Why Ralph Nader Took a Stand

[no_to_war_economy]

The Democrats' claim that Nader was a "spoiler" who caused Gore's defeat in 2000 is wrong for any number of reasons--not least, the fact that Gore won both the popular vote and the election in Florida that would have given him a win in the Electoral College, but the Democrats were too timid to fight the Republicans' theft of the White House.

But Nader's real crime for Democrats is that his campaign represented a popular challenge to the two-party corporate-dominated system--and the deeply engrained politics of "lesser evilism" that convinces liberals and progressives, time and time again, to support a Democrat who inevitably betrays them without a second thought.

....

No slander was out of bounds. Investigative journalist James Ridgeway describes Nader's enemies as "the meanest bunch of motherfuckers I've ever come across"--and it's worth stressing that he's talking not about some faceless corporate behemoth or right-wing Republican fanatic, but the liberal Democrats who Nader once counted as trusted allies.

...

Nevertheless, as talk show host and Nader supporter Phil Donahue points out, for all the venomous attacks on him, the Democrats did precisely what Nader warned they would.

"They killed him for saying there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties," Donahue says. "And then the Democrats spent the next four years proving that he was right. The Democrats folded on the war. They folded on health care and No Child Left Behind. They hid under their desks."

...

But what sets Nader apart is that he has continued to try to act on his commitment to democracy and justice, even when that put him at odds with the Washington system that was once the center of his political universe.

The result is that Nader will be remembered by history as not only the man who put seatbelts and airbags in cars--but who gave voice at a crucial time to the need for an alternative to the corporate duopoly that dominates U.S. politics.


http://www.counterpunch.org/maass03242007.html

[dsc]

1. Why isn't he doing what Kucinich or for that matter Lamont has done?

because he doesn't give a rat's ass about the policies he supposedly espouses.

[Buzz Clik]

3. Exactly what is it that he has not done?

[dsc]

8. run in DEMOCRATIC primaries

He bitches no end about the direction of the DEMOCRATIC party, that would the party which caused many of his recommendations to become law of the land BTW but then when given a golden oportunity to actually do something useful, such as challenge Liberman, he instead does nothing. Just like he has done nothing, as in not one god damned iota of a thing, to help the civil, womens, or gay rights agendas. Not a god damned thing.

[Buzz Clik]

31. Ah. So, in reality, you want Nader to become irrelevant.

He should be a good trooper, run in the primaries where the Democratic machine will bury his campaign, and then support some candidate who really doesn't embrace Nader's (and his supporters') ideals.

Great plan.

How's that working out so far?

[dsc]

82. If he has such great ideas he should easily win

Lamont did.

[Ken Burch]

118. And Ralph has been relevant doing it HIS way?

Ralph couldn't at least have shown some loyalty to the Green Party by campaigning for Dave Cobb, rather than splitting the third-party vote and stabbing the Greens in the back?

Ralph couldn't have at least JOINED the Greens instead of staying a registered Independent?

The guy's become totally self-destructive. Can't you see that yet?

[Done]

164. How successful was he under a third party?

Nader talks about third party movements in the 19th century, but that was a long time ago, and third parties today accomplish nothing other than to swing an election from one major party to the other.

I don't like the big money candidates who lead the Democratic party, but the problem must be fixed from the inside. Third parties don't work. If Nader had run for the Democratic nomination in 2000, he would not have succeeded, but he could have positioned himself to be a major candidate in 2004. Nader may have been the one to ride the wave that propelled Howard Dean in 2004. If he didn't have success in 2004, Nader would be a strong candidate in 2008 since there is no Howard Dean in this race. The left is desperate for a candidate; this is why so many want Gore to run.

Sure there is Kucinich, but Kucinich hasn't generated the excitement that Dean did. If Nader had not sabotaged the party in 2000, he would now be the leader of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, and yes I think he could win.

Explain to me again how wonderfully he's doing as a third party candidate.

[Ken Burch]

17. Well, for one thing...

Ralph did not do what would have been the most logical thing for somebody who had chosen to work through third-party politics: He did not follow the 2000 election by founding and leading a national movement for electoral reform.

