Ralph Nader Made George W. Bush President

Preface by Washington’s Blog.

Washington’s Blog is a non-partisan site.   We believe that the war between liberals and conservatives is a false divide-and-conquer dog-and-pony show created by the powers that be to keep the American people divided and distracted. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

Moreover, given that Obama has now reaffirmed the Iraq War, and that both mainstream parties are bankrupt of ethics – and ignoring what people want – we think that cheerleading for Democrats-versus-Republicans is counter-productive.

But – in the spirit of open debate – we are going to try an experiment for one week, allowing progressive writer Eric Zuesse to post whatever he wants. We don’t agree with everything Zuesse posts, but are trying this as an experiment in balance.  If a good conservative or libertarian writer wishes equal treatment, we’re happy to give him or her equal time.  In the meantime, writers like Charles Hugh Smith certainly provide a strong anti-Keynesian perspective.

Guest post by Eric Zuesse:

Ralph Nader was crucial to George W. Bush’s win in 2000 against Al Gore. Without Nader in that contest, Bush wouldn’t have stood even a chance of winning. Strong action would thus likely have begun against global warming (since Al Gore was the leading politician who was trying to warn the world about the dangers of global warming and so to build the necessary public support in order to be able to take the requisite actions). Furthermore, Gore’s courageous 2002 speech against Bush’s planned invasion of Iraq wouldn’t have been needed (and futile), because there wouldn’t even have been any such invasion. (An estimated $3-6 trillion, which was wasted on that war, thus wouldn’t even have been spent; the federal debt would be much lower now.)

Nader has thus been an extremely expensive man, for this country, and also for the entire world, especially for people living in the future.

But Nader turned out to be superfluous to the then-President Bush’s win against John Kerry in 2004.

Nader was simply trying to do damage to the Democratic Party both times, and he succeeded in 2000, but not in 2004.

In fact, in 2000, he turned out to be the most indispensable person of all individuals to the crucial 2000 George W. Bush “win.” And Nader was secretly ecstatic about that.

Here are the details:

NADER MADE GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENT.

Nader-voters who spurned Democrat Al Gore to vote for Nader ended up swinging both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush in 2000. Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report and political analyst for National Journal, called “Florida and New Hampshire” simply “the two states that Mr. Nader handed to the Bush-Cheney ticket,” when Cook was writing about “The Next Nader Effect,” in The New York Times on 9 March 2004. Cook said, “Mr. Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, cost Al Gore two states, Florida and New Hampshire, either of which would have given the vice president [Gore] a victory in 2000. In Florida, which George W. Bush carried by 537 votes, Mr. Nader received nearly 100,000 votes [nearly 200 times the size of Bush’s Florida ‘win’]. In New Hampshire, which Mr. Bush won by 7,211 votes, Mr. Nader pulled in more than 22,000 [three times the size of Bush’s ‘win’ in that state].” If either of those two states had gone instead to Gore, then Bush would have lost the 2000 election; we would never have had a U.S. President George W. Bush, and so Nader managed to turn not just one but two key toss-up states for candidate Bush, and to become the indispensable person making G.W. Bush the President of the United States — even more indispensable, and more important to Bush’s “electoral success,” than were such huge Bush financial contributors as Enron Corporation’s chief Ken Lay.

All polling studies that were done, for both the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections, indicated that Nader drained at least 2 to 5 times as many voters from the Democratic candidate as he did from the Republican Bush. (This isn’t even considering throw-away Nader voters who would have stayed home and not voted if Nader had not been in the race; they didn’t count in these calculations at all.) Nader’s 97,488 Florida votes contained vastly more than enough to have overcome the official Jeb Bush / Katherine Harris / count, of a 537-vote Florida “victory” for G.W. Bush. In their 24 April 2006 detailed statistical analysis of the 2000 Florida vote, “Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency?” (available on the internet), Michael C. Herron of Dartmouth and Jeffrey B. Lewis of UCLA stated flatly, “We find that … Nader was a spoiler for Gore.” David Paul Kuhn, CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer, headlined on 27 July 2004, “Nader to Crash Dems Party?” and he wrote: “In 2000, Voter News Service exit polling showed that 47 percent of Nader’s Florida supporters would have voted for Gore, and 21 percent for Mr. Bush, easily covering the margin of Gore’s loss.” Nationwide, Harvard’s Barry C. Burden, in his 2001 paper at the American Political Science Association, “Did Ralph Nader Elect George W. Bush?” (also on the internet) presented “Table 3: Self-Reported Effects of Removing Minor Party Candidates,” showing that in the VNS exit polls, 47.7% of Nader’s voters said they would have voted instead for Gore, 21.9% said they would have voted instead for Bush, and 30.5% said they wouldn’t have voted in the Presidential race, if Nader were had not been on the ballot. (This same table also showed that the far tinier nationwide vote for Patrick Buchanan would have split almost evenly between Bush and Gore if Buchanan hadn’t been in the race: Buchanan was not a decisive factor in the outcome.) The Florida sub-sample of Nader voters was actually too small to draw such precise figures, but Herron and Lewis concluded that approximately 60% of Florida’s Nader voters would have been Gore voters if the 2000 race hadn’t included Nader. But in any event, the largest (and thus statistically-most-reliable) sampling of the relative voter-orientations in this multi-candidate contest was the national exit polling, which showed that a net of 47.7%-21.9%, or a net total 25.8%, of that 97,488 Nader-vote count in Florida, would have been added to Gore’s Florida total. (I.e.: About 21,350 of those 97,488 votes would have been added to Bush; about 46,502 of them would have been added to Gore, for a net of 25,152 Gore-over-Bush win in Florida. Then, subtracting 537 — Bush’s “win” — from that 25,152 would have produced a total 24,615-vote Gore win of Florida. The courts would never have been able to become involved, and there wouldn’t even have been any recount in Florida, no call for one.)

Clearly, Ralph Nader drew far more votes from Gore than he did from Bush, and on this account alone was an enormous Republican asset in 2000; but Nader decisively threw Florida to Bush (just barely enough for Bush to “win”). Without Nader in the race, Gore wouldn’t only have won the nationwide popular vote (by more than 500,000 votes), but also the Electoral College vote, and thus the White House. Nader was more important to Bush’s becoming President than was any other single person. Without Nader, Gore would have won clearly — so clearly that no one would have questioned his victory. This is how big a difference Nader made: he gave us the Bush Presidency. And it wasn’t by any mistake on Nader’s part. He knew what he was doing.

On 26 October 2000, Eric Alterman at the Nation bannered, “Not One Vote!” and he reported, “Nader has been campaigning aggressively in Florida, Minnesota, Michigan, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin. If Gore loses even a few of those states, then Hello, President Bush. And if Bush does win, then Goodbye to so much of what Nader and his followers profess to cherish, … affirmative action, abortion rights, gun control, campaign finance reform, minimum-wage raises, environmental protection, consumer protection, class-action lawsuits, worker-safety legislation and just about everything else the government can do to help the neediest and most vulnerable among us.” (Notice that Florida was one of those states.)

Furthermore, Karl Rove and the Republican Party knew all this, and so they nurtured and crucially assisted Nader’s campaigns, both in 2000 and in 2004. On 27 October 2000, the AP’s Laura Meckler headlined “GOP Group To Air Pro-Nader TV Ads.” She opened: “Hoping to boost Ralph Nader in states where he is threatening to hurt Al Gore, a Republican group is launching TV ads featuring Nader attacking the vice president [Mr. Gore]. … ‘Al Gore is suffering from election year delusion if he thinks his record on the environment is anything to be proud of,’ Nader says [in the commercial]. An announcer interjects: ‘What’s Al Gore’s real record?’ Nader says: ‘Eight years of principles betrayed and promises broken.’” Meckler’s report continued: “A spokeswoman for the Green Party nominee said that his campaign had no control over what other organizations do with Nader’s speeches.” Bush’s people – the group sponsoring this particular ad happened to be the Republican Leadership Council – knew exactly what they were doing, even though the liberal suckers who voted so carelessly for Ralph Nader obviously did not. Anyone who drives a car the way those liberal fools voted, faces charges of criminal negligence, at the very least. But this time, the entire nation crashed as a result; not merely a single car.

Furthermore, it seems that during the closing days of the 2000 political contest, Ralph Nader was choosing to campaign not in states where polls showed that he had a chance to win (of which states there were none), but instead in states where Gore and Bush were virtually tied and Nader’s constant appeals to “the left” would be the likeliest to throw those states into Bush’s column. More than one political columnist noted this fact: for example, on 23 October 2000, Thomas B. Edsall in the Washington Post, bannered, “Nader Is Poised to Play Spoiler; Green Party’s Nominee May Tip States to Bush,” and among the states he noted that Nader was campaigning in during the closing days was Oregon, which Gore ended up winning by 0.44%, but where Nader, assiduously trying to throw it to Bush, ended up winning 0.46% of the vote, so that he was just shy of succeeding in that state, which would have been the third but turned out not to have been needed anyway (since only one state was, and he got both Florida and New Hampshire). As Eric Alterman prophetically posted online for the Nation, in his “Not One Vote!” on October 26th, “Hello, President Bush.” Nader wasn’t stupid; his voters were, but he certainly was not. And his voters listened to Nader, not to people such as Alterman, who warned them (instead of deceived them, like Nader did).

That list of states where Nader was concentrating near the end of the campaign consisted of the large states that were the closest between Bush and Gore. Everyone knew that Nader’s appeal was being made to “the left,” and Nader was concentrating his campaign now on sucking foolish leftist voters away from Gore. He was claiming to be the preferable leftist candidate. He made that clear. He wasn’t campaigning at all to draw votes away from the conservative end of the political spectrum. So: Nader clearly was targeting to throw this “election” to Bush – and he succeeded in Florida (and also in NH), at doing precisely that.

On 31 October 2000, an unsigned article at Slate headlined “Ralph the Leninist” and it noted: “Over the past 10 days, liberals have been voicing shock and dismay at the imminent prospect of their old hero, Ralph Nader, intentionally throwing the election to George W. Bush. A first, eloquent protest came 10 days ago from a group of a dozen former ‘Nader’s Raiders,’ who asserted that their former mentor had broken a promise not to campaign in states where he could hurt Gore and begged him to reconsider doing so. Others, including Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter, have expressed a similar sense of disappointment and betrayal. Nader’s response to all this heartfelt hand-wringing has been to scoff and sneer. On Good Morning America, he referred contemptuously to his old disciples as ‘frightened liberals.’” Since Nader was not stupid, the only explanation for this behavior is that he was evil; and now he was expressing his contempt for his former followers – a contempt that he actually had for all of his followers but was only now starting to express, by lashing out at the ones who were finally becoming deprogrammed from his cult.

During the 2004 election contest, a local AP story from Salem, Oregon, on June 25th, was similarly headlined “Pro-GOP Groups Seek to Aid Nader, Hurt Kerry,” and reported, “Two conservative groups [the business-oriented Citizens for a Sound Economy, and the fundamentalist Christian Oregon Family Council] have been phoning people around Oregon this week, … in hopes of putting Nader’s name on Oregon’s presidential ballot.” Oregon was one of 18 tight “battleground” states in the 2004 Presidential election, and Republicans wanted Nader’s name to be on the Presidential ballot in order to draw votes away from Democratic candidate John Kerry, and thus throw Oregon’s electoral college votes to Bush, and so make Bush the winner, just as had crucially happened in 2000 in both Florida and New Hampshire. (Here is how Citizens for a Sound Economy explained it to their members accompanying their 27 June 2004 “Phone Script”: “Liberals are trying to unite in Oregon and keep Nader off the ballot to help their chances of electing John Kerry. We could divide this base of support” between “the uber-liberal Nader and John Kerry,” so as to produce a Republican win.)

The board of directors of one of these groups, the Koch brothers’ Citizens for a Sound Economy, happened to have been headed by two longtime personal friends of George W. Bush: the former Republican House leader Dick Armey of Texas, and the former counselor to President G.H.W. Bush, C. Boyden Gray. It’s virtually certain that these two men authorized this backroom campaigning for Ralph Nader’s candidacy. Mr. Gray was an heir to the Reynolds Tobacco fortune. CSE was financed by the foundations of Richard Mellon Scaife, of the Coors family, as well as of the Koch families, and by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and the J.M. Olin Foundation. Jane Mayer, on 30 August 2010, headlined in the New Yorker, “Covert Operations” (of the Koch brothers), and wrote: “‘Ideas don’t happen on their own,’ Matt Kibbe, the president of FreedomWorks, a Tea Party advocacy group, told me. ‘Throughout history, ideas need patrons.’ The Koch brothers, after helping to create Cato and Mercatus, concluded that think tanks alone were not enough to effect change. They needed a mechanism to deliver those ideas to the street, and to attract the public’s support. In 1984, David Koch and Richard Fink [whom she called ‘the central nervous system of the Kochtopus’] created yet another organization, and Kibbe joined them. The group, Citizens for a Sound Economy, seemed like a grassroots movement, but … was sponsored principally by the Kochs.”

On 5 July 2004, BusinessWeek (p. 53) similarly headlined “Bush Bigs Open Their Wallets For Nader,” and reported that among Nader’s largest donors was Richard J. Egan, who was a Bush “Ranger,” having raised more than $200,000 for his friend, George W. Bush. Egan, whom President Bush appointed Ambassador to Ireland, contributed the maximum allowed, $2,000, to Nader, and Egan’s son also did. Unknown other Bush contributors, whom the senior Egan had previously “bundled” into that $200,000+ for Bush, also contributed to Nader. BusinessWeek reported that Richard J. Egan denied being the same person as the Richard J. Egan who contributed to Nader. However, the magazine reported that the Richard J. Egan, whom the records showed to have contributed to Nader, happened to live at the very same address, and that only one Richard J. Egan happened to live there. So: he was lying.

The Quinnipiac University poll in yet another battleground state, Pennsylvania, at around the same time, on June 24th, projected a 6-point margin for Kerry (49% to 43%) without Nader, but only a wafer-thin 1% margin for Kerry (44% to 43%) with Nader in the race (7%), so that Nader would take 5% away from Kerry, and 0% — nothing at all — away from Bush, in that tightly contested state. Five days later, another Quinnipiac poll, this time in a different battleground state, Florida, showed a 2% Kerry edge without Nader, and a dead-even tie with Nader in that contest; Nader was subtracting 3 votes from Kerry for each vote he was taking from Bush in Florida. Nader knew what he was doing. Stupid he’s not; his voters are, but he isn’t – he is merely using them.

On July 9th of 2004, Carla Marinucci of the San Francisco Chronicle headlined “GOP Doners Funding Nader / Bush Supporters Give Independent’s Bid a Financial Lift,” and she reported that the Nader campaign “has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party,” according to “an analysis of federal records.” Perhaps these contributors were Ambassador Egan’s other friends. Mr. Egan’s wife was now listed among the Nader contributors. Another listed was “Nijad Fares, a Houston businessman, who donated $200,000 to the Bush inaugural committee and who donated $2,000 each to the Nader effort and the Bush campaign this year.”

Furthermore, Ari Berman reported 7 October 2004 at the Nation, under “Swift Boat Veterans for Nader,” and Brian Faler at the Washington Post, bannered “Swift Boat Donors Float Nader Some Money,” both saying that some major right-wing funders of a Republican smear campaign against Senator John Kerry’s Vietnam service contributed also $13,500 to the Nader campaign, and that “the Republican Party of Michigan gathered ninety percent of Nader’s signatures in their state” (90%!) to place Nader on the ballot so Bush could win that swing state’s 17 electoral votes. Clearly, the word had gone out to Bush’s big contributors: Help Ralphie boy! In fact, on 15 September 2005, John DiStaso of the Manchester Union-Leader, reported that, “A year ago, as the Presidential general election campaign raged in battleground state New Hampshire, consumer advocate Ralph Nader found his way onto the ballot, with the help of veteran Republican strategist David Carney and the Carney-owned Norway Hill Associates consulting firm.”

It was obvious, based upon the 2000 election results, that a dollar contributed to Nader in the 2004 contest would probably be a more effective way to achieve a Bush win against Kerry in the U.S. Presidential election than were perhaps even ten dollars contributed to Bush. This was a way of peeling crucial votes off from Bush’s real opponent – votes that otherwise would have gone to the Democrat. That’s why the smartest Republican money in the 2004 Presidential election was actually going to Nader, even more so than to Bush himself: these indirect Bush contributions provided by far the biggest bang for the right-wing buck.

Furthermore, federal election law limited each individual’s political contributions to any candidate to only $2,000; Nader’s presence in the Presidential race therefore provided each Republican the opportunity to contribute personally $4,000 toward a Bush win: $2,000 directly, plus $2,000 indirectly (though far more potently) by means of Nader’s candidacy weakening the Democrat. And this, of course, is what these people were doing – playing liberal voters as suckers, and donating twice as much money to Bush’s cause that would otherwise have been legal.

Considering how highly placed this group of contributors were, the likelihood that the White House was being kept in the dark about these contributions to Nader was virtually nil; far likelier is that the idea originated from the Bush campaign. Indeed, the Bush strategists would need to have been stupid not to have thought this idea up, especially because the Republican Party has routinely funded, and otherwise helped, in Democratic primaries, the weak political candidate to win the Democratic nomination, in order to enhance the chances for the Republican candidate to beat his ultimate Democratic opponent. This has been one of the Republican Party’s most effective tactics.

Liberal suckers might not have known that Nader was working for the Republicans, but the Republican Party’s leadership certainly did – and they acted accordingly. The only people who didn’t were Nader’s own voters.

Max Blumenthal at American Prospect headlined on 25 June 2004 “Nader’s Dubious Raiders,” and reported that in Arizona “the Nader campaign was assisted in its petition drive by an unlikely figure: the ultra-conservative former executive director of the Arizona Republican Party, Nathan Sproul,” who also “was the Arizona field director for the Christian Coalition in the early 1990s.” Indeed, Blumenthal reported that originally for this signature-collection drive “members of his [Nader’s] campaign sought a contract with Arno Political Consultants, a California-based Republican consulting firm that has handled past ballot-qualification efforts for GOP icons like Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, as well as anti-immigrant groups.” However, “Arno’s client list comprises a virtual Who’s Who of the corporate cartels Nader routinely rails against, including Occidental Petroleum, Phillip Morris, and Wal-Mart. Arno Political Consultants rebuffed the Nader campaign’s request. ‘I thought it would be bad for us to go in with anyone like Nader,’ said the company’s co-director, Michael Arno. … I didn’t want to be part of anything that could be seen as nefarious.” Mr. Arno was a more honest and honorable man than was Mr. Nader; however, Sproul was right up Nader’s alley. As Blumenthal subsequently posted to the internet on 15 October 2004, at Alternet, under the headline “Republican Dirty Tricks,” “Sproul … has cozy ties to a group of consultants working on the Bush/Cheney campaign,” and, “In order to cover his tracks,” so as to avoid publicly exposing Nader’s backing by the Bush/Cheney campaign, “Sproul devised a clever scheme,” which entailed sending an associated Phoenix Republican PR agent “to a ‘low-end’ motel in Scottsdale where Jenny Breslyn, the person officially contracted by the Nader campaign to oversee its signature drive, was staying. There, Breslyn and her employees mixed the [Sproul] petitions in with her own, in effect, brushing them clean of Sproul’s fingerprints.” That protected Nader, so that Nader could continue to deceive liberal fools into thinking Nader wasn’t a stalking horse for a Bush victory.

Sourcewatch.org headlined “Citizens for a Sound Economy,” and had a sub-head, “CSE Backs Nader’s 2004 Ballot Bid,” and explained, regarding the Kochs’ front group, CSE, that: “While CSE traditionally backs predictable conservative causes, in June 2004 it mobilised supporters in an attempt to place consumer activist Ralph Nader on the presidential ballot in Oregon. ‘We disagree with Ralph Nader’s politics, but we’d love to see him make the ballot,’ Russ Walker, the Oregon director of CSE told Associated Press. It has foreshadowed providing similar support in Wisconsin and other states.” Jeff Mapes headlined in The Oregonian, on 25 June 2004, “Nader Getting Support from Unlikely Voters,” but that headline was itself a lie: Nader was instead getting support from “unlikely” financial backers, who, since they were out-of-state, couldn’t even possibly be “voters” in Oregon. Key here were the Kochs’ Citizens for a Sound Economy. Readers of that Oregon newspaper were thus being deceived even while they were being informed about CSE’s deception of them.

As the fundamentalist Christian, Scott Elliott, the political maven at his Election Projection, observed at the time gleefully about Ralph Nader’s crucial role in Bush’s 2000 victory: “Exit polls indicate 20% of Nader voters would have voted for Bush, 50% for Gore, and 30% would have stayed home. So Nader’s run, as we all know, hurt Gore’s chances.” Elliott’s own detailed state-by-state breakdown made absolutely clear that Nader’s run handed the 2000 victory to Bush, but this is something Elliott found distasteful to say outright, because Bush was his idol, and he didn’t like Nader at all. Nonetheless, on one of Elliott’s postings, 28 May 2004, he acknowledged: “Regardless of what he and many conservatives say, if Ralph Nader were not on the ballot in 2000, Al Gore would be in the White House today. I, for one, am grateful to the man for that.”

