ignoring the much larger number of REGISTERED DEM apostates, you're doing something analogous to kicking a puppy or beating up your kids because you got picked on by your boss. The Dems who voted for Bush ACTIVELY HELPED Bush. The people who voted for Nader simply didn't help Gore. Do you really not see that difference??

Despite that non-trivial difference, though, somehow Nader is always the punching bag and those Dems never get cursed even slightly.

That guarantees, as PunPirate has said upstream, that nothing will change because the ones doing the Nader-supporter-bashing claim that they already know all there is to know. But that level of apparent stupidity is so gross and non-adult that I can't help but wonder what the real politics of such people are.

[union_maid]

106. I could say the same, but I won't

I could say that I wonder at the real politics of people who preach one thing but whose actions serve the opposite cause. But I don't doubt your politics. I think your politics are great. I think your math skills and logical thinking are in doubt, if you think that a third party progressive candidate will ever do anything but empower the rightwing, especially for the presidency.

[LoZoccolo]

62. Go to the womens' issues forum, and tell them what you just told us.

I bet they'd have a few things to say about this "little significant difference", this matter of Supreme Court justices.

[Mairead]

64. Hey, don't try to distract, COME UP WITH SOME NAMES!

C'mon, deliver some pointers to people who've said 'no difference' and meant NO difference. But you can't, can you.

Also account for all the REGISTERED DEMS who voted for Bush. Til you've explained why Nader votes are more important than those Dem votes--which outnumbered the Nader votes--you've nothing important to say at all.

[LoZoccolo]

65. I never said I could.

Now go and say what you just said in the women's issue forum, before I do it for you. You have ten minutes.

[Mairead]

70. Yeah, I didn't think so. But you have no problem talking trash anyway.

Who does that remind me of?

[CWebster]

73. trollesque?

perhaps?

[Mairead]

75. Fine minds do think alike

:hug:

[LoZoccolo]

71. Time's up!

I guess you can go in there now and check on what they think about the statement.

[Mairead]

76. Your attempts to distract aren't worrrrrkkkinnnng

[pgh_dem]

88. Is there something stopping existing Dems from filibustering?

Like, other than being called mean names by republicans?

[vi5]

79. Sorry, the right to choose and the rights of gay people...

(both of which are at risk of being set back further with an even more right leaning court) are neither little or insignificant to me. So call it "no difference", call it "not enough significant" difference, slap a dress on it and call it Suzy for all I care. Call it whatever you want. But those are two issues on which the differences are both cut and dry and significant. And what, you want a list of people in my real life who you don't know, so that you can tell me what they do or don't mean? Believe me, I fleshed out this argument enough with them back in 2000 and over the years. I'm crystal clear on what they said and what they meant and don't need a translator.

These are LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS. Not a 4 year term. Not an 8 year term. Lifetime. If I sound pissed I'm sorry. It's because I am. And there's more than enough to go around.

[election_2004]

74. *THIS* Independent definitely voted....

...and voted for John Kerry.

I truly believe that the Kerry/Bush race was the most important election of our lifetimes.

Of course, the 2008 race will probably be the second-most important election of our lifetimes...for more reasons than one.

[Mary 123]

81. AGREED!

This independant voted for Kerry too because it was the most important election I have lived to see.

[meppie-meppie not]

93. I suppose that would be true if you people really had democratic

elections. You haven't had an elected president since Clinton left office so it's all moot point IMO.

[ElectroPrincess]

77. No, Roberts may surprise us down the road in a GOOD way ...

One aspect of nominating someone for the Supreme Court is that they are sure to be super intelligent. If they don't have arrogance oozing out of every pore of their body, like Scalia, then there is a good chance that they WILL actually *do their job.*

I believe that we could have fared much worse.

And no, with the DLC in charge, I see, with a few "very notable exceptions", very little differences between Republicans and Democrats at the national representative levels. It takes a despicable character to hone such skills: To remember the lies, and which to tell to whom ... that is, to master the art of behaving both disingenuous and smarmy at the same time? Yep, with few exceptions, that describes most all of our representatives and senators on BOTH sides of the aisle.

[Mairead]

89. "Sure to be super intellgent"? Like Clarence Thomas?

eeek!

[ElectroPrincess]

90. No, I don't put Clarence Tomas in that category ...

There were other forces involved with Thomas .. and he was one, like Scalia, who "oozes arrogance" from every pore. Now, I've been known to be wrong :blush:, but I don't think Roberts is super-satiated with himself ... nor will he toe *any party line* ... he just may honestly interpret the Constitution. Hope springs eternal ;).

[Generator]

96. You are not alone

Had the exact same thoughts last night. What suprised me was he DEPTH of my anger. Towards..oh everyone..everyone that doesn't vote and says it doesn't matter..everyone left and right that wanted (and still does!) to jump on the hate Kerry bandwagon. Kerry has some real flaws..and he's not everything I wanted him to ben (who is?) and still I mostly keep my mouth shut about it because compared to these slime criminals he is the best promise this country WASTED ..and DAMN it America..even if you don't lose Roe..this country is going down the tubes..jobs..the environment..pointless wars..supporting torture..and it's hard to not be angry at everyone. That said, I understand a conscience vote..but anybody that didn't vote the last election is the real source of my ire. And you want to blame that on Kerry because he's BORING or not whatever you wanted him to be: Too fucking bad America, you are the loser..because you are so waiting for the perfect candidate..(oooh somebody "fun"like Clinton-what a superficial country this is) the perfect person on all your pet issues and this is your legacy of your lazy ass and your "it doesn't matter who you vote for."

