Nader is just as responsible as Idiot Son for the dead in New Orleans

[Proud2BAmurkin]

Gore's FEMA director James Lee Witt would have made a difference and saved hundreds if not thousands more.

FUCK YOU Nader you rumpled stupid fuck.

[TomInTib]

1. Interesting argument. Nader seems curiously off the radar right now.

[bluestateguy]

2. The Nader voters are not the type that would identify with the evacuees

Nader was the limousine liberal candidate in 2000.

[SaveElmer]

3. Look...I hate Nader as much as the next guy...

But that is just wrong. He was well within his rights to run for President. Bush is primarily responsible for what happened...plain and simple.

You could say the same about Gore...had he been able to win his home state, the same would be true.

Direct your anger at the right people...Bush and his gang that couldn;t shoot straight!!!

[Proud2BAmurkin]

5. Gore wouldnt have had to win his home state if Nader didnt run

you can't blame Gore for losing a redneck state that no democrat would win now

[CountAllVotes]

10. I blame those damned machines

that do not COUNT THE VOTES!

:grr:

:kick:

[SaveElmer]

13. Please...

There is no way Nader could have predicted the chain of events that led to what happened in New Orleans. It is not credible to blame Nader for this...

Gore should have won his own state, he should have won West Virginia, he should have won New Hampshire...any of which would have given him the White House. I do blame Nader for costing Gore the election...particularly as things played out in Florida. And there is a case to be made that Nader is partially to blame for the appointments that Bush is making to the court, and the passage of ANWR drilling etc, because those were well known issues, and Bush's position on them was clear.

But to expect Nader to know that Bush would hire incompetents at FEMA, and that Congress would gut their financing, and that a once in a lifetime hurricane would hit New Orleans etc etc etc is not reasonable.

[The Magistrate]

18. The Problem With That Line, Sir

Is that Nader ran on a platform that "there ain't a dime's worth of difference between Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum." That that was not the case was obvious to anyone paying attention, and it has become impossible to ignore by now. Nader displayed extraordinarily bad judgement, and those who voted for him did so as well: a number of people have been paying the forfeit of those mistakes for years now....

[SaveElmer]

19. What you are saying is true...

But you simply cannot blame Nader for every bad thing that has happened to the country the last 6 years. And you certainly cannot blame him for the unpredictable. Sorry, you line of reasoning is flawed, and counterproductive.

The blame for N.O. lies with Bush...end of story!!!

[The Magistrate]

26. Nader's Foolishness, Sir

Was an indispensible link in the chain. There is never a single reason for any real disaster; several things must go wrong at once or in sequence, and if any one of them did not, the event would not become a calamity.

Perhaps it is a question of age, Sir, but let me assure you people are always responsible for the unforseen consequences of what they do; indeed, by the time you reach my age, how life has held you to that is pretty much the story of your life. This applies to Nader as well as to anyone else. Had he sat home and written a book in 2000, the outcome would have been different, and that will be his principal contribution to history. That he did not foresee it is immaterial.

[SaveElmer]

30. Useless discussion...

There are a million variables which can account for Gore's loss in 2000, Nader was only one in that chain. To be frank about it, Gore was responsible for Gore's loss. He ran a terrible campaign.

By your logic, anyone who runs for President against a Democratic candidate is responsible for the bad acts that occur if that Democrat loses. Ridiculous.

To make this an issue now is a pointless distraction to no end. What do you propose should be the consequences here?

Also, how do you know I'm not a ma'am instead of a sir (I'm not). And I doubt it is a question of age. I have unfortunately, arrived at the point where over the hill is becoming applicable!

[The Magistrate]

33. There Is A System, Sir

For better or worse, it functions routinely by providing two candidates, each of whom must rally a coalition of various groupings and tendencies within the voting population. In all instances where there has been a third element of any real footing introduced, the result has been calamitous for one or the other of the standard pair: "Bull Moose" cost Taft the election, and put Wilson in office; Perot was essential to the victory of President Clinton in 1992.

It is true that, at this stage, the point is a minor one, but people here do like to tear about on it every so often. The minor point, though, is this: political actions have consequences, and people must accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions. A splinterist tendency on the left has long been its Achilles heel in contest with the reactionaries, and has resulted in numerous failures of the left to gain and consolidate political positions from which programs of benefit to the people might be successfully pressed to fruition. Those who indulge in splinterist action habitually deny their role in these failures, and so long as that remains the case, will continue to act in a manner that has hamstrung progress by the left. The actions of Nader and the Greens in 2000 is a most recent case in point, and should not be forgotten.

