The Treason of Nader

[Warren Stupidity]

This meme is about avoiding the unpleasant recollection of the fact that the Democratic Party lead by people like that fucknut Lieberman, agreed to the installation of Bush, agreed to the ruinous tax cuts, agreed to the Patriot Act(s), agreed to the Iraq War, agreed to the appointments of the theocratic radical asswipes nominated by Bush. So they invent a narrative: "the treason of Nader", to help us forget "the collaboration of the Democratic Party leadership".

They want us to forget the Pom-pom brigade.

[Autumn]

1. I'm not about to fucking forget that. I'm going to remember that to my grave.

Fuck the supreme court, fuck our leaders who caved to the appointment of Bush by that corrupt supreme court and fuck the ones who spent the next eight years giving in to Bush. Treason it was, but it wasn't by Nader, he had every right to run.

[leftstreet]

2. DURec

[G_j]

16. brilliant

[PatrickforO]

43. Peace! Please!

Yes, Ralph Nader had every right to run. Yes, especially in 2000, Nader took votes from Gore. This left a narrow enough margin between Gore (who actually won) and Bush for the GOP to steal the election. It's not all on Nader, but some of it is.

While I'm in agreement with you about the questionable worth of Democrats, I also see that the GOP is unquestionably WORTHLESS when it comes to upholding the interests of the American people.

Yes, the Democrats have a 'checkered' history - think of the ones who voted for the Iraq war, and who voted for the repeal of Glass Steagall. Or of Obama's horrible drone policy, or the burgeoning NSA secret police that have expanded since he came into office. Think of his loosening of the EPA's regulation so that big oil can now extract crude and export it without refining it here - costing American jobs and increasing profits of oil companies. Or, or, or...

But look at the Republicans. They don't even TRY to pay even lip service to the good of the American people. They are all about profit over people. Neoliberalism, folks. Deregulate, privatize and kill every last vestige of the New Deal.

There's a saying that we should be grant ourselves the serenity to accept the things we can't change, change the things we can and the wisdom to know the difference.

So allow me to suggest a priority for November: Go vote. Vote Democratic, because our priority objective MUST be to get as many Republicans OUT of office as possible.

Because I'll tell you, we're about an inch away from becoming a corporate police state, and if we allow the GOP to keep its majority in the House and take the Senate in November, we'll go that direction awful fast. In fact, it will be a done deal - theocracy, the deterioration of women's rights, the repeal of the ACA and its replacement with NOTHING, more war, less spending on programs that help us, higher student loan interest rates, the complete and bloody death of unions, and more debt slavery for us all. If you think that won't happen, please, I implore you, think again.

Yes, the Dems are seriously flawed, but the GOP is downright evil. I love the socialist party, and the greens, but I'm going to vote Democratic because that's the only game in town. The house is TOO stacked against third parties. We've got a pretty narrow window here, and I for one DO NOT want to be a wage slave in a Koch brothers corporate 'paradise.'

In the meantime, I suggest we ALL get active in our local political arenas, because positive change really DOES flow up from us people.

Peace, healing and love!

[eridani]

65. the serenity to accept the things we can't change, change the things we can-- and

the wisdom to hide the bodies of the people I had to kIll BECAUSE THEY PISSED ME OFF!

[quinnox]

3. Incoming! You will get attacked as a Ron/Rand Paul supporter. Err, no, I meant Nader supporter!

That is just as bad a sin as a Paul supporter! Or something. Apparently.

[yurbud]

86. you can only be bipartisan on corporate-approved issues

If Rand Paul would like to propose a nice subsidies for some multi-billion dollar business or a nice war, we can be bipartisan.

Agreeing with him or any Republican on an issue that might impede the transfer of wealth to the already wealthy is clearly nuts.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

4. Anyone who only blames Nader is suspect.

Putting the blame on Nader takes the blame off the Supreme Court, Bush Co, and the corrupt florida Republican Party. I wonder why the blame Nader crowed wants to protect Bush Co so much?

[geek tragedy]

19. Protect? Nader is their ally, it's all about exposing who's working for whom.

Why would anyone want to protect a guy who actively conspired with Republicans--and took their money--in order to defeat their common enemy, that common enemy being us.

[betterdemsonly]

26. Because actively conspiring with republicans happens

more often from a group democrats known as the dlc. Who approved of Nafta, Universally supported the Iraq War, and gave us two tarps. Furthermore their organization was founded by the Koch brothers.

[geek tragedy]

27. are you suggesting that Al Gore would have invaded Iraq or that he's a personal favorite

of the Koch Brothers?

[betterdemsonly]

29. Given that he chose Joe Lieberman as VP

and had Martin Peretz in his kitchen cabinet, invading Iraq would have been pretty likely. He took alot of ethical positions after retiring. He surely didn't take them when he held office, and it actually mattered. For instance he was opposed the Kyoto protocols when in office but after retiring he supported them and called its failure to pass a tragedy.

