"There is no difference between Al Gore and George Bush"

[NJmaverick]

those were the fateful words of liberal icon Ralph Nader. That was his counter argument to those that said his candidacy was harmful to Al Gore's election hopes and that he was helping George Bush win the election.

I am reminded of those words when I hear many of my fellow liberals/progressives tell me that there is no danger or consequences in joining with the teabaggers to pile on the Democratic President and Congress.

Just as on DU I heard Ralph argue that it was Al Gore's and the Dem's fault that he was running. Unfortunately that finger pointing by Ralph was small solace to the people (and the families of those people) killed in 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan.

[FreakinDJ]

1. What ever you been smoking - you need to share

[Kber]

2. You make some very good points

That's not to say that I won't voice my disagreements or disappointments, but I there is a difference between the Democrats and the Reublicans and I'm not in the mood to cut off my nose to spite my face right now.

[PhilosopherKing]

3. Good point.

I think we need a little bit more patience with Obama and the Democrats. I'm not saying we should hold their feet to the fire, but we should keep a little perspective from time to time.

[ShortnFiery]

How much more must we endure: Continue Patriot Act Provision; No closure of GITMO;

Continued Wars on TWO FRONTS; continued extraordinary renditions; reversing his promise to release the torture pictures; record high unemployment; continued Bush Tax cuts that you damn well bet will NOT be made to expire. That's the next shoe to drop.

How much more patience should we practice for one each, Master of Hope, President Obama? :(

[bluestateguy]

4. Gore opposed the Iraq War before it started

If that's not a pretty big difference between candidates I don't know what is.

[geckosfeet]

12. The war was just a twitch in rove/chainy/shrubs pants when Nader uttered those words.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

141. Bush said he would appoint S.C. Justices "just like Scalia."

Thanks to the obstructive efforts of the GOP congress (who had to know a Republican would be appointed to the White House to follow Clinton) Bush had the opportunity to appoint 100 federal district and, more importantly, appeals court judges. Bush's selections were nearly all members of the Federalist Society. He also blew off any consideration of the ABA recommendations which had long been part of the confirmation process.

During the debates Bush also said he would use the military "to preserve our national interests," which is different than "protect and defend the U.S. Constitution." Our "national interests" as far as Republicans are concerned are corporate assets located around the world.

There were issues at stake in the 2000 election which are going to have a much longer impact than two wars of choice. Anyone who paid attention to how Bush became the GOP nominee and what he did (and more importantly, didn't) say during the campaign could tell that his presidency would not be a conservative one. It would be a radical one which would attempt (and thanks to 9-11 has succeeded) in destroying the foundations of our nation and replacing them with the corporate state in which we live.

I don't blame Nader for Bush's presidency. It was preordained before he even threw his ersatz Texas hat in the ring that Bush would be president. The Supreme Court was the last of a series of firewalls to ensure his coronation. Nader's candidacy was just another firewall -- that's why the GOP gave so much to his campaign.

In the end the American people made our choice, either by our votes or our timid acceptance of a bloodless coup.

[SPedigrees]

5. Well that's Nader for you. He is what he is:

a teabagger at heart and the reason we were stuck with Bush.

He seems compelled to spout this drivel. I try to ignore him and hope that he remains marginalized.

[sandnsea]

6. Some people just never learn

And they've been ready to pounce since the day he took office. It's fine to have a difference of opinion and be further left than the President. It's downright stupid to think it's going to help anything to bash the shit out of him and not vote for him, especially when you can't even gather enough people to make a credible second party when the Republicans are in a shambles.

[tekisui]

7. What are you trying to achieve?

I don't see you promoting any agenda other than lockstep marching. Is that your sole motivation? Do you have any original thought or an issue that you can access independent of the party line?

[NJmaverick]

11. I am hoping to convince my fellow liberals not to repeat past mistakes

It's pretty important, in my opinion, to keep the evil/crazy people like that crazy woman from Alaska away from the seats of power.

[IndianaGreen]

61. The only past mistake I see liberals made was in voting for Blue Dogs

and in going along with the Vichy Democrats.

[onenote]

90. because having republicans in those seats would be sooo much better right?

Exactly how would things be better if liberals in conservative/moderate states/districts had not cast their vote for the Democratic candidate and the republican on the ballot had won?

[IndianaGreen]

101. From a LGBT point of view, there is no difference between Lugar and Bayh

From a viable public option point of view, there is no difference between Lugar and Bayh.

We should only vote for those candidates that will fight for the working class, and only the working class. If there are no such candidates for a particular office, we just won't cast a vote for that office. Withholding votes from both the most evil and the lesser evil will, in time, get rid of evil.

[onenote]

104. withholding votes from the lesser evil means the more evil wins

[IndianaGreen]

118. No, it means no more Blue Dogs blocking progressive legislation

The only good Blue Dog is the one euthanized!

[dionysus]

146. no it won't, it means the seat stays red eternally.

just as olympia snow couldn't win as a republican in the south, a feingold\kennedy type dem couln't win in a blue-dog\red state.

until you can educate the voters in those places to stop voting against their own best interests, that won't change.

[Raineyb]

105. You're not a liberal you're a DLC corporate whore with no principles

who only posts to stomp on those who aren't in lockstep with you.

It's important that we make sure everyone sees you for the small person that you are.