[SaveElmer]

36. A couple of points...

"Perot was essential to the victory of President Clinton in 1992."

This is untrue, there is not one state Clinton won that he would not have had Perot not been there. Perot was decisive nowhere in the country.

"political actions have consequences, and people must accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions."

This is only true to the extent that a person could reasonably be expected to forsee these consequences. I'm sorry, but there is no case to be made that Ralph Nader could reasonably be expected to forsee the disaster in New Orleans.

As I have said, the consequences to the make up of the supreme court, and the damage caused by these people to the environment could be reasonably forseen, and therefore Nader does bear some responsibility for this.

And, I ask again, what exactly do you propose as punishment for Ralph Nader? If he must accept the responsibility for his actions here, you are implying a punishment of some kind.

[The Magistrate]

37. Your Reading Of '92, Sir, Is In Error

Much more than final vote totals are involved: do not forget that there was a time early in the campaign when Perot led both major party candidates.

We are not discussing legal liability, Sir, but the fact of being responsible for the consequences of what one does, foreseen, foreseeable, or otherwise. The cronyistic incompetence of the current regime ws readily foreseeable; incompetence will invariably prove disasterous in crisis; there will always be a crisis somewhere down the road. But that, even, is beside the point. People do all kinds of things they cannot possibly dorreesee the consequences of, and yet remain responsible for those inforeseen things yet to come all the same.

Punishment does not interest me much; in this instance, disgrace and ignominy, and the judgement of history that he midwifed the most damaging era of reactionary exploitation in this country since Harding cum Coolidge cum Hoover, and did it all in the name of left purity, out to suffice....

[SaveElmer]

41. On 1992...

Perot was a factor early...in fact Clinton was in third place in the polls briefly.

However...

Perot had dropped out for a significant amount of time following the Democratic convention...

By the time Perot got back in, Clinton had an insurmountable lead over Bush. Perot was a non-factor by that time.

Every poll has shown that Perot was drawing about the same number of voters from Clinton as he was from Bush, and had Perot dropped out before election day, the result would have been the same.

As to your argument on consequences, it is mere sophistry. Your argument can apply to anyone for anything. Common sense tells one when a person should be held accountable for their actions...this is not one of them. The debate is pointless.

[TahitiNut]

57. The Jury of History has yet to return a verdict.

The fact of the matter remains that there is and has been a large and growing authoritarian constituency within the American body politic for proto-fascist (corporatist) ideologies. The politics of fear and loathing has been growing for 25 years. In that 25 years, the political direction is unchanged, even though the rate arguably slowed for eight years.

Nader's thesis is crystal clear. It's the "boil-a-frog" thesis. Given only the question of the rate of immersion of the body politic into the waters of governance at a full fascist boil, are we better served 30-50 years from now by a rapid immersion and a correspondingly rapid reaction or by a more gradual immersion and the resultant lethargy?

It is viscerally satisfying to designate scapegoats when the rot is so dispersed, but it is unproductive. Candidates, and the votes cast in their favor, are but a symptom of the condition of the body politic.

As I've said before, if I were to attribute the deterioration of the last 25 years to one choice, it would be the choice of 'liberals' to chose discretion instead of valor in the espousal and promulgation of economic equity and social justice. Liberals have run from the name-calling. Liberals have adopted a "go along to get along" attitude, meandering slowly toward the ovens rather than upset the other meanderers and be accused of rabble-rousing or discourtesy. Liberals have cooperated with fascists in the eradication of the "far left" while the "far right" is permitted to flourish.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. The problem with your line, sir, is that Gore could have had those votes.

If he hadn't sold his ass to the DLC and played at being a "moderate".

[The Magistrate]

28. That Is Most Unlikely, Sir

Vice-President Gore certainly made errors, the chief among them, in my view, being to distance himself from President Clinton. Certainly the conventional view is that by taking a line that would have got him the small Green vote, he would have forfeited a greater number of votes from more centerist and more numerous constituencies. That still seems to me to have been a correct calculation at that time.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. On a tactical level, sir, I agree. On a stategic level, I disagree.