He joined an organization, that had the Koch brothers financed. That is a fact.
http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

[geek tragedy]

32. Gore opposed Kyoto like Obama was

born in Kenya. Pretty typical stuff from Team Nadir.

[betterdemsonly]

39. The United States of Amnesia

Whatever. How do you explain this then?

Gore warmed up his attentive audience by affirming that Clinton and the US public believed the Earth was in peril and that all global citizens must act swiftly to save it. But in typical Gore doublespeak, he declared the United States would not support the agreement because it did not ask enough of developing nations, even though the US is the leading polluter in the world.

As Gore put it then, "Signing the Protocol, while an important step forward, imposes no obligations on the United States. The Protocol becomes binding only with the advice and consent of the US Senate." ..................

But the Vice President's tepid gesture couldn't have carried less weight. The Clinton administration, with Gore's guidance, refused to allow the Republican controlled Senate to decide on the Kyoto Protocol for themselves. Gore advised Clinton not to send the Protocol to the Senate to be ratified. The blame could have burdened the Republican Party, not the Democrats and the Clinton administration. But instead the buck stopped with Al Gore and Bill Clinton. Predictably, President Bush followed their lead.

And there you have it. It was Mr. Global Warming himself who first tried to kill off the Kyoto Protocol

.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/07/18/228296/-How-the-Kyoto-Protocol-was-Al-Gored

[geek tragedy]

41. Oy. Do you seriously need explained to you

why Gore would oppose submitting Kyoto to the Senate under conditions that guaranteed a crushing defeat?

Are you intelligent enough to understand that?

Josh Frank does understand it. He's just a lying hack.

Reminder: Kyoto lost 95-0 when it did get submitted .

[betterdemsonly]

45. Same reason you submit minimum wage bill even if its defeated

you can put the bastards on record and make an issue out of it. Anyway, I think democrats play rotating villains and sellout all their supporters eventually. I don't trust them and it is their fault not mine.

[geek tragedy]

47. Derp. Derp. Derpity doo.nt

[Scuba]

66. Fail.

[geek tragedy]

68. No one with the slightest bit of understanding

of politics believes Al Gore opposed Kyoto. Period.

[Scuba]

71. I believe Gore supported the principles behind the Kyoto agreement, but he failed to ....

... provide the leadership that would have forced the Republican-controlled Senate to vote on it, which would have exposed them to the public. In this case, it's not about whether it would have passed or not, it's about getting it on the record.

[geek tragedy]

73. The Republican Senate was more than eager to get on the record opposing it.

There wasn't a single Senator willing to vote for it.

Kyoto was a political loser for Democrats--it very well could have cost Gore West Virginia, and the White House.

Public opinion was not on our side. Gore recognized that, and was willing to lose an election over the issue.

[Scuba]

74. If Gore was willing to lose the election over it, why did he not push it?

And why did he not push other progressive issues to show that there was a very real difference between the parties? Why did he choose to not push policies that would have motivated some of the hands-sitters who are progressively inclined but don't see enough difference to bother voting?

Half the fucking electorate sits home every election, and our party would only have to win a small percentage of these folks over to tip almost every election, yet we do nothing to appeal to them.

[geek tragedy]

75. He wasn't President. The US may not have signed at all had

Bill Clinton not had Gore pressuring him.

[Art_from_Ark]

38. Gore helped put together the Kyoto Protocol when he was Vice President

Geez

"Clinton Administration Vice President Al Gore was a main participant in putting the Kyoto Protocol together in 1997. President Bill Clinton signed the agreement in 1997, but the US Senate refused to ratify it, citing potential damage to the US economy required by compliance. The Senate also balked at the agreement because it excluded certain developing countries, including India and China, from having to comply with new emissions standards.[61]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_on_the_Kyoto_Protocol

[betterdemsonly]

40. Wrong

They didn't even submit it for ratification. The source sited is from 2010 during the Bush administration, so Gore and Clinton could have had nothing to do with it.

[Art_from_Ark]

48. You're wrong

Gore helped to draft it, Clinton signed it, and the Senate rejected it.

Geez

[betterdemsonly]

50. What was the name of the bill submitted

when was it submitted and rejected. Please cite the precise bill that was submitted and rejected. Names and dates! Any body can write a wiki article.

[Art_from_Ark]

53. The Kyoto Protocol itself was never submitted

because the Senate had voted 95-0 against its basic tenets

"The story, at least on the international side, is complicated by our actual history with Kyoto, which is not as simple as some greens would portray it today. Rejection of Kyoto—in 1997, three years before Bush’s election—was a rare moment of bipartisan consensus on climate policy; the Senate voted unanimously (95-0) against its basic tenets, and the Clinton-Gore administration never submitted it for ratification."

http://www.american.com/archive/2009/november/the-quiet-yet-historic-death-of-the-kyoto-protoco

[Aerows]

83. Yeah, that was *exactly* what was suggested in that post you replied to

You and I see eye to eye on some things, but this is where we diverge, and that was an unfortunate thing to imply.