[johnaries]

114. And this post indicates that you are also advocating "lockstep"

actions. You just wanteveryone to march in lockstep with your opinions.

[Raineyb]

145. Bullshit. I'm treating the whore with the same respect he treats people who don't agree with him.

Turnabout being fair play and all. I'm not posting OP after OP telling people to get in line or stfu. Although I will freely admit that I wish the whore would stfu as he's annoying and brings nothing of interest or intelligence to the conversation.

And he has no right to declare people aren't "true anything" the way he has. He's the one out of line here. I see no reason why I shouldn't point out his lack of principles. He said that the party is entitled to votes as opposed to having to earn them. THAT right there means NO PRINCIPLES. I don't care that he doesn't agree with me but I don't respect anyone who doesn't have principles and he's already demonstrated that he has none.

[NJmaverick]

26. I have a question for you, now that I answered yours

what are you hoping to achieve with your support of and encouragement of the destructive bashing of the Democratic party and its president?

[tekisui]

29. I am criticizing stupid decisions.

Mainly the Afghanistan escalation. I am against, it is wrong and is going to hurt the Dems and Obama. I don't seek the destruction of the Democratic Party. Quite the opposite, I want to see it strengthened. Giving them a blank check of support is the worst thing we can do.

[NJmaverick]

35. Well stupid is just your opinion that is unsupported by fact or reason

still feel free to keep it up, it's only our nation's future at stake (nothing really important).

[tekisui]

57. HA! I wish I had as much power as you think I do.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[HamdenRice]

107. I usually respect your posts, but this is the dumbest thing you've ever written

NJMaverick supporting lock step marching?

Do you think everyone who disagrees with you and has fact based reasons to be thrilled with the most liberal administration in our lifetimes is engaged in "lockstep marching."

Dag, I used to think you had some intellectual consistency, but not any more.

[Raineyb]

147. Have you seen what he's been posting? Every post has been either name calling,

or telling people that they're the equivalent of tea-baggers and blaming them for any potential losses in 2010 because God forbid the party should take responsibility for not holding on to its coalition. Your friend there is under the impression that the party is entitled to a vote whether they do the right thing or not.

He's done NOTHING but demand lock step marching. You should check out the other droppings that NJMaverick passes as thought before sticking up for him.

[SpiralHawk]

8. Al Gore never went AWOL

And never told a pack of lies about WMD

just to get started.

[Umbral]

9. Evoking 'The Nader'...

Deflection isn't much of a counter argument.

[NJmaverick]

14. Learning from one's mistakes is not "deflection" it's known as wisdom or just plain smart

[IndianaGreen]

10. Actually Nader made that point about the 2-major parties

he referred to them as two wings of the same bird of prey. Nader is still correct about that! Haven't you noticed how the Democrats have fucked you in the ass when it came to universal health care, or where you so distracted by the Party of No that you didn't feel the daggers the Dems stuck on your back?

[NJmaverick]

13. If you still think that things would have played out the same way under Bush

there is no point in trying to reason with you.

[IndianaGreen]

19. They are both bad! And things will never change until you get politicians that represent you

and not the corporations.

We (the American people) need to stop supporting the 2-major parties if we want change, and stop this insanity of replacing one party for the other when we are dissatisfied. We should stop giving money to the 2-major parties, instead we should give our money and our limited time to individual candidates that truly represent our views regardless of their chances of winning the election. There is no rule that says we have to vote for every office on the ballot, we must vote for only those candidates we know about.

Ideally, we should have a political party that represents the interests of the working class, and only the interests of the working class. That eliminates the 2-major political parties for they only represent the interests of two factions of the capitalist ruling class.

[NJmaverick]

25. You need to stop petting that doggie with the foamy mouth

In case you miss the reference it's related to the old saying- If a dog bites you once shame on the dog. If a dog bites you twice shame on you.


Not only are you letting the dog bite you again you are rubbing meat tenderizer on your arm before petting the angry barking dog with the foamy mouth.

[Warren Stupidity]

59. Yeah Right On Bro!

If McCain/Palin had won we would still be stuck in Iraq, escalating Afghanistan, pandering economic policy to the benefit of global elites, and no nearer to real universal health care than we were in 1968.

If you cannot understand that Nader's analysis is largely correct, if you insist that we progressives have no point, then you are not interested in discussion or dialog. Nader's prescription for action, a third party effort, remains wrong because of the de facto institutionalized two party system. However, I am not so sure that its wrongness is permanent. If we cannot pry the Democratic Party from its kleptocratic masters, then what exactly is the point of continuing to work within that party?

It isn't about cheerleading our side, it isn't about which side of the duopoly won, it is about effective and meaningful progressive reform. We aren't getting that. We are getting a 3 degree left tilt on the same old shit, and that after a 30 degree tilt towards outright authoritarian rightwing rule. We are losing ground and have been for the last 40 years. Perhaps a different approach is called for?

[IndianaGreen]

62. we would still be stuck in Iraq, escalating Afghanistan...

If McCain/Palin had won we would still be stuck in Iraq, escalating Afghanistan, pandering economic policy to the benefit of global elites, and no nearer to real universal health care than we were in 1968.

K&R!!!!!!! Right on target!

:kick:

[Yavin4]

63. That's A Gross Generalization About The Dems

There are some really great Dem senators and congressmen. Throwing them all out with the bad ones is what Nader preaches.

