Chris Hedges: How the Corporations Broke Ralph Nader and America, Too

[marmar]

from Truthdig:



How the Corporations Broke Ralph Nader and America, Too

Posted on Apr 5, 2010
By Chris Hedges


Ralph Nader’s descent from being one of the most respected and powerful men in the country to being a pariah illustrates the totality of the corporate coup. Nader’s marginalization was not accidental. It was orchestrated to thwart the legislation that Nader and his allies—who once consisted of many in the Democratic Party—enacted to prevent corporate abuse, fraud and control. He was targeted to be destroyed. And by the time he was shut out of the political process with the election of Ronald Reagan, the government was in the hands of corporations. Nader’s fate mirrors our own.

“The press discovered citizen investigators around the mid-1960s,” Nader told me when we spoke a few days ago. “I was one of them. I would go down with the press releases, the findings, the story suggestions and the internal documents and give it to a variety of reporters. I would go to Congress and generate hearings. Oftentimes I would be the lead witness. What was interesting was the novelty; the press gravitates to novelty. They achieved great things. There was collaboration. We provided the newsworthy material. They covered it. The legislation passed. Regulations were issued. Lives were saved. Other civic movements began to flower.”

Nader was singled out for destruction, as Henriette Mantel and Stephen Skrovan point out in their engaging documentary movie on Nader, “An Unreasonable Man.” General Motors had him followed in an attempt to blackmail him. It sent an attractive woman to his neighborhood Safeway supermarket in a bid to meet him while he was shopping and then seduce him; the attempt failed, and GM, when exposed, had to issue a public apology.

But far from ending their effort to destroy Nader, corporations unleashed a much more sophisticated and well-funded attack. In 1971, the corporate lawyer and future U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell wrote an eight-page memo, titled “Attack on American Free Enterprise System,” in which he named Nader as the chief nemesis of corporations. It became the blueprint for corporate resurgence. Powell’s memo led to the establishment of the Business Roundtable, which amassed enough money and power to direct government policy and mold public opinion. The Powell memo outlined ways corporations could shut out those who, in “the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals,” were hostile to corporate interests. Powell called for the establishment of lavishly funded think tanks and conservative institutes to churn out ideological tracts that attacked government regulation and environmental protection. His memo led to the successful effort to place corporate-friendly academics and economists in universities and on the airwaves, as well as drive out those in the public sphere who questioned the rise of unchecked corporate power and deregulation. It saw the establishment of organizations to monitor and pressure the media to report favorably on issues that furthered corporate interests. And it led to the building of legal organizations to promote corporate interests in the courts and appointment of sympathetic judges to the bench. ...........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_the_corporations_broke_ralph_nader_and_america_too_20100405/

[mdmc]

1. Nader is one of few that RAGE AGAINST the Machine!

[xchrom]

2. Recommend

Considering the status that Nader has achieved
since Florida -- this should be interesting to follow.

[WinkyDink]

3. What's good for General Motors........

[WhiteTara]

4. Nadir did it to himself

he didn't really need outside help. After the debacle of the 2000 election, his political capital was greatly diminished.

[rurallib]

5. Huh?

[unblock]

7. the worst you can say is that nader failed to successfully navigate extremely treacherous waters.

his enemies are and were legion.

[Dr.Phool]

8. The attacks started in the '70s, long before his presidential bid.

And, if we didn't have corporate shills running the country since then, there would have been no need for him to run.

[sabrina 1]

21. Only with those who are easily manipulated and fortunately

they are in the minority.

The Supreme Court is solely responsible for installing an illegitimate usurper in the WH. Anyone who denies that is helping to try to rewrite a very importan part of history.

Gore won the 2000 election so to say that Nader helped him lose, is to deny that.

As far as Nader's claims that the whole system is corrupt, he is proven to be correct as time passe. Both parties are up for sale to the highest bidder. I did doubt that for a long time, but now that we finally removed he Republicans from power, the truth of that statement has become more obvious.

[zeos3]

25. +1

[AverageJoe]

50. Color me easily manipulated, then

Nader wanted Bush to win, plain and simple. He did everything in his power to make that happen. Perhaps it was so things would get so bad that people would have to agree when he said "I told you so." Perhaps he thought that if things get bad enough the people will rise and rebel. I don't know.