[geek tragedy]

87. Actually, that is EXACTLY what they are saying. I was correct

in just how egregious a position they were staking out. They even claimed that Al Gore opposed Kyoto while in office.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5175392

Just when you thought you'd seen everything . . .

[ForgoTheConsequence]

59. Conspired? Like Hillary?

She actively conspired with Republicans and it lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and 4500 American service men and woman.

[geek tragedy]

61. That was craven pandering. nt

[ForgoTheConsequence]

62. Is it?

I guess it's ok to work with Republicans as long as it's for illegal wars of occupation. I didn't get the memo on what and wasn't acceptable, sorry.

Votes for Nader = Evil, responsible for all the problems in the world.

Votes for illegal wars = excusable.

[geek tragedy]

70. Who said it was excusable? Of course,

the Nader crowd actively helped make Bush head of the armed forces and executive branch as well .. . .

[AAO]

108. Not only that, but I don't think Nader

orchestrated an entire precinct of Jews to vote for Pat Buchanon!

[jeff47]

5. Let's see...SCOTUS just gutted women's rights and unions

so let's stupidly oversimplify the 2000 election and fight over blaming Nader or not.

Nader was a large factor in 2000. Not the only factor, but he was quite significant.

Now, let's work on throwing these Republican fuckers out of office instead of being fucking morons and stir up an intra-party battle about who is sufficiently pure.

[leftstreet]

7. But at least the Democrats fought those RW SC nominations

oh wait...

[jeff47]

9. Just like Republicans fought those Obama nominations

Oh wait.

We've got an election in 4 months. Fighting other Democrats is literally the stupidest thing you could possibly do right now.

[leftstreet]

10. Sounds like they're in cahoots !!

[JI7]

12. if you think they are you should not support Democrats

but it's just too fun to post on an internet forum

[leftstreet]

13. Maybe Nader wil run again!!

[JI7]

14. whatever he decides to do i'm sure there will be those who continue to spew the both parties

are the same. but i can understand why some would say that because from what many on DU have said they don't consider issues concerning race, women's rights to be that important.

if only they were not so dishonest about it. i mean if i felt that way i would have left the party and would be working on getting support for something else.

[Bonobo]

6. Hell yes, and let me add this:

The obsessing over one person, namely Nader, is the mirror side of the kind of cult of personality/celebrity phenomena that results from watching too many movies and TV.

The real problem is the entrenched power structure and it is sickening but also amusing to see people talking about how Nader should rot in hell or that he should be spit upon -FOR PARTICIPATING LEGALLY IN THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. While, at the same time, tacitly forgiving the fact that that same process was SUBVERTED in what amounted to a non-democratic coup.

I bet lots of people would split their fucking sides laughing to see Democrats blaming a Progressive voice like Nader for a coup that disenfranchised the votes of so many of the very people that Nader devoted his own life to representing the interests of.

It must be sweet nectar to them indeed.

[djean111]

8. Putting the blame on Nader is a cautionary tale meant to scare folks who do not want to vote for

Hillary. SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU VOTE THIRD PARTY!!??!!!

Didn't Biden really really go out of his way in order to get Clarence Thomas confirmed?

[Maedhros]

77. "The Treason of Nader" is all about silencing and minimizing the voice of the Left.

The Democratic Party leadership would prefer that Liberals and Progressives just sit down, shut up and vote for whatever warm body they shove in front of us. We're just "f*cking r*t*rds", after all.

[djean111]

79. I think the wheels are coming off that bus.

And anyone who truly trusts that Hillary would appoint a liberal SC justice is not paying attention.
Also, any calls to have Hillary appoint Warren to the SC or another post are just giant wishes to get Warren out of the way.

[JI7]

11. Lieberman had a good record on when it came to rights concerning minorities

but one would have to care about those issues to acknowledge that.

[betterdemsonly]

28. What about the disabled like me

Lieberman conspired with Coburn to impose austerity on us, but you would have to care about the disabled to acknowledge that.

[JI7]

30. that was after the 2000 election

i'm talking about him as VP candidate.

[betterdemsonly]

33. He did plenty of shifty republican things before 2000 too

Here are just a few of the many examples one can provide

In his debut speech in Nashville late Tuesday, Lieberman "mentioned God 13 times in 90 seconds," according to New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. Whatever happened to the notion that the public square should be a piety-free zone where an attitude of secular tolerance discouraged the use of religious belief as a political litmus test?

This parting of the curtain between sacred and secular is evident throughout the political system, but few commentators seem to realize the danger it presents. One of the reasons this nation has avoided the violent Balkanization of places like the Balkans (or Northern Ireland, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, India, Indonesia, on and on), is the barrier to theocracy built into our Constitution. Invocations of the Deity by political candidates should never be expected, lest they become mandatory.