[treestar]

78. If in power, the repukes would have done nothing about health care

Nothing at all.

It's one thing not to like the health care bill, but to say the repukes would have the same situation? Nuts. The repukes would be doing nothing at all. Nothing. They say what we have now is the "greatest system in the world."

So they would have done nothing.

We'd be sending troops into Georgia and bombing Iran. Then you'd have had a lot more to complain about.

[Hippo_Tron]

81. Sotomayor vs Roberts and Alito and a competent response to hurricanes are difference enough for me

And that's assuming Nader is right that otherwise there are no other major differences between the two parties, which he isn't.

[HopeOverFear]

15. I'm beginning to think they deserve Palin

[Better Believe It]

16. There is a huge difference between Joseph Leiberman and Richard Cheney!

Can you furnish a credible link for your alleged Ralph Nader quote?

[NJmaverick]

23. Here

http://www.villagevoice.com/2004-04-27/news/ralph-nader-suicide-bomber/1

[Better Believe It]

43. That's not a link to your alleged Nader quote. Can't you find a link?

You link to a swiftboat type character assassination attack against Nader but that's not the same thing as a link to an alleged Nader quote.

[NJmaverick]

44. The Villiage Voice is out to get Nader?!?!

:tinfoilhat:

[Better Believe It]

74. No. Just that writer. Still can't find a link to your alleged Ralph Nader quote .....

or are you in the habit of making things up against liberals .... please stop imitating the swiftboaters methods. Liberals and progressives shouldn't engage in those sort of character assassination attacks. Leave that up to conservative
corporate whores in the Democratic Party.

[Zynx]

77. Just because he didn't explicitly say "Bush=Gore" doesn't mean that wasn't the implication.

His supporters, who are either deluded or just intentionally difficult people, really split hairs. The simple fact is that he said that there would be no material difference between a Gore administration and a Bush administration.

[dgibby]

17. I am reminded of those words when I hear many of my fellow liberals/progressives tell me that there

Quite possibly one of the most offensive statements ever posted on DU. In fact, it's second only to this one:

"Just as on DU I heard Ralph argue that it was Al Gore's and the Dem's fault that he was running. Unfortunately that finger pointing by Ralph was small solace to the people (and the families of those people) killed in 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan."

There is NOTHING liberal or progressive in equating dissent on DU with teabaggers, and there is NOTHING DEMOCRATIC in trying to stifle that dissent in such an odious manner. To equate dissent on this board to the cause of 9/11 and it's aftermath is mind numbingly offensive, and imo, I believe you owe DUer's an apology.

[NJmaverick]

20. You can play the "oh I am offended" game, but why not address the REAL issues?

You're sense of outrage doesn't change the serious issues that are being discussed and certainly shouldn't take front and center stage.

[dgibby]

27. I'm NOT playing.

I AM offended, and I did address the REAL issue of your post, which I find beyond offensive. You can discount me all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that your post is appalling.

Of course, I wholeheartedly support your right to express your opinion, no matter how much it disgusts me, but then, I'm a liberal, not a lemming, and, unlike some here who brook no deviation from the party line, we encourage dissent.

[NJmaverick]

31. Two posts and not a single mention of the issue at hand

do you work as a magician because you seem to be a misdirection

[dgibby]

45. Your less than artful attempt to smear those with whom you disagree is the issue at hand..

Deal with it.

Your inability to debate an issue without demeaning those who voice disagreement with your point of view is quite obivious. The evidence speaks for itself.

If you expect an intelligent discussion on your op, then frame your assertions in a less offensive manner.

[NJmaverick]

48. That's 3 posts and no mention of the issues

That is sort of how we ended up attacking Iraq. The war supporters would never address the war, rather they simple attacked (like you are doing) the people that opposed it.

[dgibby]

58. I'm attacking? That's rich.

Did you even bother to read your own op? I object to your assertions about some of your fellow DUer's, and you're accusing me of attacking you? Unbelievable!

Considering your inability to deal with a difference of opinion, perhaps you've missed your true calling. Instead of posting on a DISCUSSION board, you'd be better suited as a lecturer. That way, you could expound your opinions without having to deal with those pesky dissenters.

On edit: Just so you understand what "attacking" really means, I offer as evidence every arrogant, condescending, offensive, nasty response you've made to the people on this thread who've disagreed with you. And you wonder why I'm not addressing the "issue". I reiterate, YOUR ATTITUDE toward, and OFFENSIVE PROTRAIL of others on DU IS the issue.

[NJmaverick]

67. 4 posts and not a single mention of the topic at hand

oh and passive aggressive attacks are still attacks even if you attempt to disguise them.

[Better Believe It]

21. So the 3 million people who voted for Nader are responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attack.

And George W. Bush isn't!!???

[NJmaverick]

24. If those 3 million had voted for Gore, would those things have happened?

when you give matches to a toddler is the resulting fire the toddler's fault?

[IndianaGreen]

33. The 9-11 attack would have occurred under President Gore

and he would have been impeached by the GOP Congress, and we would have President Joe Lieberman!

While it is true that Gore would have reacted to the May briefing regarding bin Laden's plans to attack America, it would not have stopped the plot itself. The lax security measures at Boston Logan airport would still be in place on 9-11.