I do know that Nader took campaign funds from the GOP and that he refused to stop campaigning in tightly contested states. Here is a link from the Guardian demonstrating this for the 2004 campaign: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/aug/10/uselections2004.usa. The title of the article is "Republicans fund Nader as decisive electoral weapon."

I also know that the Nader votes in Florida undercut Gore and muddied the waters sufficiently for the recount to take place.

Yes, the corrupt press brainwashed millions of people into thinking Bush was a great human being and Al Gore was a dull, lying robot. Yes, the corrupt Supreme Court finalized the GWB coup.

But Nader was a necessary, though not sufficient, cog in the GOP machine. It took a powerful confluence of forces to steal the White House.

It is beyond question, however, that without Nader's help, it would have been much, much harder, probably impossible, for the criminals to seize power.

I think we can all agree that Nader is a very smart man. Corrupt, but smart. He knew exactly what he was doing.

And if anyone here thinks that there is no difference between Bush and Al Gore, come see me. I've got a deregulated toxic waste dump for sale, cheap. Oh, and I can point you toward many thousands of Americans, Iraqis, and Afghans left dead, wounded, or grieving for lost loved ones destroyed by Bush's wars of choice. If you get a chance, maybe you can comfort them with epic tales of Mr. Nader's great deeds. That will surely make up for the horrific losses he conspired to visit upon them.

The question I have is how much difference is there, really, between Bush and someone who knew him for the monster he was and still calculated to help him gain power?

[sabrina 1]

52. The only problem with your theory is

you are supposing that all those who voted for Nader were, first, all Democrats, and second that any of them would have voted for Gore anyway. And then you leave out the number of Democrats in Florida who voted for Bush.

Not to mention the theft of votes, the phony 'felon' list, bought and paid for by the Bush administration and the interference in the end, of the Supreme Court when it was fairly certain that if the counting continued, Gore would have won, among other criminal acts.

Nader did nothing illegal. But all these other acts by the Bush administration, WERE illegal. So, it's interesting to say the least, that someone exercising a right without doing anything illegal, generates more outrage from some people, than all of those illegal acts together by one of the most corrupt administrations ever.

If we were to accept blaming Nader, which I do not, it would let the criminals off the hook and focuse attention away from them. Which makes me wonder if it isn't also part of the effort to cover up one of the most treasonous acts in recent history.

Most of the experts on that stolen election do not agree that Nader had anything to do with the election being handed to Bush.

Propaganda works very well when it comes to covering their crimes. Having read most of what was published about this crime, whether Nader ran or not, the election would have been stolen.

[AverageJoe]

54. Yes, stolen votes. Yes, disenfranchised voters. Yes, Nader did nothing illegal

Clearly, the GOP engaged in criminal, almost certainly treasonous, behavior to install their man in office. The media were complicit in this as well.

Ralph Nader, indeed, exercised his constitutional right to run for office. I never said otherwise to any of this.

And I certainly never said I was more outraged by Nader than I am by BushCo. But I expected reprehensible behavior from them. I didn't expect treachery from the man who gave us "Unsafe at Any Speed."

All I'm saying is that Nader knew that his candidacy would help the Republicans and their awful candidate and he pushed full steam ahead.

Here's a poser to all the Nader voters out there:

You surely knew Nader couldn't win the election, but you voted for him anyway. You voted for him, even knowing that you could instead support a candidate who was committed, at the very least, to protecting our environment. You voted for Nader knowing that to withhold your support from Gore meant that you were doing nothing to prevent Bush from gaining power.

You knew all of this, right? I mean, you guys are smart, right?

Okay, you knew all of this. So why did you vote for Nader? Was your protest vote worth the horrific outcome we got?

If you think it was worth it, okay. That's your lookout. I just see things differently.

[liberation]

55. Your doublethink is doubleplusgood.

Nothing more "antidemocratic" than people voting their own consciences for an American citizen who is exercising his constitutional right to run for president. Right?

[John Q. Citizen]

58. There is no point to having elections if we already know in advance who can or can't win.

Is there?

[sabrina 1]

65. Again, you are still assuming, which is obvious from your

question to people who did vote for Nader, that those who did so, would have voted for Gore anyhow. You are ignoring the fact that not all Nader voters were even Democrats. It is far safer to assume that anyone who voted for Nader, was not going to vote for either party anyhow. So those voted cannot even be counted as 'belonging' to either party.