And that's not even the worst aspect of Gore's veep choice. Lieberman is the chair of the Democratic Leadership Council, the center-right, corporate-friendly caucus most responsible for altering the party's New Deal ideals of economic democracy and social justice. Although Lieberman has championed some progressive legislation, he more frequently has voted with corporate interests and Republicans. For example, the same insurance companies that Gore has been bashing in his stump speeches regard Lieberman as a staunch ally. "We consider Mr. Lieberman a friend of the insurance industry," Jack Dolan, a spokesman for the American Council on Life Insurance, told The New York Times.

According to Paul Bass, associate editor of the New Haven Advocate, during Lieberman's first senatorial campaign Lieberman "attacked liberal Republican Lowell Weicker from the right on school prayer and red-baited him for his support for normalizing trade with Fidel Castro." Bass, who has written about the Connecticut senator for 20 years, noted, "his biggest financial backers are military contractors, financial services companies and pro-Israel groups." Lieberman's voting record and his public positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cast serious doubt on whether he can help the U S. serve as an honest broker between the two antagonists. The senator also has been a strong advocate of the sanctions on Iraq that United Nations agencies claim are killing 5,000 children a month. This is another area where Lieberman's Jewish faith could provide cover for the administration's biased policies; fearing that criticism of his Middle East positions could easily be mischaracterized as anti-Semitism, many critics would prefer silence.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/081400-105.htm

[JI7]

35. i know he did, i know he wasn't some great liberal

my point was that civil rights issues mattered back then and as we have seen with the SC rulings.

[Bluenorthwest]

69. Care to be specific? Joe was good on LGBT rights to an extent, but

Joe was the nominee in 2000, in 2008 he stood with and endorsed the Republican candidate. So he was our fucking VP nominee, then he was for McCain/Palin. Two Parties too similar, case freaking closed.

I worked hard to elect Al Gore. Had he not picked Joe, he would have done much better. It was hard to get Democrats to vote for a ticket containing a man trembling on the verge of being a Republican, which is what he actually did become.

Our 2000 VP Nominee!!!!!!:

[slipslidingaway]

15. Like the parent who blames the "other" kid and does not take responsibility ...

for their own children.

[BlindTiresias]

17. Hyper focusing on Nader

Is reductive and simplistic, and likely more done for moral satisfaction and cheerleading than for the sake of an accurate analysis.

[LWolf]

18. Yes, and

they want to distract from the fact that nominating "centrist" neo-liberals drives some voters away.

[MohRokTah]

20. DU Unrec

100% Nader;s fault.

Anybody who supported Nadere in 2000 is as winguntty as the wingnuttiest teabagger.

[truebluegreen]

76. Unrec yourself, and Ignore. nt

[Marr]

21. What else can a blind loyalist do?

Those facts don't jibe with their infantile good guys/bad guys narrative.

[geek tragedy]

22. No, what's dumb is acting like Democrats are to blame for Alito and Roberts,

who would have been confirmed no matter how many Democrats filibustered, since the Republicans would just have gone nuclear.

Also, Nader's core message was "Bush=Gore." Those who have failed to learn how wrong that bullshit was, and is every election cycle, deserve the scorn they get from the reality-based community.

Same fucknuts who think that Nader is a progressive hero, who pimped his "Bush=Gore" sewage, then started up with "McCain/Romney=Obama" and will of course be all like "Jeb Bush/Rand Paul=Hillary."

[davidn3600]

23. So anyone who runs for prez without a D after their name is guilty of treason?

And this is supposed to be a democratic country?

The people who voted for Nader voted for him because they didnt want Gore president and they didn't want Bush president either.

The fact people are upset about Nader shows what's wrong with this country. People don't vote FOR candidates anymore...they vote against the other guy. That's not democracy. That kind of mentality will only lead to diminishing returns. It's no wonder the 1% has this country completely under control.

[TreasonousBastard]

25. Who is this "Nader"? In the whole thread only one person mentions...

an election in a few months.

But, hey, go ahead and fight over an election years ago-- and then come up with the usual excuses if we lose the Senate this year.

[joshcryer]

31. None of that happens without 9/11.

Which happened on Bush's watch.

Gore could've run a shadow government and Bush could've been impeached on 9/11, but that didn't happen.

[EEO]

34. It is not Nader's fault that the Bush Clan stole the election...

... the Supreme Court should have never intervened and prior to that Jeb should have never been allowed to suppress the vote.

[Jim Lane]

36. Treason, no. Stupidity, yes.

I don't think anyone on DU has ever denied that Nader had a right to run if he so chose. Equally important, however, is that he had a right not to run -- or, my personal preference, to run in the Democratic primaries (I would have voted for him) instead of in the general election.

I don't ask that anyone forget anything. I just point out that Nader chose to run in the general, that astute people warned him in advance of what might happen, that the dire possibility actually occurred, and that if he had heeded this sage advice, Gore would have become President.

How about a deal -- I won't ask you to forget any of your criticisms about what various Democrats should have done, as long as we also don't forget criticisms about what Nader should have done?