Gore would still have Louis Freeh as FBI Director, an Opus Dei operative appointed by President Clinton. Freeh's FBI totally missed the ball with WTC bomber Ramzi Yousef (nephew of 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed). Hundreds of documents remain untranslated from the Arabic, documents that showed that Al-Qaeda was considering crashing passenger jetliners into national landmarks.

[NJmaverick]

37. Gore had been a major player in pushing for better Airline security

A push that Bush quickly dropped. So what are you basing your claims on???

[IndianaGreen]

46. It wouldn't have made a difference at Logan airport on November 11, 2001

The plot was too far advanced, and the FBI in Washington had already ignored earlier warnings from their field agents about suspicious flight school students.

[NJmaverick]

50. Wrong, the weak security allowed the airline to be hijacked

had Gore won that wouldn't have existed. The plot NEEDED weak security to work, so it doesn't matter how far along it was.

[IndianaGreen]

53. It wouldn't have made a difference!

Even if Gore had ordered a national alert in May, by September everyone's guard would have been back to what it was before. We saw that normal human reaction at play after people got worn down by Bush's many color coded alerts.

[treestar]

80. gore would not have had such a hands off view toward the government

And even had 911 occurred, Gore would not have used it the way the repukes did.

I appreciate that you are not a Democrat. But presumably you belong to a third party that has no chance of winning the Presidency and to fail to realize that the Democrats are closer to your ideals than the Republicans is just insane.

[Moochy]

100. Ridiculous

back to ignore with your dishonest shit.

[Kaleva]

142. More Democrats voted for Bush then for Nader.

If just 1/2% of Democrats in Florida who voted for Bush had voted for Gore instead, Gore would have won the election.

[dgibby]

65. Well, according to the OP,

I'm surprised they haven't all been rounded up and sent to GITMO with all the other 9/11 terrorists.:sarcasm:

[Captain Hilts]

111. No, Osama bin Laden is responsible. nt

[jefferson_dem]

18. The very same assholes are here now, saying there's no difference between Obama and Boosh.

Fuckem.

[IndianaGreen]

22. Obama has taken ownership of Bush's war in Afghanistan

the anti-abortion right Stupak amendment is now part of Obama's health care "reform," Obama is still defending DOMA in the courts, and nothing has been done about DADT.

Will you care to tell me what is the difference between Obama and Bush on the aforementioned issues, other than Bush being incoherent and Obama being a smooth talker?

BTW, Obama is keeping PATRIOT, a law the Left has opposed since day one.

[jefferson_dem]

28. Sure.

Stupak is not in the current Senate version of "Obama's" health care reform bill. The language will be stripped or wattered down in the final version...of a REFORM bill that would have never happened under Boosh or McCain.

Obama has pledged to repeal DADT. It will happen in his first term...hopefully in 2010. The one area I'm most disappointed in his progress is regarding DOMA. Nonetheless, we will see FAR MORE legal/legislative action there than we would under any Repug.

"Smooth talker"... Wow. I haven't heard that one since the primaries. True colors coming out I see...

[IndianaGreen]

30. The people in Gaza see no difference between Obama and Bush

as a matter of fact, Obama is being played the fool by Israel's Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. The entire world has seen Obama say one thing on the Middle East only to bend over to the Israelis as his predecessors have done. There in NO CHANGE in the Middle East!

[jefferson_dem]

38. "as a matter of fact"?

Really? Do you have a link to those facts?

Two things:

1 - Obama is the most admired political figure on the global stage.
2 - Boosh was one of the most despised.

[NJmaverick]

41. It would seem the poster believes his OPINIONS are FACTS

[NJmaverick]

40. How many people in Gaza do you speak to? How do you back up your claims?

[IndianaGreen]

49. You are welcome to come down the I/P forum and see for yourself

Google Haaretz and Ynet for two difference views of the same thing, neither of which contradict what I posted.

[NJmaverick]

52. So your answer is- NONE You were simply making things up

[IndianaGreen]

54. Per DU rules, I cannot post links related to I/P conflict upstairs

Take the time and effort to go to I/P forum.

A word of warning: Do not post anything stupid or ignorant down there, you will get your ass torn apart by all sides.

[ShortnFiery]

47. Further, on the world stage and as THRILLED that the USA has a highly intelligent and

surfacely magnanimous President, Obama's reputation is suffering due to his "warmongering" capitulation to every damn thing the Pentagon wants. There's NO moral courage to his pragmatism, when in the end the Generals get the vast majority of what they have requested.

And all it is going to take is some half-baked "exit strategy" for us DOCILE American people to throw another TRILLION of our tax dollars to the death and destruction machine that is the USA's Military Industrial Complex (MIC).

Heck, we've already written off the youth who will be killed and Maimed. As President Obama gives another rhetorically genius speech, we'll all gaze upon the bright, young and hopeful faces of the Cadets, the future Army Officer Corps. Oh how could we let them down? I'll tell you how - by sending them to Afghanistan based upon Mission Creep LIES - to KILL and DIE - all with the ONLY REAL OBJECTIVE that is to feed the contractor beasties that comprise the MIC.

[IndianaGreen]

51. Like Bush, Obama is using our troops as backdrops for his imperialist speeches

Using West Point cadets as a backdrop to continue the reckless war in Afghanistan more than matches Bushes many warmongering speeches.

