Eight More Years? By Ralph Nader

[Echo In Light]

Eight More Years?
by Ralph Nader

For Bill and Hillary Clinton, the ultimate American dream is eight more years. Yet how do you think they would react to having dozens of partisans at their rallies sporting large signs calling for EIGHT MORE YEARS, EIGHT MORE YEARS?

Don’t you have the feeling that they would cringe at such public displays of their fervent ambition which the New York Times described as a “truly two-for-the-price-of-one” presidential race? It might remind voters to remember or examine the real Clinton record in that peaceful decade of missed opportunities and not be swayed by the sugarcoating version that the glib former president emits at many campaign stops.

More:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/26/6641/

[Dogmudgeon]

1. So says Mr. "Anesthetized by Prosperity"

Ralph, We Hardly Knew Ye.

Go back to busting your employees' unions.

--p!

[Echo In Light]

3. I agree w/his idea of mass demonstrations around mass media locations

[Dogmudgeon]

10. That's not a big innovation, though

A couple thoughts:

1. Demonstrations are an old, venerable tactic. BUT ...

2. In a rich media environment, they really need to be used differently to have maximum benefit. A lot of us grew up to rely on the demonstration, but these days, it's much more effective coordinated with online and shareholder activism. Both of these forms of activism are only recently being explored, even though both have been used sporadically for years. It's a whole new world. Simply being HERE is a good start.

2b. A lot of people view demonstrations as a way to recapture the 1960s. We seriously need to move on. Most of the counterculture leaders repeatedly advised us to go beyond the present; Tim Leary said in the 60s that the hippies would be the Establishment after the 1980s. Look at Dennis Hopper. (But not too closely.)

3. Nader has some truly bad "habits" that long predate his 2000 behavior. As an analyst and investigator, he was the best, but his spites have come to rule his good sense.

We now have the ability to cover activism from the inside as well as the outside. In addition, everyone wants to be perceived as cool, most especially the power-seekers. We are now all naked emperors. One bare tush is worth 100 protest signs. That can be exploited with respect to the media.

--p!

[meegbear]

2. Ralph, you're unsafe at any speed

[mth44sc]

4. Lets look at the 8 years

you helped to provide us, Ralph!

[spanone]

5. from the man who helped install the bu$h* disaster

[trumad]

6. Fuck Nader!

[blondeatlast]

7. I pity Mr. Nader.

It gets very cold and lonely waiting four years to pop one's head out of the ground and yell, "LOOK AT ME!"

Funny how the prospect of a Clinton presidency is the only corporatism Ralph worries about. Where's the concern over Romney--directly involved in a najor corporation? Or "Lincoln Savings and Loan and the FIRST subprime loan disaster" McCain?

Once I admired him, now I've nothing but contempt for him. With all that RNC money he accepted, he could have at least gotten a better suit.

Mr. Nader, when you tilt at ALL windmills, not just the ones marked with "D", I might just care. But don't count on it.

[cobalt1999]

14. Why pity him?

He gets a big guaranteed paycheck from the republicans every four years. Not a bad gig for him.

[TheCowsCameHome]

8. Come back when you're 105, Ralph - in 2010

Go away for now - just go the hell away.

[earthside]

9. Pay Attention!

You don't have to like Nader to understand what he is saying in this article -- because if Hillary Clinton(s) is the nominee of the Democratic Party, you're going to be hearing the things he is talking about there over and over and over again.

This is what I am already hearing from my 'non-political' friends over the possibility of a Clinton(s) - McCain fall election contest: total disappointment and disgust that this is all our system can offer.

Will Democrats once again find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

Hate him if you will, but pay attention to the substance of what Nader is trying to tell you.

[DaDooRonRon]

17. The thing that people forget is this

He is completely right. I defy anyone here to point out ONE THING in that article that is incorrect.

They/you can't - but so many folks here have such blind hatred for the man (based on the absurd notion that he himself and all by his lonesome caused the Bush reign) that they are unable to separate the man from the opinion.

That is irrational behavior, and those who continue to profess it do little to advance a progressive cause. Giant "me-toos" are the hallmark of not the intelligent, but of the uninformed.

If Nader or John Smith or John Doe or Mr. X runs for President they will garner votes from people who believe in them. To think that these people will somehow vote for YOUR candidate in the absence of theirs is just not true. Rather than face the facts that your candidate didn't win because he/she didn't appeal to voters who cast their votes elsewhere (discounting the stealing of the election, which of course is what truly happened) you search for a scapegoat, and Mr. Nader will do just fine. At least to you.

Let me ask this: if many DU people here decide that the Democratic candidate this year does not meet their definition of a true progressive candidate (and many here are expressing this view) and they decide to instead cast a vote for someone who they feel truly represents THEM will those of you who now vilify Nader turn your guns on them? Will there be a chorus of "fuck you <DU poster>, you cost us the election!" posts directed at them? Will they be thrown out on the streets because they didn't play by the right set of rules?