[MisterP]

37. in 2033 when we're in Gabon or Madagascar they'll still be blaming Nader: GORE said

Nader didn't "do" FL 2000

the Korean-Okinawan war of 3113, the neofeudal disputes around Lord Nelson's column of the unstable 45th century--all Nader

[Rex]

42. Oh well only those that want to forget all about it do so.

They have their own agenda and it shows. They love to blame Nader and skip over the SCOTUS like that isn't even a topic of discussion. Easy to spot those that help the GOP by conveniently forgetting certain facts. They seem to be very conservative.

[Maedhros]

80. There is too much nuance in the reality of the situation.

Some people don't do well with nuance, and need simple answers.

[Rex]

84. Well conservatives do often hover around simple answers.

But people have to acknowledge that Al Gore won, it is history not fiction. The SCOTUS forced the time table on the election to make sure Bush was in office and nobody could do anything about it - not unless starting a civil war.

Yeah Nader...a fart in the entire cloud of stink the SCOTUS made.

Still, AL Gore won...something that conservatives don't like talking about...along with the SCOTUS ruling etc..

[Maedhros]

88. SCOTUS had no jurisdiction to rule in the case.

The Constitution gives the FL State Supreme Court authority over all matters pertaining to how electors are selected. The fact that SCOTUS interfered and stopped the recount is solid evidence of the coup.

[Rex]

94. I agree and that is why I was calling it the 2000 coup.

Or the 2000 (s)election. Democracy lost a big one that day.

[joshcryer]

44. Your post is revision, btw, Nader fought hard, dirty.

It wasn't like he was just running for his own cause, if he wanted the Green Party to succeed he should've stayed out of irrelevant swing states that hardly got him votes.

[Bonobo]

46. Huh? Why?

"if he wanted the Green Party to succeed he should've stayed out of irrelevant swing states that hardly got him votes."

How would such a strategy be the "way to help the Green Party"?

Is the 50-state strategy something that only makes sense for one party but not another?

[geek tragedy]

49. Well, the Greenies are irrelevant in New York

There is a viable 3rd party there, on the left, but it ain't the Greenies, who are more interested in posturing and publicity than doing the hard work of building a party.

And no, parties that don't win any elections don't get to claim they have a 50 state plan without getting yelled at .

[betterdemsonly]

51. The WFP has repeatedly sold out to centrists like Cuomo

So they aren't really a third party at all. At least not the sort that would satisfy green voters. It looks like many teachers will probably be voting for Hawkins this time out. So I think the greens are going to be pretty relevant in the next election. Either that or an independent run from Diane Ravitch.

[Bonobo]

52. "parties that don't win any elections don't get to claim they have a 50 state plan..."

Well that doesn't make sense to me.

The entire idea of the 50-state plan is to slowly build support where there is a lack of it, to not throw in the towel.

[winter is coming]

54. True enough. You'd think a 50-state plan for a third party would be to target local races

and build a brand. I might giggle at the idea of the Chocolate For Everyone Party having a 50-state plan, but that doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't.

Damned shame we no longer have a 50-state plan.

[joshcryer]

55. He didn't do a 50 state strategy.

The problem was that many Democrats or Independents were (rightly) afraid of Bush winning, so they voted strategically.

It results in an electoral map like this:



Make note: most southern states are very light green in rural areas. What's going on with FL?

It's obvious most people voted for Nader when they felt their state was safe. The dude was campaigning in FL a day before the election. That's not smart at all. Nader's attacks got to a point where Gore's campaign tried to woo over Nader supporters.

I think if he put his support behind Gore in swing states (and only in swing states, as he promised to his supporters) it would've made even more people vote in safe states.

[Bonobo]

56. "It's obvious most people voted for Nader when they felt their state was safe."

That's very true.

It makes you wonder what the outcome would have been -and how much stronger the POTENTIAL for a competent 3rd party - if most people didn't cast their vote from a place of fear but a place of hope.

[joshcryer]

57. Approval voting fixes that.

Just vote for as many candidates as are on the ballot. One with most votes wins. Requires little to no changes in the electoral process.

http://www.electology.org/

Score / range voting is perfect (statistically) but it's a lot more complicated, paper ballots would look ugly and incomprehensible.

Tactical voting is a response to the first past the post plurality system. Hope only goes so far to change that as we saw with the 2008 candidate's campaign slogan.

[Bonobo]

58. I love it. nt

[villager]

60. The Pom-Pom brigade has been pretty diligently posting today

Apologetics and accusations are their things, really, rather than plans of action.

Or even coalition-building (well, with anyone on the left, I mean...)

[Warren Stupidity]

63. Arguments about ideas: +2

Arguments about events: +1

Arguments about individuals: 0.

[SixString]

64. DU Rec.

Great post.

[trumad]

67. Fuck Nader

[Maedhros]

81. How astute. I stand in awe of your keen insight. [n/t]

[trumad]

91. good..you should!