[NJmaverick]

39. 40,000 people a year die from lack of healthcare

and you are suggesting Obama should push that aside to deal with the issues you like first????? What do we tell the next 40,000 that die?

[IndianaGreen]

56. And 12 to 24 million Americans will remain without health care under Obama's 'reform'

or haven't you figured out the numbers behind those percentages in the CBO analysis of the different bills.

Medicare for All (Single Payer HR676) would have covered 100% of population, and the bill is only 30-pages long.

[NJmaverick]

71. You didn't answer the question, which I am sure wasn't an oversight

[Baltoman991]

66. Wanna know the

difference? Probably not but I'll speak my mind anyway.

Bush had 8 years to mess things up. Obama has had 10 months to try and fix things. DADT will be handled or did you miss Barney Franks statement on the issue?

Stupaks amendment is NOT part of the final health care reform as much as you'd like to think the House version is the final version.

Obama did inherit Afghanistan and is doing exactly what he said he'd do with that issue even though you obviously didn't listen to him when he said he'd do so.

You can sit all you want comparing Obama to Bush but real people in the real world know it's BS.

BTW, many Democrats like certain aspects of the Patriot act. And those they don't like they're working to change.

So continue with your smears of Obama being like Bush. Those of us paying attention know otherwise.

[Zynx]

76. You are cherrypicking and also misrepresenting.

However, when you pick only issues where there appears to be a continuation of course you can be an idiot and say, "What's the difference?"

Let's go with a big one here. On the stimulus bill, the Republicans' response would have been $500 billion in tax cuts for the rich and no spending. What we did was tax cuts for everyone, aid to local governments, infrastructure, investments in health care and education, housing aid, investments in research through the NIH and NSF, etc. That was an $800 billion three year spending program. Bitch all you want about it not being big enough or well structured enough, but to say that it was a Republican bill is bullshit and you know it.

[ShortnFiery]

32. When it comes to extraordinary renditions, no there's not much difference of attitutde.

According to Clinton administration official Richard Clarke:
“ 'extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment of the host government.... The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: "Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass<.'"[24>/b]

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

[IndianaGreen]

34. Bill Clinton began renditions, and kept torture school open at Fort Benning

plus he gave us the genocidal Plan Colombia.

[ShortnFiery]

42. And Gore supported him ALL THE WAY! Not much difference there - need I mention "Joe Lieberman"

as Gore's VP running mate in 2000? :puke:

[HamdenRice]

108. Only if you don't know anything about renditions could you write this

It's been debunked so many times, that there is no point providing you with facts, because it won't get through the fact-resistant helmet you are wearing.

[2tr4nqued]

36. Gore's VP pick was Lieberman. Lieberman!!! n/t

[Yavin4]

64. If Lieberman Was The VP, He'd Be Harmless

That's actually the best place for Joe.

[Better Believe It]

73. Unless Leiberman became President if Gore died in office. Ever think about that?

And I assume that would not have been from natural causes.

[treestar]

79. Would that have been worse than Cheney as President?

Or Palin? Or whatever horrible demon they come up with for 2012?

Even Lieberman is better than those 3.

[LoZoccolo]

55. Recommended. n/t

[BeyondGeography]

60. Yes, we have our own form of teh stupid: it's teh self-destructive

[ClarkUSA]

68. Haters on both fringes haven't got a clue. They're running on rhetorical fumes...

... because that's all they've got, since the facts are not on their side(s). The rest of us get it and are not dissuaded by the
bitter 9% of self-identified liberals who "strongly disapprove" aka. hate Pres. Obama as much as any freeper.

[dgibby]

69. So you want to discuss the issues?

Try explaining your rationale for posting this:

I am reminded of those words when I hear many of my fellow liberals/progressives tell me that there is no danger or consequences in joining with the teabaggers to pile on the Democratic President and Congress.

Just as on DU I heard Ralph argue that it was Al Gore's and the Dem's fault that he was running. Unfortunately that finger pointing by Ralph was small solace to the people (and the families of those people) killed in 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan.

This IS the issue: you are accusing those of us who express a difference of opinion with you and the POTUS of "joining the teabaggers" and being somehow responsible for the next 9/11 attack.

When you're ready to admit those are the "issues" with which you're so obsessed, get back to me. The problem you're having with the "issues" is that you're not ready to defend your op. NOT MY PROBLEM.

BTW, I am anything but passive. I have been very direct in my responses to what you wrote, while at the same time, following the DU rules. Speaking of the DU rules, perhaps it's time you took a refresher course. Demeaning other DUer's, is, I believe, not acceptable.

[NJmaverick]

70. Yes I would like to discuss the issue and not rationale

perhaps you can explain why this is comparison fails. Oh wait, you would rather attack me because my comparison, while not what you wanted to hear, was dead on accurate.

[depakid]

72. Get this- progressive will stay home in 2010- and all of your admonishments will make no difference

None whatsoever.

Keep pandering to the right, selling out the base to the banksters insurers and whatever other Republican interest comes along a you WILL be equated with them and you WILL lose,

And you WILL deserve it.

The consequences of repeated failure to learn and stand up and fight for traditional Democratic values.

[saltpoint]

75. It seems to me that there is in fact a difference, that the difference is

considerable, and Nader's arrogant conceit to the contrary is one among many reasons why he has never had and will never ever have electoral traction in the United States.