In that is indeed the case, then congratulate yourselves, for you truly are your own worst enemy, and you have become the left side version of the intolerant my way or the highway ignoramus that you willingly mock at every opportunity.

[The_Casual_Observer]

11. "common dreams" Those aren't my dreams.

[ordinaryaveragegirl]

12. Nader needs a hobby...

And it's not running for POTUS.

[JerseygirlCT]

13. Go away, Ralph. Just go away. nt

[UTUSN]

15. "always about HIM"!1 HaHAH! NADIR doing ALL for 8 more yrs of RETHUGS!1 n/t

[sellitman]

16. This turd shows up every 4 years to make an ass out of himself.

Where has he been in between?

Ralph....go away. You comments good or bad are now forever tainted.

[Enthusiast]

18. Without Nader............

Without Nader in the year 2000 we don't have the war with Iraq, the faith based blurring of church and state, torture, illegal wire tapping, the privatization of our military, the horrible environmental degradation and countless other issues of real concern. He claims there is no difference between the two major parties, I claim he isn't looking very closely.

[Echo In Light]

29. Plans for Iraq/mid east were established before 2000

[Enthusiast]

63. Echo said:

"Plans for Iraq/mid east were established before 2000"

Riiiight. If Al Gore isn't in the control of the neo-cons it doesn't matter what their plans are. Without the candidacy of Nader there is NO Iraq War. He should get his ego in check.

[focusfan]

65. Back in 1969 with Nixon

[originalpckelly]

31. Without the Democratic Senate (with Hillary) and Tom Daschle, there'd be no war either.

He did co-sponsor the IWR, didn't he? What about the patriot act?

[Echo In Light]

32. I get tired of the "Bush is Nader's fault" bullshit. Easier to scapegoat him than to acknowledge..

The host of variables that led to the Bush/Cheney regime seizing power, and all of those who rolled over on command and allowed for it.

[Enthusiast]

64. Original, you have to be joking,

If Nader doesn't run these votes don't even come up in a Gore presidency.

[Zorra]

19. Ralph, you helped Bu*h destroy our country. Now please shut up and go away

You no longer have credibility as an anti-corporate candidate. You are responsible for the completion of the corporate takeover of America.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Ralph nails it. Thanks for posting.

I notice that all cries are about Ralph rather than the content of what he wrote.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

23. we have heard this song before, when ralph compared gore and bush.

i dont need to hear the same song again to know he is wrong.

the last song gave me a pretty long lasting headache.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. What do you disagree with in what he wrote?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

45. for one, bill clinton isnt running for office.

[earthside]

49. Oh, yes he is. n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

50. no he is not. she is qualified politician in her own rights.

[DaDooRonRon]

27. Agreed

I would credit whoever said this, but I have no idea:

Shooting the messenger only gets blood on the horse.

[originalpckelly]

30. He's right with this, but in general I'd say he's misplaced.

Even a Clinton would be better than a Republican, at least the Clintons have to pretend they agree with us.

[Zorra]

33. I don't trust him. He's smart enough to have easily recognized that Bu*h

was a corporate ass-sucking fascist madman prior to the 2000 election.

Yet he entered the race knowing full well that he could not win, and would probably be responsible for bleeding enough votes away from Al Gore to allow Bu*h to get into the WH.

The man is either an egotistical fool or a fascist in anti-corporatist clothing.

And while I totally get what he says, I question his motivation for saying it.

Ralph is a very wealthy man that has been instrumental in the destruction of our democracy.

Again, I don't trust him.

[originalpckelly]

36. Did you ever think this would happen?

[TahitiNut]

61. Yup. Agreed.

I've seen more rational people in Army basic training yelling "Kill the gooks!" Those so easily indoctrinated in the demonization of others, especially of those who merely exercise their democratic rights would make terrific cannon fodder for the military machine! In my entire USARV HQ company, i never saw anything close to the mindless dehumanization of other human beings as I seen in some DU threads ... even ones regarding the draft or the military. It's amazing. Some of the most reprehensible of human behaviors are mirrored so aptly.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

21. isnt he the one who said gore and bush are practically the same?

he was wrong then he is wrong now.

also he is monumentally stupid.

[DaDooRonRon]

26. Could you do me a favor?

Could you actually show me that quote?

Not a para phase version, not what the blogs said he said, but the actual quote.

I think you will be surprised when you find out exactly what it is.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

39. I recall the exact quote

I disagreed then that Gore and Bush were equally corporate suck-ups and I disagree more vehemently now.

[DaDooRonRon]

40. If you recall it, could you post it please?

The direct quote, if you would.