[Maedhros]

95. I'm laughing at the superior intellect...[n/t]

[Bobbie Jo]

98. Yuck

[Bluenorthwest]

72. People are uncomfortable with many truths of that election, including Senate Democrats refusing

to stand with the Black Caucus in the House to continue the recall. Not one of those (all white) Senators would sign with them. Not Biden, not Clinton. Not one of them had the love of country and of the people required to say 'let's just count the votes'.
People forget that some actual Democrats tried to count the votes and were refused by some other Democrats.

[Maedhros]

82. I forgot about that.

What compelled them to do that? Naked cowardice? Bought off?

[G_j]

93. here,

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0101/06/se.02.html

Congressional Black Caucus Protests Electoral Vote Count

Aired January 6, 2001 - 2:00 p.m. ET

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: And if you're just joining us, we're going to go straight to the press conference we told you about with the Congressional Black Caucus with regard to the -- all right, we're working on getting audio for you in just a moment. And while we're doing that, I will recap just a bit.

REP. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (D), TEXAS: ... black caucus, and I'm going to ask Mr. Hastings to give his opening statement, and I'll return.

REP. ALCEE HASTINGS (D), FLORIDA: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Today was a very solemn day, and the remarks are that many of us were not permitted, regretted by us all. Had I been given an opportunity to go forward with an appropriate objection, I would have indicated that because of the overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, deliberate fraud, and an attempt to suppress voter turnout by unlawful means, I felt the necessity -- as do my colleagues from the Congressional Black Caucus, and other members of the House of Representatives -- to object to the kinds of errors against democracy, the holy grail of democracy, that were permitted in the state of Florida.

And we felt that they should not be tolerated, as they would not be tolerated in other countries. Indeed, we should not tolerate them in America.

I would have said to Vice President Gore that Harry Truman once said that what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular. What we were doing here today is right. I hope all of our colleagues and the American people see it that way. And that is why we raised our objection. And it's a proud moment for the conscience of the House of Representatives, for those of us that are representing the entirety of the Congressional Black Caucus, in the presence of our chairlady, and the members here assembled, we stand proudly to say that we did what was right.

JOHNSON: Forty years ago, during the civil rights movement, I marched for justice with a firm belief that my son would not have to march, in order to utilize his voting rights. Much to my dismay, 40 years later, I find myself marching again, but this time for my grandchildren, so that they will not have to march in order to be afforded the same rights.

How long will we settle for injustice in America? How long will we have to fight to perfect the 15th Amendment? How long will we have to struggle for something that should be every American's birthright? On election day, 100 million Americans went to the polls to make their voices heard. Those voices want to be heard still. No hyper- technical manipulation of election laws should derail the intent of the voter.

We cannot sweep under the carpet the claims of first-time college voters who say they registered to vote, had voter registration cards in their hand, but when they were not allowed to vote at the polls, because their names were not on the roll, the lines were busy all over the country, where they tried to call to clarify their registration.

We cannot sweep this under the carpet, the cries of those who were incorrectly removed from the polling places in Florida by an inept Texas company hired by Mr. Bush's brother.

We cannot ignore believable stories of police intimidation, questionable activities by poll workers and simple ineptness by volunteers at the precincts. We cannot ignore what we saw with our own eyes on television: polls closing on voters in St. Louis, un- American voting lines in Pennsylvania and incredibly complex ballots in South Florida.

There is overwhelming evidence that George W. Bush did not win this election, either by national popular vote or the Florida popular vote. As members of Congress charged with defending the constitutional principles of this country, it is our duty to challenge this vote.
<snip>

REP. CARRIE MEEK (D), FLORIDA: We dare not have it repeated. We dare not have the Tilden and the Rutherford Hayes situation repeated again, because it disenfranchised our people at that time.

This will disenfranchise -- it already has -- our people. We don't want that continued. We will always come out. We will always fight. We don't care who is it there.

We are very disappointed that our senators did not stand up and support us today. We helped to elect those senators. They will hear from us again, because we feel very disappointed that they didn't say we want our African-Americans, and our disjointed people who were not able to vote, to have someone in the halls of Congress to say, yes, give them a chance to debate this issue, so that the world could see what is happening here.

We have had our votes nullified. That's why we're so sad. They were nullified by defective voting machines, nullified by discriminantly distributed and targeted machinery, election machinery, in our neighborhoods. The votes were nullified by a purge of voting lists, undertaken by direction from a campaign that retained the equivalent of electoral thugs.

I was there. I saw exactly what happened. I was chased by these thugs. I was called a communist by these thugs, a socialist by these thugs, many of them who were not even citizens of this country. That's what happened in this campaign in Miami-Dade, Florida.

So that we were illegally struck from the voting list by a process that classified thousands of our people as felons. We were nullified again by deals that were cut in cities -- cut by the winning campaign, with our leading authorities in our cities. We were nullified by ballots that were printed in such a way that reasonably thinking citizens could not know for whom they were voting. That's why we're here.