Can't get an abortion? Too bad. Can't take drugs you need? Too bad. Can't get a real job? Too bad. Can't breathe the air? Too bad.

FREEDOM ain't free. And it doesn't come from killing Arabs or whomever the enemy is that the goverment manufactures. It comes from holding the goverment to account. Cynicism is just what they want, because it works. WHO cares who you vote for huh?

Right now it matters to someone being tortured. It will matter when the real Bush legacy is realized 25 years from now-bannana republic.

America was a nice dream with endless promise. But you don't get to keep it being lazy being swayed by bullshit religious distractions-gay marriage-and false patriotism.

This is hardly anyone that ever posts on DU-I know-it's not you guys..but if you aren't angry I don't understand.

[CWebster]

101. Kerry lost to Bush with all us ABBers lining up

and if he truly won by a hair, it certainly wasn't worth his while to fight for his win.

So why isn't everyone lining up to Bash Kerry?

Seems like selective outrage, doesn't it?

[McCamy Taylor]

110. Its partly the Dems fault. The party needs to mobilize its base.

That is what Dean is doing. That is the key to 2006.

[wyldwolf]

114. the base was mobilized like hell in '04

Kerry got the second highest amount of votes for a presidential election in history.

The key is to get out the Dem vote and win the swing vote.

[erpowers]

117. No

First, the Green/Nader/No Difference crowd did not cost Gore the election in 2005. I do not have a link, but a study conducted by I blieve the New York Times stated that those that voted for Nader would have split between Gore and Bush or just not voted at all. Second, you should be angry at Jeb Bush in that he purged the names of thousand of eligible voters from the voter rolls in Flordia. That is the real thing that cost Gore the election. Remember Gore won the popular vote by 500 thousand votes. The only thing that kept Gore from getting to the White House is that thousands of eligible voters were not allowed to vote.

Second, You could make the argument that if Gore would have picked a different running mate he would have won the popular vote by are large enough margin to win the election without Flordia, or to win Flordia without the votes that were discarded. It could also be argued that if Gore and Kerry had fought more they would have won the elections.

[TheWraith]

122. Horseshit.

There's no way in hell that a Nader voter would have backed Bush, except by their favorite proxy. Sounds to me like you feel a little guilty about voting for the Republicans' pet spoiler.

[erpowers]

124. No

You do not know who a Nader voter would have voted for. That is what the New York Times poll stated. I do not have a link but if you listen to last years versions of Counterspin which is hosted by FAIR you will find that they examined the poll. If you need help in finding the episode it is the one where the guy from Daily Howler is brought on the show to talk about the voting record of John Kerry.

Also, I do not feel guilty for voting for the spoiler in that I did not vote for him. You may want to be a little more careful with your statements. It is time that Democrats stop trying to blame Nader for Gore's lose in 2000. Nader never should have been blamed in that it was clear that the voting problems in Flordia had more to do with Gore losing than Nader. You can make the claim that if Nader had not been in the election Gore would have won. However, a large amount of those voters would not have voted for Gore; therefore, Nader is not responsible for Gore's lose. I am not a great fan of Nader. I think he has done some great things and said some great things, but I defend him in that he should not be blamed for something he did not do. He did not cost Gore the election. It seems that some people would like to forget that Gore won the popular vote by 500 thousand votes even with Nader in the election . How can you claim that Nader cost Gore the election when Gore won the popular vote by 500 THOUSAND VOTES. You can blame many things, but you cannot blame Nader.

[Inland]

128. Of course you can blame Nader for Nader's own actions.

Nader asked people to NOT VOTE FOR GORE and argued that there wasn't sufficient difference to care which got in. He succeeded in a very small part, but enough considering the closeness of the race and the electoral college to change the outcome.

I don't understand why I can't blame Nader for accomplishing exactly what he set out to do. Gore can be blamed for not making the margin of victory so large that neither Nader votes nor stealing votes mattered, but Gore didn't set out to lose. He didn't ask anyone to vote for Nader or steal votes. But Nader, Nader knew that he could help or hurt Gore and decided that he would hurt.

[Hippo_Tron]

125. Okay, here's the thing, this thread isn't helping the situation

I don't mind these threads. It is an important topic of debate, in fact I posted one the other day that sparked a similar kind of debate.

That being said, we need to debate this in a context of what we can do in the future, not in the context of "I told you so". Bringing up the elections of 2000 and 2004 aren't going to help keep Roberts off of the bench. If anything it will help him get on the bench because we will be devoting our efforts to fighting each other and not Roberts.

[LittleClarkie]

129. Are you allowed? I hope so, because I'm permanently pissed

Dime's worth a difference, my ass. Counterpunch can kiss my shiney metal ass.