And you are ignoring the fact that Gore did win the election. I am convinced that the 'Nader Controversy' was manufactured for the purpose of dividing Democratic voters who were the only ones likely to continue to make a stink about that election.

Iow, Nader had no effect on the outcome of that election despite all the attempts to make it so. The blame for that election belongs to the Republicans who stole every vote they could and to the SC for stopping the counting when it was apparent that Gore would have won had the votes been counted.

Then, there was the concession of Democrats who should have been screaming for the next four years about it. Instead, they cut off all criticism of the election, much like they are now doing regarding war crimes, something that was pretty stunning to people at the time. I'll never forget seeing the footage, years later, of Al Gore casting his vote to ratify Bush's illegal coup. We didn't see that for several years after the election was stolen. Thanks once again, Michael Moore, another truth teller who has been the target of the propagandists.

Read Vincent Bugliosi's account of what he calls 'treason'. He is, for those who don't know, one of the most successful prosecutors in the country. He has laid out his case against those who stole the election, who are mainly, the five SC justices who handed the election to Bush.



If all the energy directed at Nader, which was probably intended as it served the purpose of dividing Democrats instead of them presenting a united front, had focused on the actual thieves, maybe something might have been accomplished. The fact that they got away with it led to the theft of the next election, and of course Nader had nothing to do with that either.

There should be never be any distraction from the fact that Gore won the 2000 election despite all the efforts to steal it, and the SC stepped when it was clear their scheme might not work. That was a treasonous act and will go down in history as such.

Thanks also to Barbara Boxer, who had more courage than Gore when she refused to certify the second stolen election, marking for history, that Bush was not a legitimate president. All this Nader stuff is muddying the waters and making the work of people like Boxer who took a huge political risk, look like a waste of time. People ought to think about that, before doing the work of those who would like to see this whole thing forgotten, or blamed on someone else.

[AverageJoe]

70. Of course Gore won

And of course the five Republican Supreme Court Justices committed treason by installing the little dictator. Yes, the Republicans stole votes. And, without question, Nader was a great consumer advocate in the 1960s. There was a time when I greatly admired him.

In fact, yes to everything you say in your post.


Except for these things:

I am certainly not ignoring the fact that Gore won. He actually won quite handily.

But it is not true that Nader had no impact on the outcome. I'm glad you admire the man. We all need heroes, and if he is yours, that's great. But it is simply a matter of historical record that a lot of folks voted for Nader who could have used their votes to actually combat Bush, rather than make a selfish--yes, selfish--political statement. And Nader encouraged this with every fiber of his being. The outcome in Florida was muddied enough by the Nader votes to allow that debacle to play out in the way that it did.

I grant you that not everyone who voted for Nader would have otherwise voted for Gore. Many of the Nader voters were idealistic youngsters who didn't have a clear view of how the political process works in the United States. And yes, by God, they had the right to vote for anybody they wished. I champion that right.

But with rights come responsibilities.

My guess is a lot of Nader-or-Bust voters were energized by Nader's faux campaign and were swept into the process in this way. However, I think it's likely that Nader voters, had they cast a realistic vote, would have trended much more strongly toward Gore than they would have for Bush. After all, third party candidates, by their very nature, siphon votes from the major candidate they most resemble. The once-progressive Nader of course siphoned votes from Gore, just as Ross Perot siphoned votes from George the Elder and paved the way for a Clinton victory.

Those who wouldn't have voted for anyone had they not voted for Nader don't really count, do they? The Nader-or-nobody voters were only there for the cult of personality, not the sober choice of electing a President.

I can't even wrap my head around someone trying to decide between Nader and Bush, frankly. But the irony remains: A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush, since it wasn't a vote for the only candidate who could have denied Bush his "victory," such as it was.

In the name of full disclosure, I am a Democrat. I'm not a member of the Green Party and I feel no remorse in stating the obvious about that party's candidate, a man who worked very hard to ensure defeat for the Democratic nominee.

Perhaps you are right--I don't think you are, but let's just say perhaps--and Nader didn't help seat Bush. Do you really, really think that Nader was sorry Bush won? Do you really, really think he was sorry Gore lost? Do you really, really think Nader believed he had a chance of winning? Did you think that he did?

Do you really, really think that Nader believed the world would be a better place if Al Gore lost? He certainly knew that his campaign would make it more likely for Bush to grab the White House. If he didn't know this, he wasn't smart enough to responsibly run for high office now, was he?