Everyone should have a right to know how they're voting, and for whom they're voting. We were nullified again, by a secretary of state, who has already been given a very big accomplishment by this administration. She authorized her authority to prevent valid votes from being counted. So, it nullified the thing for us.

All that is left for us now, as the Congressional Black Caucus and as citizens of this country, is to exercise our First Amendment rights, while we still have it, and before it is further undermined by a politically dominated Supreme Court.

We exercise that right today to protest against this ill-chosen nomination. We exercise our right to petition our government for our citizenry to receive a redress of grievances. So, I speak for the majority of Americans, particularly African-American Americans, who did not vote for the new president-elect, but who now must live under an administration that appears to award spoils to the victors, even when the electoral process has been so clearly corrupted.
thank you

----

We're going to bring in our congressional correspondent Chris Black once again.

Definitely not business as usual today, Chris.

CHRIS BLACK, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Not exactly. Things were going along as expected. The District of Columbia votes were recorded, and then Chaka Fattah, ironically a member of the black caucus himself but one of the two House tellers working on this Electoral College vote today, got to Florida. He announced the 25 Electoral College votes. Al Gore said, is there an objection? And there were a lot of them. A dozen members of the Congressional Black Caucus, one after the other, rose to their feet to object to the votes from Florida.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AL GORE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutsch, arise?

REP. PETER DEUTSCH (D), FLORIDA: To make point of order.

GORE: Gentleman will state his point of order.

DEUTSCH: Mr. President, we have just completed the closest election in American history. There are at least...

GORE: The gentleman will suspend. The chair is advised by the parliamentarian that under section 18 of title 3, United States Code, no debate is allowed in the joint session. If the gentleman has a point of order, please state the point of order.

DEUTSCH: Mr. President, there are many Americans who still believe that the results we are going to certify today are illegitimate.

GORE: The gentleman will suspend. If the gentleman from Florida has a point of order, he may state the point of order at this time. Otherwise, the gentleman will suspend.

DEUTSCH: I will note the absence of quorum and respectfully request that we delay the proceedings until quorum is present.

GORE: The chair is advised by the parliamentarian that section 17 of title 3, United States Code, prescribes a single procedure for resolution of either an objection to a certificate or other questions arising in the matter. That includes a point of order that a quorum is not present.

The chair rules on the advice of the parliamentarian that the point order that a quorum is not present is subject to the requirement that it be in writing and signed by both a member of the House of Representatives and a senator. Is the point of order in writing and signed not only by member of the House of representatives, but also a senator?

DEUTSCH: It is in writing, but I do not have a senator.

GORE: The point order may not be received.

HASTINGS: Mr. President, and I take great pride in calling you that, I must object because of the overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, deliberate fraud and an attempt to suppress...

GORE: The chair...

HASTINGS: ... voter turnout.

GORE: The chair must remind members that under session 18 of title 3, United States Code, no debate is allowed in the joint session.

HASTINGS: Thank you, Mr. President.

To answer your question, Mr. President, the objection is in writing, signed by a number of members of the House of Representatives but not by a member of the Senate.

Thank you, Mr. President.

WATERS: I rise to object to the fraudulent 25 Florida electoral votes.

GORE: Is the objection in writing and signed by member of the House and a senator?

WATERS: The objection is in writing, and I don't care that it is not it is not signed by a member of the Senate.

REP. BOB FILNER (D), CALIFORNIA: I have an objection to the electoral votes from Florida.

GORE: Is the objection in writing? Is it signed by a member of the House of Representatives and a senator?

FILNER: No, it is not in writing, but I rise in solidarity with my colleagues who have previously expressed their objection.

GORE: The chair thanks the gentleman from Illinois, but -- hey.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACK: There were 13 objections in all, 12 from minority group members in the House of Representatives, last one saw was Bob Filner, who's a Democrat from California, a former professor, a big supporter of Al Gore, and clearly was just moved by the emotion of the moment.

They were all gavelled down. It was a great irony for the vice president. Here were some of his biggest supporters in the House of Representatives. He was clearly sympathetic, understood what they were trying to do, but he went right by the book. There was no debate allowed under the law that governs this joint session. There is also -- no objection can be heard unless it is signed by a House member and a senator.

Not a single senator would join members of the Congressional Black Caucus, much to their dismay. About a dozen members of the caucus walked out in protest, to protest the Florida vote, and then had a press conference in the gallery.

<snip>

Michael Moore showed this in Fahrenheit 911,

[hrmjustin]

78. Nader played his part and we should not wash over it. He is not blameless.

[stevenleser]

85. Feigning ignorance of the effects of splitting the vote will never be convincing

Whether its two candidates on the left facing one on the right, or two on the right facing one on the left, the effect is the same.

Most states are winner take all without a requirement to reach 50%. Thus two left candidates splitting the left vote can allow a less popular right wing candidate to win. The reverse is also true.