This was imperative if Ralph was to make the third-part option a meaningful choice in future elections. But he didn't even try.

Instead, he got off on meaningless side issues like ATM fees and, God help us, bias in NBA officiating.

And in 2004, Ralph not only hurt the chances of beating Bush and Cheney(and yes, I'll agree that Kerry had a lot of problems and could be his own worst enemy)but Ralph also sabotauged THE GREEN PARTY, when he refused to accept the democratic decision of the Green convention to nominate David Cobb and instead launched his own anti-Green Party candidacy. Can you honestly tell me that Ralph, who I once admired and supported, achieved ANYTHING by these choices?

That's why I'm now working for Kucinich(as is the author of this thread). Until electoral reform is in place, third-party presidential campaigns are utterly pointless, and are a waste of the limited resources that progressives have.

Ralph had a chance to build a new kind of politics, and he pissed it away.

[Buzz Clik]

33. LOL! Now THAT's rich!

Ralph did not do what would have been the most logical thing for somebody who had chosen to work through third-party politics: He did not follow the 2000 election by founding and leading a national movement for electoral reform.

You have got to be kidding me! We have an entire nationwide political machine that has been totally fucked by voting irregularities. Yet, there has been only the puniest effort to look into it. And you want Nader to do the dirty work that the Dems lack the stones to do themselves?

Good lord.

[Ken Burch]

117. I'm saying that Ralph should have shown a little focus post-2000.

He wouldn't have been alone in an electoral reform movement. Millions of people, including millions of Democrats, would have worked with him.

Can you honestly say that what he actually did instead of that WASN'T a complete waste of his time?

[Buzz Clik]

2. Interesting....

No slander was out of bounds. Investigative journalist James Ridgeway describes Nader's enemies as "the meanest bunch of motherfuckers I've ever come across"

No. They're the most petty, petulant bunch of thumb-suckers the world of politics has ever encountered. And many live right here at DU.

[orpupilofnature57]

10. Excuse me ,I was just taking my thumb out of my mouth ,Utopian sketches...

are nice , but Al would of had this thing close ,compared to what Ralph and the rest of Shrubs Incidental little helpers did in 2000.

[Buzz Clik]

29. waa waa. It's Ralph's fault.

I thought you said you were taking the thumb out of your mouth.

[orpupilofnature57]

I put in your's, sorry for gagging you. You can swallow now.

[Buzz Clik]

40. Great argument.

[wellst0nev0ter]

4. Uh Oh

This is gonna be good :popcorn:

[TheCowsCameHome]

11. Popcorn for breakfast? Mmmmm, OK

Easy on the butter.

[Skinner]

5. What a heaping pile of excrement.

FACT: If there were no Nader in 2000, there would be no Bush presidency.

Yes, he spoiled it. And if he and his apologists had an ounce of credibility, they would say "Damn right we spoiled it. That was the whole point." Instead, they try to claim that he had no effect on the outcome. What the fuck is the point of running a third party candidacy if you *don't* want to have an effect the outcome?

[TheCowsCameHome]

14. Moved post, sorry

[trumad]

18. Memories....

I came ready for combat against the Greenies back in the old days here at DU. There were quite a few here (Greenies) back in 2001, 2002--- but as the horror of George W. started to unmask itself, the Greenies scurried off into their little hidey holes to hide in shame.

Of course every once in awhile, one peaks his little head out as witnessed by this thread, and tries to run a little revisionist history past us DUer hoping that we may have eased up a bit on our disdain for Sir Ralph.

It aint gonna happen--- not today, not ever.

Nice try though....

[PhilipShore]

98. It is the Naderites, not the Greens...

I came ready for combat against the Greenies back in the old days here at DU. There were quite a few here (Greenies) back in 2001, 2002--- but as the horror of George W. started to unmask itself, the Greenies scurried off into their little hidey holes to hide in shame.

The Greens are not the problem, it's the Naderites -- that are. During, the 2000 election it is estimated that around half of all of Nader's support went to the Green Democrats, the Democrats, or they traded their vote in swing states, they were easy to convince to defect.