NADER WANTED GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENT.

There even exists strong evidence that Nader’s chief purpose in his 2000 campaign was to help Bush defeat Gore. On 4 February 2001, columnist Marianne Means perceptively observed: “Nader is desperately trying to rewrite history to clean up his own role, claiming he did not intend to defeat Gore. The claim ignores the crucial fact that in the three days before the election he concentrated his campaign on Florida, where he knew Gore needed every single liberal vote he could scrape up.” That’s proof that Nader was aiming to elect Bush, rather than to be elected himself. Matt Welch, in the May 2002 Reason, bannered “Speaking Lies to Power,” and ripped to shreds Nader’s lies about the 2000 Presidential contest, and Nader’s exquisitely selective citation of the least reliable data to support the conclusion that he hadn’t caused Bush’s “election.”

And why is it that during the closing days of the 2000 political contest, Ralph Nader was choosing to campaign not in states where polls showed that he had a chance to win (which were non-existent), but instead in precisely those states where Gore and Bush were virtually tied and Nader’s constant appeals to “the left” would be the likeliest to throw those states into Bush’s column? That behavior by Nader makes no sense at all unless Nader was trying to ditch Gore’s campaign and “elect” Bush – which he did.

An article by Harry G. Levine on the web, “Ralph Nader as Mad Bomber,” presented overwhelming evidence supporting the view that Nader’s real objective was a Bush victory, and went further to document Nader’s craving for personal revenge against Mr. Gore, who, as Vice President, had cold-shouldered Mr. Nader. Dr. Levine pointed out that, on the day after the election, Nader received with obvious joy the report that Florida was being counted as a Bush win. This was, for Nader, not just Bush’s victory over Gore, but personal vindication in his own 2000 campaign: Nader’s victory over Gore. Revenge would explain Nader’s being happy at that news. Revenge is an honored moral sentiment in Tribal societies, and in Religious societies, but it’s Scientifically not acceptable, because a scientist is concerned above all with future consequences, not with past events, satisfying grudges, a private need to “settle old scores” in a zero-sum game. Furthermore, Nader’s repeated lying to his supporters throughout his campaign was also purely atavistic: Lying, by its nature, runs against the grain of a scientist, because a scientist’s chief objective is truth. As Levine pointed out, Nader’s concentration on Florida during the campaign’s final days made no sense in terms of Nader’s stated strategic objectives for running. Nader had been lying to his supporters. Might he have used those liberal fools precisely in order to slake a personal craving for revenge against Gore?

Or was Ralph Nader, perhaps, actually a Republican mole in American politics, a man who had built his consumerist career precisely in order to infiltrate progressives and so, ultimately, one day – and now the day had finally come – harm the Democratic Party and hand this country over to the Republicans?

Or was he, instead, maybe a Communist, looking to establish fascism in the United States, in the unrealistic hope that fascism, once established here, would be unstable, and would become overthrown in a subsequent Marxist coup? On 31 October 2000, at Slate, Jacob Weisberg presented extensive evidence for this view of Nader’s motivation. He observed: “For some time now, Nader has made it perfectly clear that his campaign isn’t about trying to pull the Democrats back to the left. Rather, his strategy is the Leninist one of ‘heightening the contradictions.’ It’s not just that Nader is willing to take a chance of being personally responsible for electing Bush. It’s that he’s actively trying to elect Bush because he thinks that social conditions in America need to get worse before they can [get] better. Nader often makes this ‘the worse, the better’ point on the stump in relation to Republicans and the environment. He says that Reagan-era Interior Secretary James Watt was useful because he was a ‘provocateur’ for change, noting that Watt spurred a massive boost in the Sierra Club’s membership. More recently, Nader applied this logic to Bush himself. Here’s the Los Angeles Times account of a speech Nader gave at Chapman University in Orange, Calif., last week: ‘After lambasting Gore as part of a do-nothing Clinton administration, Nader said, ‘If it were a choice between a provocateur and an anesthetizer, I’d rather have a provocateur. It would mobilize us.’ Lest this remark be considered an aberration, Nader has said similar things before.” This “Leninist Nader” interpretation is consistent with Nader’s main purpose having been to defeat Al Gore. In fact, even the idea that Nader was a closet fascist would be consistent with his having been a Leninist: the only difference would concern Nader’s view of the stability of a fascist government — a Leninist wouldn’t expect a fascist government to be stable; but, obviously, a fascist would. But both communists and fascists would prefer a fascist U.S. over a democratic U.S.

According to each of these three interpretations, Nader supported Bush. The only interpretation that is not credible is acceptance of the truthfulness of Nader’s assertions that his goal was to win, and not to help achieve an electoral victory for Bush.

A Harvard professor, Barry C. Burden, issued a deceptive study in the September 2005 American Politics Research“Ralph Nader’s Campaign Strategy in the 2000 Presidential Election,” which argues that because until late in the 2000 campaign, Nader wasn’t especially focusing on toss-up states but just on big states where he was hoping to win at least 5% of the vote, this proves that he wasn’t trying to be a “spoiler.” But if Nader’s true motivation was to hurt the Democratic Party, and to establish the Green Party as an ongoing threat to it, then Nader was doing exactly the right thing there, for this evil purpose. The focus on only the big-vote toss-up states, such as Florida, would have come only at the end of the 2000 campaign – and it did. Nader’s behavior was consistently to damage the Democratic Party.

In fact, Harry G. Levine, in his “Ralph Nader as Mad Bomber,” reported a personal incident, when, “I was introduced to Tarek Milleron, Ralph Nader’s nephew, the single person closest to him in the whole campaign.” Levine told Milleron, “‘If Gore lost, Nader would have substantial credibility and power within the Democratic party. By holding back in a handful of states now, he could demonstrate his capacity to cause real damage in the future, and gain much in the short and the long run.’ Tarek did not disagree with that at all. Instead, leaning toward me, with a bit of extra steel in his voice and body, but without changing his cool tone and demeanor, he simply said: ‘We are not going to do that.’ ‘Why not?’ I said. With just a flicker of smile, Tarek said: ‘Because we want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them.’” Levine went on: “In Tarek’s unforgettable phrase, Ralph Nader wanted to hurt, wound and punish the Democrats. This was much more than indifference. Nader was not simply opposed to helping the Democrats, he actually wanted Gore to lose. … But his supporters were not being told this.”

After Nader’s victory in 2000, however, Nader became bolder about letting the public know his true motivation. On 4 March 2001, Dick Polman headlined in the Philadelphia Inquirer“An Unrepentant Nader Sticks To His Plan He Wants The Green Party To Run Up To 80 Congressional Candidates. That Could Drain Votes From Democrats.” Polman described his interview of Nader:

“In a long conversation at his office the other day, he said: ‘I’m just amazed that people think I should be concerned about this stuff. It’s absolutely amazing. Not a minute’s sleep do I lose, about something like this – because I feel sorry for them. It’s just so foolish, the way they have been behaving. Why should I worry?’ … Nader is mapping new mischief with the potential to gladden the hearts of Republicans everywhere. He is working with the Greens to run as many as 80 candidates in the 2002 congressional elections – twice the number that ran in 2000. If he succeeds, Nader could drain liberal votes from Democrats in tight races, and severely impede the Democratic effort to wrest the House of Representatives away from the GOP. He is not coy about his motives. … As he put it, ‘The Democrats are going to have to lose more elections. They didn’t get the message last time.’”

Nader repeated his strategy (to “wound and punish the Democrats,” as Tarek had put it, much more clearly) during the 2004 contest. On 9 September 2004, some prominent members of the Green Party went public sharing the conclusion that he was out to damage the Democratic Party and to help the Republican Party, and they issued a group press release, which opened: “Greens for Impact, a committee of elected officials and Green Party leaders, is dismayed to see that Ralph Nader’s campaign schedule for September consists almost completely of battleground states, where his presence could aid in re-electing George W. Bush.” They detailed six separate points of Nader’s “Rhetoric” on this that were at odds with the clear “Reality,” and concluded: “Taking all of these inconsistencies and hypocrisies together, one can only conclude that Nader’s commitment to defeating Bush is a ruse.” Finally, these suckers recognized the fact.

On September 17th of 2004, the chairman of Bush’s Arizona campaign, U.S. Senator John McCain, urged the Florida State Supreme Court to approve placing Nader on Florida’s 2004 Presidential ballot. McCain said that the Florida Court’s initial ruling against that was “unfair to those Floridians who, for whatever reason, have decided he’s their man.” The Bush campaign was now overtly on Nader’s side. McCain here reached outside Arizona to help Nader in this joint Republican/Nader effort to defeat the Democratic candidate, John Kerry. McCain’s loyalty to the Republican cause was rock-solid. Bush appreciated everything that McCain did to help Bush defeat the Democratic candidate. On 13 February 2006, Newsweek headlined “Picking His [Bush’s] Pockets,” and reported — in a subhead on page 38, which, however, failed to appear in the online version — “John McCain has been the most successful signing up Bush allies” in the financial race for the 2008 Republican U.S. presidential nomination. A reason for that success became clear a week later, on February 20th, when U.S. News & World Report headlined, on page 12, “McCain’s Turn for a Little Early Help,” and Paul Bedard wrote: “Insiders tell us that Bushies have talked him [McCain] up in private chats with Republican strategists and have even tried to steer people to the Arizonan’s effort. Why? The Bushies say they appreciate his support for the president’s 2004 re-election campaign.” Bush knew what was going on. (Only the liberal suckers did not.)

The hypothesis that historically best fits Nader’s entire career is Jacob Weisberg’s: that he was, and had always been, a dedicated covert Marxist. This theory would also explain Nader’s 2004 post-election effort to challenge the vote-count in New Hampshire and thus to expose any rigging by the President’s Party of the voting machines in that state — which action by Nader is consistent with the “Leninist Nader” theory because this electoral challenge was aimed at radicalizing the public, and that’s the goal of the Leninist strategy. In Germany during the 1920’s and early 1930’s, Communists and Nazis joined forces to oppose and then ultimately to topple the democratic Weimar government. They both cooperated with the leading conservative party (Germany’s then-equivalent of America’s Republican Party) in the Reichstag, to block the democratic government (which had been set up by Germany’s equivalent of America’s Democratic Party) from instituting the social welfare programs necessary to deal with the economic depression, and they jointly organized strikes to bring that democratic government down. It is standard Marxist/Leninist practice to work with conservatives to sabotage democratic organizations, even where this requires supporting fascists. Similarly, communists worked to infiltrate and destroy labor unions in the United States and in other democratic countries. Similarly, Stalin and Hitler had a pact, until Hitler grew overconfident and invaded his former ally. Ralph Nader was no original thinker. He was probably just a standard Marxist hack.

Yet another indication that Nader was probably a Marxist was his position with regard to the case of the Florida woman in a vegetative state who, with the assistance of Jeb Bush, George W. Bush, the Republican Party, and America’s Christian far-Right, had been maintained on artificial life support for fifteen years: Ms. Terri Schiavo. Nader joined with the Christian theocrats in condemning the uniform actions of all Florida and U.S. courts, which ruled to remove the feeding tube. On 24 March 2005, Nader issued a press release headlining “Take any Legal Action Available to Let Schiavo Live” (as if she were conscious and had any desire in the matter) and he said of the latest court’s order in the case, “This outrageous order proves that the courts are not merely permitting medical treatment to be withheld, it has ordered her to be made dead.” What the court’s order had actually done is to accept the rulings of lower courts, which had said that the instructions of the woman’s husband took legal precedence over instructions from her parents as reflecting what Ms. Schiavo’s intentions would have been if she had been conscious. Furthermore, all of the courts ruled that the Federal Government couldn’t intervene in this case, which was instead a matter of Florida law, and, above all, a matter that should be controlled, to the fullest extent possible, by the intentions of the individual patient. Nader, in accord with Marxism, was opposed to a private individual’s having final control over her affairs, and favored instead the government’s possessing the power to dictate what should happen. A Marxist prefers government ownership of property, and opposes private ownership; Nader was being consistent, as a Marxist, in applying the same Statist value-system to life and death: he was supporting the view that an individual shouldn’t own even herself. Furthermore, since a Marxist favors centralization of power, Nader wanted this decision to be made by the Federal Government, not by the Florida courts. Nader’s expressed rationale, of course, was different: “Benefits of doubts should be given to life, not hastened [by removal of the feeding tube] death.” His stated argument was indistinguishable from that of the theocratic Christians, because theocratic Christianity had become acceptable in America, and communism never was. Nader thus was using the theocratic Christian argument to support his Marxist conclusion.

Certainly, Nader was no authentic progressive. Regardless of the historical precedent of the way previous Marxists had operated, and regardless of whether Nader knowingly derived inspiration from that, he functioned in their manner: He operated as one arm tied around the back of the Democratic Party, in its competition against the Republican Party — a rigging of democracy, to produce victories for Republicans, with the end in mind of a one-party fascist state, which Marxist dogma says will automatically produce the mass backlash enabling a communist revolution, which is the Marxist faith’s equivalent of the Christian’s hoped-for Armageddon.

On 2 August 2006, Paul Kiel at TPM Muckraker, headlined “GOP Donors Funded Entire PA Green Party Drive,” and he reported: “OK, we’ve done it. We’ve nailed it down: Every single contributor to the Pennsylvania Green Party candidate is actually a conservative – except for the candidate himself. The Luzerne County Green Party raised $66,000 in the month of June in order to fund a voter signature drive. The Philly Inquirer reported yesterday that $40,000 came from supporters of [Republican] Rick Santorum’s campaign. … Also yesterday, we confirmed that another $15,000 came from GOP donors. … Today, I confirmed that” the entire remaining $11,000 also did.

THE GREEN PARTY IGNORANTLY AIDED THE KOCHS.

Among the major donors to the expensive campaign to get Ralph Nader onto the ballot in enough Democratic-leaning states so as to enable Nader to yank some Electoral College votes to go for George W. Bush instead of John Kerry were Koch-affiliated fronts, such as Citizens for a Sound Economy. This was certainly true in 2004. But was it so also in 2000? We don’t know. All that we do know with confidence is that in 2000, the only major U.S. politician who campaigned seriously on the issue of his top priority being to prevent the onrush toward irreversible global warming was Al Gore, the only truly green candidate, and his candidacy failed because of the “Green” Party.

The available evidence that I have been able to find includes only the single news report that I previously cited for the Republican Party’s financial support for the Nader campaign in 2000; so, in the present context I’ll repeat it here, because it is crucial: “On 27 October 2000, the AP’s Laura Meckler headlined ‘GOP Group To Air Pro-Nader TV Ads.’ She opened: ‘Hoping to boost Ralph Nader in states where he is threatening to hurt Al Gore, a Republican group is launching TV ads featuring Nader attacking the vice president [Mr. Gore]. … “Al Gore is suffering from election year delusion if he thinks his record on the environment is anything to be proud of,” Nader says [in the commercial]. An announcer interjects: “What’s Al Gore’s real record?” Nader says: “Eight years of principles betrayed and promises broken.”’ Meckler’s report continued: ‘A spokeswoman for the Green Party nominee said that his campaign had no control over what other organizations do with Nader’s speeches.’ Bush’s people – the group sponsoring this particular ad happened to be the Republican Leadership Council – knew exactly what they were doing.”

Thus, on the basis of the evidence presented here, Republican big-money donors were helping Nader’s campaign at least by late during the 2000 political contest. Whether they were doing so earlier than that is unknown. But what is known is that during the 2000 campaign’s closing days, as Eric Alterman noted in the Nation: “Nader has been campaigning aggressively in Florida, Minnesota, Michigan, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin. If Gore loses even a few of those states, then Hello, President Bush.” And so, in Florida, it indeed was “Hello, President Bush.” And Ralph Nader was joyous. His suckers, who campaigned for him, and who voted for him, weren’t, but he was.

Why doesn’t that experience simply end all third parties in Presidential-system democracies (though not in parliamentary democracies)? Shouldn’t they be made illegal there, since the only authentic ideological division is between democracy (progressives) and fascism (conservatives)? Those are the only real choices; and if there were, by law, only two parties allowed, then those two parties would naturally devolve into progressive versus conservative. It would be vastly more honest, and far less manipulable by the big-money people.

Harry Levine’s website includes much more evidence of Nader’s lies and just plain evilness, and can be accessed via a web-search for the sequence: hereinstead “the real ralph”. Even liberal fools don’t need to remain fooled anymore. This should wake them up to the fact that it’s not only followers of evil people on the right such as Sarah Palin who are suckers. Though Nader lies about “Tweedledom and Tweedledee,” etc., the True Believers can be found on both ends of the political spectrum – in that sense, they’re alike. But that’s not the sense Nader is alleging.

The similarity is instead different: the fools on both sides are demanding their concept of perfection, instead of intelligently dealing with reality, which intrinsically mocks perfection. Here is one recent example of reality, which shows how this works:

Eric Lipton and Ben Protess headlined in The New York Times on 28 October 2013, “House, Set to Vote on 2 Bills, Is Seen as an Ally of Wall St.,” and reported that the lobbyists for Citigroup had written the final draft of a bill in the House to exempt most of Wall Street banks’ risky derivatives investments from Dodd-Frank regulation, so that if another crash would come, U.S. taxpayers would again be on the hook for the losses. The bill was so bad that Obama was against it, and that the bill had no chance of passing in the Democratically controlled Senate; but it would pass in the Republican-controlled House and then the Senate and Obama would need to deal with it in a compromise with the megabanks. “House Republicans have also come to the defense of energy companies, seeking to beat back rules for shale gas drillers and coal-powered electricity plants.” Some of the Republicans and conservative Democrats, however, were miffed at the extent to which Wall Street and Big Oil demanded to write the laws. “‘I know that some of our members are inclined to whore, but we cannot be apes,’ the Republican aide said.” Subsequently, at Huffington Post I headlined on 5 November 2013 “Is Your Member of Congress Owned by Wall Street?” and included a link to the ultimate House vote on this measure. “As you can see there, only 122 members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted against repealing this crucial protection of U.S. taxpayers – this crucial provision to not extend to Wall Street’s gambling casinos the federal insurance that was originally intended only for ultra-safe savings accounts and checking accounts. … There were 292 ‘Aye’ votes, including 222 Republicans, and 70 Democrats. There were only 122 ‘No’ votes, including 3 Republicans, and 119 Democrats. (One of the 70 Democrats who voted to gut Section 716, and so, in effect, to hold the U.S. public again vulnerable to bailing out the Wall Street mega-banks if their gambles go bad, was congressperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the friend of Hillary Clinton that Barack Obama chose to head the Democratic National Committee; so, the corrupt Democratic Establishment were in league with virtually all Republicans on this. The only 3 clean Republicans here were: John Duncan of Tennessee, Walter Jones of N.C., and Thomas Massie of Kentucky.) 119 Democrats and 3 Republicans voted against extending federal insurance to Wall Street’s casinos. 222 Republicans and 70 Democrats voted in favor of extending federal insurance to Wall Street’s casinos. No House vote in recent memory could be a clearer indication of the identities of the members of the House of Representatives who actually represent Wall Street, and of the members who represent the public that elected them.” Ralph Nader’s “Tweedledom and Tweedledee” was thus again shown to be a lie: whereas 63% of House Democrats were good, less than 1.5% of House Republicans were good – 98.6% of House Republicans were bad. That’s hardly “Tweedledom versus Tweedledee.” The only reason that Nader makes that charge is to fool suckers. If they don’t wake up to that fact, then the billionaires will have an easy time controlling things, because the only realistically possible representative of the public’s interests, the Democratic Party, will be crippled by those fools, as happened so drastically in 2000. As Alterman had honestly warned Nader’s suckers: “Goodbye to so much of what Nader and his followers profess to cherish, … affirmative action, abortion rights, gun control, campaign finance reform, minimum-wage raises, environmental protection, consumer protection, class-action lawsuits, worker-safety legislation and just about everything else the government can do to help the neediest and most vulnerable among us.” Global warming? Blame Bush — and Nader. The 2003 invasion of Iraq? Blame Bush — and Nader. Gore was the world’s leading politician against Big Oil; and he warned repeatedly that all of Bush’s “evidence” about “Saddam’s WMD” was highly questionable, at best. “Tweedledom Tweedledee?” No: Nader is a barefaced  liar.

This doesn’t mean voting for Hillary Clinton. If the Democratic nominee is that corrupt, the reasonable progressive will register that by not voting on the Presidential line in that particular election (and by voting in Democratic primaries for the best alternative person to represent the Party in the general election so that Hillary won’t be the Democratic nominee). Voter-intensity matters. But voting for aristocrats’ stooges, just because they happen to be leftists, is stupid, and it only encourages more such use of such leftist stooges in the future. It rewards the liars. It produced disaster in 2000 (just think of the impact on global warming – the most important policy-issue of all – as one example), and the stakes are surely too high to permit that to happen again.

