Remember When The "Greens" Said ...

[Mark E. Smith]

... that there was no difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore?

Man oh man were they full of shit.

[ewoden]

1. or just smokin it

[Lindacooks]

2. Boy, are you ever right.

No difference my ass.

[samhsarah]

3. They really stood up for their principles there, didn't they?

They sure showed those Democrats what's up.:banghead:


"Now the President's laughing cause you voted for Nader" (NOFX)

[LoZoccolo]

4. Mention that now and they're like...

..."you keep flogging a dead horse". Well no shit, it's still affecting us today. And we need to remember it so we don't do it again.

[samhsarah]

10. Sadly, I think many have forgotten.

Did you notice last week after Alito got confirmed, how many people were "going green" or starting a new party, or just abstaining all together? These elections coming up in November are just as important as the Pres. election of '04, and probably more so because of the desperate need to put some checks and balances back in our government and impeach the war criminals, and somehow this seems like the best time to "go green"? I just don't get it.:shrug:

[Skittles]

36. they certainly don't like to hear about the consequences

of their absolute foolishness

[Kahuna]

39. I will never let them forget. Because they crow the loudest about..

how bad things are under bush. And have the nerve to blame the Dems who do not control any branch of government and are therefore powerless. Maybe the next time they decide to throw the results of an election they will make sure that a government they knew to be corrupt (Clinton persecution) won't end up controlling the entire government. Wow! It just boggles the mind.

[The Traveler]

5. Man oh man are you right

And me, I was one of those who thought it would not be such a big deal, that GWB was a reasonable man who stood somewhat more to the right than I would prefer. Obviously I preferred Gore, but was by no means anticipating the disaster for America that was impending.

Frankly, I thought either man would prove to be rather mediocre, neither brilliant not exceptionally foolish, neither exceptionally virtuous nor notably vile.

Not being prone to conspiracy theories or hysteria, I regarded the Selection as an aberration, disturbing but probably no more than a blivet in the history books. I marvel now at my naivety.

Reality has turned out to exceed my worst imaginations of the time, and now I fear this nation is falling under the power of tyranny.

[nickshepDEM]

6. .....

:popcorn:

I hear ya' though.

[LincolnMcGrath]

7. By all means keep blaming Nader, that will move us forward.

:eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

8. See??!! See?!!

This is what I was talking about in #4.

[LincolnMcGrath]

11. Reality Check

Reality

Gore won the pop by A HALF PERCENT in an election with VERY historically LOW 'other' votes.

Y'all can blame Nader till the cows come home, that doesn't change the reality that Gore did poorly against a stumbling, stuttering idiot son of an asshole moran. Blame Donna B, Al From, P Begala et al, if you must.

Look inward to the Dem machine, then get to work at the county level, take it over if you have to.

[snowbear]