I don't believe it had any mention of candidates by name.

Thanks.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

47. From the NYT.

''Here in New York State, Gore is going to win in a landslide over Bush,'' Mr. Nader said. ''That gives you a great opportunity to vote for the Nader-LaDuke ticket.'' Winona LaDuke is his running mate.

Speaking at the headquarters of the National Action Network, the organization run by the Rev. Al Sharpton, Mr. Nader appeared to be trying to ensure that the Green Party reached the 5 percent threshold in today's vote, which would qualify his party for federal campaign money in the next presidential election cycle.

Repeating a theme of his campaign, Mr. Nader called Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush Tweedledee and Tweedledum and said the two candidates took identical positions on many issues and were both beholden to the corporations that finance much of their campaigns.

''When it comes to corporate power, the only difference between Gore and Bush is the velocity with which their knees hit the floor when corporations bang on their door,'' he said, in a hall packed with about 300 people, nearly a third of them reporters.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E0DD1039F934A35752C1A9669C8B63

Throughout his campaign Nader drove home the message that a choice between the two of them was really no choice at all. There was no better only degrees of worse. It was his basis for his campaign.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

52. thank you.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

58. You're welcome.

It was easy enough to come up with. After all it was Nader's mantra in 2000.

[DaDooRonRon]

53. You DID read the first portion that you bolded, didn't you?

The part that said "when it comes to corporate power..."

Are you going to suggest that in 2000 Gore (being part of the Clinton team) was NOT joined at the hip to corporate interests? His history as a Senator will prove an interesting starting point, remembering of course that this is Gore c.2000, not the very commendable version of Gore that we see today.

Seeing as since that same quote applies to all candidates on both platforms running in '08 I would argue that Mr. Nader was both prescient and correct.


P.S. While this quote is nice, it is not the "watershed" one that gets everyone so up in arms.

If you could find that one we can dissect it also. :)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

54. "two candidates took identical positions on many issues"

you can dissect this anyway you want to to defend ralph, but he was full of shit then and is full of shit now.

[DaDooRonRon]

60. And you can do the same to defend Gore,

or any politician who you feel was "wronged" in some way other than electoral fraud.

If Clinton runs and is defeated this year, who do you blame?

Nader? Green Party? The man in the moon?

I know I won't vote for her - how about blaming me???

The fault, as always, lies within the candidate, not elsewhere. It is always wise to remember this and work towards bringing forth true progressive folks. Once you do, the need for clean-up candidates like Nader et al. goes away.

To paraphase Smokey - Only YOU can prevent third parties.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

57. I've provided you with a quote where Nader said that and named both Bush and Gore

It was from a mainstream newspaper and not some blog. Nader said it many times many ways, but that specific quote was exactly what you asked to see.

I said in my post where I mentioned Nader's quote how I disagreed then that Gore and Bush were equally corporate suck-ups and I disagree more vehemently now. Which would mean I'm familiar with Nader's quote and his "message" behind his quote. Yet I disagree. It's that simple. If you choose to agree that's your business. I would think the history of Bush's connections, his history as Governor of Texas (which was obscured by such asinine tactics as Nader's) and the more recent history of his past seven years as president should have proven otherwise. Yet some still want to pretend that the line was so grayed between Gore and Bush they couldn't define it and they were more the same than different. I'll never understand that mindset. Really. I never will.

I gave you what you asked for yet you say it's not what you wanted. Perhaps you should provide whatever it was you're referring to?

Personally, I don't know why I bother providing facts in a discussion where they're as welcome as an angry hornet in a changing room full of naked butts.

[DaDooRonRon]

62. The quote I am looking for is the 'no difference between Bush and Gore'

one that people constantly refer to.

With regard to Bush and is Texas days, Nader in no way obscured this information. The media who refused to publish it are at fault, but Nader? I think not - I would actually say he is responsible for helping disseminate said information, not hide it. The problem you have may be that he was an equal opportunity distributor, and that never plays well in Peoria.

I ask that you do some research into Senator Gore's corporate ties, then try and make the argument. The line was never grayed, as you contend, but rather quite bright to those folks who chose to cast their ballots for folks other than the two mainstream candidates.

I still, to this day, find it the height of hypocrisy that the very folks who clamor for democracy and letting all voices be heard now find it part of their job description to decide who can run for President.

Something is definitely wrong here.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

56. .

[WinkyDink]

22. Okay, who moved his rock?

[Phred42]

24. Ralph STOP!

Your ego has fucked us - just stop it!

[originalpckelly]

28. We forget that Monica wasn't the only one gettin' screwed (or cigared) during Clinton's term.

[El Pinko]

34. Saint Ralph, if you want to endorse Obama, do so.

Why do so many people feel the need to tear down one candidate because they prefer another?

It's so annoying!