Nader wanted Gore to lose and he got his wish. Maybe that was nothing but coincidence. The world is a strange place sometimes.

Just out of curiosity, who did you hope would win in 2000? Me, I was pulling for Al Gore.

So, I'm finished with this topic. I actually don't care about Nader one way or the other these days. Through his efforts to hurt the one party with which he might have fruitfully aligned, the party through which he might have made things better for America, he has completely marginalized himself and will doubtless remain so.

I have no beef with you. Live long and prosper.

Feel free to get in the last word.

[sabrina 1]

77. To answer your last question, I worked for and met Gore

during that campaign. I have the photos to prove it. It was my first real political involvement and although I did not know very much about politics at the time, I knew enough to know that Bush was an evil man. Call it intuition or whatever, but that's how I felt. That it turned out to be true, didn't surprise me. But as I said, it wasn't based on political expertise, sometimes intuition is just as good a way to figure things out.

My belief after studying what happened in that election, is that Bush was the chosen winner and it didn't matter who was in the race, he was going to win. They would have cheated, started riots, done whatever they had to do to install him. Just as they choose puppet governments in third world countries. When I read about the PNAC and their decade long attempt to go to war in Iraq, it was obvious that these were people who do not give up.

There was a plan, and there were all kinds of political alignments that we were not aware of and they all came together to put in place the plans outlined in the PNAC.

The election was already 'in the bag' as far as they were concerned. That is obvious when you see how shocked the Bush gang was when the media called the election for Gore. They simply couldn't believe it. I thought their reaction was strange at the time, but in retrospect, with all that has been revealed since then, it all makes sense.

It was an act of treason when the SC intervened and stopped the counting. Something had gone wrong with their plans. Gore was likely to win. That wasn't in the plans. If anything, that shows how little Nader had to do with it. The fact that they had to call in the SC to help them. I think it's been pretty much established now that Gore won. Otoh, when I think of who his VP was, I can't help wondering how it would have turned out had he won, and refused to go to war in the ME.

As for how I felt about Nader, I was barely aware of him at the time and not worried at all that he would cause Gore any problems.

But by 2004, I really was so scared of Bush winning or stealing another election, I did not want anything to interfere with Kerry's bid to unseat him and hoped Nader and anyone else thinking about it, would not run.

As it turned out they stole another election and Nader was not a factor at all.

The only reason why I bother to comment on these claims that Nader 'handed the election to Bush' is because I care about facts. And the fact is an act of treason was committed in 2000 and those responsible should not have the cover of even thinking they can distract from that by blaming someone else. There has still not been any justice for that crime and all the crimes that emanated from it. It is a distraction to point to someone who had little to no influence on the outcome. What he wanted or didn't want, really isn't important to me. Only the truth, and anything that distracts from that is helping the cover-up.

[AverageJoe]

79. Well said, well reasoned

I continue to have a burr under my saddle in regard to Nader and I suppose I always will. However, I can't disagree with most of your argument. In the final analysis, the Treasonous Five bear the brunt of guilt/responsibility for the BushCo. coup and should all be arrested, tried, and convicted. Sadly, that will never happen.

It's been a pleasure going back and forth with you.

[sabrina 1]

81. Thank you ~ me too!

I do understand the 'burr under your saddle' as I said, I was scared to death of any threat to Kerry defeating Bush in 2004 but I just don't want the Felonious Five and their cohorts to escape the judgement of history. And thank you for getting my point ~ :-)

[Myrina]

80. +100

n/t

[liberation]

28. I see your red herring, and I raise you a Lieberman

try to tap dance your way out of that one.

[omega minimo]

42. learn your history or be doomed to repeat it

like we already have done.......

[liberalmike27]

47. Gobble up

the said, corporate fodder. Crunch, crunch, crunch...
Nader's a great man. Corporations can destroy anyone, and it's about to get worse unless one of the Supreme 5 drops soon. That old fart looks kind of prime, Scalia I think his name is. Maybe he'll have a massive coronary.

Nader haters--the worst thing about this country is its ability to make the good people look bad, and the bad look, um...tolerable. But when you control all the media, all the elections, and both parties, well you can just get rid of everyone. And Ralph was so right about that, and everything he's said has been right all along.