Trying to pretend like you don't know that and don't know that Nader did this will never be convincing.

[Warren Stupidity]

89. You would have to establish that nader actually "split" enough votes to matter.

So far, nobody has actually demonstrated that, other than superficially pointing at vote totals and then assuming they can move all nader votes to gore.

However that is more or less irrelevant. What happened, really from 1980 to the present day, is a long sorry story of spinelessness, corruption, collaboration, facilitation, and enablement. Not by Ralph Fucking Nader, but by the Democratic Party leadership. What happened from November 2000 to the end of the Bush administration was not Ralph Fucking Nader forcing our party to behave like timid fearful spineless toadies.

At least the Republican Party knows how to be an actual opposition party. At least they actually stand for their fucked up principals, aren't afraid to say them out loud, and aren't afraid to vote for them and support them.

Yeah fuck nader. That is exactly what the problem is.

[stevenleser]

90. That has been established and talked about over and over again.

No one attempting to assert what you are asserting is fooling anyone.

[BootinUp]

92. Its the why that I don't always get

and why we have so many lol.

[Warren Stupidity]

96. no really it hasnt.

[stevenleser]

97. Yes, it really has. Nader voters were polled. They would have put Gore over the top if Nader hadnt

run.

[Octafish]

101. What about the Supreme Court stopping the recount?

Gore was closing in on Bush when the recount stopped.

Later, when the two news consortiums working independently tabulated the votes themselves, they found, even with Nader, Gore won.

[stevenleser]

104. There would have been no recount without Nader. Gore wins. nt

[morningfog]

106. There wasn't a recount and Gore did win. The blame is squarely and solely

with Harris and the Supreme Court.

Not with the candidate who legally ran. Not to the votes who legally voted. But, with the FL SoS and the Supreme Court who illegally stopped the recount.

When you blame Nader, you legitimize Bush. Don't do it.

[Warren Stupidity]

102. really, got a link?

How about Gore carries his freaking home state and win the election that way instead of having it stolen in Florida so Democratic centrists can invent a myth that Nader cost them the election.

The 2000 presidential race included two major party candidates—Republican George W. Bush and
Democrat Al Gore—and two prominent third party candidates—Ralph Nader of the Green Party
and Pat Buchanan of the Reform Party. While it is often presumed that Nader spoiled the 2000
election for Gore by siphoning away votes that would have been cast for him in the absence of a
Nader candidacy, we show that this presumption is rather misleading. While Nader voters in 2000
were somewhat pro-Democrat and Buchanan voters correspondingly pro-Republican, both types
of voters were surprisingly close to being partisan centrists. Indeed, we show that at least 40% of
Nader voters in the key state of Florida would have voted for Bush, as opposed to Gore, had they
turned out in a Nader-less election. The other 60% did indeed spoil the 2000 presidential elec-
tion for Gore but only because of highly idiosyncratic circumstances, namely, Florida’s extreme
closeness. Our results are based on studying over 46 million vote choices cast on approximately
three million ballots from across Florida in 2000. More generally, the results demonstrate how bal-
lot studies are capable of illuminating aspects of third party presidential voters that are otherwise
beyond scrutiny.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CHoQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sscnet.ucla.edu%2Fpolisci%2Ffaculty%2Flewis%2Fpdf%2Fgreenreform9.pdf&ei=U-mzU_77Eo2HqgadlICYDQ&usg=AFQjCNGEYzlZbo0Ppf9PmXz8E47ONxHA8A&sig2=u9IEiGUG1Q8Jj37rb8J5Ww&bvm=bv.70138588,d.b2k

Let me help you out here: the failure of the Democratic Party to effectively challenge the fraud in Florida is what cost them the election. The failure of the Gore campaign to fight effectively either in Florida or in Washington against a party determined to steal the election, not Ralph Fucking Nader, is what cost Gore the presidency.

[stevenleser]

103. Yes, really, here are two, I can give you dozens of links where the analysis was done

Nader gave Bush Florida.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/lewis/pdf/greenreform9.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect#Bush.2C_Gore.2C_and_Nader_.282000_U.S._presidential_election.29

[Octafish]

99. The nerve of that guy.

What's the think this is, a democracy or something?

[99Forever]

100. Exactly.

[Orrex]

105. Nader was one of many factors in Gore's defeat

Since he seemed a significant factor in the waning days of the campaign, it's human nature to identify him as a major factor. Honestly, I'm much more inclined to blame Maureen Dowd than Nader.

Still, Nader doesn't do himself any favors with his silly, self-serving rhetoric about how indistinguishable the two main parties are. A string of corporate giveaways by the Bush-packed SCOTUS is all the rebuttal we need, not to mention the Iraq war.

So although it makes little sense to blame Nader for Bush's appointment, it's entirely reasonable to call him out for his bullshit.

[Calista241]

107. Didn't this happen nearly 15 years ago.

Ancient history!