If the aim of political parties is to advance a political philosophy, then the way to do it, is to stand by that philosophy. If the philosophy of the Democratic Party is one of progessivism, liberalism, justice, equality, etc, then betraying those ideals in order to win elections negates the value of the election.

Al Gore may have won more votes by steering to the "center" but to what end? If he ran as a centrist but was a "liberal" then he lied. If he was a centrist then the progressives who voted against him were right to do so because he wouldn't represent them.

I happen to believe that Gore is somewhat left of center but pandered to the right (as did Kerry) which accomplished neither their aims of being elected or advancing the cause of moving this country to the left.

[The Magistrate]

35. Understood, Sir

Three points for your consideration.

First, no strategy, however appealing or even apparently sound, can ever be executed without the existance of a tactical method by which it can be forwarded. It is the tactical sphere that must be addressed first, not the strategic sphere.

Second, it does not seem to me that the purpose of a political party is to advance a philosphy, but rather that the purpose of a political party to gain power through taking and holding office, from which position it can then act as its philosophy would guide it to act. If its actions are popular, then it will gain adherents to its philosophy.

Third, it seems to me that the most basic duty of progressive persons is to defeat reactionary powers and blocs, and in this system we live under, this means denying such persons the benfits and power of holding office. Even in an instance where two reactionaries are all that is on offer, invariably one of them will be less reactionary than the other, and that one is to be supported. It is, in a great many instances, much more important not be ruled by elements actively hostile to you than it is to be ruled by elements that are identical to you.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. History belies your argument, sir.

When the forces of reaction gain power with the cooperation of the "moderates" they are overthrown, not by other political parties, but by the force of an outraged people. Even if that outraged people are a minority. I submit to you, as examples, colonial America, the Ancien Regime of France, Tsarist Russia, colonial India, and many, many, others, in which the political parties are the followers - not the leaders.

Political parties are, at their best, servants of a minority, whether it be from the left or right. They are vehicles to achieve power and are inevitably beholden to "leaders".

It is my belief that this society is in need of fundamental change and that the two parties that now hold power are obstacles, not vehicles, for that change.

The time is past for "politics as usual".

[The Magistrate]

45. We Read History Differently, Sir

What we are wont to call the American Revolution was a mere jurisdictional quarrel among elements of a ruling elite, and not even so much of a genuine revolution as the English Civil War. The French Revolution had nothing whatever to do with political parties in any sense currently employed: it resulted from calamitous mis-rule by forces long in power, and in power by combination of armed might and heredity, without an iota of the political process you have referenced. The revolution against the Czar of Russia was a similare event, compounded with immediate military calamity. Nor was the government overthrown by the Bolsheviks composed of reactionaries; rather it was composed of liberal moderates, whose real and single mistake was succumbing to Allied pressures to remain at war with Germany: had Kerensky not done so, Lenin would be a mere footnote for specialists. England relenquished India not because of pressure from either political parties or the mass of the people, for both these things had been held effectively in check for a very long time: India was relenquished because the course of the Second World War had demonstrated to England's leadership that it could not be held against outside power without tremendous outside assistance, and certainly could not be held in the current and foreseeable exhausted state of England after that war. The infantrymen of the Imperial Japanese Army did far more than Ghandi or any other Indian leader or body of people to secure that country's independence.

The situation we have here, it seems to me, Sir, is not one where reactionaries take power with the co-operation of moderates, but one in which leftists isolate themselves from power through refusal to co-operate and compromise with moderates against the most reactionary elements of the polity. We are in agreement that fundamental changes are desireable, but there is not going to be anything even approximating a successful revolution from the left, and failing that, there is only the existing political process through which to work towards them. Success at this will require co-operating with, compromising with, at times even co-opting and duping, a very many people who do not wholly agree with us at present.

[wmills551]

46. love your post!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. We, again, disagree.

While your argument has merit in the details, you overlook (or, minimize) the fact that the events discussed were driven by the force of popular discontent.

If the American Revolution were only a jurisdcitional quarrel between the elites, there would have been no soldiers in the Continental Army.
There were, what amounted to "political parties" in the French revolution, defined by the "Estates" that unleashed the revolutionary will of the people. After the revolution, the battles between the various parties, The Girondists, The Jacquerie, etc, resulted in the tyranny of the left and then the right. The Bolsheviks didn't make "The Revolution" but they answered the demands of the people for an end to the war (along with the Anarchists and Socialist Revolutionaries) that Kerensky clung to. As for India, there would have been no need for Britain to give up the very profitable colony after the war, had there been no movement by Gandhi and the Indian people for de-colonization.