[HillbillyBob]

48. Not to defend Nader as much as point out

That was MASSIVE election fraud on the part of Jeb Bush and Katie Harris.
Our precinct was in a poorer all dem minority part of FTL. Remember 'Butterfly Ballots'? They were confusing the names and punch holes did not line up like it was poorly designed on purpose. They used an array of shitty tactics.
Remember Ken Blackwell in Ohio, dumped black voters, es&s touch screens?

I saw voters being 'challenged' by rpig henchmen and that night my partner and I saw the ballots being dumped into truck mounted shredders in the parking lot of the polling place. Since it was in a park gym its not like they would have had 20 or 30 boxes of office paper to shred. When we spoke out about it we found our phones tapped and emails intercepted and received threatening phone calls and anonymous email( i don't that was done no return/or from on the emails) then our home was raided while we were not home and ransacked.

Nothing taken, neighbors said there were abt 6 guys in dark suits in black crown victorias with govt tags were in our house for a couple of hours..every thing had been moved books taken off shelves and put back but not in the same order file cabinets riffled and put back in different order. If it had been a robbery our puters, tv and cash $ would have been taken that was on the dresser in a jar(abt 50$ in quarters and tips from my job tending bar in a dresser drawer another 220$)
The door was left standing open, partner said it was a warning to stfu. I guess I should, but I cannot let that stand. The guys with the shredders were wearing what I later recognized as blackwater uniforms or something very much like it..it was midnight after all and we were watching from about half a block away..I had hobbled closer enough to see the boxes and that there was a fox news crew there..they showed that film one time several days later when the supine court named that gdsob (*) the new pResident claiming the shredding was then not the night of the election.

[AverageJoe]

51. Yes, he did

And surely you are not surprised by the vitriol thrown your way by the Great Man's supporters. It has been this way here since DU began.

[Gman]

6. Nader and his supporters are responsible for the Bush administration and all it's associated evils

He rightfully should be a pariah.

[Dr.Phool]

9. ! ! ! !

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

And Clinton's policies, like NAFTA and welfare reform didn't drive people away from Gore?

[laststeamtrain]

12. Who was Gore's running mate?

Oh, yeah. The one in the middle.

[Gman]

32. No, I think their own, now proven irresponsibility and stupidity drove them away from Gore

[ima_sinnic]

11. oh, the no-minds who voted for Bush aren't responsible for Bush?

your mindless parroting of the tiresome line of bullshit is duly noted.

[Gman]

31. The persistent state of denial the Nader supporters live in will need to be dealt with

and no, it's not BS. It is now an historic fact. Don't be revisionist.

[ima_sinnic]

34. you know nothing, nada, zip, zilch about Ralph Nader

you are simply mouthing the standard line of BS. your ignorance is duly noted.

As a U.S. citizen, Ralph Nader has the right to run for public office, and any registered voter in the United States has the right to vote for him. I have voted for him before and may do so again. He has been at the forefront of progressive issues and has started countless organizations working to better society.

Nowhere is there evidence that everybody who voted for Nader in 2000 "would have" voted for Gore if Nader hadn't run. The Democrats are not "entitled" to votes that are not for Republicans. There are always 3rd-party candidates and write-ins in every election. Why don't you blame any of those others for Bush's "win"? How many disgusted people who "would have" voted for Gore wrote in "Fido" or "Howdy Doody" or "Muriel," their wife?

Gore had a stealth repuke running with him---a creepy, sleazeball lowlife stealth repuke--how many voters ran screaming from that, btw?

And if you think Bush would NOT have won in 2000 if Nader hadn't run, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Bush was the one foisted on us, and the SC made sure of it, since Gore actually won.

Please take your uber-stupid, useless Nader hatred and stuff a sock in it.

[Gman]

59. You voted for Nader in 2000?

Thanks a lot for Bush. You should have done the right thing and voted for Gore. You owe the world an apology.

[ima_sinnic]

67. welcome to ignore

my short list of posters who have absolutely nothing of value to say, whose posts are so incredibly time-wasting, shallow, devoid of insight, information, truth, deep thought, or any redeeming value whatsoever that I'm not even curious to read them. I mean, brainless distortions of the truth are a dime a dozen, so why waste my beautiful mind on such garbage on an otherwise enlightened board?

[bertman]

37. Gee, man. You should try getting your history lessons from somewhere besides the

corporate media and the backs of cereal boxes. You might learn something.

The historical fact, as you call it, is that the Supreme Court of the United States stepped in and STOPPED a state's electoral process from being carried out. The very definition of a judicial coup d etat.