12. Go for it LoZo... remind them every day!

~~~~

[LincolnMcGrath]

13. 2004 NADER = ONE THIRD of ONE PERCENT

1996 Perot = EIGHT point FIVE PERCENT


And yet somehow BC was able to EKE out a NINE PERCENT victory margin. Yep, it's all Nader's fault. Hell Nader got 3/4s of a PERCENT in 1996.

[Sparkly]

14. But Lincoln, with all due respect,

Nader's margin was well beyond what was needed for Gore to tip some states -- notably, Florida.

And, let's not forget that he pledged not to contest states that were close -- and then did anyway.

Let's also not forget how crazy it was, with people swapping votes online to give to Gore in close states in order to add to Nader's national total in others...

I have a more philosophical/practical problem with Nader -- it's easy to rattle the doors from the outside in, and it's counterproductive in the end... There were a NUMBER of things that could have prevented Chimpy's getting into the WH in 2001, admittedly -- but I think we also have to admit that Nader was one of them.

[LincolnMcGrath]

16. How much lower do 'other' party votes have to be before we look

inward after a general election loss. If all but 100 total voters vote for the big two and we lose by 99 votes, whose fault is that? The hundred voters and their leader? Or our own party/candidate/handlers?

I agree that there were tons of things that could have stopped the Bush Crime Family in their tracks, I just put Nader at the BOTTOM. BC won despite huge 'other' party percentages without worrying who was contesting where.

And yes NADER is a douche. FTR

[Sparkly]

18. Polls show where Nader's votes would otherwise have gone...

... so I do indeed blame him -- and those who voted for him in close states -- as ONE of the factors that could have prevented the Chimp's backdoor entrance to the WH.

I have no problem with what Nader espouses, but by serving as a drag on the Democratic party, and as leverage for the Republican party, he hinders progress toward the very goals he claims to advocate.

Had he NOT run, and/or had he been a voice for change while noting that Gore would have taken us in that direction while Chimp would be a HUGE DISASTER (rather than dismissing Democrats as the same), he could have helped -- or at least not hindered -- all the issues he claims to care about.

[LincolnMcGrath]

22. 2000 Florida ALL 'other' votes = 2.31 percent Result; Gore loses by .01

1996 Florida ALL 'other' votes = 9.66 Result; Clinton wins by 6%

Almost four times the 'other' votes in 96 as 00. Yet BC wins

[Crazy Guggenheim]

17. New Hampshire too. On Edit:

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/elecpop.htm

The Four Electoral votes would have put Bush down to 267 and Gore to 270. The vote in NH was:

NH 4
Moran 273,559
Gore 266,348
Peter Pan 22,198

[LincolnMcGrath]

19. BC trounced Dole by 10% in 1996 in NH

After narrowly beating GHWB by 1 percent in 1992.

Gore lost 3.5 percent of BC voters where * picked up almost ten percentage points over Dole. 1996-2000

from http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/appa.htm

Again I ask, how LOW do the 'other' votes have to be before we examine the party/candidates/handlers?

example of losing strategy here

[Crazy Guggenheim]

21. Just look at the votes *for* 2000, not any other year.

[LincolnMcGrath]

26. WHY? Why not look at 1992 When 'other' votes got 23+% and yet,

BC still won!?

If we lose by one vote, and all but 2 people vote for the 'big two', whose fault is that? WIll we blame the one guy?

[WCGreen]

29. You can't even compare an incumbent to a challenger....

Incumbents nearly always win....

You need to compare relevent stats in order to make a valid comparision....

The power of office is something that a challneger always has to face....

The fact that Kerry came so close shows you just how little the American public, the average Joe, views Bush....

[LincolnMcGrath]

30. 1992? Clinton beats incumbent. Despite 23+% other votes

I agree with you about Kerry v Bush 04

[WCGreen]

34. Most of Perot votes came from Bush....

[LincolnMcGrath]

37. How can you be so sure?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2441231&mesg_id=2441231

[Vickers]

54. "And yet somehow BC was able to EKE out a NINE PERCENT victory margin."

Huh? The folks that I knew who voted for Perot WOULD have voted for GHWB in 1992 and Dole in 1996. It seems his candidacy HELPED Clinton.

You don't remember Perot's support for the RW Contract With America?

[eggman67]

9. Yeah

There I was throwing away my vote on Gore....along with the majority of Americans. Gee if only we'd all voted for Ralphie.

:sarcasm:

[Cocoa]

15. it was like Bush and the oil addiction

it wasn't meant to be taken literally, it was just a bunch of bullshit.

[frylock]

20. remember when the democrats, as a whole, actually stood for something?

Cuz I don't. Not with 41% of Senate Dems voting for cloture on the Alito deal. Then you have Tom Vilsak claiming that the warrantless wiretap is a losing issue for the Democrats. Don't even get me started on the "opposition" to the Bankruptcy Bill.

Fuck me, sometimes this place is no better than the freakrepublik, with their blaming of everything on Clinton. Who gives two shits about Katherine Harris and the purged voter rolls. Of course, the SC didn't factor much into the outcome. Nope. It was Ralph Nadir (sic) and those evil Green Party voters. No shortage of myopics on this board too be sure.

[depakid]

23. "No shortage of myopics on this board too be sure."

Could be if the party still stood for traditional Democratic values, instead of enabling and legitimizing far right policies throughout the 90's and the 2000's there wouldn't have been a significant Green Party constituency in the first place....:think:

[LincolnMcGrath]

25. Ding Ding Ding

:yourock:

[frylock]

27. for real..

that's what most people don't understand. Progressives are getting sick and fed up of the Demoratic Party catering to the mythical swing vote. What's going to happen is that they are eventually going to leave the party, en masse. Then who will be to blame?

[inthebrain]

24. Why dont they blame those that didnt vote?

How many people stayed home in 2000?

Blaiming Nader seems to be the easiest way to avoid the fact that Gore still won that election.

[LincolnMcGrath]

28. Exactly! Let us ask ourselves why so many stay home.

[inthebrain]

31. Why do Dems think

they are entitled to my vote to begin with? Especially when they do a poor job of fighting for it.

My mother who is much more conservative than me is getting fed up. She is a Liberal Centrist. I'm fifty/fifty going forward at this point between a third party vote or a dem vote in 06 or 08. Its not my job to sway these people to pick up issues.