In every instance cited above the "moderates" who "compromised" were not answering the will of the people for fundamental change, but tried instead to circumvent that will by cooperating with the established powers.

Virtually all of the "leaders" of the American Revolution decried a split with Britain until the people took matters into their own hands at Lexington and Concord. The "moderates" of 3rd Estate tried to reform the monarchy of Louis XVI rather to demolish it as was done by Danton, Marat, Robespierre, who were driven by the people. Kerensky "compromised" with the pro-war "moderates" (the Kadets) against the overwhelming majority of the people in continuing the war. And, the British made every attempt to hold on to India by trying to find a way to install a puppet government.

While I agree that there is little or no chance for a violent revolution in this country (disregarding the insurrections called "riots"), there is an opportunity for the polity to become so disgusted with the antics and corruption of politicians that a restoration of the idea that politicians serve the people, rather than the powers that be, can be achieved.

I do not believe that the politics as usual formual of compromising, co-opting, cooperating with, and duping the people will do anything other than keep the present Ancien Regime of the wealthy elite in power.

I believe that the American Empire is crumbling due to the pressure now being exerted by those that it has dispossessed and subjugated around the world as de facto colonies. IMO now is the time to abandon politics as usual and start seeking a way to make that inevitable collapse as bloodless as possible.

[Toots]

49. No he did not

He said there was hardly any difference between the two Parties, not between Gore and Bush*. I have yet to see him proved wrong. He also said things were going to have to get a lot worse before they get any better and we aren't there yet.

[Orrex]

15. I agree completely

Nader was one of the reasons that Gore lost, not the reason. It's simply not tenable to put the entirety of Gore's loss on Nader, no matter how convenient or reassuring it is to do so.

[Orrex]

16. Self-delete dupe

[Uncle Joe]

62. I believe the primary reason that Al lost

was because the corpwhorate owned MSM's relentless war against him for empowering us. If the MSM had not committed treason against the people, Nader would have been the equivalent of a gnat on an elephant's posterior end, and Al would have so dominated the election that Florida would have made no difference.

[Brightmore]

4. I blame the all-mighty Clenis!

[Dees]

60. That's right! Republican'ts still tie every thing disastrous

or otherwise to Clenis. Butt holes are still obcessed.

[LittleClarkie]

6. !@#$%^&*

:banghead:

[niallmac]

7. Nader slowed down? He's unsafe at any speed you know. n/t

[Proud2BAmurkin]

9. Nader the gift that keeps giving and giving

he's a fuckin venereal disease on the nation

[Warren DeMontague]

8. 'scuse me sir, but that horse you're beating

is, how shall I put this? ...dead.

[lonestarnot]

11. And so are free and fair elections in the United States.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. I know. Bummer about that.

Hey, I think Nader is *************, and I really didn't appreciate his ***********************.

(edited- because, again, what good does it do?)

But past a certain point, floggin' them endlessly is counter-productive, IMHO.

[necso]

12. I'm glad that you brought this up.

Now that we're finally starting to get a little traction, it's a good time to bring up old, emotionally-charged and divisive quarrels.

[Jersey Devil]

55. LOL, most sensible comment in this string

Discussing Nader now solves what?

[Rowdyboy]

14. I dislike Nader as much as any partisan Democrat but am puzzled by this...

Several recent threads have emerged to attack a man who hasn't been in the news at all. Why? What purpose is served except to once again hi-lite differences on the left?

If Nader has been mouthing off lately, please, give me a link. I like nothing better than blaming Ralph Nader for his sins. But if he hasn't, I don't see a purpose in beating that poor old impotent, dying horse yet again.

His 15 minutes of fames stretched to a full hour but its over now. I don't hate Nader anymore, I just pity him.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

21. The "never forget" principle

That's the reason it should be brought up at times like these.

[FredScuttle]

29. Amen, brother

never forget. The very point of taking a principled stand is that you have to answer for it when the consequences are clear. All these Nader voters who complain about the St. Ralph-bashing threads need to apologize before they say a fucking word.