[NJmaverick]

82. The ONLY difference is one position has been proven wrong while one is will be proven wrong

[saltpoint]

83. Nonsense. Anyone who is unable to make elemental distinctions

between Al Gore and George W. Bush is a fool.

[NJmaverick]

84. Many believed and acted as though there was no difference

that is how Bush got close enough to steal the 2000 election. Now we have history repeating itself with many believing their destructive behavior is not helping the GOP regain power.

[saltpoint]

86. Gore's campaign made a series of strategic mistakes. In my opinion

his short-list ought to have stopped at John Kerry's name; instead it went ahead to Joe Lieberman's name, and it still did not win him Florida; that is, he likely did win Florida, but Lieberman may not have been the circuit-breaker in Palm Beach and Broward Counties, putting Dubya in position to steal the show.

Not least, Gore conceded Ohio to Bush. The Gore campaign pulled out of Ohio when its internal polling suggested Ohio was lost, but Gore only lost Ohio by 3.-something percent, which means it would have been winnable had they pressed harder. Gore was drawing the same demographic in NE Ohio as Carter did against Ford but he gave up, panicked that resources, staff, and money should be better spent elsewhere, and in effect gave Ohio to Bush.

There is also the matter of carrying one's own state in a general election. If there are not enough sane and stable voters in Tennessee to affirm Al Gore as presidential material, then he faced parallel difficulties elsewhere, which he did, which narrowed the election totals.

The disturbing undercurrent of the 2000 election was not, IMO, that Bush likely cheated to win, but that virtually any adult thought he was a self-realized man. They can be excused through the first debate, but after that exhibition of stupidity and cluelessness on the part of Bush, their votes in his favor are unpardonable.

[NJmaverick]

88. Gore won the popular vote and had Nader not run most of those 3 million votes

would have made it impossible to steal the election. What you list is immaterial

[saltpoint]

89. I can fault Ralph Nader for any number of things but he has every

Constitutional right to run for public office as you and I do.

Gore giving Bush Ohio is immaterial? I don't think so. Ohio should have been a priority for the Gore campaign and deserved a full-court press. Its electoral votes would have literally won Al Gore the White House.

[NJmaverick]

91. Having the right to do something

doesn't make it morally or ethically correct. Rights do not negate responsibility for the consequences of one's actions.

[saltpoint]

92. Whose actions, though, begat what consequence?

I wanted Gore to fight in every state, especially in places where he had half a chance or better.

He abandoned the fight in Ohio and handed it to Bush.

And there is nothing ethically incorrect about third-party candidates apart from many of them annoying the hell out of me personally.

[NJmaverick]

93. I am talking about the consequences of Nader's and his voter's actions

which resulted in George Bush being President. One could also point to the people who voted to George Bush, but other than learning that they have very poor judgment most of them are beyond hope. The Nader voters on the other hand, should have known better.

[saltpoint]

94. Well, you know, democracy's a bitch. If you give people ballot access

and they're reasonably adept at raising money and support, they can run for office.

Folks can vote for them.

I'm one of the most fierce anti-Ralph Nader posters on this site but I would not argue that he did not have a right to run in a Constitutional democracy.

[NJmaverick]

95. I am not sure what your point is? I didn't say he didn't have a right to run

however I did point out that his erroneous claim that there was no difference between Bush and Gore is very similar to the claims being made now by that piling on the Dems isn't harmful. In both cases the people have the right to take the action. In both cases exercising those rights have and will result in serious consequences.

[saltpoint]

96. It looks as if we agree, NJmaverick. I wish I knew why politics is the

way it is.

But I definitely don't.

[WI_DEM]

85. You hear it today by some DUers re: Obama and W.

[NJmaverick]

97. Yup, those that fail to learn from history's mistakes.....

[Better Believe It]

98. Still can't find a link to your alleged quote of Ralph Nader?

You quoted Ralph Nader as saying ""There is no difference between Al Gore and George Bush"

If you just made up that quote and can't find a credible link you owe everyone an apology on Democratic Undergrand.

We don't like people who describe themselves as liberals or progressives making up bull shit quotes and than posting them as factual.

That's the kind of behavior one would expect from teabaggers, swift boaters and other right-wingers.

So please don't imitate their methods on DU.

OK?

[NJmaverick]

99. I gave you the link and you didn't like what you saw

You have a position that will not be swayed by fact

[Better Believe It]

102. The link did not include your alleged Nader quote. Still can't find a link to that quote?

Please don't make up any more bogus quotes.

We don't like that on DU.

[ClarkUSA]

103. I remember Nader saying that on TV more than once. And his nutty followers said it ad nauseum, too.

You're one to talk about being "bogus":

"Better Believe It (1000+ posts) Thu Nov-26-09 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #76
79. 16 years is way too long to be in Afghanistan. Bring our troops home now!"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=19251&mesg_id=19925

I'm still waiting for the factual basis of this "16 years" claim of yours. :eyes:

Please don't make up bogus claims.
We don't like that DU.

:rofl:

[NJmaverick]

106. Are we all liars? Not only did I hear him say it multiple times other DUers have as well

Sadly you are GUILTY of not only false accusations but slander.

[Better Believe It]

115. He never said that. So stop making up bogus quotes.

We don't like that sort of thing on Democratic Underground. If you can't back up a claim with facts, don't make it!