The problem is the "Naderites" they are a hardcore group, that truly think that if the world suffers enough punishment from their acts -- that the Democratic party , will all the sudden turn into a Party with just Liberal Democrats. I am a liberal, and I knew that was an absurd political tactic.

[ulysses]

153. we're not gonna play any more?

Don't make me take the gloves off. :D

For the record, there are no fewer of the old "Greenies" left here than there are of the old "anti-Greenies". Hide in shame my ass. :hi:

[Buzz Clik]

35. Absolutely true... minus one important point.

If the Democrats had put up a strong candidate who truly followed progressive ideals, then Nader would have been inconsequential. Instead, we had Gore. Now, we have a bunch of whining that an incredible moron with no qualifications, no experience, and a history of failure was able to "beat" the best we had. And that's Nader's fault? Bullshit.

[MonkeyFunk]

45. So if the Dems ran Kucinich in 2000

He would've won?

Greenies can't seem to understand a simple concept - that to gain their oh-so-precious votes would cause Dems to lose 10x that many votes from the center. They're easily the most childish, whiny, tantrum-throwing, self-absorbed assholes in American politics.

[Buzz Clik]

51. Kucinich? He can't win anything.

Where did you come up with that?

[MonkeyFunk]

53. The incessant Whine of the Naderites

is that the Dems would've won, if only they'd put up a far-left candidate.

I think it's nonsense, and ignores the realities of electoral politics.

[Buzz Clik]

58. That is twice you have assigned to me things I did not say.

The first time, I assumed it was accidental. Now, I can only assume you are doing this intentionally.

So, you want to have an argument with an imaginary opponent? Please do. You'll understand if I simply sit back and watch.

[MonkeyFunk]

64. I'm not assigning these thoughts to you...

I'm assigning them to the whiny naderites I've known.

I presume you're not among them.

But would you like to address the point I made? Do you think it's true that the Dems could've won with someone to the left of Gore in 2000? Who would that have been?

[Buzz Clik]

79. Ok. I see where you were going.

No. I don't think the key was finding someone to the left of Gore. Certainly Bill Clinton was not to the left of Gore. Most of those to the left of Gore are unelectable.

[LoZoccolo]

114. Another thing they can't seem to understand is...

...if they don't want the Dems to be in a situation where they lose 10x as many votes from the center by supporting Green positions, it's up to the Greens to convince more people that they're right.

But that would require work.

[trumad]

47. "Instead, we had Gore"

What the fuck does that mean?

[Buzz Clik]

52. Geez Louise. Where were you in 2000?

Did you not notice Gore's bizarre behavior in the debates? The endless string of massive gaffes by Gore? The bumbling incompetence by Bush? It was Goofy versus Donald Duck, and the United States lost.

[trumad]

61. OK Buzz

Provide me with a list of massive gaffes? let's see what you got.

[trumad]

71. thought so.

[Buzz Clik]

74. Gee, trumad -- I don't know why you don't rate higher than my daughter.

I promised her an hour of tennis after lunch. I should have cancelled just for you, right? Excuse me for having a life outside DU.

Here's your list, sunshine:

• In a classic Gore moment, he introduced an elderly lady: "In order to pay for her prescription drug benefits, she has to go out seven days a week, several hours a day, picking up cans." Well, her humble existence was a choice, not a necessity. The knuckledraggers had a field day.
  
• And then his claim of skipping along with FEMA to Texas: "I accompanied James Lee Witt down to Texas when those fires broke out." But Witt never went to Texas. What the hell was that? Fuzzy memory, I guess, but more fuel for rw ridicule.
  
• And there was the picture Gore flashed at the third debate (IIRC) of the Florida high school in which a girl was standing because she didn't have a desk. Gore said it was because the school was underfunded and underequipped for the student population. Ends up that the room was being renovated over the summer and the construction was not quite complete when the semester started. The girl chose to stand; she could have used a lab stool -- not ideal, but not the picture Gore painted. The principal of the school was all over the radio the next day debunking Gore's claims.