[Gman]

60. But for Nader, Gore the rest would have never happened

that is undeniable.

[liberation]

61. your life long battle with the English language... seems to be what is undeniable IMHO

[bertman]

69. It IS deniable. Had the Supreme Court not have stepped in and stopped the count

the decision would have gone to Gore. As we found out months later.

There was a procedure that was supposed to be followed under the circumstances that existed. The SC short-circuited that.

Ralph Nader did what any citizen has the right to do if she/he can get on the ballot, and that is run for the Presidency of the United States.

[liberation]

29. He is also responsible for bad breath, cold mornings, and the bad pizza we get in the West Coast

such is the power of the mighty Nader, surely the secret to his powers being the dozen babies whose blood he must drink each morning. Right?


LOL

[John Q. Citizen]

39. Your dogma is without factual basis, so your conclusion is wrong. Nadar is one of the few good guys.

Your pathological compulsion to scapegoat is understandable. Many people do it. Some who do even vote Dem.

[liberation]

56. I think it is worse than scapegoating, it reeks of coercion

I love how some Dems feel entitled to the votes Nader got. After seeing the level of vitriol and contempt displayed by some of these Dem die hards towards Nader voters, I wonder the level of logical dissonance that must be going through the minds of these Dem storm troopers which makes them wonder why those Nader voters did not care much for the Dem platform to begin with.

It is funny how some Dems save their best effort to undermine and neutralize liberals, while they expect progressives to vote straight Dem come election time.

[laughingliberal]

63. I voted for Gore but I can't disagree with your point in the least.

And the level of vitriol towards the liberals in the party just keeps growing.

[omega minimo]

43. Bushco for the past century is repsonsible for the Bush administration

Nader spent his career fighting it and all its associated evils, including corporate government takeover.

You don't know your history either?

[disillusioned73]

10. Good article..

I alwayws got the sense that Nader got way too much blame for the 2000 selection - I see posts have already vilified the man... interesting, considering the content in the article

things that make you hmmm

[truth2power]

14. Exactly! "Things that make you go, hmmm". It's all still working, isn't it? n/t

[Raster]

23. May I point out a few well-grounded and provable truths?

1. According to the independent news consortium, Gore won. Period. If all the votes in Florida were counted. Gore won.
   
2. When one factors in the tens of thousands of legitimate and probable Democratic voters removed from the voting roles by Kathleen Harris and Jeb Bush*, it becomes glaringly apparent that Albert Gore won the Presidency by a much higher margin than even the consortium gave him credit for. Again, Gore won.
   
3. When one factors in the outright voter suppression, voter caging, voter intimidation in predominately minority Democrat strongholds, it becomes astoundingly apparent that GORE WON.

It also becomes very apparent the Ralph Nader had little to nothing to do with George W. Bush* illegally inhabiting the White House.

scapegoat = Ralph Nader.

[HillbillyBob]

49. 360,000 as a round number of voters removed from the rolls

as names that 'sounded' like felons...too bad all bushies and harris the ho fans were the real felons and were not removed from society.

[flamingdem]

13. Good riddance to Nader, we don't need him as a spoiler, he's a creep nt

[Go2Peace]

35. The soft "bigotry" of a two party system.

So a third person tries to do, you know, DEMOCRACY, and because our system has an inflexible two party only component it is his fault. Maybe instead of blaming our sysem's woes on someone exercising their democratic rights we take a look at how we can make Democracy better and provide a place for those who do not fit in with the two party system? Like a Parliment?

[omega minimo]

46. good points. Well put.

:thumbsup:

[laughingliberal]

64. +1000

We are so trapped by the 2 party system.

[slipslidingaway]

15. knr nt

[Uncle Joe]

16. It's a good article and the corporate media did ignore Nader beginning in the 70s, however when he

ran in 2000, they gave him just enough coverage in spite of his low national poll rankings to damage Gore.

The same kind of coverage was not given to Buchanan because the corporate media knew he would weaken Bush the Least.

I believe Nader did a lot of good things for the nation, but the run in 2000, instead of fighting for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party under a Gore Administration, presented a major coup to the corporatist supremacists.

Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, marmar.

[omega minimo]

44. Nader did not "present a major coup to the corporatist supremacists."

The coup d'etat was their doing, with or without his candidacy.

I love ya Uncle Joe and you've stated it as cleanly and believably as anyone could but it is not true!!