What if I claimed Ralph Nader said in 2000: "Joseph Leiberman and Al Gore are tremendous liberal anti-war candidates unlike Bush and Cheney and I hope they win the election".

Do you think DU'ers would demand proof to back up that claim?

Of course DU'ers would and should demand and expect that.

And as a Nader hater you expect us to just take your word for it?

Sorry.

Until you can back up your claims with hard facts I'll remain skeptical.

[NJmaverick]

116. You can't rewrite history

it only will result in YOU making the same mistakes over and over again, just like the republicans (who also try to rewrite history).

[ClarkUSA]

119. You're wrong. I remember many TV interviews and press availabilities where he said it.

And you're one to preach about "bogus" claims, considering you told a whopper yesterday about the Afghanistan war lasting 16 years.

:eyes:

[Cha]

127. Yes, he did so quit saying it's bogus..the only thing that's bogus is

nader.

"During the 2000 United States presidential election, candidate Ralph Nader pointed out that George W. Bush and Al Gore were not very different in their corporate policies,<8> and called them Tweedledum and Tweedledee.<9>"

http://www.answers.com/topic/tweedledum-and-tweedledee

"During the 2000 United States presidential election, candidate Ralph Nader pointed out that George W. Bush and Al Gore were not very different in their corporate policies,<8> and called them Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

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

"tweedledum and tweedledee definition tweedle·dum· and tweedle·dee (twēd′'l dum′ ən twēd′'l dē′

1.two persons or things so much alike as to be almost indistinguishable
2.two almost identical brothers in Through the Looking Glass.."

http://www.yourdictionary.com/tweedledum-and-tweedledee

And, now nader is the weasel.

[ClarkUSA]

130. Excellent proof of what the OP said. Thank you for your research.

:)

[Cha]

135. ..

I knew he said it a lot..I just had to use the proper passwords for it to come up.

Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

Those of us who were there will never forget that wannabee flippantly barking out those words.

[ipaint]

109. There isn't one.

"Nader denied saying that, which immediately raised our interest here at PolitiFact. We could've sworn we remembered Nader repeatedly saying there was no difference between the two. In fact, we thought it was a central theme of his 2000 campaign.

Here's the full exchange, from the June 18 broadcast of Democracy Now!:

Goodman: "Ralph Nader, you said in 2000 it doesn't really matter whether Gore or Bush is president. Do you feel that way today?"

Nader: "I didn't say that. I said the similarities between Bush and Gore tower over the dwindling real differences that they're willing to argue over."

We scoured hundreds of news reports from 2000 looking for an instance of Nader saying Gore and Bush were the same, or that it didn't matter which was elected, or any equivalent phrase.

We didn't find those words, but we did find many instances of supporters, opponents, reporters and commentators characterizing Nader's position in those terms."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/30/ralph-nader/nader-almost-said-gore-bush-but-not-quite/

Everyone, friend and foe, said he said it. And he did say there were no differences in particular instances such as willingness to bow to corporations and staffing consumer protection/gov. agencies, etc.

That all did turn out to be true.

We were already bombing the crap out of iraq and killing millions of innocent civilians with sanctions when clinton was in office so I don't know how anyone can conclude we would not ever have ended up there officially for some made up reason under gore.

[NJmaverick]

117. Yes your posts supports the assertion that he did say there was no difference

that Nader was being dishonest in trying to now say he didn't say it.

[ipaint]

120. I expect to you it would. nt

[NJmaverick]

122. Thank you and anyone that has a shred of intellectual honesty would see it the same way

[ipaint]

125. Yes, it would require that special mavericky intellectual honesty.

I think I'll pass. Thanks anyway.

[ClarkUSA]

132. Um, Nader referred to Gore and Bush's corporate policy differences as "Tweedledee and Tweedledum"

"During the 2000 United States presidential election, candidate Ralph Nader pointed out that George W. Bush and
Al Gore were not very different in their corporate policies,<8> and called them Tweedledum and Tweedledee.<9>"

http://www.answers.com/topic/tweedledum-and-tweedledee

"During the 2000 United States presidential election, candidate Ralph Nader pointed out that George W. Bush and Al
Gore were not very different in their corporate policies,<8> and called them Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

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

"tweedledum and tweedledee definition tweedle·dum· and tweedle·dee (twēd′'l dum′ ən twēd′'l dē′

1.two persons or things so much alike as to be almost indistinguishable
2.two almost identical brothers in Through the Looking Glass.."

http://www.yourdictionary.com/tweedledum-and-tweedledee

Hat Tip to DUer Cha. :hi:

[ipaint]

136. Regarding corporations he was right.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=466

Nader never said gore was the same as bush in everything but certainly in the vast majority.

I'm not a reagan democrat, a big business democrat nor a corporate democrat. Bill Moyers points out the same things Nader does on as regular a basis.

Conservative democrats love this new style (last two decades) corporate democrat that dominates the party. So be it. I'm more concerned with the results of the conservative turn in policy and laws over those same years and it is disastrous to the working class. Nader was right.

[ClarkUSA]

137. No, he wasn't. Gore never would have allowed the same things as BushCo during the past eight years.

The fact that you could even say so explains alot about your opposing perspective regarding the OP's reasonable premise.