It's their job to fight for my vote. Quite frankyl, the ex Nader/ Greenparty voters did more for this party in 04 than anyone I can think of in the last twenty years. Those are the Bill Mahers, Arriana Huffingtons, Michael Moores, Eddie Vedders and average people like you and me.

Gore won that election in 2000. He lost to a weak candidate as did Kerry.

[jpgray]

33. Hmm. When they supported segregation and internment camps?

Imperialist war? What vague idealized party of the past are you confusing the Democratic Party with? As for Ralphie, while you can't pin 2000 on him, all anyone needs to know about Nader is that he invests in horrible corps like Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon and Halliburton, then takes money from idealistic "anti-war" people and Republicans in equal measure all to support his dimwitted "heighten the contradictions" strategy. Which thus far has served to heighten the power of the right wing in this country. Nice work Ralph. It's not that he's the only or even the major problem, it's that he's a problem.

[radio4progressives]

52. Bad Work on the Part of the Dems to Demonstrate the Difference

that Nader claimed didn't exist.

but that's stating the obvious, so what exactly is the point of this thread?

exactly what profound words of wisdom are being promulgated here?

[FreedomAngel82]

32. Yep

And now we're all fucked. Thanks for nothing!

[inthebrain]

35. Ralph Nader and the Greens more powerfull than Harris & USSC

That's really what this whole Nader cost Gore crap comes down to. I wonder how party loyalists feel about the fact that may be in the same position they were in 2000?

That can't be very encouraging. Some of the writers to this site even admitted that the Alito vote put the kabash on this party. Screaming at Nader even at this point makes many out to be children. If you want to whip ass on the right, stop pointing fingers at people that have nothing to do with Gore losing an election he won!!!!!!!

Point to your shortcomings and you might turn this thing around in time. With threads hitting the board like the one I've linked below, I doubt you'll circle the wagons in time. Might be worth the effort though.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2443036

Prove to me in the next 9 months that this party is worthy of me voting for it.

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

38. yea can't beat the horse

so hit the saddle...

dems getting a beating of neo-pugs and DLC quislings and beat themselves "down" to the green

which had all the legitimate to have a candidate in the race who in their eyes represented their views.

not just between right-wing and far-right wing (in international comparison)

to hear hear such "with-us-or-against-us" drivel really makes me wonder if there's a difference between the dem and pug voters.

binary politics suck. maybe it's good the stupidass will crush it. the when ya get enough of laborcamp-economy you might want to risk something and install a reasonable democratic (multy-party proportional representation parliamentary)system...

a well time to wake up for lunch...

give your enemy money and you'll have all think he's on your side. Falling for such a cheap trick shame on you...you should test your water on too much lead.

:rant:

[Vidar]

40. One the other hand they led the charge against election fraud--

even before Jesse Jackson & John Conyers became involved.

[MrBenchley]

41. Greens still are full of shit

and as welcome to voters as an onion fart.

[hippiechick]

42. Karl, is that you?

Since the Dems are already fragmented, what better way to complete the self-immolation than to drag up this SIX YEAR OLD BITCHFEST ?? :eyes:


:puke:

[Mark E. Smith]

43. 2 Observations:

1) What is it about the 2000 election that causes equal amounts of umbrage from both the Greens and Republicans? Mentioning the Big Green Lie about Al Gore being similar to George W. Bush and the Greens go nuts. Mention that Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and the Republicans react in the strikingly similar fashion.

2) Far from being "fragmented," the Democrats are organizing in a highly effective way, raising tons of money and winning all the polls in the race for control of Congress. And while I suppose the marginalization and growing irrelevance of the Greens can seem like fragmentation from that vantage point, it remains a perspective shared by very few.

[LoZoccolo]

47. See #4.

And don't forget how much Republican money went to Nader in 2004 if you want to talk about Karl Rove.

[ToeBot]

44. When did Nader ever say "there was no difference between...

George W. Bush and Al Gore"? Never! But it's more fun to push a few buttons than to get your facts straight, isn't it? And by the way, Nader is most certainly correct, there are few major differences for which the Democrats were willing to fight; deal with it! the Green Party exists because the Democrats abandoned their core values so they could suck on the corporate tit.

[Mark E. Smith]

46. The Nation Takes Nader Supporters To Task 10/16/00

Bush or Gore: Does It Matter? The Power of the Presidency

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20001016/ealterman

Your claim that the 2000 Big Green Canard regarding the supposed similarity between Gore and Bush didn't exist is as laughable as it is, er, specious.

You fib like a Republican.

[Greyhound]

49. "but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

Continue to ignore reality at your own (and unfortunately our) peril. The Democratic Party is through unless they return to the only thing that has ever worked for progressives in this country, a real alternative, promoting fundamental change to address the inequities that real people experience every day.

[cleveramerican]

45. most of them knew......

voting for Ralph was pissing into the wind, but they did it anyway.
1. The public just didn't care enough about Gore as a person to fight the outcome in 2k.
2.Kerry came so close,but in the end he was just too stiff and contrived, he didn't appear "likable" enough. Its damn hard to get people to vote for you, just as it should be.

[High Plains]

48. Another pathetic Green-bashing thread...

Perhaps the Democratic Party should concentrate on adapting a decent platform and coming up with winning candidates. Nah, it's all the Greens' fault.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[LittleClarkie]

53. That was kinda random wasn't it?

Or were you just hoping to warm yourself by the light of the flames? Beats rubbing sticks together, I suppose.

[AX10]

55. There is no way in HELL that I would support the Greens after that.

Democrats all the way for me.

[ulysses]

56. I said then and I say now

that the Democratic party has the ability to neutralize, easily and without alienating the blessed center too terribly much, any further third party threat. Some get it - Dean, et al. Some don't - the "leftists have no choice SO OBEY!" crowd.

[Moderator]

57. Locking

Flamebait