This guy paints himself as some sort of a progressive savior, but then every damn election cycle he insists on stepping in and being some sort of spoiler to drive voters away from the dems.

He should just endorse Obama then STFU. What is the point of dwelling on Clinton's failure to be perfect in the 90s, when the last 7 years have been unmitigated HELL?

If Hillary gets the nomination, to some degree she will have to run on Bill's record in the 90's.

He most certainly made some bad choices, but overall things were MUCH better than they were now and we shouldn't be characterizing it in any other way.

Christ, Reagan drove the economy into the ground by 1982, crashed the stock market in 87, allowed the S&L debacle to explode, but I don't remember other repug candidates in 1988 assailing Bush on Reagan's mixed record. No wonder people have this "sugar-coated" BS idea of the 80s as some sort of ideal of prosperity - the GOP are UNITED in spinning it as such.

If dems have any damn sense, they will present the 90s in their best light, too, and that includes Obama, because like Clinton, he is a moderate, pro-business dem, so he needs to emphasize how HE will be better able to bring back the prosperity of the 90s than Clinton can.

[Echo In Light]

37. I'm always skeptical of a "STFU" endorsement in an open society

"...this was the most massive anti-democratic campaign to eliminate a third-party candidate from the ballot in—probably in recent American history. It is—not content with having all these laws and statutes on the book that make it difficult for third-party and independent candidates to run, the Democratic Party and their allies in over fifty-three law firms, with over ninety lawyers, were engaged in filing litigation in eighteen states. They were to remove Ralph Nader from the ballot. It was an organized, abusive litigation process."

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/10/31/ralph_nader_files_lawsuit_accusing_democratic

[El Pinko]

38. I'm skeptical of a man who's tried to sabotage every dem candidate since 2000 one way or another

Saint Ralph is free to speak his mind, but why is it that he always seems so much more outraged by democrats than republicans?

[DaDooRonRon]

41. Because he expects more out of them?

As do we all.

[El Pinko]

43. So I guess you're saying he paved the way for "An Inconvenient Truth"?

Because his spoiler role in Florida was enough to put Bush over the top, forcing Gore to "do better" by diving headfirst into environmental activism?


Yeah, having that movie out and a nobel prize medal around Gore's neck REALLY makes the last 7 years of Bush WORTH IT.

:sarcasm:

[DaDooRonRon]

59. Ah, the '"spoiler" canard

It never gets old, does it?

Of course, it isn't true either, but what the heck.

I recall being in D.C. during an anti-war demonstration and having lunch in a local restaurant. While waiting in line I struck up a conversation with two folks with Nader buttons on. To make a long story short (because they DID like to chat) they told me that under NO circumstances would they have even VOTED had it not been for Nader on the ballot. I asked if this was a common "theme" among Nader voters, and they told me indeed it was. So even though this story is purely anecdotal in nature, it does strengthen my beliefs that in NO WAY were Nader voters "stolen" Democrats.

They were NEVER Democrats. That is what folks conveniently forget.

[snooper2]

35. Hey Nader, the Primary isn't over

ass

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. Hey Ralph; You Ignorant, Egomaniacal, Selfish, Deceitful Piece Of Fucking Shit, Go Fuck Yourself.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

48. Couldn't have said it better myself

:thumbsup:

[blondeatlast]

51. What OMC said. nt

[spanone]

44. what nader fails to observe is that bill clinton is not running for president

[blondeatlast]

46. Doesn't the "progressive" wing of the "progressive" movement have ANY other spokesperson?

One that hasn't busted a union? Taken money from the RNC?

Can you please offer me a voice I can BELIEVE in? I'm not happy with the direction the Democratic Party has taken, but I need to stop the blood loss before I can hope for a healthy nation.

Nader just loves to hear and see himself. Let's hear from someone who believes in someone other than him/herself.

[Marr]

55. Is Ralph Nader going to be the "moderate"s' excuse again?

C'mon now-- that was BS last time around and I think you all know it. The last time a third party candidate ended up deciding an election was when Ross Perot's spoiler candidacy made it possible for a DLC Democrat to actually get elected.

[GOPBasher]

66. I agree with a lot of what he says, but that wasn't a fair assessment of Clinton's presidency.

Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate, which put us on sound fiscal footing, balancing the budget; it would have helped us, barring the Bush presidency, pay down the debt and secure at least SS, if not both SS and medicare. He also tried to get a universal health care bill passed; it's not his fault if Congress didn't pass it. And he took on a hostile, Republican Congress and the foundation of the New Deal and Great Society legacies -- SS, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, consumer and environmental laws -- remained in tact.

On edit: Having said all that, I'm not supporting Hillary in the primaries. I was an Edwards guy and now I'm going with Obama. But I think Hillary would be pretty good, too.