[Better Believe It]

121. But nothing has been found to back up your alleged Nader quote. Still can't find a link?

[NJmaverick]

123. You refuse to allow reality to alter your views, so what's the point

[Better Believe It]

126. The reality seems to be that you posted a bogus quote. Isn't that right?

[Cha]

128. The quote is real..

"During the 2000 United States presidential election, candidate Ralph Nader pointed out that George W. Bush and Al Gore were not very different in their corporate policies,<8> and called them Tweedledum and Tweedledee.<9>"

http://www.answers.com/topic/tweedledum-and-tweedledee

"During the 2000 United States presidential election, candidate Ralph Nader pointed out that George W. Bush and Al Gore were not very different in their corporate policies,<8> and called them Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

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

"tweedledum and tweedledee definition tweedle·dum· and tweedle·dee (twēd′'l dum′ ən twēd′'l dē′

1.two persons or things so much alike as to be almost indistinguishable
2.two almost identical brothers in Through the Looking Glass.."

http://www.yourdictionary.com/tweedledum-and-tweedledee

[NJmaverick]

138. this is so sad

it's like waving the birth certificate in front of the birthers

[Better Believe It]

143. I've seen Obama's authentic birth certificate. So provide a link to your alleged Nader quote.

No more evasions, just do it.

Provide a link to your Ralph Nader quote.

Can't do it? So you just made it up? Come on now .... fess up and tell the truth about the bogus Nader quote.

Remember, bogus claims and quotes are not appreciated on Democratic Underground.

We've seen enough of that tactic from teabaggers, swiftboaters and assorted right-wingnuts.

Don't try to mimic their low level character assassination tactics.

OK?

[Cha]

144. You need to get your head out of the sand ..the quotes are all

over this board but you're stumbling around with your blinders on.

"During the 2000 United States presidential election, candidate Ralph Nader pointed out that George W. Bush and Al Gore were not very different in their corporate policies,<8> and called them Tweedledum and Tweedledee.<9>"

http://www.answers.com/topic/tweedledum-and-tweedledee

"During the 2000 United States presidential election, candidate Ralph Nader pointed out that George W. Bush and Al Gore were not very different in their corporate policies,<8> and called them Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

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


"tweedledum and tweedledee definition tweedle·dum· and tweedle·dee (twēd′'l dum′ ən twēd′'l dē′

1.two persons or things so much alike as to be almost indistinguishable
2.two almost identical brothers in Through the Looking Glass.."

http://www.answers.com/topic/tweedledum-and-tweedledee

Don't be weaseling out of this like nader did.

[Cha]

133. I got your links right here.

"During the 2000 United States presidential election, candidate Ralph Nader pointed out that George W. Bush and Al Gore were not very different in their corporate policies,<8> and called them Tweedledum and Tweedledee.<9>"

http://www.answers.com/topic/tweedledum-and-tweedledee

"During the 2000 United States presidential election, candidate Ralph Nader pointed out that George W. Bush and Al Gore were not very different in their corporate policies,<8> and called them Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

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

"tweedledum and tweedledee definition tweedle·dum· and tweedle·dee (twēd′'l dum′ ən twēd′'l dē′

1.two persons or things so much alike as to be almost indistinguishable
2.two almost identical brothers in Through the Looking Glass.."

http://www.yourdictionary.com/tweedledum-and-tweedledee

[ClarkUSA]

134. Wow, thanks... the OP is 100% correct, despite the "bogus" attacks.

You'd Better Believe It is correct. :rofl:

[NJmaverick]

139. It's not going to work any better than producing Obama's birth certificate

[Cha]

140. Ye-ah, for teabaggers.

[Better Believe It]

148. Still can't produce a link to your alleged Nader quote?

The person you responded to is on my ignore list. However, your comment indicates you still can't verify your claim.

[Raineyb]

149. No it doesn't. For fuck's sake you can't even read honestly

Is there any situation where you don't lie?

[Cha]

129. I don't care what the weasel nader denied.

"During the 2000 United States presidential election, candidate Ralph Nader pointed out that George W. Bush and Al Gore were not very different in their corporate policies,<8> and called them Tweedledum and Tweedledee.<9>"

http://www.answers.com/topic/tweedledum-and-tweedledee

"During the 2000 United States presidential election, candidate Ralph Nader pointed out that George W. Bush and Al Gore were not very different in their corporate policies,<8> and called them Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

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

"tweedledum and tweedledee definition tweedle·dum· and tweedle·dee (twēd′'l dum′ ən twēd′'l dē′

1.two persons or things so much alike as to be almost indistinguishable
2.two almost identical brothers in Through the Looking Glass.."

http://www.yourdictionary.com/tweedledum-and-tweedledee

[SIMPLYB1980]

87. K & freaking R!

[Captain Hilts]

110. A know some Democrats who said that. They were so clueless. nt

[winyanstaz]

112. Al Gore is a big disappointment to me with his climate crap.

Sorry but the cat is out of the bag...there is NO climate control "crisis"...just a lot of manipulation of the data.

[johnaries]

113. You might want to do some research. We are ALREADY seeing

problems stemming directly from Climate Change. The crisis is very, very real.

[Faygo Kid]

124. Please leave a note for your grandchildren telling them it's "crap."

As their lives are irrevocably and obviously changed, they will get a kick out of your ignorance back in the day.

[Cha]

131. WTF are you listening to..the Big Deniers?

Good LUck with your head down so deep in the sand.