[Marr]

42. Is that so? And what are the consequences for passing on principles?

I'm curious.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. It's Gore's fault. He could have had the Nader votes.

Fuck Gore and the DLC wannabee repugs that ran his lousy campaign.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

22. Gore could have had most of them if Nader didn't run

And he would have become president and hundreds who died in New Orleans would still be alive.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Gore could have had even more votes if Bush hadn't run.

Your hypothoesis is ridiculous. Gore lost an unlosable race to an incompetant boob because he ran a sorry middle of the road, "not as bad as", pablum campaign that should have been a waltz.

So, using the same hypothetical, the dead in NO and Iraq are Gore's fault.

[bee]

25. Yeah. screw him for running for president...

where does he think he is? America? Its clearly Naders fault Gore didnt get those votes. :sarcasm:

Yeah! Nader and the mighty Clenis!

[fishwax]

27. There's no guarantee Gore would have been reelected

[dsc]

47. It wouldn't have been Bush though

I doubt that any Republican would have appointed as inept a person to run FEMA.

[fishwax]

48. probably not, but you never know

There's no guarantee it wouldn't have been bush (though it does seem unlikely), but it could have been someone as bad or worse. As fun as its been to hate Nader, the whole issue is tired and assumes facts not in evidence.

[FlemingsGhost]

32. Why not really commit ... Insist Nader is responsible for 9/11, too!

Please, stop ... it's embarassing, Proud.

[The Magistrate]

38. But He Is, Sir

On precisely the same ground....

[FlemingsGhost]

43. I consider that ground to be quicksand. (n/t)

Flem.

[tuvor]

34. Blame his parents for conceiving him while you're at it.

Just as sensible.

[shockra]

39. Yes, his parents are to blame.

For being Lebanese.

Too bad they couldn't have had a white son who would have had the right to run for president. :sarcasm:

[ConsAreLiars]

40. You seem to be a bit agitated

and suffering from a potentially fatal case of tunnel vision. These symptoms are often found together. Has it occurred to you that when playing the pointless game of "What If?" there is more than one scenario possible? Otherwise it gets boring even faster.

[lateo]

51. We need to start a Nader hater group.

So these idiotic posts can go there and not bother the more rational elements of DU.

[TahitiNut]

54. Word!

:thumbsup:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

52. Give it a rest already

You can't blame Nader for 2004, since he was barely visible and almost no one voted for him.

[MadHound]

53. Pathetic, absolutely pathetic

First off, it is five years later, and there is no way in hell that Nader's actions could have effected this. We've already had another election since then, so why aren't you blaming Kerry for running a piss poor campaign and getting his ass into office? Why aren't you blaming the Ohio election process for running a crooked game, thus enabling another stolen election? Why aren't you blaming the Supreme Court for appointing Bush in the first place? Why aren't you blaming Gore, for numerous fuck-ups, including running a piss poor campaign, alienating almost 600,000 registered Dems and self described liberal to the point that they voted for Bush in '00? Why aren't you blaming Gore for running a piss poor recount campaign, for when Palast handed him the Florida Votescam on a silver platter, Gore and his DLC handlers just sat on it? Why aren't you blaming Katherine Harris and the rest of Bushco for the Florida Votescam in the first place?

But no, somehow it is all miraclously Nader's fault, for he is mightier than even the Mighty Clenis:eyes:

Pathetic, just fucking pathetic. And I can't decide which is worse, that you are still obsessing over this whole thing five years later, or that you fail to see the truth even after it has hit you over the head multiple times. You know about denial don't you? It just ain't a river.

[The Revolution]

56. I'm not a Nader fan, but you seem to be forgetting

that the American people picked Al Gore to be their President in 2000. The results of the 2004 election are questionable as well. We would be better off focusing our energy on reforming the electoral system to make sure every vote counts, rather than fighting about what Gore or Nader should have done.

58. nader and intelligent white people

Couldn't it be that one of the problems with the democrats is the distance between the intelligentia of white people that like people like Nader, and the general middle class or black and hispanic that don't relate to people like Nader or Kerry?

[European Socialist]

59. Although he should not have run in 04...

He has been proved right about how useless the Democrats are-if you look at the past 5 years.

[info being]

61. I'd tell you to fuck off, but I'm afraid my post would be deleted

That is low and unnecessary.

[Moderator]

63. Locking ...

It's getting too heated in here ...