There are more. Lots more. After all, he is a politician.

[dsc]

83. Too bad all of those are right wing lies

First the desk. Yes, by the time of the debate the girl had a seat, but only because another student gave up his seat. On Fema, Gore made several trips to Texas with him. He was wrong about that one trip but he had made dozens of such trips with the man. The woman was spending thousands on drugs.

[Buzz Clik]

90. The right exploded these beyond what they were...

... but they never stopped coming. It was ridiculous. Whenver Bush or Gore went off script, the results were tragic/comical, depending on your political leanings.

[dsc]

92. You claimed Gore lied

now we see he didn't. So which is it? Did Gore lie or didn't he?

[Buzz Clik]

94. I said he lied? Bullshit.

Quote where I said that, and give me the post number.

[dsc]

97. Post 74

Here's your list, sunshine:


In a classic Gore moment, he introduced an elderly lady: "In order to pay for her prescription drug benefits, she has to go out seven days a week, several hours a day, picking up cans." Well, her humble existence was a choice, not a necessity. The knuckledraggers had a field day.

And then his claim of skipping along with FEMA to Texas: "I accompanied James Lee Witt down to Texas when those fires broke out." But Witt never went to Texas. What the hell was that? Fuzzy memory, I guess, but more fuel for rw ridicule.

And there was the picture Gore flashed at the third debate (IIRC) of the Florida high school in which a girl was standing because she didn't have a desk. Gore said it was because the school was underfunded and underequipped for the student population. Ends up that the room was being renovated over the summer and the construction was not quite complete when the semester started. The girl chose to stand; she could have used a lab stool -- not ideal, but not the picture Gore painted. The principal of the school was all over the radio the next day debunking Gore's claims.

There is one, and only one, reason the above statements would be considered gaffes. That would be if they were lies.

[Buzz Clik]

103. Nice extrapolation.

Remember, Ace, that I voted for Gore. I don't make it a habit of voting for liars.

1) With the old lady can collector, Gore insinuated that she was forced to gather aluminum every day of the week to pay for her meds. The reality is that she chose to decline repeated invitations from her extended family to live with them to defray costs. Not a lie, just a huge exaggeration by the old woman as to the cause of her plight. Gore didn't dig in deep enough into her situation to realize what was happening, and his campaing ended up having to explain.

2. FEMA visit to Texas. Gore went to Texas concerning the fires. He simply didn't go with Witt. He did, however, accompany Witt to Florida after a hurricane. He didn't lie; he simply couldn't keep his facts straight. And he ended up looking like a dope.

3. The situation with the Florida high school was identical to the one with the old lady/meds -- he presented the situation exactly as it was given to him. Unfortunately, the pitch he was told was exaggerated and cherry-picked the facts. When the whole story came out, he looked again as is he was only doing part of his homework.

And, by every definition I've encountered, each of those are gaffes. Not lies, but more than enough to really piss off his supporters who were rapidly growing weary of the endless stream of these screwups.

[dsc]

130. You are just plain factually wrong

Case 2) Gore repeatedly traveled with the FEMA head. He had traveled to Texas. He had even traveled to Texas but with the second in command of FEMA.

Case 1) First, I find it interesting that her family made this offer after Gore spoke. But the central point is, that the elderly shouldn't have to trade their independence for drugs.

Case 3) The one and only reason that girl wasn't standing in class was that a different student was. Again, the school repeatedly, including just a week before the debate, stated that they didn't have enough seats for all students. It was only after they got nationally embarrased that they changed their story. Either the district was lying to its voters or lying after the debate. Given that every single person on that school board was GOP I think I know when the lying took place.

[trumad]

86. You say 'Massive Gaffes"?

Let's take the Witt Fema matter: Wow--- Gore made a misstatement when he said he went with Witt---he actually had gone with Witt’s top assistant. Now I'm going to ask you something Buzz--- are you fucking telling me this was a "Massive Gaffe"? Are you fucking kidding?