The only way forward for progressives is inside the Democratic Party, fighting relentlessly to take it over as completely as possible, so that it represents the progressive vision and all conservatives will thus be represented by the Republican Party. That’s democracy, and then our elections can have clear and honest battle-lines. Only then will the aristocracy encounter a formidable public, and be forced to back down so that we won’t continue to be financing (through our taxes) their investment-losses, and consuming their polluted air and toxic products.

———-

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Name

    So Al Gore, who prematurely conceded the 2000 election and gavelled down the Black Caucus when they, it turns out correctly, protested the vote count, and whose bona fides include being a scion of a aristocratic political dynasty, should have been president because he chose the right talking point.

    But Ralph Nader, who also ran for president in 1972, 1992, and 1996, somehow knew he would finally get more than a handful of votes, and is actually a secret communist trying to bring fascism to the US.

    I think this one needs to go back in the oven for a while.

    • Best comment ever!

      +1^100000000

    • Bev

      working link: pdf of Gene Sharp’s online book: From Dictatorship to Democracy for over 200 nonviolent actions to construct positive change.
      http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/FDTD.pdf

      The Media and the Democratic Party made Bush illegally president by not fighting for Gore’s win in the past, and now I am sure they intend to rollover in the future. Look how supposedly progressive Alternet describes Jeb Bush as moderate http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/latest-new-right-wing-malady-jeb-bush-fever . So many on the left, middle, and right are co-opted.

      Prove Our Democracy. From: statistician Richard Charnin http://richardcharnin.com/
      The True Vote Model had him (Gore) winning by 51.5-44.7%. But the Supreme Court awarded the election to Bush (271-267 EV). In Florida, 185,000 ballots were uncounted. The following states flipped from Gore in the exit poll to Bush in the recorded vote: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC TN TX VA. Gore would have won the election if he captured just one of the states. Democracy died in this election. (note from me: Nader did not control e-voting, scanning, tabulating machines to flip those many states’ votes. Your whole premise is wrong allowing all this anti-democracy fraud to continue again)

      Richard Charnin (Truth Is All)
      Election Fraud (1968-2012) Quantitative Analysis and True Vote Models

      Historical Overview
      Links to posts, models, statistical analysis, exit poll timelines, articles and True Vote analysis tables follow this summary.

      I have written two books on election fraud which prove that the recorded vote is always different from the True Vote. Unlike the misinformation spread in the media, voting machine “glitches” are not due to machine failures. It’s the fault of the humans who program them.

      In the 1968-2012 Presidential elections, the Republicans won the average recorded vote by 48.7-45.8%. The 1968-2012 Recursive National True Vote Model indicates the Democrats won the True Vote by 49.6-45.0% – a 7.5% margin discrepancy.

      In the 1988-2008 elections, the Democrats won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 52-42% – but won the recorded vote by just 48-46%, an 8% margin discrepancy. The state exit poll margin of error was exceeded in 126 of 274 state presidential elections from 1988-2008. The probability of the occurrence is ZERO. Only 14 (5%) would be expected to exceed the MoE at the 95% confidence level. Of the 126 which exceeded the MoE, 123 red-shifted to the Republican. The probability P of that anomaly is ABSOLUTE ZERO (5E-106). That is scientific notation for

      P= .000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000005.

      The proof is in the 1988-2008 Unadjusted State Exit Polls Statistical Reference. Not one political scientist, pollster, statistician, mathematician or media pundit has ever rebutted the data or the calculation itself. They have chosen not to discuss the topic. And who can blame them? Job security is everything.

      Election forecasters, academics, political scientists and main stream media pundits never discuss or analyze the statistical evidence that proves election fraud is systemic – beyond a reasonable doubt. This site contains a compilation of presidential, congressional and senate election analyses based on pre-election polls, unadjusted exit polls and associated True Vote Models.

      Those who never discuss or analyze Election Fraud should focus on the factual statistical data and run the models. If anyone wants to refute the analytical evidence, they are encouraged to do so in a response. Election forecasters, academics and political scientists are welcome to peer review the content.

      The bedrock of the evidence derives from this undisputed fact: Final national and state exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote – even if doing so requires an impossible turnout of prior election voters and implausible vote shares. All demographic categories are adjusted to conform to the recorded vote. To use these forced final exit polls as the basis for election research is unscientific and irresponsible. The research is based on the bogus premise that the recorded vote is sacrosanct and represents how people actually voted. Nothing can be further from the truth.

      It is often stated that exit polls were very accurate in elections prior to 2004 but have deviated sharply from the recorded vote since. That is a misconception. The UNADJUSTED exit polls have ALWAYS been accurate and closely matched the True Vote in 1988-2008. A comparison of ADJUSTED, PUBLISHED exit polls in elections prior to 2004 and PRELIMINARY exit polls since then is like comparing apples to oranges. The adjusted, published exit polls have always exactly matched the fraudulent RECORDED vote because they have been forced to do so. That’s why they APPEAR to have been accurate. The RECORDED vote has deviated from the TRUE VOTE in EVERY election since 1968 –always favoring the Republicans.
      snip

      In the 2010 Midterms, the statistical evidence indicates that many elections for House, Senate and Governor were stolen. The Wisconsin True Vote Model contains worksheets for Senate, Governor, Supreme Court and Recall elections. A serious analyst can run them and see why it is likely that they were stolen.

      In 2012, Obama won the recorded vote by 51.0-47.2% (5.0 million vote margin) and once again overcame the built-in 5% fraud factor. The 2012 Presidential True Vote and Election Fraud Simulation Model exactly forecast Obama’s 332 electoral vote based on the state pre-election polls. The built-in True Vote Model projected that Obama would win by 56-42% with 391 electoral votes. But just 31 states were exit polled, therefore a comparison between the True Vote Model and the state and national unadjusted exit polls (i.e. the red-shift) is not possible. Obama won the 11.7 million Late votes recorded after Election Day by 58-38%. In 2008, he won the 10.2 million late votes by 59-37%, a confirmation that he was within 2% of his 2008 share.

      ………………..

      http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8889
      By Brad Friedman

      Recommended #OWS Demand: Let ALL Citizens 18 and Older Vote, On Paper Ballots, Count Them in Public

      I offer the following simple “demand” for consideration by OWS, as this one likely underscores almost every other. Or, at least, without it, all other demands may ultimately be rendered moot. Every U.S. citizen 18 years of age or older who wishes to vote, gets to vote. Period. Those votes, on hand-marked paper ballots, will be counted publicly, by hand, on Election Night, at the precinct, in front of all observers and video cameras. ….
      …………….

      We need this because those election machines are more and more in the hands of right-wing fascists Romney and Bush:

      http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2012/4725
      Vote counting company tied to Romney (and Bush)
      by Gerry Bello
      ………………..

      We must Prove Our Democracy in order to change our Money System away from deadly bankers’ DEBT to a public DEBT-FREE MONEY ( see: The American Monetary Institute at http://www.monetary.org/ and the bill that needs to be reintroduced in Japan, the U.S. and the whole world at http://www.monetary.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/HR-2990.pdf ) so that we can provide many jobs for many generations to fix the dangers to us all from Fukushima, the many nuclear power plants coming to the end of their life cycle and worsening Climate Change. This is a good plan for the common good…for generations.

      • Bev

        Also see: http://www.thelandesreport.com/VotingSecurity.htm
        Lynn Landes: The Case For Open Voting

        http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8889
        By Brad Friedman
        Recommended #OWS Demand: Let ALL Citizens 18 and Older Vote, On Paper Ballots, Count Them in Public (and Post in Precinct on Election Night)

        via: http://markcrispinmiller.com/2013/08/obama-didnt-prosecute-bushcheney-out-of-fear-hed-end-up-like-paul-wellstone/

        Obama didn’t prosecute Bush/Cheney out of fear he’d end up like Paul Wellstone

        In comments: The following is interesting in its attempt to brush away all the bad law since the illegitimate 2000 election. Sandra Day O’Conner should testify as her only redemption.

        IMPEACHMENT OF U.S. PRESIDENT ALBERT GORE, Jr._REF: U.S. Supreme Ct_Case No. 00-949

        http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/03/impeachment-of-u-s-president-albert-gore-jr-_ref-u-s-supreme-ct_case-no-00-949/

        Constitutional Grounds for the Impeachment and Fraud Upon the Supreme Court, et al…

        (Editor’s note: Only when America’s legally elected president, Al Gore, is returned to office and subjected to required impeachment proceedings, can constitutional authority in the United States be re-established. Toward that end, all actions of the Bush (43) presidency are to be declared “null and void,” all treaties abrogated, all
        executive actions declared unlawful and all actions including but not limited to the establishment of the United States as a criminal empire undone. The subsequent election of Barak Obama as president thus has no legal standing. Gordon Duff and Lee Wanta)

        Before the Supreme Court of the United States

        1. IMPROPER FAILURE TO REPORT,

        2. CONTINUOUS ABSENCE FROM HIS U.S. PRESIDENTIAL DUTIES,

        3. REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THE ELECTORAL VOTE DECISION OF THE AMERICAN POPULACE MAJORITY,

        4. CONTINUING VIOLATIONS OF PUBLIC TRUST AND EMPLOYMENT, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, INCLUDING ATTEMPTS TO SUBVERT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
        ………………..

        COMMENT of U.S. Supreme Court Reporter Jeffrey Toobin :

        ” To know Justice O’Connor as I am privileged to do is to know that the word ‘regret’ never passes her lips,” Toobin said. ” Did she regret her vote in Bush v. Gore? Did she regret the Bush presidency? You bet she did, and you bet she does.” 20apr13

        ”Maybe the court should have said, ‘we’re not going to take it, goodbye,”‘ O’Connor told the Chicago Tribune editorial board, in reference to the controversial Bush v. Gore decision resolving a dispute over the 2000 election in George W. Bush’s favor. “It turned out the election authorities in Florida hadn’t done a real job there and kind of messed it up. And probably the Supreme Court added to the problem at the end of the day.”
        ………………………..

        I like this idea because we could correct the illegal 2000 election, return all the public interest laws (Bill of Rights, Privacy rights, Human Rights against Torture, habius corpus, even the 500 year old Magna Carta) that Bush now even fearful Obama have overturned, finally try to turn around dangerous climate change, and get dangerous fukushima entombed. That would be so good for the common good. I love it.

        ………….

        Elsewise:

        http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2012/4725
        Vote counting company tied to Romney (and Bush)
        by Gerry Bello

        Looking beyond the well-documented Google choking laundry list of apparent fraud, failure and seeming corruption that is associated with Hart Intercivic, an ongoing Free Press investigation turned its attention to the key question of who owns the voting machine companies. The majority of the directors of Hart come from the private equity firm H.I.G. Capital. H.I.G. has been heavily invested in Hart Intercivic since July 2011, just in time for the current presidential election cycle. But who is H.I.G Capital?

        Out of 49 partners and directors, 48 are men, and 47 are white. Eleven of these men, including H.I.G. Founder Tony Tamer, were formerly employed at Bain and Company, and two of those men, John P. Bolduc and Douglas Berman are Romney bundlers along with former Bain and H.I.G. manager Brian Shortsleeve.

        Additionally, four of these men were formerly employed at Booz Allen Hamilton. Bush family friendly Carlyle group is an owner of Booz Allen which also made voting machines for the United States military. Booz Allen was also the key subcontractor for the controversial PioneerGroundbreaker program, an NSA data mining operation that gathered information on American citizens until it was shut down and replaced with even more invasive successor programs like MATRIX and Total Information Awareness.

        • Bev

          I now support Bernie Sanders so that we all together try to recover our jobs, kids, economy, rights, justice, future and our survival as a species.

          https://berniesanders.com/

          But, we must get rid of those EVIDENCE REMOVING e-voting, e-scanning, e-tabulating machines owned by the abusive right during primaries and clean up caucuses so that voters votes can count for Bernie now and in the general election.

      • Bev

        Richard Charnin states:
        “The following states flipped from Gore in the exit poll to Bush in the recorded vote: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC TN TX VA. Gore would have won the election if he captured just one of the states. Democracy died in this election.”

        This means that even though the focus of attention was on Florida and the theft by the “supreme” court of Al Gore’s win and voters’ wishes, that long list of states, including Texas, voted for Al Gore. Al Gore won AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC TN TX VA until those e-voting, scanning, tabulating machines owned and manipulated by the extreme right wing (Fascists) flipped them to Bush.

        from Lynn Landes @ http://www.thelandesreport.com/VotingSecurity.htm

        Making matters worse, our public voting system has been privatized and outsourced to a handful of domestic, foreign, and multi-national corporations, most of whom have close ties to the right wing of the Republican Party. Just two companies, ES&S and Diebold, started by two brothers, Bob and Todd Urosevich, electronically process (using touchscreen machines or optical scanners), 80% of all votes. Their employees are in a perfect position to rig elections nation-wide. And evidence is mounting that elections in America have been computer programmed to prefer conservative candidates of both political parties.

        In America, less than 1% of votes are hand-counted-paper-ballots at the polls on Election Day. Neither government-controlled audits nor official recounts (both can occur days or even weeks after the election) provide sufficient transparency to detect widespread election fraud by voting machines companies and/or election officials. Moreover, the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ), under the 38-year reign of Craig C. Donsanto, refuses to seriously investigate or prosecute electronic vote fraud.

        Can’t we detect vote fraud through exit polls? The major news networks refuse to report on vote fraud and may be implicated in it.

  • diogenes23

    i agree with Name here. add the supreme court into the equation too. remember Gore proposed even a bigger military budget than Bush.

  • Most viruses are good viruses we are now finding out.

    Nader is a bad strain of an ancient problem.

    If he does not do it, another one standing in the line will.

  • par4

    #failed experiment/ nuff said

  • Jason Walker

    An extraordinary amount of words by Mr. Zeusse devoted to attacking the motives of Mr. Nader. Attacking the messenger, instead of discussing the pertinent issues has become all too common, and a tiresome waste.

    Though Mr. Zeusse does make mention of Nader stating that thinks need to get worse before things get better—which is commonly the case in matters both large and small, personal and political—the character assassination is laughable.

    I’d love to see a guest post by Mr. Nader in response to this garbage.

    • cettel

      Jason Walker, I didn’t just attack Nader’s motive; the core of my article was a demonstration that Nader stole the 2000 “election” and handed it to Bush; my article is mainly about what he did. Only after that has been established, do I inquire into his motives for that heinous act.

      As to Nader’s responding to this article, I’d love that; I’d love for him to address it point-by-point; but I don’t expect him to, because the facts that this article presents are facts, and the case it presents against him is conclusive. Furthermore, he has demonstrated, by his constant lying about these facts, that he’s a psychopath; so, he probably doesn’t even care.

      • Welfare Reform and an Ever-Expanding Police State
        The Origins of the Neoliberal War on the Poor
        http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/09/the-origins-of-the-neoliberal-war-on-the-poor/

        But mostly, Eric Zuesse appears to be a freakin totalitarian whose anti-democratic conceit informs him that objecting and not voting for yet another shyster for the 1% FIRE and MIC sectors of the underdevoloping American economy is stealing from the worthy. Because Duopoly and Markets!

        • cettel

          That article you link to cites as its source, statements by the notorious liar Dick Morris. That’s hearsay from a proven liar. Consequently, since that article is based upon hearsay from a proven liar, the article is trash, not even worth reading.

          • That proven liar was Clinton’s and Gore’s proven liar. Does your disdain for Morris cross-polinate to the article only, or also affect the manner in which you regard the employers of Dick Morris?

          • cettel

            He was Clinton’s, not Gore’s. Different men. Very different.

          • Well Eric, let’s see if we can find Dick Morris in this:

            Not trusting Shalala’s department to produce objective assessments of the consequences of the bill, the White House staff had commissioned a survey from the Urban Institute, a DC think tank. The numbers were dire. The bill would push 2.6 million people further into poverty–1.1 million of them children. In all, the Institute predicted that 11 million families would lose income. That was the best-case scenario. In the event of a recession (which would come in 2001), the numbers would be far, far worse. In that fateful cabinet meeting Rubin invoked this study, and the numbers seemed to find their mark with Clinton, while Gore remained mute.

            The meeting came to an end and Clinton, Panetta and Gore headed for the Oval Office for a private session. All accounts agree that, first, Panetta again made the case for a veto, laying particular emphasis on an appalling provision in the bill that would deny legal immigrants federal assistance, such as food stamps. Finally Gore broke his silence and urged Clinton to sign.

            And while we do find Dick in this, I see no reason to reject it as political gospel fucking truth:

            To this day many Democrats in Congress become incensed on the topic of what Clinton and Gore did. One the eve of a Democratic convention, with Gingrich already ensconced in the national imagination as the Bad Guy, Clinton had just made common cause with him, thus undercutting all plans to campaign against the Gingrich Congress. As for Al Gore the consensus was that he was looking ahead to a possible challenge in 2000 from his old rival Dick Gephardt. With Morris’s polls showing that an attack on welfare scored well over the 60 percent bar, Gore would have the advantage over Gephardt or any other liberal challenger.

            Suspicions about Gore deepened as the fall campaign proceeded. The president and vice president argued that it was crucial that they be re-elected so that they fix the problems with the welfare bill they had just signed. The problems here concerned not the welfare bill itself but the denial of federal services to legal immigrants and a slash in the food stamp program. In October of 1996, with the presidential election no longer in doubt, Democratic candidates came to the Democratic National Committee urgently seeking infusions of cash to help them in the crucial final weeks. Finally, Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, then the general chairman of the DNC, organized a meeting with Clinton and Gore. Dodd explained that the two were home safe and there was a chance to recapture the House. Clinton seemed amenable to a release of funds. Gore adamantly disagreed. On one account, Gore was the only person in the White House to oppose this transfer of funds from the presidential campaign to congressional races. It’s a measure of how a number of Democrats view Al Gore that some participants in that meeting felt that the only explanation for his conduct was that he did not want the Democrats to re-take control of the House because victory would elevate Gephardt to Speaker of the House.

            The cynicism may not have stopped there. Why did Clinton and Gore decide to sign on to that third Republican welfare bill? The only major difference from the previous ones came in the form of the denial of federal services to legal immigrants and a $2.5 billion cut in the food stamp program. It’s likely that these two Republican add-ons were what allured the White House, because (as noted above) Clinton could then turn to the liberals saying they needed him to be re-elected so he could repair part of the damage wrought by the very bill he had just signed. In fact the White House probably could have insisted the riders be dropped, because Dole desperately wanted a legislative victory under the Republicans’ belt.

            The welfare bill ended a federal entitlement that had been a cornerstone of the New Deal. It caps the federal contribution to welfare programs at $14.6 billion a year and hands the money over in block grants to the states to distribute as they see fit.

            Finally, under the old system, welfare money came to the recipient as cash. Under the new system, the money can be given to intermediaries, for possible conversion to other services such as housing or food. Al Gore particularly liked this provision. In Atlanta in May of 1999, he told an audience why: “It allows faith-based organizations to provide basic welfare services. They can do so with public funds–without having to alter the religious character that is so often the key to their effectiveness. We should extend this approach to drug treatment, homelessness and youth violence prevention. People who work in faith-and values-based organizations are driven by their spiritual commitment. They have done what government can never do: provide compassionate care. Their client is not a number but a child of god.” In other words, treat welfare payments like school vouchers. Gore had just laid out the welcome mat for Bush’s faith-based initiatives.

            In his 2000 campaign, Al Gore pushed for what he called “Welfare Reform 2″, saying that more remained to be done to weed out cheats and freeloaders. He was particularly vehement in attacking dads behind on child support, vowing that he would make it easier for credit care companies to deny credit to such fathers. This would have come on top of a program, initiated by Janet Reno in her Florida years, whereby fathers behind on their payments get their driver’s license lifted, meaning that they can’t drive to work.

            The Clinton crime bill of 1994 introduced mandatory life imprisonment for persons convicted of a third felony in certain categories. It maintained the 100-to-1 disproportion in sentencing for crimes involving powder and crack cocaine, even though the US Sentencing Commission had concluded that the disparity was racist. It expanded to fifty the number of crimes that could draw the death penalty in a federal court, reaching even to crimes that did not include murders–the largest expansion of the death penalty in history. Pell grants giving prisoners an avenue to higher education were cut off. Federal judges were stripped of their powers to enforce the constitutional rights of prisoners and the power of states to set sentencing standards for drug crimes was greatly diminished.

            Where there is no social program, there’s always a violence program. For the Clinton/Gore administration welfare reform and expansion of the police state were not only means to trump the Republicans; they were also essential to economic policy. Intense competition for jobs at the lowest rungs would depress wages, pit poor and working-class people against each other and, where workfare recipients displace municipal workers, weaken labor unions. The spectre and reality of incarceration would have the traditional effect of suppressing the dangerous classes, at a time when the wage gap between the rich and the poor grew wider than at any time in recent history.