There are at least two posts above these that very clearly state why Nader is NOT why Shrub was installed.

[Uncle Joe]

53. I feel the same way about you omega,

but I do believe Nader was a contributing cause in a perfect storm of events and the corporate media magnified his impact because it would damage Gore, they wanted Bush in power.

I'm not suggesting Nader is the only cause, but he contributed by becoming an unwilling/willing pawn of divide and conquer tactics by the Republicans and their corporate media propaganda machine.

The corporate supremacists saw an opportunity to use Nader's fame and they did.

If you're referring to NAFTA and Lieberman, I have no doubt these also had effects, although not to the magnitude of today as the space time continuum was drastically altered in 2000.

Gore did his duty as he saw fit being the best Vice-President to President Clinton; and his agenda in spite of the latter's abandonment of Gore's best political interests.

I could list a slew of dynamics working against Gore becoming President regardless of his gaining over a half million more votes than Bush, from Clinton's selfish, short sighted actions, duplicity and impeachment, the butterfly ballot, Florida's electoral corruption under Bush and Harris to the U.S. Supreme Court's political partisan intervention, etc. etc. but none of those approached the magnitude of corporate media propaganda malfeasance in enabling a corrupt, incompetent Bush to power.

Without the corporate media's near two year war against Gore by slander and libel, "Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet!" etc. etc. none of the rest would have mattered as Al Gore would have won in a landslide.

I also have no doubt the corporate media's primary motivation for such a betrayal of the people's best interests was due to Al Gore being the preeminent political champion for opening up the Internet to the people and thereby enhancing their freedom of speech power like nothing since the First Amendment was adopted. The corporate media saw this as a growing threat to their business model and that's all they cared about.

[Jefferson23]

17. K&R. thanks for posting. n/t

[Tutankhamun]

18. Let's not forget that he ran AGAIN in 2004.

I'm all for ideology, but not when the entire country is martyred.

[MisterP]

19. I was highly suspicious whenever anyone screamed that "Nader killed democracy!"

as if the MSM had not outright announced that GORE HAD WON FLORIDA

of course, those same posters were the ones praising many and most Dems' goose-stepping behind Bush, while objecting to any remark that they were goose-stepping

by '02 or '03 it became clear that the neoliberals and cons in the party were focused more on providing cover for a veer to the right (i.e., the mainstreaming of torture, bloody occupation, the impunity that the "shadow" government enjoys, neoliberal destruction of state supports and enterprises) and browbeating anyone wanting more democracy or leftism. both parties have moved to the right together since 1979 or 1988: biologically, the GOP is the helicase that splits the DNA or breaks ground in deviltry, and the Dems are the polymerase that finishes the DNA or legitimizes the new policy and demands that Americans vote for its proponents--since the OTHER GUY might get in, and he's horrible. "make sure you vote Dem" is the sugar that keeps this process humming. oh, and if anyone says we haven't moved past "Weicker" on the l/r scale and are just hitting "Nixon," FUCK you. mealy-mouthiness also plays an important role in "porting" conservative doctrines: "you're putting down people who'd be voting for us! you must drop opposition to a bazooka in every home and hospital room!"

we were told that it was a surfeit of democracy--"allowing" parties "without a chance" to participate--that gave us an undemocratic leader (*), thereby absolving not just the Congress members who gave him almost everything he wanted but also the Republicans, who showed that they're quite contemptuous of democracy (in the vein of the Business Plot, McCarthy, and King Richard I) with their vote-rigging. this let one pretend that there was a bipartisanship that would help democracy (as opposed to what it IS, a bipartisanship with BOHICA as its enduring goal) by encompassing 80% of voters and their agreed-upon middle ground, against the fringe far left-and-right that endangered democracy by "throwing tantrums" and running candidates. there IS bipartisanship, to be sure, but it's focused on finding a midpoint between Hillary and Bunning, both of whose proposals are usually quite crackheaded. the Dem leadership evinces a strong contempt for democracy and anyone not to their right, from Schumer blaming the left for all problems to the WH's decree that the 60-70% wanting single payer were the "left of the left" to Emanuel's slogan of "vote for us, go home to your hovels, and STFU."

a little political theater--Slaughter's insane saying that now everyone has healthCARE, Reid's "standing up" to the Tweakerbaggers, Bull Connor's grandkids spitting at a Black Rep voting yes on a crappy bill they don't like because it was promoted by a Black Prez--and the loyalists are more than happy, they feel JUSTIFIED

this all resembles the liberals' role in McCarthyism 1947-54, since it was Tammany Hall that ended NYC's proportional representation in 1949 (to drive out Ben Davis) and then crowed about the victory for democracy and that America could hold its head high (and to bring back machine politics and monopoly after La Guardia)

[momrois]

20. Nader sold out when he accepted Republican money

in '04. His ambition overrode his better angels.