            So these are just random excerpts from the article which you disparage not because of the facts richly documenting the travesty that was the Clinton/Gore administration, but because Clinton’s man Morris(also Gore’s) is to conveniently serve as a shield for those who’ve hired him. That’s pathologically perverse and deeply dishonest.

    • cettel

      The reply to Jason Walker’s comment that I posted last night was removed, but in it, I said that my article is mainly about and documenting that “Ralph Nader Made George W. Bush President,” not about his motives, which I then discuss only subordinate to the clear fact that is stated in that headline and then documented to be fact and not (as so many here seem to wish it to be) fiction.

      As I also said in that reply, I would be delighted if Ralph Nader were to join the reader-comments here, but I don’t expect him to, because the facts that I present are so unambiguously damning of him, and neither he nor anyone else would be able to show any of the allegations here to be false. I am extremely careful about the sources that I cite, and about the way that I represent them. However, I openly invite Ralph Nader to comment here; I urge him to do so. However, I don’t expect that he will.

  • luther_blissett5

    I don’t understand the moderate liberal hatred towards Nader. Karl Rove, the Supreme Court, a corrupt electoral system and Al Gore himself were greater factors in Gore’s defeat than Ralph Nader. Perhaps it’s because he helped reveal what a sham U.S. presidential politics have become and they’re still in denial, thinking another Democrat President will make things better? To hear Nader’s side of the story see the documentary “An Unreasonable Man”.

    • cettel

      Cannot “luther_blissett5” read?

      He says that, “Karl Rove, the Supreme Court, a corrupt electoral system and Al Gore himself were greater factors in Gore’s defeat than Ralph Nader,” as if any of that would even have been able to come into play after Nader concentrated his final days on Florida and won 97,488 votes in an “election” where Bush “beat” Gore by a mere “537 votes”? There wouldn’t have been any recount; there wouldn’t have been the need for any. Gore would have won, get it? Winning Florida would have given him victory in the all-important Electoral College; and that victory would have been similar to instead of opposite to Gore’s 500,000+ popular-vote win of the Presidency in 2000.

      Nader was the one essential person to George W. Bush’a having become President. Everyone else were mere assistants.

      • luther_blissett5

        You missed my greater point that with a crooked electoral system and political operatives in the right places, it doesn’t matter how close the vote counts appeared to be. Nader was just a convenient scapegoat, as would be any third party candidate. Judging from Obama’s policies it’s unlikely Gore would have been much better.

        • cettel

          “luther_blissett5” you ignore the article you claim to be attacking. The article says that without Nader’s having been in the 2000 Presidential contest, Gore would have won Florida by so many votes there would have been no need for any recount. For example: “All polling studies that were done, for both the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections, indicated that Nader drained at least 2 to 5 times as many voters from the Democratic candidate as he did from the Republican Bush.” Let’s just assume the lowest, the 2-to-1, ratio: two-thirds of that 97,488 Nader-vote would have gone to Gore, one-third to Bush: 64,986 to Gore; 32,502 to Bush. That’s a net of 32,503 Gore advantage over Bush, so that even subtracting the “537 vote” Bush “margin over Gore, there’d have been a 31,966 Gore win of Florida — and that’s assuming only the lowest end, the possibility that only two-thirds, instead of the maximum five-sixths of the Nader vote would have gone to Gore.

        • cettel

          “luther_blissettes” you again ignore the article that you are supposedly commenting on, which makes crystal clear that if Ralph Nader had not been in the 2000 Presidential contest, the states of Florida and New Hampshire would have gone to Gore instead of to Bush, and there wouldn’t have been any recount in Florida (because Gore’s victory-margin in the initial count in Florida would have been somewhere between 30,000 to 60,000). Read, before you comment.

  • cettel

    The is Eric Zuesse.

    “Name” ignores that Bush lied about “Saddam’s WMD” in order to achieve “regime change in Iraq,” whereas Gore never would have done that. “Name” ignores the fact that human-induced climate change is by far the biggest problem facing mankind, and also that Bush was determined to ignore it, but Gore was the first national politician to attempt to publicize this gigantic issue. Name ignores that Nader really did take 97,000+ votes in Florida and thus enable Bush to “win” by “537 votes.” “Name” falsely asserts that Gore “prematurely conceded the 2000 election,” though the reality is that all opinion-polls after November 2000 showed overwhelming public majority favoring Gore to cease and desist from his demand for a completion of the Florida recount.

    Jason Walker, who doesn’t even spell my name right, says my article was “devoted to attacking the motives of Mr. Nader. Attacking the messenger, instead of discussing the pertinent issues,” but the only “issue” is discusses is that “Ralph Nader Made George W. Bush President,” and Walker hasn’t got a shred of fact to cite to contradict anything in it. The article also does make clear that “Nader Wanted George W. Bush President,” but Mr. Walker cannot even cite a fact to the contrary of the documentation that’s presented in that sub-argument within the broader case here. Instead, Mr. Walker calls this carefully documented case “garbage.” Well, I certainly wouldn’t want a person like that on my jury.

    “par4” says that the entire article is simply “failed experiment,” and he (or she) doesn’t even try to present a reason for his failed comment.

    I have no one on my side here, but all the facts on my side: Ralph Nader Made George W. Bush President. And the readers here think that that’s fine. Well, I don’t — not at all. And George W. Bush’s Presidency was a big deal — a very big deal.

    But yes, in reply to Jason Walker’s urging, “I’d love to see a guest post by Mr. Nader in response to this,” so would I, Jason; but I don’t expect him to, because he knows that he was crucial to Bush’s becoming the President, and Nader also knows that the only way he’d be able to defend what he did would be for him to argue that he was too stupid to know what he was doing and why he was focusing the last days of his 2000 campaign on Florida and other Bush-Gore tossup states. He knows he’s not stupid; he knows he’s a damned liar. And he’s a psychopath who isn’t even apologetic about what he did. So, I don’t expect him to fulfill the hope of that fan of his, Jason Walker.

    • Name

      Sorry, Clinton’s unsanctioned intervention in the Balkans and the criminal blockade of Iraq lend no credence to the theory that Gore wouldn’t have taken the same course as Bush. Gore’s propaganda might have been more plausible, though. And my point wasn’t about climate change but the propensity of politicians and corporations to take umbrage in the pale of legitimate causes. People like the Koch brothers routinely lavish money on both sides of any cause because they get a tax break and don’t look so much like the vermin they are.

      Bush didn’t win in Florida by any counting of the votes, and Gore did more than his fair share of obscuring that fact until it was too late. The day before that fact was to have been announced by a consotium of major news outlets was 9/11/2001. Gore did concede on the night of the election, before the results were in.

      Personally, I think Ralph Nader is a national treasure, and perhaps that colored my comment. But I think you have to rise to a higher standard than the one you have chosen, whether you trash Eugene Debs or Milton Friedman.

      • cettel

        “Name” thinks “Ralph Nader is a national treasure,” and that Gore would have invaded Iraq, but here are excerpts from Al Gore’s speech on September 23, 2002 trying to dissuade Congress from granting the President authority to invade Iraq:

        “We should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and have thus far gotten away with it. … I don’t think that we should allow anything to diminish our focus on avenging the 3,000 Americans who were murdered. …

        “President Bush is telling us that the most urgent requirement of the moment – right now – is not to redouble our efforts against Al Qaeda, not to stabilize the nation of Afghanistan after driving his host government from power, but instead to shift our focus and concentrate on immediately launching a new war against Saddam Hussein. And he is proclaiming a new, uniquely American right to pre-emptively attack whomsoever he may deem represents a potential future threat. Moreover, he is demanding in this high political season that Congress speedily affirm that he has the necessary authority to proceed immediately against Iraq. …

        “By shifting from his early focus after September 11th on war against terrorism to war against Iraq, the President has manifestly disposed of the sympathy, good will and solidarity compiled by America and transformed it into a sense of deep misgiving and even hostility. In just one year, the President has somehow squandered the international outpouring of sympathy, goodwill and solidarity that followed the attacks of September 11th. …

        “The resolution that the President has asked Congress to pass is much too broad in the authorities it grants…

        “Specifically, Congress should establish why the president believes that unilateral action will not severely damage the fight against terrorist networks. …

        “The Congressional resolution should make explicitly clear that authorities for taking these actions are to be presented as derivatives from existing Security Council resolutions and from international law: not requiring any formal new doctrine of pre-emption. …

        “We claim this right for ourselves – and only for ourselves. It is, in that sense, part of a broader strategy to replace ideas like deterrence and containment with what some in the administration “dominance.” …

        “Does Saddam Hussein present an imminent threat, and if he did would the United States be free to act without international permission? If he presents an imminent threat we would be free to act under generally accepted understandings of article 51 of the UN Charter which reserves for member states the right to act in self-defense.

        “If Saddam Hussein does not present an imminent threat, then is it justifiable for the Administration to be seeking by every means to precipitate a confrontation, to find a cause for war, and to attack? …

        “I believe that we can effectively defend ourselves abroad and at home without dimming our principles. Indeed, I believe that our success in defending ourselves depends precisely on not giving up what we stand for.”

  • Any chance that Washington’s Blog will get a post from a conservative that will make the case that Bob Barr made Barack Obama president?

    • 0Washington0

      Sure, if anyone has a good post on it, let us know …

  • Carl_Herman

    Eric, with all respect, you’re either blind or lying.

    You attack Nader and the Greens, apparently the most sane voices in opposition to the Left and Right arms of US fascism, rather than put the blame for the unlawful wars, bankster looting, and 100 other criminal policies where they belong: with the criminal “leadership” of both parties, along with the lying sacks-of-spin corporate media.

    Here’s the Green Party’s viewpoint on this exact question, that by golly, Eric somehow didn’t choose to provide or address: http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html

    Here’s Al Gore’s “courageous” 2002 speech in support of the unlawful so-called War on Terror, carrying the lie-filled 9/11 story, actually supporting attack on Iraq with more allies and that it is legal under the lie of existing UN resolutions, “redoubling” efforts against terrorists, WMD lies, and calling for “homeland security” : http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

    And then why the concern with attacking the Greens 14 years later, Eric? Why not attack today’s Dems for expanding unlawful Wars of Aggression, bankster looting, and lying today in order to expand those wars you argue Gore was against?

    What say you, Eric?

    • cettel

      Carl, my article argues that Nader treated the Green Party and its voters as being suckers; the article does not blame the Greens for being evil; they weren’t; they were just his fools.

      Nor does my article disagree that one should “put the blame for the unlawful wars, bankster looting, and 100 other criminal policies where they belong: with the criminal ‘leadership’ of both parties, along with the lying sacks-of-spin corporate media.” I loathe conservatives of all parties; it’s just that 100% of Republicans are conservative, whereas around 80% of Democrats are not — that’s a huge difference.

      What the article does (which Nader’s suckers have difficulty acknowledging) is to document that Nader knew in advance that he wasn’t expecting to win more votes than either of the two major-party nominees and to win the White House. He’s not that stupid; he can read polls; though his voters and supporters believed his lies when he said that he wasn’t out to be any “spoiler,” which he so obviously was. Nader’s voters were just stupid.

      My article tries to identify the likeliest truthful way to reconstruct from the evidence what Nader’s motives were to do such a heinous thing. It was heinous because it (along with Bush and all who supported his invasion of Iraq) is responsible for invading Iraq in 2003, and for taking no action against global warming — two enormous crimes. If Gore had been President, none of that would have happened. (Incidentally, Bill Clinton is more conservative than Gore, and Hillary Clinton is even more conservative than Bill and than Obama. Gore would have been far more progressive a President than any of those three were.)

      Furthermore, I happen to think that Bush ignored warnings that bin Laden would strike, by some means entailing a plane, some time in late summer or early fall 2001. I don’t think that Gore would have ignored them. So: even 9/11 might have been avoided.

      As a historian, I believe that the 2000 Presidential election turned out to be by far the most important one since 1980. Nader clearly tried to throw it to Bush, and he clearly did succeed. I happen to consider that evil. If Nader had told his suckers “I’m out to throw this election to the Republican,” he would have gotten almost no votes. But, by deceiving the 2.74% who ended up voting for him, he had his way with them, and with this country. He raped America. I don’t consider him to have been more evil, or more of a liar, than George W. Bush, but just as bad, that’s all.

      As to Hillary Clinton and other conservative Democrats, who also lie constantly, they might be as evil, but they didn’t already yet destroy the country, as George W. Bush, and his enabler Ralph Nader, did. The only hope for this country rests in a progressive Democrat such as Elizabeth Warren running against Hillary in Democratic primaries in 2016 and beating her; because, if nothing of that sort happens, then we’re sure to have another fascist President after 2016, and this country and maybe the world will surely go down the tubes.

      • Carl_Herman

        Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Eric.

        I strongly offer that you’re missing a few game-changing facts that those who favor either the Left or Right arms of US fascism still miss:

        1. The US lie-began and Orwellian unlawful wars could have been EASILY stopped by Dem leadership, including Gore, by detailing the lies and simply making the case that these are Wars of Aggression that we hanged Nazis for doing. Nobody in Dem leadership spoke the truth. Kucinich and Ron Paul came closest, and were not supported by Dem or Rep leadership.

        2. You somehow believe the thoroughly refuted 9-11 story. Apply you history skills there, and tell us what you find.

        3. Bush is a puppet of the Right arm of US fascism, just as Obama now serves as a puppet on the Left. They are cheerleaders of policy from their masters behind the scenes. And that said, they are not merely evil, BUT WAR CRIMINALS that should be arrested by any just society.

        If the “leadership” of either party wanted to end these crimes, they would have, including nailing Obama and Hillary for their constant criminal acts and lies centering in unlawful Wars of Aggression. All people need are the facts.

        So I’ll let you off after this question area, Eric: why support the Dems after all their War Crime lies and economic crimes that literally kill millions, harm billions, and loot trillions?

        • The PROGRESSIVE View – Eric Zuesse

          Carl, you misrepresent a lot there, but let me start by answering your question at the end: Your question starts from the false assumption that if you look at the key floor-votes in congress, there won’t be found stark Party-differences. But there aree: Usually, on the key floor-votes, the Republicans are 95% evil, and the Democrats are 80-95% good, from a progressive’s standpoint.

          You ignore that in order to pass anything in a Democracy, major compromises must be made, in any country in any era; it’s the way democracy is — not the way dictatorships are, but the way any democracy is.

          I am a purist in the progressivism of my values, but anyone who is will also accept that compromise with conservatives is inevitably necessary, because this is a democracy. Consequently, your description of the two Parties is empirically false and is also based upon a refusal to recognize what a democracy is.

        • mmckinl

          Carl,

          It is obvious that this hit piece by Zuesse on Nader and the Green Party is linked to the recent dire prospects for the Dems chances in the Senate this November.

          The Dems are now in full panic mode and this piece is part of their propaganda of fear and intimidation against a bonfide left fed up with the Democratic Party.

          • Don’t be turning into an authoritarian a-hole! Demand that Zuesse, and others, defends their inanities in the comment threads!

            I applaud the invitation extended to all political factions to engage dialogue, But dialogue involves coming down from the high perch of detached and sequestered “professional” punditry and engaging the public.

            Fuck what the modus operandi of the MSM is! Let Zuesse make his case in the comment threads! Baring that conditionality as entry into the blog, I’ll agree with you that those who won’t face the public whom they aim to “convert”, should not be granted audience.

          • mmckinl

            This is old news, designed to instigate the same old “lesser of two evils” paradigm on the genuine left. Silver announces the Republicans will take the Senate and here comes this rehash about the 2000 election …

          • The Dems in a panic mode? Whatever gives you the impression?!

            Their donor base expects the kabuki of political subterfuge to be kept alive. They will make certain that the Dems are not starved of funds to flip themselves into the corporatist majority again, once the Repubs pseudo counter-sheen wears off again.

            For you to be demanding that Zuesse is bared, rather than that he engages the comment threads, amounts to left-authoritarianism. Fuck that! Double fuck it, in fact!

          • mmckinl

            The Dems look to lose the Senate and they are striking out in every way possible and now they dredge this 2000 election fairy tale to try and demean Nader and the Green Party …

          • cettel

            Actually, “mmckinl,” that’s false: I wrote this piece in 2012, and subsequently added a bit to it, with further research.

          • mmckinl

            Actually it is the timing, not the original piece that’s important.

          • cettel

            The timing is due to this website having asked me for a piece to start my presentation on progressive politics, and this one seemed to me to be ideal for that.

            “mmckinl” you get almost everything wrong. Want to try again?

        • cettel

          Carl, I responded to your comment last night, but it was mysteriously removed, so I shall summarize what I said:

          My answer to your question is that I look at the key floor votes in the House and Senate, and I find that in most cases, Republicans vote the conservative position at around 95% to 100% of the times, and Democrats vote the more progressive alternative opposite position (all votes, mind you, are either “Yea” or “Nay”) at around 90-95% of the times. On some votes, such as the key one in September 2002 concerning Bush’s ability to invade Iraq, there are exceptions, where the conservatives have stirred the rabble so much so that a progressive vote on the floor will jeopardize a Democrat’s retaining his seat unless he represents an extraordinarily progressive state or district. (This is one reason why I consider Sherrod Brown, of tossup-state Ohio, a hero: he has an incredibly progressive record even though he doesn’t represent a progressive state.)

          Anyone who believes that it’s “Tweedledom Tweedledee” between the two Parties doesn’t know reality, which is: There has never been more ideological polarization between the two major Parties than there is right now. Anyone who wants a total dictatorship by either side is no progressive, because a progressive is committed above all to democracy and to democratic process, which requires compromise between progressives and conservatives. Ralph Nader made his pitch to absolutists, would-be dictators on the left. And in order to make that appeal, he lied constantly.

          • Carl_Herman

            But Eric: you don’t answer the fundamental question, so I’ll repeat it:

            “Why support the Dems after all their War Crime lies and crimes that literally kill in the millions, harm billions, and loot trillions?”

            If this helps: why not take the option to just say the truth: most of Dem Congress members and Dem voters support greater investments in public infrastructure that seem to have positive economic cost-benefit outcomes, but those never get serious support from Dem “leaders” while they do support crushing and illegal programs for war and bankster looting? Connected to this position: why not just say the truth that the Dems have indeed been duped by “Big Lie” criminal 1% propagandists and pimps?

            I could go on with demanding how Dem “leadership” could reject their members and public’s views on ending poverty, universal healthcare, union rights, environmental care, education funding, public banking, closing Guantanimo, ending and prosecuting torture, and more, but I think we can make the case with War Crimes that Dems have allowed since shortly after WW2 that have killed ~30 million people: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/03/2014-worldwide-wave-action-learn-war-law-end-lie-began-unlawful-wars-aggression-6.html

            As you may know, I worked with both parties’ “leaderships” and members for 18 years to end poverty as they lied and reneged on all promises (public and private) despite our work to create the largest meeting for heads of state in world history (1992 World Summit for Children) and having zero voiced political or academic opposition (they just ignored all reason, made token gestures, and corporate media remains silent). We then had the 1997 Microcredit Summit, and received the same from the Clintons.

            So I say that the party Whips will make sure the members vote as they’re told on important issues to party leadership, and make sure nothing damning ever has the votes (along with corporate media complicity). I mean, if they exercised true democracy, Dem “leaders” would ask, listen, and reflect the will of people, yes? But given they never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever do that, you still support that party?!

            And finally, Eric: do your comments in your word processing program 🙂

          • cettel

            There are so many reasons, but this one
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/is-your-member-of-congres_b_4179288.html

            is typical, and what it shows is that the “Tweedledom Tweedledee” allegation is not only not quite true; it’s way false; it’s a lie.
            I’ll give you more examples if you want.

          • Carl_Herman

            Thank you for engaging, Eric. Let me get your focus on this one issue that I’ll try to most sharply frame:

            1. Do you agree that current US wars are unlawful and began with lies known to be false as they were told? If not, please explain (documentation below of war law).

            2. If you agree, then what should Dems and the public do about these War Crimes and criminals of both parties?

            3. If you agree, then isn’t their a big difference between what you call “progressivism” as an ideal of public information, engagement in issues, and policy representation, and the actual Dem leadership practice of lies told to the public for policy control, ignoring public opinion (especially from Dem voters), and increasing dictatorial acts? Again, what should Dems do about this?

            Documentation of War Crimes and lies that are OBVIOUS to any human being with a little attention: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/03/2014-worldwide-wave-action-learn-war-law-end-lie-began-unlawful-wars-aggression-6.html

          • cettel

            Carl, I wrote the book “Iraq War: The Truth,” in order to set right the record showing that Bush lied the U.S. into the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and trying to extrapolate or theorize from the record what his actual motivation was for his goal, announced even before he became the Republican Presidential nominee, for “regime change in Iraq” — which meant war, an invasion.
            So, do I consider that a crime? He should have been executed domestically for treason, as well as internationally for numerous violations of international law.
            It’s a case-by-case thing, and in the Iraq 2003 case, Bush was a massive war-criminal.
            I don’t want to get into other cases; it’s too much and not even the most important thing. The most important thing is the global-warming issue, which has already probably gotten beyond the emergency point into the irretrievably lost area — largely because of George W. Bush.
            The Kochs and such are liars when they say that the default assumption or position should be to expect that fossile-fuels-use can’t destroy the biosphere. The truth is that we are well beyond the point where the default assumption needs to be that fossil-fuels-use can destroy the biosphere. Because of George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama, the two biggest criminals in the history of the human species, the default assumption in policymaking has continued to be that fossil-fuels-use can’t destroy the biosphere. Hillary Clinton and every other prospective Republican Presidential candidate (she’s a Republican with a “Democratic” name-tag) want to continue that crime, and make it even more impossible to reverse.
            To me, those are the real super-criminals. I don’t deny the other super-crimes, such as Obama’s continued refusal to prosecute Bush, Cheney, and the banksters.
            The key thing here is that if there still remains hope (which I doubt), it’s only within the Democratic Party, perhaps with Elizabeth Warren, Perhaps with Sherrod Brown, perhaps with Bernie Sanders (if he enters Democratic Presidential primaries).
            Other than that, we’ll see how seriously the middle-of-the-road multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg really does care about global warming if Hillary gets the Democratic nomination; because, if that happens, and if he commits to self-financing his own Presidential run, specifically to wrestle-down the global-warming monster, he’ll have my vote. Otherwise, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I shall probably leave the Presidential line blank, for the first time in my life.

          • Carl_Herman

            Thanks, Eric. So just one more part I didn’t see you address:

            Given that you agree on US War Crimes, what should Dems and the public do about these War Crimes and criminals of both parties?

            My response is what I write to support the 2014 Worldwide Wave of Action: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/03/2014-worldwide-wave-action-learn-war-law-end-lie-began-unlawful-wars-aggression-6.html

            1. Expose 1% oligarchs in the US and elsewhere as OBVIOUS criminals centering in war, money, and media (also in ~100 other crucial areas).

            2. Cause their surrender through arrests or Truth & Reconciliation.

            3. Initiate true freedom for all Earth’s inhabitants to explore ready breakthroughs in economics (links here) and technology, and discover what it is to be human without psychopathic criminals who joke about killing millions, harming billions, and looting trillions.

            What should Dems and the public do, Eric?

          • cettel

            That battle is already lost.
            Those crimes will not be prosecuted.
            Statutes of limitations were designed for aristocrats, and have absolved them all.
            Regardless, other laws could protect them, if needed.
            Be realistic, not just idealistic.
            Furthermore, that’s not even the top problem, which is global warming.
            And that’s an issue that might not be yet too late to salvage.
            I am therefore concerned about whom the next President will be.
            Both Hillary Clinton and the entire Republican Party would cooperate totally with Big Oil; the biosphere would be doomed.
            The first concern therefore is to defeat Hillary with a progressive Democrat winning the Democratic nomination.
            Furthermore, if Hillary becomes the nominee, the Republican is likely to win.
            Hillary’s 2008 run against Obama was massively incompetent; the only part that wasn’t was her skillfulness at evading to answer questions during the debates. As a strategist, she’s a moron; as a personnel director or hirer of talent, she cannot recognize it because she has so little of it herself.
            She’d be a terrible candidate. Her polled support now is a mile wide and an inch deep; it’s extremely fragile, and during the rough and tumble of a campaign against (I expect) Rand Paul, she could easily crumble.
            By contrast, Elizabeth Warren could come on like Obama did in 2008 and overtake her and go on to win the Presidency. She wouldn’t win as much financial backing as Hillary who has already become Wall Street’s darling, and who is aiming to score big also from the oil patch. But, like with Obama, she could score big online and with college-grads who have most of the money; she’s the dark horse who could really salvage the country.
            Other than Warren, and only if she doesn’t run, I’d hope for Bernie Sanders to become officially a Democrat and enter the primaries against Hillary; and he might turn out to surprise everybody.
            If he doesn’t, then Sherrod Brown would be my hope; he’s enormously gifted, so much so that he is the only progressive U.S. Senator from a non-progressive, not even a liberal, state: middle-of-the-road Ohio.
            Barring that, the only realistic hope would be if the middle-of-the-road multi-billionaire aristocrat Michael Bloomberg were to turn out really to mean it when he says that global warming is the biggest policy-issue of all, and commit to funding his own campaign for the White House. He’s the only person who might be able to win the White House as an independent.
            With him in the White House, if he has won it on the basis of wrestling to the ground the global warming monster, there might be some hope. Maybe it’s not too late. We’d still be a country seething with corruption, but, this time, the fossil-fuels-producers wouldn’t be part of it, so the biosphere might be salvaged after all.

          • Carl_Herman

            Eric: please point me to that notation of any statutes of limitations upon War Crimes.

            You say you supported their arrests. If you’re in error, and arrests are possible, do you still support that policy objective (or surrender to Truth & Reconciliation)?

            The documentation I’ve read is clear there is no statute of limitation upon murder, treason, War Crimes, fraud, fraud upon the court, and continuous crimes.

            You seem to refer to a minor law of fraud: http://www.politicususa.com/2013/11/20/george-w-bush-returns-statute-limitations-war-crimes-expires-2-months.html

            US treason law that does not state any limitation: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115

            basic encyclopedic summary there are no statutes of limitations with massive war-murders in unlawful Wars of Aggression: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations

          • cettel

            I didn’t say there’s any statute of limitations for war crimes, but only that regarding bankster crimes and even for some international crimes, there are SOLs; and that other laws also allow Bush & company home free.
            I have written letters to the International Criminal Court, etc., pleading for prosecution of Bush and Cheney, for many sorts of international crimes, but it’s hopeless. Especially now — too late. Ultimately, only Obama, when he assumed office, had any remaining possibility of prosecuting them; he refused. The very possibility is dead. Nobody now will be able to raise that corpse.
            Furthermore, with global warming being more critical by the day, focusing on accountability isn’t just a waste of time; it’s a distraction from something even far more important.

          • Carl_Herman

            Ok, Eric, so to be clear you have the OPINION that arrests of US War Criminals is “too late” and “distraction.”

            You don’t mind that I go for that policy outcome, correct?

            And, if something changes would you support arrests of US criminal leaders?

            I could argue that ongoing bankster fraud is so easily prosecuted, Eric, but I want to stay focused on this on issue of lie-begat US Wars of Aggression by both political parties’ “leaderships.”

          • cettel

            Would I? Yes!!!!!

          • Carl_Herman

            Alrighty then, Eric! I wish you well engaging with other Dems 🙂

            So here’s what I’d like to do: I’d like to write an article using our comments with a title something like this:

            “Eric Zuess: Democratic Party supporter/historian awake to both parties’ War Crimes”

            My purpose in writing is to engage people in the hard facts so they are most encouraged to wake-up to reality, close-down our tragic-comic oligarchic “show,” and get busy with what’s possible with a free planet. I think counting you as among those clear on the issue of War Crimes is helpful for other Dems to see and consider.

            Are you good with that? If so, I suggest I send it to you privately first to check, you can add a statement if you wish, then I’ll publish here, on Daily Censored, and Examiner.com.

          • cettel

            Thanks, please send it.

          • Carl_Herman

            I’m on it and will get to it maybe tonight or at least by tomorrow.

      • Undecider

        Eric, check my posting.

  • mmckinl

    All Al Gore needed to do was to have demanded a recount for all of Florida instead of cherry-picking counties. Gore would have won or the recount would have revealed election violations so egregious that the entire state vote would have been thrown out.

    From what I have read there were districts in central Florida that actually had negative vote tallies for Gore! Florida, through Kathryn Harris and nefarious other means was set up to cheat Gore out of winning Florida. Many of these same means were used to steal Ohio in the next election.

    As far as cross party funding the Democrats were doing the same thing in several states, funding libertarian or Tea Party candidates to knock off incumbent or viable moderate Republicans such as in Pennsylvania. Both parties engage in electoral gamesmanship.

    This piece is a cowardly attempt to shed blame on the Green Party when in fact there were far larger reasons at play. It is very disappointing that Washington’s Blog would feature such a one sided hit piece on Ralph Nader and the Green Party.

    • The PROGRESSIVE View – Eric Zuesse

      That’s bull. Gore couldn’t possibly know before the recount, what way to recount would be the most favorable for his cause; but that’s irrelevant to the thesis of this article anyway, because the thesis here is: Without the 97,488 Florida votes that went to Nader, Gore would so overwhelmingly have beaten Bush there, no recount would have existed. The very possibility of the race having been within just 537 votes, for either candidate, wouldn’t even have existed; Gore would clearly have won. There wouldn’t have been any court case about it. Nader did it; Nader made it so close that the 5 Republicans on the Supreme Court could end up choosing the President — and so they did.

    • cettel

      “mmckinl” presumes that Gore could have known in advance which counties were wrongly counted and by how much and precisely in whose favor; and all of those presumptions are false.

      But even worse: “mmckinl” ignores the basic argument and documentation in my article, which argument is: There couldn’t possibly have been any recount or any call for one if Nader hadn’t been in the contest, because Nader’s 97,488-vote count dwarfed the mere 537-vote Bush “victory,” and because Gore would have won Florida by at least 30,000 votes if Nader hadn’t run.

      As for this being “a one sided hit piece on Ralph Nader and the Green Party,” that too is false, because it’s saying very different things about those two: it says that Nader deceived and manipulated the Green Party, and that the Green Party were taken in by his deception of them; they (and Nader’s voters) were his fools, and his tools. They believed his ridiculous lies that he was in the contest in order to win the Presidency, not to help to throw the contest to Bush. All of the pre-election polls showed that Nader’s support was dwarfed by that of Gore, and by that of Bush; and that the President would inevitably be either Gore or Bush. Nader didn’t in any poll show that he was anywhere close to being a contender to win even a single state; all he would do is draw off somewhere between 2 Gore votes for every 1 Bush vote he’d draw, to 5 Gore votes for every 1 Bush vote. In other words: he’d help tilt the race toward Bush. The only people who were ignorant or in denial about that were the people who campaigned for him, the people who endorsed him, and the people who voted for him. And that’s a fact.

      • mmckinl

        Gore did presume to know which counties were wrongly counted by picking certain counties instead of a total recount statewide.

        The story of the 2000 election in Florida is the fraud of Republicans and the incompetence and cowardice of Gorse’s campaign.

        • cettel

          “mmckinl” gets everything wrong: Gore naturally had to have a theory as to what to do, but this doesn’t mean that he had any way of knowing in advance of the outcome whether or not that theory was correct; it turned out not to be. But that’s irrelevant to my article, because my article argues that there was a need for a recount only because Nader was in the contest and drew 97,488 votes, most of which would have gone to Gore if Nader hadn’t run.

          The only reason why Gore needed to theorize about what to do was that there was a recount; but the recount was due only to Nader’s having been a contestant in the race.

          • Solid State Max

            Gore simply cherry-picked a few counties that were learning D when he could have pushed for a full statewide recount. It turns out that there were more Democratic votes even in rural counties even if those places were “red”. Ooops !

          • V4V

            Democrats also ignored the pleas of the Black Caucus (if memory serves me right) who begged Democrat Senators to open an investigation of voting irregularities. Not a single Democrat was willing to request one. In other words, Democrats preferred to fall on their swords than to contest the elections. They are cowards…

          • Solid State Max

            I remember that event live when it happened and am sure it’s in the cspan archives or at least there’s an uploaded copy of it on youtube. The only reason I can think that those Demo senators all refused was they wsnted Bush to be in the White House just so that in their outta touch view, the public would automatically give the Demos back the House and Senate in 2002 and 2004. So much for the “Bush is bad, just vote for us Democrats to be checks and balances” failed trick,LOL .. cough cough … LOL !

          • V4V

            We know about the shadow government- perhaps it all decided in a smoke-filled room over a high-stakes game of poker…haha~!

  • DS

    Uh, you know Perot handed Clinton one and almost two terms, but you don’t hear GOPers crying about that. Grow up – Gore was a horrible candidate just as Kerry was and that is why they lost. I know Gore didn’t really lose, but it should have never been close. That’s on Gore for running a horrible campaign.

    • cettel

      “DS,” Though it is possible that Perot ended up throwing the Presidency to Bill Clinton, there is no indication of harm that Perot would have been participating in causing thereby, such as the 2003 unjustified and calamitous invasion of Iraq, and such as delaying for eight years any action being taken against global warming.

      However, as to whether Perot should be despised by Republicans for having predictably net drained votes away from their Presidential candidate, G.H.W. Bush, they certainly should.

      Any time that someone votes for a third-party candidate in a close election, the voter is doing something that is stupid, unless the third-party candidate is rich enough (which even Perot wasn’t) and politically skillful enough (which Perot also wasn’t) to stand a real possibility of beating both of the major-party candidates. Perhaps a vote for Michael Bloomberg in 2016 will make sense: if he runs and if he is running against the conservative Hillary Clinton and the fascist whomever the Republicans nominate. I would consider voting for Bloomberg, in such a case — but only if he is putting enough money into his campaign and executing it well enough to be a real contender and not merely a potential spoiler for either the Republican or the Democrat. But otherwise: voting for a third-party candidate in a closely fought political contest is plain stupid. The ideological difference between the Democratic and the Republican Parties is huge, and so the stakes in any of these presidential contests is vast. However, if Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee, that would be an exception, because she’s be the most conservative Democratic Presidential nominee since James Buchanan in 1856. In that case, I’d simply abstain from voting on the Presidential line, as a protest, because there would be an argument on both sides: If Hillary wins, then the court nominees wouldn’t be as conservative, but if the Republican wins, then the hell that follows wil be blamed on the Republican Party instead of on the Democratic. The nation would be lost in either case.

    • cettel

      Gore won the popular vote by more than a half-million. You don’t know what you are talking about.

      • DS

        I surely do know what I’m talking about. If you could read more closely, you’ll see I noted that while Gore didn’t technically lose, he ran a horrible campaign and was a horrible presidential candidate and should have trounced an idiot like Bushie. Keep blaming Nader for Bush while “Democrats” continue to capitulate in Congress to the GOP and adopting their policies instead of fighting them. Obama and Clinton were two of the best Republican presidents the GOP could have ever hoped for. Keep thinking that Gore would have been any different in your fantasy world.

        • cettel

          Gore went into that contest with most of the early polls showing a likely Bush victory. Gallup in April 2000 showed Bush 47%, Gore 41%, and Nader 4%.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_U.S._Presidential_elections#United_States_presidential_election.2C_2000

          By August, right before the conventions, it was 55% Bush, 39% Gore, and 2% Nader.
          Right after the conventions, it was 46% Bush, 47% Gore. Everyone now knew that this was going to be a very close contest. Gore had turned it into a real horse-race, which it wasn’t before.
          Anyone who says that Gore’s campaign was poorly run would have to say that Bush’s campaign was even worse-run, because the effectiveness of a campaign is measured by how much the candidate is able to turn those poll-numbers in his direction and away from his opponent.
          DS, you don’t know what you are talking about.

          • I would suggest that a duopoly, one aligned on economic and foreign policies, amounts to kettling of the public and denying them democratic self determination.

            I am offended and disgusted that Eric Zeusse treats my vote as though it is owed to him and his cast of the other right wing villains. Phew!

          • cettel

            “aprescoup” you think that Gore, who tried to stop Senate authorization for Bush to invade Iraq, and who was the first political leader to push for action against global warming, is a “right wing villain”?

          • I am quite confident that Gore’s attempt, in the face of an overwhelming drive to war, was little more than usual political posturing. And I have no doubt that following the flippant and unwarranted bombing of Belgrade, and the continuing of sanctions on Iraq in full knowledge of the toll on civilians, mostly children ( collective punishment ) and with Lieberman at his side(WTF?!) Gore would not have flinched from expanding a sanctions based war into a hot one. Zero doubt!

          • cettel

            Then you are confidently wrong, like people of faith usually are. (Your faith in Ralph Nader or whatever is faith in liars and their lies.)

            It required lots of political courage back then for the former Party leader to urge Democrats to vote no on granting a sitting President’s request to invade Iraq on cooked-up charges. Gore was then the only prominent politician who went against the polling and the torrent of pro-invasion propaganda, from Bush and the major “news” media; so the press ignored it. Here are excerpts of his widely ignored speech:

            Iraq and the War on Terrorism

            Commonwealth Club of California

            San Francisco, California

            September 23, 2002

            Prepared Remarks

            “We should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and have thus far gotten away with it. … I don’t think that we should allow anything to diminish our focus on avenging the 3,000 Americans who were murdered. …

            “President Bush is telling us that the most urgent requirement of the moment – right now – is not to redouble our efforts against Al Qaeda, not to stabilize the nation of Afghanistan after driving his host government from power, but instead to shift our focus and concentrate on immediately launching a new war against Saddam Hussein. And he is proclaiming a new, uniquely American right to pre-emptively attack whomsoever he may deem represents a potential future threat. Moreover, he is demanding in this high political season that Congress speedily affirm that he has the necessary authority to proceed immediately against Iraq. …

            “By shifting from his early focus after September 11th on war against terrorism to war against Iraq, the President has manifestly disposed of the sympathy, good will and solidarity compiled by America and transformed it into a sense of deep misgiving and even hostility. In just one year, the President has somehow squandered the international outpouring of sympathy, goodwill and solidarity that followed the attacks of September 11th. …

            “The resolution that the President has asked Congress to pass is much too broad in the authorities it grants…

            Specifically, Congress should establish why the president believes that unilateral action will not severely damage the fight against terrorist networks. …

            “The Congressional resolution should make explicitly clear that authorities for taking these actions are to be presented as derivatives from existing Security Council resolutions and from international law: not requiring any formal new doctrine of pre-emption. …

            “We claim this right for ourselves – and only for ourselves. It is, in that sense, part of a broader strategy to replace ideas like deterrence and containment with what some in the administration “dominance.” …

            “Does Saddam Hussein present an imminent threat, and if he did would the United States be free to act without international permission? If he presents an imminent threat we would be free to act under generally accepted understandings of article 51 of the UN Charter which reserves for member states the right to act in self-defense.

            “If Saddam Hussein does not present an imminent threat, then is it justifiable for the Administration to be seeking by every means to precipitate a confrontation, to find a cause for war, and to attack? …

            “I believe that we can effectively defend ourselves abroad and at home without dimming our principles. Indeed, I believe that our success in defending ourselves depends precisely on not giving up what we stand for.”

          • On 2008 we elected Obama based on his speeches…

            But let’s take a kook at the excerpts:

            “We should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and have thus far gotten away with it. … I don’t think that we should allow anything to diminish our focus on avenging the 3,000 Americans who were murdered. …”

            Am I to infer from this that Gore had the KSA in mind? Fifteen of the 19 terrorists were Saudis.

            The rest is political blather. Take this, for instance:

            And he is proclaiming a new, uniquely American right to pre-emptively attack whomsoever he may deem represents a potential future threat….. The Congressional resolution should make explicitly clear that authorities for taking these actions are to be presented as derivatives from existing Security Council resolutions and from international law: not requiring any formal new doctrine of pre-emption. … and then let’s review the legitimacy of NATO bombing of Yugoslavia…

            And note that he fully embraces the notion of GWAT, without ever so much as picking up his cajones and pointing to the reason for terrorist activities. I’m not sure when Chalmers Johnson wrote Blowback, but I’m quite confident, again, that you can’t come up with a cite pointing to Gore’s “understanding” of “The Costs and Consequences of American Empire.”

          • That’s a rather unresponsive response to the above comment.

            Be as it may. Yes, including his push to action against global warming which would require, to be properly addressed, a full blown excoriation of capitalism. Instead Gore and David Blood(former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management) co-founded GIM in London.

            “Optimistic that a Democrat-controlled Congress would pass cap-and-trade legislation Gore lobbied for, GIM and David Blood’s old GSAM firm took big stakes in the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) for carbon trading. Accordingly, CCX was poised to make windfall profits selling CO2 offsets if and when cap-and-trade was passed. Speaking before a 2007 Joint House Hearing of the Energy Science Committee, Gore told members: “As soon as carbon has a price, you’re going to see a wave [of investment] in it…There will be unchained investment.” – http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/11/03/blood-and-gore-making-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/ …speaking of American aristocracy…

  • Glenn

    No such thing as Nader being a spoiler. You can’t spoil a system that is rotten to the core.

    No Democrat will ever convince me to vote lesser evilism until their party makes a convincing argument that they hate this corrupt system as much as I do by demonstration of severe action.

    In the mean time, get your party in line and quit trying to beg votes from outside your party until you figured how to get votes from within your party.