[sabrina 1]

22. Democrats sold out when they accepted money

from Big Business. Nader's pittance from Republicans pales in comparison to the sell out by Democrats to the Health Insurance Business.

I'm sure though that you are just as angry at that as you are at Nader ... you just forgot to mention it.

[momrois]

33. I don't recall ever saying I supported the sellout to the health insurance industry

The Democrats did that. I agree with you there. However, Nader hurt his credibility with many when he took that money, and that saddened me no end. He's not as pure as many would like to think. He's a politician. He's also a human with ambition. However, I consider his alignment with Republicans a stab in the back. Surely you know that they only wanted him to draw your vote away from Kerry in '04, which is why they donated the money to keep him in the race. They couldn't reasonably think that he would cut any other type of deals with them. He was either very naive or very dumb if he didn't know that, and I don't think he was either. It goes much deeper than that, but I don't have any real insight into his thinking, and he's not yet being honest about it.

We weren't discussing the Democrats in general anyway, or at least I didn't think we were, but apparently the "they did it, too" crowd is here as well as with the Republicans.

[omega minimo]

45. Doesn't that make them dumb?

"they donated the money to keep him in the race. They couldn't reasonably think that he would cut any other type of deals with them."

:shrug:

[liberation]

30. Do you really want to play the political contributions game?

Talk about people living in glass palaces throwing concrete blocks around... Good grief.

[depakid]

66. Teh stupid- it hurts

Suckers born every minute.

[pattmarty]

24. Every article or book that I read of Chris Hedges, the more I respect.............

..............him. Here's a guy that's seen a lot and done a lot. And as far as Ralph Nader, I have ALWAYS thought of him as an American patriot and have NEVER thought of him as "winning" the election for "W".

[KoKo]

74. Yeah......,the DLC DEMS were happy to blame Nader rather than Voting Fraud in FLA

and elsewhere for "Selection 2000." He was the clever Scapegoat. Just like "Public Option" was what brought down true HCR!

[zeos3]

26. K&R

[ShamelessHussy]

27. sad but true, even on DU, folks absolutely revel in their hatred of this progressive giant

always reminds me of the movie idocracy when i see that sort of rabid, and proud ignorance, on parade here.

:shakes-head:

[Go2Peace]

36. The "two party" system is very convenient for the overlords.

Maybe instead of critisizing people practicing their democratic rights we should work on the real problem, a system of Democracy where we are allowed only two platforms.

[ShamelessHussy]

72. everything is going according to plan

FYI: not being able to criticize ignorance, or poor ideas is what has gotten us into this mess.

[KoKo]

75. Absolutely. It covers a lot of sins and criminality.....that "BELIEF" in Two Party System...

Gullibility and Cable News plus lack of real teaching of America's History truth.

[bertman]

38. Highest recommendation. It's a pity so many Democrats have fallen prey to the corporate

media's blaming of Nader for Bush being illegally installed as President.

[liberation]

57. Don't feel pithy for the willing....

[lordsummerisle]

40. K&R n/t

[omega minimo]

41. None of this was "accidental"

[KoKo]

76. Nope! The more we watch unfold...the clearer it all becomes...n/t

[Blue_Tires]

62. ttt

[austin78704]

68. If it weren't for Gore...

...Nader would have won in 2000.

Gore's responsible for Bush and everything!

(yes, sarcasm.)

[Number_Six]

71. And did they listen to Cicero?

Cicero was one of Rome's orators. He warned his fellow Romans, loosely:

"It's over, it's now waiting on the clock to finish the countdown."

A tad premature, perhaps? Didn't matter, now did it? He was smart enough to see Rome was in Chernobyl mode.

So's Ralph.

[ShamelessHussy]

73. he was to rome, what rush is to america

[yurbud]

78. it's sad that the DLC heaps more venom on Nader than they do the GOP

and they fought him harder than they fight the GOP too.