    “Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Republican George Bush”
    -San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2000

    Even if none of the factors mentioned above had happened, the votes of Florida voters themselves show that Ralph Nader was not responsible for George W. Bush’s presidency. If one percent of these Democrats had stuck with their own candidate, Al Gore would easily have won Florida and become president. In addition, half of all registered Democrats did not even bother going to the polls and voting.

    http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html

  • wunsacon

    Do you like the velvet glove with that iron fist? Now that Team-D is in power, what has changed?

    Even IF your allegation that Ralph capriciously wanted to punish Team-D, then I consider the man a hero.

    I skimmed the middle of the article. At the end, you recommend:

    “If the Democratic nominee is that corrupt, the reasonable progressive will register that by not voting on the Presidential line in that particular election (and by voting in Democratic primaries for the best alternative person to represent the Party in the general election so that Hillary won’t be the Democratic nominee). ”

    So, you wrote tens of paragraphs about this subject to talk us into sticking with voting for either of the major parties or else not voting that line at all? Talk about pointless. We need more change than that. Besides, if Greens and Nader supporters had “not voted on the Presidential line” in 2000, Bush would’ve still won.

    Like the Republican Party (plus its wholly-owned TP subsidiary of energized “useful idiots”), the Democratic Party is corrupt garbage. I’ll give some money to the likes of Grayson, Warren, Franken, and Ron but not Rand Paul. But, that’s about it.

  • jimmydominic

    Agree with all the Nader supporters. Nader also promised Gore and then Kerry that if they just took a stance on a few important progressive issues out of a list of like 20 choices then he would dropout. Both candidates refused his offer. Are we also just gonna ignore the expelling of thousands of black voters from the rolls in Florida?

    • cettel

      That was a sucker-punch, and it just knocked you out. Nader lied constantly when he was running for the Presidency. Anyone who trusts his statements about his motives is a fool, because some of his statements, such as that he was in those races to win and not to increase the chances of a Republican win, had to be oblivious to what all of the pre-election-day polling made overwhelmingly clear: Ralph Nader wouldn’t even stand a chance to win even a single state. His final 2.76% of the total 2000 vote was so small that, in the final weeks, he knew that his only chance to really help to win a Bush victory could be if he concentrated on the toss-up states, especially Florida, which he did: the toss-up states were, need I emphasize, all between either Gore or else Bush to win. Nader managed to snag not only Forida for Bush, but also New Hampshire; and the contest in the Electoral College was so close (266 Gore, 271 Bush) so that even with the Florida “win,” Bush totally needed the mere 4 electoral votes also of New Hampshire, because without them it would have been 270 Gore, and 267 Bush — and Nader also threw NH into Bush’s column. Nader threw both Florida and NH to Bush; so, Bush “won,” despite losing the popular vote by more than a half-million.

  • jimmydominic

    Also is there a way I can see comments w/o scrolling through the article again?

    • 0Washington0

      Jimmy, sorry about this extra work … there is a misconfiguration between WordPress and Disqus, and it will take me some time to figure out how to fix it. Frankly, it drives us crazy as well …

  • Undecider

    This long ass article was a total waste of time. Bush and Gore were/are on the same team. You can tell by Gore’s lacking of willingness to put up a fight for the recount. As with Obama and Clinton in 2008, Bush was chosen to win in 2000 (Ref: Bilderberg meeting where Clinton was told she wasn’t going to get the White House and Obama was the chosen one). The war in the Middle East and 9-11 had already been planned. Bush, a Republican was what they (the Establishment) needed in the White House to rally the American public (or eliminate our dissent). Another Democrat wouldn’t have been sufficient. Gore was only a placeholder.

    Therefore, the entire idea that Nader helped Bush win is a total joke. Bush would have won regardless. Remember, “it’s not who votes that counts. It’s who counts the votes! Gore was just a stand in for the Democrats and a person to hog up stage time to edge out the contenders. We saw the same happen with all the Republican idiots in 2008 blocking out Ron Paul. They just needed to narrow the selection down to someone like Romney to suck up the Republican vote while Obama had been already selected to remain in the White House. Barry had an agenda to complete and Romney as just a stand-in to keep away the competition.

    Eric Zuesse, reference what’s been going on over the past 15 years. It’s nothing new.

    • cettel

      What a line of bull!

      Check out the December 6, 2000 Gallup Poll, “Gore’s Image Slipping as Election Contest Drags On: Gore’s unfavorable image now highest of Clinton/Gore era,”
      http://www.gallup.com/poll/2242/gores-image-slipping-election-contest-drags.aspx
      which showed that the public, even many of Gore’s voters, were turning against him and they thought that he had only his own interests at heart, not the nation’s, when challenging the 537-vote Bush “win” of Florida.

      There was nothing that Gore could do to undo the reality that Republicans, on the U.S. Supreme Court, even if not also perhaps in the “news” media, were in control now.

  • dave john

    If true, this charge against Nader is reminiscent of the role of the UK Social Democratic Party (SDP). The SDP was founded in 1981 by four senior Labour Party figures, dubbed ‘moderates’ by mainstream media, aka the ‘Gang of Four’ (an allusion to the senior Chinese Communist Party officials post-Mao).

    This centrist grouping split the left vote, simultaneously weakening the anti-nuclear movement while greatly assisting the re-election of the hated Thatcher administration.

    The SDP eventually joined the Liberal Party in 1988 to become the Liberal Democrats – the junior partner, with the Conservatives, in the current austerity-promoting British coalition government.

    • cettel

      When you open with “If true,” I suggest that you at least spot-check some of my sources there; you’ll find that I have used only sound, trustworthy, sources, and that I have represented them accurately in my report about Nader. I’m extremely careful both about the sources I refer to, and the way that I extract from and/or summarize them.

      • dave john

        Thanks for responding. While I fully accept your sources are real and relevant, it doesn’t mean your conclusion is the only possible reading of the evidence. Surely it’s sensible to be circumspect when considering arguments around events that are not yet well-known? As I suggested similar trends in UK politics, it’s clear I generally accept your research and perspective. Thanks for the article.

  • Bill Pahnelas

    there was a time when i probably would have agreed with mr zuesse, but over the years i’ve come to emphasize with the view that there is no real alternative in the political duopoly of US politics. would mr. gore have turned out to be a “liberal” in the same was a mr. obama has? in retrospect, the gore-lieberman ticket was bound to be a a tool to further a neoliberal agenda. and i couldn’t help but remember this piece, and the sour taste the mr. gore left me with after reading it:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/09/the-origins-of-the-neoliberal-war-on-the-poor/

    • cettel

      To Bill Pahnelas: The authors of that article to which you have linked cite their as their source Dick Morris, who is a long-established psychopath, a routine liar, a laughing-stock among everyone who knows his record — which means throughout this nation’s political class, and also among serious historians. You demean yourself (and so too did the authors of that article) by resting your beliefs upon such a well-proven liar.

      • Rose Marylove

        My name is Sophia from usa,i never believe in spell until i contacted this great man of spirit called DR ABIZA.Me and my husband have been married for three years and we had a baby boy,before we got married we dated for two years and we love each other so much.But i never knew that he was having an affair with one of my closest friend and they have been seen each other for about four months.One day he came home and raise up an unnecessary argument with me and we had a quarrel so he threaten to live the house which he did the following day and he left me and the kid to be with my so called friend,so in the course of my distress i was reading some pages on the internet on how to get back a lost husband,then i saw a testimony by Jessica on how DR ABIZA help her to get back her ex boy friend,so i also contacted the DR via the email address provided by Jessica and he told me that my friend cast a spell on my husband that made him to leave me and the kid to be with her.To cut the story short,DR ABIZA also told me what to do which i did and my friend hated my husband so much that she never wanted to see him again and after three days my husband came back to me begging for my forgiveness.Today am happy with my husband again.If you are having any problem like this you can email him through this address:{DRABIZASPELLTEMPLE20@HOTMAIL.COM},and you can count on him for a great help.

  • jadan

    You failed to mention that Nader’s family hails from the ME, Eric. J. Edgar began a dossier after the publication of “Unsafe at Any Speed” in ’64. Clearly Ralph is a political terrorist, given his genetic heritage and his penchant for messing with the duopoly.

    • cettel

      Hoover was clearly a fascist, appointed by Republican Calvin Coolidge in 1924, and permanently in office thereafter via his files for blackmailing Presidents. Fascists can’t stand progressives (supporters of democracy), but also can’t stand communists. Similarly, in today’s Western Ukraine, they can’t stand democrats or Russians.

  • Needless to say someone is messing with comments.

    The debate is being framed by unknown forces.

  • stupidicus

    you have your story, others have theirs http://www.google.com/search?q=nader+cost+gore+the+election+debunked&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7RNQN_enUS484
    this reminds me of the effort to indict the climate change philosopher in a previous post. http://crooksandliars.com/2014/03/breitbart-site-helps-lunatics-rain-hate
    This site provides a lot of useful information, but the idea that it has no ideological goals becomes increasingly hard to believe.

  • laughing

    and your parents genes made you stupid.

  • pedro

    So what if “Ralph Nader Made Bush President”? After a few years experience with the New American Century and Obama, we now know that it would have made no difference if Gore had been president instead of Bush. We would have gotten the same wars, the same bubbles, the same bailouts and the same encroachments on civil liberties and rights.

    A two-party system is easily corrupted since both players know they can’t lose, ever. And they have an almost total lock on all the political money that is spent propping up elections (or is it backwards: political money buys elections? Does that nullify democracy or not quite yet?). There is no substantial difference between Democrats and Republicans, pretending otherwise is a waste of time and resources. At least Mr. Nader’s actions called attention to that sad fact.

    • cettel

      Gore is not Obama; Gore has frequently criticized President Obama’s policies; Obama is the most conservative Democratic President since James Buchanan in 1856. Gore would probably have been the most progressive President since FDR.
      Nader didn’t run against Obama. He ran against Gore, then against Kerry. He and Bush together defeated Gore, but Bush alone (along with a lot of criminality from Republicans in Ohio) defeated Kerry.

      • V4V

        Kerry turned out to be a pro-war neocon- what a sellout~!

  • V4V

    This article is pure poppycock. It is Gore who handed Bush the election by running. Nader was clearly the more progressive of the two. Furthermore, more Democrats voted for Bush than voted for Nader and Gore couldn’t even carry his own state.

    It’s all moot anyway, once a Democrat got back in the White House, all he did was continue all the policies the Democratic Party supporters are decrying.

    Why is that Democrats always attack Bush for his policies but have nothing to offer but crickets once points out the policies Obama continued once in offer.

    Democrats, what a bunch of losers…

  • bobs

    Many individuals have played a role in the destruction of America since 9/11. However Ralph Nader is the only one whose sole decision would have changed history. If he hadn’t run, Gore’s margin would have been too great for the Ratpublicans to have stolen the presidency (Nader didn’t have the slightest chance of winning, only of feeding his ego (unless he’s more corrupt than we know and money was involved)). And thus the Ratpublican Israel-firster traitor lackeys could never have pulled off the 9/11 inside job. Thanks Ratfuck Ralph.

    • cettel

      Thank you, “bobs,” for having the courage and open-mindedness to be the only reader commenting here saying that the facts in this article are facts and that the only reasonable conclusion from them is that “Ralph Nader is the only one whose sole decision [to run against Al Gore] … changed history.” Because that boils down the point of this article: only his decision to draw voters away from Gore and provide a fake “progressive alternative” to the Democratic nominee, caused the hell of the George W. Bush years, for which you very reasonably close, “Thanks Ratfuck Ralph.” I second that.

  • Bill Rood

    Whether or not Nader knew his candidacy would contribute to the election of Bush, or whether his candidacy was or was not the proximate cause of Gore’s defeat, is irrelevant. It was the triangulation of the Clinton-Gore Administration, and the resultant rightward shift in the range of acceptable political discourse, that made a challenge from the left a necessity.

    If there are no viable alternatives like Greens on the “left” or Libertarians on the “right,” Republocrats are free to support the power of the corrupt corporate “center.” It’s unfortunate that Greens and Libertarians seem unable to focus on their shared values and mount a unified challenge likely to appeal to non-corporate citizens who are currently trapped into voting for evil politicians by “lesser of evils” thinking such as this.

    Regardless whether Nader knew or suspected his candidacy would result in Bush’s election, to further blame him for all the evils of the Bush Presidency is quite a stretch. Bush campaigned against a bellicose foreign policy, but betrayed that promise once elected. Nobody imagined he would launch two wars except his inner circle. And there was no guarantee Gore would have been better after 8 years of Iraq sanctions and bombing, US aggression in the Balkans and many other interventionist policies of the Clinton Administration that Gore did not oppose.

    • V4V

      I have heard many, many “liberals” blame Nader for Bush. They see Bush as the embodiment of all evil. One of the chief complaints against Bush were the wars, yet still the vote to go to war against Afghanistan was 98-0. Add to the that the fact that Democrats voted to fund the wars- including Obama once he got in the Senate. Same goes for the Iraq War- the Democrats voted to fund it. Where was the Democratic Party filibuster against war funding?

      Once Obama got elected what he did was continue the wars the “liberals” are blaming Nader for. He also continued the bank bailouts begun by Bush. That the detractors of Nader don’t see this speaks to their cognitive dissonance.

      And add to that the fact Obama started a war against Libya and tried like hell to start another against Syria and what you have in a Democrat president is a Republican in drag.

      Nader is not to blame for Bush- the Democrats are to blame for not winning the votes they needed. Democrats seem to think that receiving the votes of non-Republicans is a federal entitlement program. No one is obligated to vote for candidates they don’t like simply because it is claimed the opponent is worse.

      • Bill Rood

        “He also continued the bank bailouts begun by Bush.” Oh, hell V, he lobbied for them, interrupting his Presidential campaign to go to Washington and lobby fellow Senate Democrats. The deal was that of the $700 billion, Bush would get to control how $350 billion was spent and Obama the rest.

        • V4V

          All true but the bailouts have continued to this very day via quantitative easing to the tune of $80B a month.

    • cettel

      Re. your “Whether or not Nader knew his candidacy would contribute to the election
      of Bush, or whether his candidacy was or was not the proximate cause of
      Gore’s defeat, is irrelevant. It was the triangulation of the
      Clinton-Gore Administration, and the resultant rightward shift in the
      range of acceptable political discourse, that made a challenge from the
      left a necessity.”:

      You are denying that an action, such as a run for the Presidency, should not be evaluated on the basis of its consequences. So, for example, Hitler’s decision in 1919 to enter politics in order to take control of the German State so as to organize an international military campaign to exterminate all of the world’s Jews should not be evaluated on the basis of its consequences.

      I do not agree. Your concept of what it means to be a “progressive” (or however you might define a good or correct person in the policy-arena) sounds stupid to me. I cannot see how an intelligent person would evaluate any political decision on any other basis than on the basis of its consequences.

      You allege that Nader could not have known in advance what those consequences would be. Presumably, you would consider Hitler to have been bad only because he planned to eliminate the Jews; Nader did not plan to block action against global warming. Nader did not plan to invade Iraq. So, you might think: Hitler was bad because he was evil, whereas Nader wasn’t bad because he wasn’t evil — just stupid.

      That too strikes me as also being stupid. George W. Bush made clear in his campaign for the Presidency, that he favored “regime change in Iraq.” No way existed to do that other than invading Iraq. He did it. This was a rational extension of his announced intention.

      Furthermore, Bush made clear that he was convinced that global warming doesn’t exist, and that carbon-emissions wouldn’t cause it. I could go on and on, but I am a historian and evaluate things that actually happened, not just that might have happened; so I won’t do that. George W. Bush did those things — the things that happened — which clearly wouldn’t have happened if Nader had not entered the 2000 Presidential contest to drain votes away from Gore in states that were nip-and-tuck between Gore and Bush.

      I think that Ralph Nader was and is an intelligent man. He knew that his plan needed suckers in order for it to succeed; and he courted their support. He won their support. That’s history, not speculation.

      • Bill Rood

        Don’t put words in my mouth. Of course a run for the Presidency can and should be evaluated on the basis of its consequences, but so should the actions of a politician when he/she sells out their base, which is exactly what the Democratic party pros have done for the last 20 years, including both of the Democratic Presidents during that time. Democratic politicians have made leftist electoral challenges a necessity.

        And where is all this nonsense about Hitler coming from? Why don’t you address my major point about triangulation making a leftist challenge a necessity? Are you saying that if Hitler were running as a Republican and Mussolini a Democrat, that it would be evil to run a 3rd party challenge because it would result in Hitler’s election? If not, where would you draw the line?

  • Bev

    Gore won. Period. It was the stopping of the hand counting of the physical evidence of paper ballots that the e-scanning machines wrongly counted that allowed the “supreme” court to give Bush the office. Justice O’Connor has said the court made a mistake to over ride a state’s rights issue and so decided wrongly. So, now she is sorry.

    This “debate” is the setup for Clinton vs Bush.
    …………..

    http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2012/4725
    Vote counting company tied to Romney (and Bush I would suggest)
    by Gerry Bello

    Looking beyond the well-documented Google choking laundry list of apparent fraud, failure and seeming corruption that is associated with Hart Intercivic, an ongoing Free Press investigation turned its attention to the key question of who owns the voting machine companies. The majority of the directors of Hart come from the private equity firm H.I.G. Capital. H.I.G. has been heavily invested in Hart Intercivic since July 2011, just in time for the current presidential election cycle. But who is H.I.G Capital?

    Out of 49 partners and directors, 48 are men, and 47 are white. Eleven of these men, including H.I.G. Founder Tony Tamer, were formerly employed at Bain and Company, and two of those men, John P. Bolduc and Douglas Berman are Romney bundlers along with former Bain and H.I.G. manager Brian Shortsleeve.

    Additionally, four of these men were formerly employed at Booz Allen Hamilton. Bush family friendly Carlyle group is an owner of Booz Allen which also made voting machines for the United States military. Booz Allen was also the key subcontractor for the controversial PioneerGroundbreaker program, an NSA data mining operation that gathered information on American citizens until it was shut down and replaced with even more invasive successor programs like MATRIX and Total Information Awareness.
    ………………

    GLOBAL INTERNET VOTING FIRM BUYS U.S. ELECTION RESULTS REPORTING FIRM – By Bev Harris http://www.blackboxvoting.org

    In a major step towards global centralization of election processes, the world’s dominant Internet voting company has purchased the USA’s dominant election results reporting company. snip

    The good news is that this firm promptly reports precinct-level detail in downloadable
    spreadsheet format. As reported by BlackBoxVoting.org in 2008, the bad news is that this centralizes one middleman access point for over 525 jurisdictions in AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, FL, KY, MI, KS, IL, IN, NC, NM, MN, NY, SC, TX, UT, WA. And growing.
    ……………..

    With voting machines in the hands of Fascists-the extreme right wing, then it is no wonder that this impacts every political parties’ Primaries also, so that even the Left becomes more and more Fascists accommodating as it is the right that selects for them and the media and political parties whose stories try to account for the popular shift to the right. It is the right who selects those that collaborate with them.
    ……………

    I would guess that the Tea Party, Conservatives, Moderates, Progressives and Liberals all would support policies that help their families for generations to come by providing jobs, improving economies especially to mitigate the real dangers of multiple Fukushimas and Climate Change by changing our money system to provide debt-free funds as described by:

    http://www.monetary.org/
    http://www.monetary.org/american-money-scene-5-august-16-2009/2009/08

    Historical experience has taught us what we need to do:

    1. Put the Federal Reserve System into the U.S. Treasury.
    2. Stop the banking system creating any part of the money supply.
    3. Create new money as needed by spending it on public infrastructure, including human infrastructure, e.g. education and health care. (I would add Fukushima and Climate Change)

    These 3 elements must all be done together, and are all in draft legislative form as the proposed American Monetary Act [In September 2011, Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced the National Emergency Employment Defense (NEED) Act, HR 2990, into Congress. View details here http://www.monetary.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/HR-2990_KucinichVideos.pdf (this bill needs to be re-introduced in Congress this year)
    ………………..

    Dennis Kuchinich ran for President in 2008 on this monetary change to help everyone, not the bankers. Those e-voting machines that the Democrats did not talk about ousted him during the Primaries even though polling had him way ahead. The following is the remedy to take political power back with real physical evidence.

    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8889
    By Brad Friedman

    Recommended #OWS Demand: Let ALL Citizens 18 and Older Vote, On Paper Ballots, Count Them in Public

    I offer the following simple “demand” for consideration by OWS, as this one likely underscores almost every other. Or, at least, without it, all other demands may ultimately be rendered moot. Every U.S. citizen 18 years of age or older who wishes to vote, gets to vote. Period. Those votes, on hand-marked paper ballots, will be counted publicly, by hand, on Election Night, at the precinct, in front of all observers and video cameras. ….

    EDA–Election Defense Alliance at http://electiondefensealliance.org/

    The Occupy Movement, Rigged Elections, and the Bastille Line: An Urgent Call To Action

    All revolutions, even peaceful ones, require a point of attack capable of breaking through the Wall erected by the Powers-That-Be. The Occupy movement, such a welcome and important revival of democracy, has great potential to “rattle the walls” and change our times. There’s great heat out in the winter cold all over America (and across much of the globe). Focusing all that Heat like an acetylene torch on restoring observable vote counting and honest elections may well be the best, if not the only, chance the Occupy movement has to break the chokehold of the 1%. …
    ……………………….

    See: Gene Sharp’s online book: From Dictatorship to Democracy
    http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations98ce.html
    Check the Index for app. 200 Non-violent actions people can take to construct positive change.
    From Dictatorship to Democracy by Gene Sharp
    ISBN: 1-880813-09-2
    http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/FDTD.pdf
    ……………….

    • cettel

      Are you simply ignoring the fact that there wouldn’t even have been the possibility for a recount if Nader hadn’t been on that ballot?

      Nader received 97,488 votes there. The Bush claimed margin of “victory” was a mere 537 votes. All the studies showed that the vast majority of Nader-voters preferred Gore as their second choice, and that most of them would have voted even if Nader hadn’t been on the ballot.

      What’s your argument with my article? I don’t get it.

      • Bev

        One of the right wing owned e-scanning/e-tabulating machines counted a NEGATIVE 16,000 votes for Gore, and so had to be hand-counted (and that was possible only because there were paper ballots as real physical evidence fed into the miss-counting pre-programmed scanners). The counting had to be stopped in its tracks by Jeb Bush and Catherine Harris, and so they took their fraudulent case to the all-too-willing-to-abide-fascist supreme court, all the while media and the Bushs were lying that it was Gore who was litigious. And, surprise, Fascists stick together. Then the Bush cousin on Fox news pumped other networks to declare Bush the winner, and the Bush family agreed that they had won.

        What is your point? Any number can be put into those machines. You are deliberately not placing blame on the Bushs and their right wing voting machine owners, thereby supporting the next election where another Bush will be selected by his fascists republicans who own the voting machines. The Democrats until they come clean about these machines are collaborators.

        I think a better winning strategy for everyone is to demand evidence by hand-counting paper ballots in public and posting on election night. Politicians who are brave and want to win to give real solutions a chance should support this for every ones’ survival (such as those brave politicians involved with http://www.monetary.org/ to change our money system to a debt-free money so that jobs can be created to fix dangers to us all like Fukushima and Climate Change for the many generations it will take.)

        But, no punch cards. Dan Rather had an important story post election after interviewing the company that always printed the ballots for Florida’s elections. The workers would not sign off on the printed ballots because a manager had arbitrarily changed the paper used…one that would shrink with humidity and so would not line up with the punch holes. Also, more were not punched through because the trays that catch the punched out bits of card were not emptied from previous elections and so were full…unable to be punched through. That is why so many ballots were dimpled which in a case in Texas it was determined that that showed intent to vote, while in Florida, Bush fought to discard dimpled cards.

        How accommodating the media was to all this. And, then 911 resulted. Accommodating again. In the face of real issues of survival involving Fukushima, Climate Change, Democracy, and Debt Money so that we cannot fix those problems…accommodating again. Or, collaborating again.

        • cettel

          Oh, you’re Bev Harris, one of my heros!!!
          Now I understand where your are coming from!!
          But Ralph Nader was working a different end of that same mega-crime!!!
          And he knew it. He’s no dumbell (like the people who voted for him were; he relied upon their stupidity in order for his operation to succeed, as it did).
          So: Yes, of course what you are saying is mega-criminal and you were the biggest researcher digging it upk; and my hat’s off to you. But don’t ignore the complementary role that Nader played in this. And this was known, and heavily financed by, people at the very top of the Republican Party even when Nader was applying to get his name onto the states’ ballots — an expensive operation that the Green Party couldn’t fund alone.

          • Bev

            I am not the wonderful Bev Harris at http://blackboxvoting.org/ , but, I quote her often and other voting rights groups which may account for the confusion.

            The right-wing funds everything that can divide and conquer. Another example is that the activism and energy on the aggrieved so-called right among struggling middle and lower class people was dissipated into supporting policies helpful only to billionaires via the Tea Party…so different from its initial potential. And, police (themselves struggling middle class) used against the Occupy Movement which has much in common with the Greens, the Tea Party and the police that abused them. So, there you have it, full spectrum co-opt by deceit or force. Aided by media.

            And, because these e-voting, e-scanning, e-tabulating machines by intentional design are susceptible to Man-in-the-middle attacks, they are effective in selecting the most accommodating right wing politicians in all parties in their Primaries, where Politicians who support the machines are elected by the machines. Politicians say whatever people want to hear, then do the right-wing dance, like Bush and Obama. I would say that perhaps the NSA has the motive and the opportunity to vet these politicians.

            Paper ballots hand-counted and posted in precinct on election night during the next upcoming PRIMARIES (or a public show and counting of hands as Lynn Landes http://www.thelandesreport.com/VotingSecurity.htm suggests like Congress does), I would guess would produce many politicians, who if we support and protect, would be very glad to help everyone now and for a better survival in the future.

          • cettel

            So, you want to advertise your irrelevant schtick on this blog-post? Why?

          • Bev

            Just saying Al Gore WON. By denying that you accommodate whom?

            From: http://markcrispinmiller.com/2013/08/obama-didnt-prosecute-bushcheney-out-of-fear-hed-end-up-like-paul-wellstone/

            Obama didn’t prosecute Bush/Cheney out of fear he’d end up like Paul Wellstone (Perhaps that is your concern too cettel)
            ……
            The following is interesting in its attempt to brush away all the bad law since the illegitimate 2000 election. If it is doable, then Sandra Day O’Conner should make sure it happens as her only redemption. This also has the benefit of keeping another disastrous Bush out of office.
            ………
            http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/03/impeachment-of-u-s-president-albert-gore-jr-_ref-u-s-supreme-ct_case-no-00-949/

            IMPEACHMENT OF U.S. PRESIDENT ALBERT GORE, Jr._REF: U.S. Supreme Ct_Case No. 00-949

            COMMENT of U.S. Supreme Court Reporter Jeffrey Toobin :-
            ” To know Justice O’Connor as I am privileged to do is to know that the word ‘regret’ never passes her lips,” Toobin said. ” Did she regret her vote in Bush v. Gore? Did she regret the Bush presidency? You bet she did, and you bet she does.” 20apr13

            ”Maybe the court should have said, ‘we’re not going to take it, goodbye,”‘ O’Connor told the Chicago Tribune editorial board, in reference to the controversial Bush v. Gore decision resolving a dispute over the 2000 election in George W. Bush’s favor. “It turned out the election authorities in Florida hadn’t done a real job there and kind of messed it up. And probably the Supreme Court added to the problem at the end of the day.”

            IMPEACHMENT OF U.S. PRESIDENT ALBERT GORE, Jr._REF: U.S. Supreme Ct_Case No. 00-949

            Constitutional Grounds for the Impeachment and Fraud Upon the Supreme Court, et al…

            (Editor’s note: Only when America’s legally elected president, Al Gore,
            is returned to office and subjected to required impeachment
            proceedings, can constitutional authority in the United States be
            re-established. Toward that end, all actions of the Bush (43)
            presidency are to be declared “null and void,” all treaties abrogated,
            all executive actions declared unlawful and all actions including but
            not limited to the establishment of the United States as a criminal
            empire undone. The subsequent election of Barak Obama as president
            thus has no legal standing. Gordon Duff and Lee Wanta)

            Before the Supreme Court of the United States

            1. IMPROPER FAILURE TO REPORT,

            2. CONTINUOUS ABSENCE FROM HIS U.S. PRESIDENTIAL DUTIES,

            3. REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THE ELECTORAL VOTE DECISION OF THE AMERICAN POPULACE MAJORITY,

            4. CONTINUING VIOLATIONS OF PUBLIC TRUST AND EMPLOYMENT, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, INCLUDING ATTEMPTS TO SUBVERT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

    • Bev

      working link: pdf of Gene Sharp’s online book: From Dictatorship to Democracy for over 200 nonviolent actions to construct positive change.

      http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/FDTD.pdf
      ……………………….

      The Democratic Party made Bush illegally president by not fighting for Gore’s win in the past, and now I am sure they intend to rollover in the future. Look how supposedly progressive Alternet describes Jeb Bush as moderate http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/latest-new-right-wing-malady-jeb-bush-fever . Alternet is co-opted…like so many on the left, middle, and right.

      From: http://richardcharnin.com/

      The True Vote Model had him (Gore) winning by 51.5-44.7%. But the Supreme Court
      awarded the election to Bush (271-267 EV). In Florida, 185,000 ballots were uncounted. The following states flipped from Gore in the exit poll to Bush in the recorded vote: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC TN TX VA. Gore would have won the election if he captured just one of the states. Democracy died in this election. (note: Nader did not control e-voting, scanning, tabulating machines to flip those many states’ votes. Your whole premise is wrong allowing all this mess to continue again)

      Richard Charnin (Truth Is All)
      Election Fraud (1968-2012)
      Quantitative Analysis and True Vote Models

      Historical Overview

      Links to posts, models, statistical analysis, exit poll timelines, articles and True Vote analysis tables follow this summary.

      I have written two books on election fraud which prove that the recorded vote is always different from the True Vote. Unlike the misinformation spread in the media, voting machine “glitches” are not due to machine failures. It’s the fault of the humans who program them.

      In the 1968-2012 Presidential elections, the Republicans won the average recorded vote by 48.7-45.8%. The 1968-2012 Recursive National True Vote Model indicates the Democrats won the True Vote by 49.6-45.0% – a 7.5% margin discrepancy.

      In the 1988-2008 elections, the Democrats won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 52-42% – but won the recorded vote by just 48-46%, an 8% margin discrepancy. The state exit poll margin of error was exceeded in 126 of 274 state presidential elections from 1988-2008. The probability of the occurrence is ZERO. Only 14 (5%) would be expected to exceed the MoE at the 95% confidence level. Of the 126 which exceeded the MoE, 123 red-shifted to the Republican. The probability P of that anomaly is ABSOLUTE ZERO (5E-106). That is scientific notation for

      P= .000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000005.

      The proof is in the 1988-2008 Unadjusted State Exit Polls Statistical Reference. Not one political scientist, pollster, statistician, mathematician or media pundit has ever rebutted the data or the calculation itself. They have chosen not to discuss the topic. And who can
      blame them? Job security is everything.

      Election forecasters, academics, political scientists and main stream media pundits never discuss or analyze the statistical evidence that proves election fraud is systemic – beyond a reasonable doubt. This site contains a compilation of presidential, congressional and senate election analyses based on pre-election polls, unadjusted exit
      polls and associated True Vote Models.

      Those who never discuss or analyze Election Fraud should focus on the factual statistical data and run the models. If anyone wants to refute the analytical evidence, they are encouraged to do so in a response. Election forecasters, academics and political scientists are welcome to peer review the content.

      The bedrock of the evidence derives from this undisputed fact: Final national and state exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote – even if doing so requires an impossible turnout of prior election voters and implausible vote shares. All demographic categories are adjusted to conform to the recorded vote. To use these forced final exit
      polls as the basis for election research is unscientific and irresponsible. The research is based on the bogus premise that the recorded vote is sacrosanct and represents how people actually voted. Nothing can be further from the truth.

      It is often stated that exit polls were very accurate in elections prior to 2004 but have deviated sharply from the recorded vote since. That is a misconception. The UNADJUSTED exit polls have ALWAYS been accurate and closely matched the True Vote in 1988-2008. A comparison of ADJUSTED, PUBLISHED exit polls in elections prior to 2004 and PRELIMINARY exit polls since then is like comparing apples to oranges. The adjusted, published exit polls have always exactly matched the fraudulent RECORDED vote because they have been forced to do so. That’s why they APPEAR to have been accurate. The RECORDED vote has deviated from the TRUE VOTE in EVERY election since 1968 –always favoring the Republicans.

      The Census Bureau indicates that since 1968 approximately 80 million more votes were cast than recorded. And these were just the uncounted votes. What about the votes switched on unverifiable voting machines and central tabulators? But vote miscounts are only part of the story. The True Vote analysis does not include the millions of potential voters who were illegally disenfranchised and never got to vote.

      In 1988, Bush defeated Dukakis by 7 million recorded votes. But approximately 11 million ballots (75% Democratic) were uncounted. Dukakis won the unadjusted exit polls in 24 battleground states by 51-47% and the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 50-49%. The Collier brothers classic book Votescam provided evidence that the voting machines were rigged for Bush.

      In 1992, Clinton defeated Bush by 5.8 million recorded votes (43.0-37.5%). Approximately 9 million were uncounted. The National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote with an impossible 119% turnout of living 1988 Bush voters in 1992. The unadjusted state exit polls had Clinton winning a 16 million vote landslide (47.6-31.7%). The True Vote Model indicates that Clinton won by 51-30% with 19% voting for third party candidate Ross Perot.

      In 1996, Clinton defeated Dole by 8.6 million recorded votes (49.3-40.7%); 9 million were
      uncounted. The unadjusted state exit polls (70,000 respondents) had Clinton winning a 16 million vote landslide (52.6-37.1%). The True Vote Model indicates that Clinton had 53.6%.

      In 2000, Al Gore won the 540,000 recorded votes (48.4-47.9%). But the unadjusted
      state exit polls (58,000 respondents) indicated he won by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 million vote margin. There were nearly 6 million uncounted votes.

      The True Vote Model had him winning by 51.5-44.7%. But the Supreme Court awarded the election to Bush (271-267 EV). In Florida, 185,000 ballots were uncounted. The following states flipped from Gore in the exit poll to Bush in the recorded vote: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC TN TX VA. Gore would have won the election if he captured just one of the states. Democracy died in this election.

      In July 2004 I began posting weekly 2004 Election Model projections based on the state and national polls. The model was the first to use Monte Carlo Simulation and sensitivity analysis to calculate the probability of winning the electoral vote. The final projection had Kerry winning 337 electoral votes and 51.8% of the two-party vote, closely matching the unadjusted exit polls.

      The Final 2004 National Exit Poll was mathematically impossible since it indicated that there were 52.6 million returning Bush 2000 voters – but he had just 50.5 million recorded votes. Only 48 million were alive in 2004. Approximately 46 million voted, therefore the Final overstated the number of returning Bush voters by 6-7 million. The Final NEP implied that there was an impossible 110% turnout of living 2000 Bush voters in 2004. The post-election True Vote Model calculated a feasible turnout of living 2000 voters based on Census total votes cast (recorded plus net uncounted), a 1.25% annual mortality rate and 98% Gore/Bush voter turnout. It determined that Kerry won by 67-57 million and had 379 EV.

      But there was much further confirmation of a Kerry landslide. Consider Final NEP adjustments made to Bush’s approval rating and Party–ID crosstabs.

      Bush had a 48% national approval rating in the final 11 pre-election polls. But the Final NEP indicated that he had a 53% rating – even though he had just 50% in the unadjusted state exit poll weighted aggregate. Given the 3% differential between the Final NEP and state exit poll approval ratings, let’s deduct 3% from his 48% pre-election approval, giving him a 45% vote share. That is a virtual match to the True Vote Model (which Kerry won by 53.5-45.5%). The exit pollsters inflated Bush’s final pre-election 48% average rating by 5% in the Final NEP order to force a match to the recorded vote – and perpetuate the fraud. Kerry’s 51.7% unadjusted state exit poll aggregate understated his True Vote Model share. There was a near-perfect 0.99 correlation ratio between Bush‘s state approval and unadjusted exit poll share.

      The unadjusted state exit poll aggregate Democratic/Republican Party ID split was 38.8-35.1%. As they did in all demographic crosstabs, the pollsters had to force the Final National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote; they needed to specify a bogus 37-37% split. The correlation between state Republican Party ID and the Bush unadjusted shares was a near-perfect 0.93.

      This chart displays the state unadjusted Bush exit poll share, approval ratings and Party-ID.

      The Final 2006 National Exit Poll indicated that the Democrats had a 52-46% vote share. The Generic Poll Trend Forecasting Model projected that the Democrats would capture 56.43% of the vote. It was within 0.06% of the unadjusted exit poll.

      In the 2008 Primaries, Obama did significantly better than his recorded vote.

      The 2008 Election Model projection exactly matched Obama’s 365 electoral votes and was within 0.2% of his 52.9% share (a 9.5 million margin). But the model understated his True Vote. The forecast was based on final likely voter (LV) polls that had Obama leading by 7%. The registered voter (RV) polls had him up by 13% – before undecided voter allocation. The landslide was denied.

      The Final 2008 National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote by indicating an impossible 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters and 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. Given Kerry’s 5% unadjusted 2004 exit poll and 8% True Vote margin, one would expect 7 million more returning Kerry than Bush voters – a 19 million discrepancy from the Final 2008 NEP. Another anomaly: The Final 2008 NEP indicated there were 5 million returning third party voters – but only 1.2 million were recorded in 2004. Either the 2008 NEP or the 2004 recorded third-party vote share (or both) was wrong. The True Vote Model determined that Obama won by over 22 million votes with 420 EV. His 58% share was within 0.1% of the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents).

      In the 2010 Midterms, the statistical evidence indicates that many elections for House, Senate and Governor were stolen. The Wisconsin True Vote Model contains worksheets for Senate, Governor, Supreme Court and Recall elections. A serious analyst can run them and see why it is likely that they were stolen.

      In 2012, Obama won the recorded vote by 51.0-47.2% (5.0 million vote margin) and once again overcame the built-in 5% fraud factor. The 2012 Presidential True Vote and Election Fraud Simulation Model exactly forecast Obama’s 332 electoral vote based on the state pre-election polls. The built-in True Vote Model projected that Obama would win by 56-42% with 391 electoral votes. But just 31 states were exit polled, therefore a comparison between the True Vote Model and the state and national unadjusted exit polls (i.e. the red-shift) is not possible. Obama won the 11.7 million Late votes recorded after Election Day by 58-38%. In 2008, he won the 10.2 million late votes by 59-37%, a confirmation that he was within 2% of his 2008 share.

      ……………..

      And, the media made George Bush president:

      http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html

      Gore’s Victory
      By Robert Parry

      Post media critic Howard Kurtz took the spin one cycle further with a story headlined, “George W. Bush, Now More Than Ever,” in which Kurtz ridiculed as “conspiracy theorists” those who thought Gore had won.

      “The conspiracy theorists have been out in force, convinced that the media were covering up the Florida election results to protect President Bush,” Kurtz wrote. “That gets put to rest today, with the finding by eight news organizations that Bush would have beaten Gore under both of the recount plans being considered at the time.”

      Kurtz also mocked those who believed that winning an election fairly, based on the will of the voters, was important in a democracy. “Now the question is: How many people still care about the election deadlock that last fall felt like the story of the century –and now faintly echoes like some distant Civil War battle?” he wrote.

      In other words, the elite media’s judgment is in: “Bush won, get over it.” Only “Gore partisans” – as both the Washington Post and the New York Times called critics of the official Florida election tallies – would insist on looking at the fine print.

      The Actual Findings

      While that was the tone of coverage in these leading news outlets, it’s still a bit jarring to go outside the articles and read the actual results of the statewide review of 175,010 disputed ballots.

      ……………

      Publicly Hand-count paper ballots and post in precinct on Primary and Election night.

    • Bev

      working link: pdf of Gene Sharp’s online book: From Dictatorship to Democracy for over 200 nonviolent actions to construct positive change.

      http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/FDTD.pdf
      ……………………….

      The Democratic Party made Bush illegally president by not fighting for Gore’s win in the past, and now I am sure they intend to rollover in the future. Look how supposedly progressive Alternet describes Jeb Bush as moderate http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/latest-new-right-wing-malady-jeb-bush-fever . Alternet is co-opted…like so many on the left, middle, and right.

      From: http://richardcharnin.com/

      The True Vote Model had him (Gore) winning by 51.5-44.7%. But the Supreme Court
      awarded the election to Bush (271-267 EV). In Florida, 185,000 ballots were uncounted. The following states flipped from Gore in the exit poll to Bush in the recorded vote: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC TN TX VA. Gore would have won the election if he captured just one of the states. Democracy died in this election. (note: Nader did not control e-voting, scanning, tabulating machines to flip those many states’ votes. Your whole premise is wrong allowing all this mess to continue again)

      Richard Charnin (Truth Is All)
      Election Fraud (1968-2012)
      Quantitative Analysis and True Vote Models

      Historical Overview

      Links to posts, models, statistical analysis, exit poll timelines, articles and True Vote analysis tables follow this summary.

      I have written two books on election fraud which prove that the recorded vote is always different from the True Vote. Unlike the misinformation spread in the media, voting machine “glitches” are not due to machine failures. It’s the fault of the humans who program them.

      In the 1968-2012 Presidential elections, the Republicans won the average recorded vote by 48.7-45.8%. The 1968-2012 Recursive National True Vote Model indicates the Democrats won the True Vote by 49.6-45.0% – a 7.5% margin discrepancy.

      In the 1988-2008 elections, the Democrats won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 52-42% – but won the recorded vote by just 48-46%, an 8% margin discrepancy. The state exit poll margin of error was exceeded in 126 of 274 state presidential elections from 1988-2008. The probability of the occurrence is ZERO. Only 14 (5%) would be expected to exceed the MoE at the 95% confidence level. Of the 126 which exceeded the MoE, 123 red-shifted to the Republican. The probability P of that anomaly is ABSOLUTE ZERO (5E-106). That is scientific notation for

      P= .000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000005.

      The proof is in the 1988-2008 Unadjusted State Exit Polls Statistical Reference. Not one political scientist, pollster, statistician, mathematician or media pundit has ever rebutted the data or the calculation itself. They have chosen not to discuss the topic. And who can
      blame them? Job security is everything.

      Election forecasters, academics, political scientists and main stream media pundits never discuss or analyze the statistical evidence that proves election fraud is systemic – beyond a reasonable doubt. This site contains a compilation of presidential, congressional and senate election analyses based on pre-election polls, unadjusted exit
      polls and associated True Vote Models.

      Those who never discuss or analyze Election Fraud should focus on the factual statistical data and run the models. If anyone wants to refute the analytical evidence, they are encouraged to do so in a response. Election forecasters, academics and political scientists are welcome to peer review the content.

      The bedrock of the evidence derives from this undisputed fact: Final national and state exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote – even if doing so requires an impossible turnout of prior election voters and implausible vote shares. All demographic categories are adjusted to conform to the recorded vote. To use these forced final exit
      polls as the basis for election research is unscientific and irresponsible. The research is based on the bogus premise that the recorded vote is sacrosanct and represents how people actually voted. Nothing can be further from the truth.

      It is often stated that exit polls were very accurate in elections prior to 2004 but have deviated sharply from the recorded vote since. That is a misconception. The UNADJUSTED exit polls have ALWAYS been accurate and closely matched the True Vote in 1988-2008. A comparison of ADJUSTED, PUBLISHED exit polls in elections prior to 2004 and PRELIMINARY exit polls since then is like comparing apples to oranges. The adjusted, published exit polls have always exactly matched the fraudulent RECORDED vote because they have been forced to do so. That’s why they APPEAR to have been accurate. The RECORDED vote has deviated from the TRUE VOTE in EVERY election since 1968 –always favoring the Republicans.

      The Census Bureau indicates that since 1968 approximately 80 million more votes were cast than recorded. And these were just the uncounted votes. What about the votes switched on unverifiable voting machines and central tabulators? But vote miscounts are only part of the story. The True Vote analysis does not include the millions of potential voters who were illegally disenfranchised and never got to vote.

      In 1988, Bush defeated Dukakis by 7 million recorded votes. But approximately 11 million ballots (75% Democratic) were uncounted. Dukakis won the unadjusted exit polls in 24 battleground states by 51-47% and the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 50-49%. The Collier brothers classic book Votescam provided evidence that the voting machines were rigged for Bush.

      In 1992, Clinton defeated Bush by 5.8 million recorded votes (43.0-37.5%). Approximately 9 million were uncounted. The National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote with an impossible 119% turnout of living 1988 Bush voters in 1992. The unadjusted state exit polls had Clinton winning a 16 million vote landslide (47.6-31.7%). The True Vote Model indicates that Clinton won by 51-30% with 19% voting for third party candidate Ross Perot.

      In 1996, Clinton defeated Dole by 8.6 million recorded votes (49.3-40.7%); 9 million were
      uncounted. The unadjusted state exit polls (70,000 respondents) had Clinton winning a 16 million vote landslide (52.6-37.1%). The True Vote Model indicates that Clinton had 53.6%.

      In 2000, Al Gore won the 540,000 recorded votes (48.4-47.9%). But the unadjusted
      state exit polls (58,000 respondents) indicated he won by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 million vote margin. There were nearly 6 million uncounted votes.

      The True Vote Model had him winning by 51.5-44.7%. But the Supreme Court awarded the election to Bush (271-267 EV). In Florida, 185,000 ballots were uncounted. The following states flipped from Gore in the exit poll to Bush in the recorded vote: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC TN TX VA. Gore would have won the election if he captured just one of the states. Democracy died in this election.

      In July 2004 I began posting weekly 2004 Election Model projections based on the state and national polls. The model was the first to use Monte Carlo Simulation and sensitivity analysis to calculate the probability of winning the electoral vote. The final projection had Kerry winning 337 electoral votes and 51.8% of the two-party vote, closely matching the unadjusted exit polls.

      The Final 2004 National Exit Poll was mathematically impossible since it indicated that there were 52.6 million returning Bush 2000 voters – but he had just 50.5 million recorded votes. Only 48 million were alive in 2004. Approximately 46 million voted, therefore the Final overstated the number of returning Bush voters by 6-7 million. The Final NEP implied that there was an impossible 110% turnout of living 2000 Bush voters in 2004. The post-election True Vote Model calculated a feasible turnout of living 2000 voters based on Census total votes cast (recorded plus net uncounted), a 1.25% annual mortality rate and 98% Gore/Bush voter turnout. It determined that Kerry won by 67-57 million and had 379 EV.

      But there was much further confirmation of a Kerry landslide. Consider Final NEP adjustments made to Bush’s approval rating and Party–ID crosstabs.

      Bush had a 48% national approval rating in the final 11 pre-election polls. But the Final NEP indicated that he had a 53% rating – even though he had just 50% in the unadjusted state exit poll weighted aggregate. Given the 3% differential between the Final NEP and state exit poll approval ratings, let’s deduct 3% from his 48% pre-election approval, giving him a 45% vote share. That is a virtual match to the True Vote Model (which Kerry won by 53.5-45.5%). The exit pollsters inflated Bush’s final pre-election 48% average rating by 5% in the Final NEP order to force a match to the recorded vote – and perpetuate the fraud. Kerry’s 51.7% unadjusted state exit poll aggregate understated his True Vote Model share. There was a near-perfect 0.99 correlation ratio between Bush‘s state approval and unadjusted exit poll share.

      The unadjusted state exit poll aggregate Democratic/Republican Party ID split was 38.8-35.1%. As they did in all demographic crosstabs, the pollsters had to force the Final National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote; they needed to specify a bogus 37-37% split. The correlation between state Republican Party ID and the Bush unadjusted shares was a near-perfect 0.93.

      This chart displays the state unadjusted Bush exit poll share, approval ratings and Party-ID.

      The Final 2006 National Exit Poll indicated that the Democrats had a 52-46% vote share. The Generic Poll Trend Forecasting Model projected that the Democrats would capture 56.43% of the vote. It was within 0.06% of the unadjusted exit poll.

      In the 2008 Primaries, Obama did significantly better than his recorded vote.

      The 2008 Election Model projection exactly matched Obama’s 365 electoral votes and was within 0.2% of his 52.9% share (a 9.5 million margin). But the model understated his True Vote. The forecast was based on final likely voter (LV) polls that had Obama leading by 7%. The registered voter (RV) polls had him up by 13% – before undecided voter allocation. The landslide was denied.

      The Final 2008 National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote by indicating an impossible 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters and 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. Given Kerry’s 5% unadjusted 2004 exit poll and 8% True Vote margin, one would expect 7 million more returning Kerry than Bush voters – a 19 million discrepancy from the Final 2008 NEP. Another anomaly: The Final 2008 NEP indicated there were 5 million returning third party voters – but only 1.2 million were recorded in 2004. Either the 2008 NEP or the 2004 recorded third-party vote share (or both) was wrong. The True Vote Model determined that Obama won by over 22 million votes with 420 EV. His 58% share was within 0.1% of the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents).

      In the 2010 Midterms, the statistical evidence indicates that many elections for House, Senate and Governor were stolen. The Wisconsin True Vote Model contains worksheets for Senate, Governor, Supreme Court and Recall elections. A serious analyst can run them and see why it is likely that they were stolen.

      In 2012, Obama won the recorded vote by 51.0-47.2% (5.0 million vote margin) and once again overcame the built-in 5% fraud factor. The 2012 Presidential True Vote and Election Fraud Simulation Model exactly forecast Obama’s 332 electoral vote based on the state pre-election polls. The built-in True Vote Model projected that Obama would win by 56-42% with 391 electoral votes. But just 31 states were exit polled, therefore a comparison between the True Vote Model and the state and national unadjusted exit polls (i.e. the red-shift) is not possible. Obama won the 11.7 million Late votes recorded after Election Day by 58-38%. In 2008, he won the 10.2 million late votes by 59-37%, a confirmation that he was within 2% of his 2008 share.

      ……………..

      And, the media made George Bush president:

      http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html

      Gore’s Victory
      By Robert Parry

      Post media critic Howard Kurtz took the spin one cycle further with a story headlined, “George W. Bush, Now More Than Ever,” in which Kurtz ridiculed as “conspiracy theorists” those who thought Gore had won.

      “The conspiracy theorists have been out in force, convinced that the media were covering up the Florida election results to protect President Bush,” Kurtz wrote. “That gets put to rest today, with the finding by eight news organizations that Bush would have beaten Gore under both of the recount plans being considered at the time.”

      Kurtz also mocked those who believed that winning an election fairly, based on the will of the voters, was important in a democracy. “Now the question is: How many people still care about the election deadlock that last fall felt like the story of the century –and now faintly echoes like some distant Civil War battle?” he wrote.

      In other words, the elite media’s judgment is in: “Bush won, get over it.” Only “Gore partisans” – as both the Washington Post and the New York Times called critics of the official Florida election tallies – would insist on looking at the fine print.

      The Actual Findings

      While that was the tone of coverage in these leading news outlets, it’s still a bit jarring to go outside the articles and read the actual results of the statewide review of 175,010 disputed ballots.

      ……………

      Publicly Hand-count paper ballots and post in precinct on Primary and Election night.

  • Interesting Coincidence

    Pretty good evidence for a plausible scenario. I was in that small margin of Gore voters in Oregon. Saw Nader as a wasted vote, even though I felt he was the more progressive candidate.

    The heavy campaigning in swing states was the major tell, particularly after Nader’s horse was clearly out of the race.

    Unfortunately, the McCarthyite red-baiting and tin foil hat sleeper agent accusations really just drag down the quality of the article.

    • cettel

      I was reluctant to agree with Harry G. Levine, and with Jacob Weisberg, on that, but apparently you are closed-minded to their evidence and reasoning, and to all the rest of the evidence from other writers there in my section on Nader’s motive for doing this, which just happens to be consistent with the theory put forth separately by Levine and by Weisberg.

      So, since you are closed-minded to their theory, what’s yours?

      • Interesting Coincidence

        Your very article puts up a compelling alternate theory: personal revenge against Gore. There’s no love lost between these men. You hardly seem ‘reluctant’ (where’s the disclaimer?), but I’ll take you at your word.

        Even if Nader was/is taking tactics from the communist/Leninist playbook, it doesn’t necessarily mean he is a communist/Leninist. That’s black-and-white thinking.

        Honestly, punishing the Democrats for failing to live up to the hopes and needs of their progressive constituency hardly requires a sinister, hidden motive to be understood.

        My personal theory: Nader is a progressive, probably left-libertarian, who wanted to show the rightward-drifting Democrats that a third-party candidate could and would tank their campaign unless they took a more progressive stand in rhetoric and policy. Gore didn’t, Nader made his play, end of story.

        • cettel

          Thanks for bringing that up. The reason I don’t think it was the motivation that drove him to enter those races is that his first race was against Gore, and if his motivation had actually been revenge against Gore, Nader would have contested, along with Bill Bradley, against Gore in the Democratic primaries; he could have gone tooth-and-nail against the Senate voting records of both of them, as himself a supposed purist or exemplar of virtue, since he had no floor-voting record himself, having never been in public office. He would have been the believable candidate running against “the Washington Establishment”; Democrats would have loved him because his mouthings were the most progressive; he would likely have won the Democratic nomination — and, if he did, he’d have been the “anti-Washington” candidate who in the general election would have won the votes not only of all Democrats but of many independents, and even of some Republicans.

          But he didn’t want to become President. He wanted to make things so bad here that American democracy itself would collapse and the public would hate “the Government” and become pre-revolutionary, for a counter-revolution to overthrow the American Revolution and install a “dictatorship of the proletariat.” George W. Bush is what he wanted; and he fought like the dickens to get him into the White House.

          • Interesting Coincidence

            Hmm, I remember a very active grassroots Nader campaign here in Oregon in ’96. I really don’t know much about it but presumably he had similar campaigns in other states. I understand that ’96 wasn’t his first candidacy but maybe ’00 was his first real run in the mainstream?

            I really can’t see how Nader could have won the Democratic primary against an establishment guy like Gore. Not enough money, not enough recognition, no proven record. It might have been a bitter battle, though.

            A person can have multiple motives for taking one action. I would be surprised if personal revenge wasn’t one of Nader’s but it’s certainly likely it wasn’t his primary motivation.

            I honestly believe Nader was more interested in generating interest in third-parties. He’s long been in favor of a European-style, multi-party system. He’s also been a proponent of elevating both the Green and Libertarian parties to the same level as the Democratic and Republican.

            If Nader wanted things to make things so bad that American democracy would collapse and spawn revolution, he failed miserably – this seems to contradict the portrayal of him as an insidious mastermind genius.

            There’s too much speculation here for my taste. Being a communist is not the only answer that fits the details. But as an educated, working class person, I’d much rather live in a “dictatorship of urban and rural workers” than a “dictatorship of corporations and the independently wealthy.”

          • cettel

            Re. your “There’s too much speculation here for my taste.”:

            Think about what you’ve just said here: There’s too much speculation that Nader would more readily have been able to win the White House by entering Democratic primaries and competing against and beating other Democratic candidates for the support of the voters within the liberal (the Democratic) Party than by going straight to the general electorate and competing against both the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee for the support of the voters within the total electorate — not just the liberal electorate — and winning only 2.74% of the vote.

            What you’ve said is hogwash: Obviously, if Nader had supported the Democratic Party instead of constantly attacking and insulting it and its nominees, and had entered Democratic Presidential primaries as a Democrat and attacking there (but not insulting) his fellow-Democratic opponents (the other candidates) as not being sufficiently progressive and and not having as long and successful a record of national organizing and producing for consumer-rights as he did, then he would have stood a very good chance of defeating both Bradley and Gore and of winning the Democratic nomination as the uncompromised progressive in the Democratic race. Both Gore and Bradley were highly compromised, as is any politician who has already won any electoral political office, regardless of Party — it’s the nature of politics in any democracy, that nothing can be achieved without compromises being made.

            He was in the perfect position to beat any Democratic office-holder, because he had never himself held any public office but nonetheless was famous, and because most voters don’t know that democracy is impossible without constant compromises being made. He would have known that fact about democracy, but the voters don’t — and Gore and Bradly wouldn’t have wasted their time on the campaign trail to educate voters about it, the way that I am wasting my time trying to educate you and the readers here about it.

            Then: As the Democratic nominee, with an uncompromised record, running in the general election against George W. Bush, not only would the passion on the Democratic side have been incredibly intense, with volunteers working for him everywhere (no need to pay them; they’d be clamoring to help), but he could then run against Bush for all of Bush’s record of corruption and lousy cronyist politics, and beaten the pants off of him — no contest.

            But, no: he chose instead to constantly attack and demean the Democratic Party and its nominees (while rarely and always only briefly criticizing the Republican nominee in order to display his fake “nonpartisan” schtick for the suckers he was after), as being “Tweedledom Tweedledee” with the Republican Party — as if there’s no substantial difference, though virtually all of the floor-votes in Congress showed vast differences between those two Parties.

            You are denying that he would have won a vastly higher percentage of the popular vote, in every state, this way, than the mere 2.74% of the vote that he won in 2000 trying to destroy Gore’s candidacy — and succeeding at doing precisely that.

            I’m not saying here that he would certainly have won the Presidency if he had chosen to run this way; I’m saying that he would have enormously increased his chances of winning the White House this way, and could very possibly (and I think even very probably) have won it, if that were his objective, which it obviously wasn’t — and that’s my point.

          • Interesting Coincidence

            I’ve already agreed that Nader likely sabotaged Gore intentionally – I don’t feel that to be particularly speculative in light of the evidence. I apologize if you misunderstood that.

            As far as Nader being able to win the Democratic primary, that is speculative imo but certainly plausible. I would have cast my primary vote for him without hesitation. I do think Nader is too willful to tow the Democratic line, however – it’s very unlikely that he would even accept a Democratic candidacy, let alone seek one out.

            I find the theory that he did so because he’s a crypto-communist mastermind to be overly speculative. There’s certainly room in the liberal paradigm for a disillusioned progressive to do just the same.

            If you truly feel you are “wasting your time”, maybe this isn’t the right venue for you. There’s a whole range of diverse opinion among WB’s readers, many of them progressives who feel abandoned and betrayed by the Democrats. I’m among them yet I still vote Democrat.

          • cettel

            Re. your “I do think Nader is too willful to tow the Democratic line, however – it’s very unlikely that he would even accept a Democratic candidacy, let alone seek one out.”:

            You’re just repeating a major sub-point that I stated. I presented a theory to explain it. You do not. You just say you reject it as “too speculative.” So: present an equally well-documented alternative theory; don’t just yak with an empty complaint.

          • Interesting Coincidence

            I’ve been polite and respectful. Please return the courtesy.

            My personal theory: Nader is a progressive, probably left-libertarian, who wanted to show the rightward-drifting Democrats that a third-party candidate could and would tank their campaign unless they took a more progressive stand in rhetoric and policy. Gore didn’t, Nader made his play, end of story.

            I don’t need to document my theory equally because it’s far more plausible given your own documented evidence and Nader’s own history. Not to mention that discussions of the motives of others are always speculative.

          • cettel

            Re. your “discussions of the motives of others are always speculative.”:

            If that were true, then there could never be criminal trials, which require proof “beyond a reasonable doubt,” that the defendant perpetrated the accused crime, and that his motive for it was likewise established “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

            As to all the rest you’ve alleged, it’s also beyond being shoddy: it’s nothing.

            Instead of disproving any of my sources, you’ve asserted with no sources at all: “I don’t need to document my theory equally because it’s far more plausible given your own documented evidence and Nader’s own history.”

            As far as that phrase “Nader’s own history,” you are simply blotting out from that everything in my article.

            There obviously is no reasoning with a person such as you. You’ve proved that; you’ve displayed it for all to see. You make assertions on the basis of no evidence, not even bad evidence; no logical-processing from the evidence, since there is no evidence. Just a zero. Goodbye.

          • Interesting Coincidence

            My, aren’t we a petulant child. It must hurt you oh-so-much not to have your ego stroked.

            Pro-tip, Nancy: if motives weren’t speculative, no innocent person would have ever been convicted. Oops, did I show you that process doesn’t legitimize outcome!? Hark, the hallowed halls of liberal legalism fall!

            Again, I’ve accepted your research and conclusion as factual. Only the tin foil hat *speculation* on motive was called into question.

            Now, since you’re suddenly hot on formal logic: if X does Z and Y does Z, it does not necessarily follow that X = Y. This is called the “Zuesse-kabob crypto-communist fallacy” – how you like me now?

            Theory A: Nader is a crypto-communist-Lenininst-fascist-Blanquist, sleeper-agent who laid decades in wait for Gore to rear his ugly head.

            Theory B: Nader is a progressive, radical liberal, fed up with Democratic failure and deception, who made a point of damaging Gore’s campaign after a stark refusal for a more progressive campaign.

            Outside of conservo-fascist McCarthyite circles, and apparently some quasi-progressive crypto-McCarthyite circles trapped in a psychological time warp, Theory B is more rational *given your own evidence*.

            The Cold War is over. Get over it.

          • cettel

            The Cold War has nothing to do with my article; ideology does.

            And I didn’t cook up the hypothesis that Nader was acting out of communist conviction: Jacob Weisberg and Harry Levine separately and independently came up with it, and each (especially Levine) presented a strong case for it (Levine especially). Neither of them were “Cold Warriors” either.

            I am getting the impression here that your mind is closed to facts, and to reasoning. I shall not respond to anything further from you on this.

          • Interesting Coincidence

            the crypto-communist-fascist-leninist-hitlerite-unamerican-atheist-sleeper-pseudoscientific-brainwash-conservoprogressive-flat earth-truther bloc approves this message. there are millions of us hiding in the shadows! Naders of the world unite!!!!1111!!!!!11!!!!

        • nlcatter

          idiot – any left leaning ,obama loses you fing moron

  • nlcatter

    whatever motivation – fact – nader threw election to Bush , subsequently 75,000 innocent Iraiq died in Bush ware and ISS became strong

  • Guest

    Gore couldn’t win his home state of Tennessee. If he did, Florida would have been a footnote. Enough said.