Next:

The school desk: From Somerby:
By the way, given that Gore has so rarely challenged Bush on this score, Lehrer's opening question is utterly puzzling. Why in the world do you open a debate with a question about a six-month-old comment? But back to Berke: Why are the words "once" and "ever" used when Berke describes Lehrer's "first question?" Simple—they create an illusion of stark contradiction. Berke is spinning—embellishing, if you like—trying to make a trivial incident sound like a stark dispute.

But so it goes When Pundits Attack. Next, Berke went to high school:

BERKE (10): Then there was the story Mr. Gore told of a 15-year-old girl in Sarasota, Fla., who he said is such a victim of school crowding that she has to stand up during every class. The fact is, the girl has a desk, and went without one for only a day.

Gore said the girl is a victim of crowding? A newspaper article said she was; Gore quite plainly cited it. Gore's account at the debate was clearly not accurate; he said the girl doesn't have a desk, and she does have a desk at this time. Gore was reading from a September 9 article in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, which described a high school's shortage of desks. Gore accurately recounted what the article said, but some of the article's facts are now out of date. Gore was unwise to work from the article without fully updating the facts. But Berke's account may also be wrong, and it glosses the state of affairs at the school. Here's a fuller account from the Sarasota paper, published the morning before Berke's piece:

JILL BARTON: Kailey said she moved from a biology classroom where students had to sit on the floor to another that was short on desks on Aug. 31—the ninth day of school. She stood for one 50-minute period, and the following day a classmate gave up his desk for her.

Shall we nitpick? By that account, Ellis may have gone nine days without a desk (eight days on the floor, one day standing). And Barton's account makes it clear that the overcrowding is still unresolved:

BARTON: As a result, though, he was left without a desk for the following week, Kailey said.

"I'm not still standing, but there's still kids that have to sit on the side of desks and there's still not enough room in the classes," she said Wednesday before her lunch break. "There's still a lot that needs to be done to lower class size."

Why did Ellis got a desk on Day 10? Because a classmate went without his! And students still lack desks, she says. Barton's reporting notes that Ellis' class of 36 is using a lab designed for 24.

Berke's account may or may not be technically accurate, but it seems to gloss the state of affairs at the school. It gives the impression that a wholly trivial, one-day matter found its way into Gore's performance. He doesn't mention that Gore read from a newspaper article. He doesn't mention that it was given to Gore by a parent. He doesn't say that the school's overcrowding continues. Why did Berke tell the story as he did (or at all, for that matter)? At THE HOWLER, we simply can't say. But it may just be that he wrote as he did because it made for a great "Gore lies" story. Gore's narrow inaccuracy doesn't seem so grave if you reveal that Ellis' classmates are still without desks—if you reveal that Ellis' father alerted Gore to a situation that would trouble any parent. But talk about missing the forest for the trees! Berke tells the narrowest tale that he can, making an utterly trivial inaccuracy into a tricked-up referendum on character.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h100900_1.shtml

Where are the massive Gaffes Buzzclick? You're trying to tell me that the shit you posted above cost Gore the election? You're full of shit dude and you aint got nothing except excerpts from a bunch of right wing rags.

[Buzz Clik]

91. Nice cut and paste. My point stands.

[trumad]

99. Where's you massive gaffes...

And speaking of cut and paste---at least mine is from a progressive site....

Again I ask...where are the massive gaffes?

[Buzz Clik]

104. Parsing words, are we? Playing semantics? Or just desperate.

They were gaffes that made headlines and dominated conversations for days and sometimes an entire week.

If you'd like to provide your own definition of gaffe, feel free. You won't change my mind, but you can certainly show off your spiffy cut-and-paste skills.

[trumad]

108. "Massive Gaffes" was your phrase...

I'm still waiting for them? Massive implies a whole bunch and you only posted some trivial bullshit. You're not very schooled with how the MSM played Gore in 2000...are you?

I gave you some reading material--- the dailyhowler.com.... Type in Gore in Mr. Somerby's search engine---and read the god damn thing...

Otherwise you're nothing more than a simpleton that believed the bullshit said about Gore in 2000..

One more thing--- a little help for you. Gore never said he invented the internet. BUT that's what moran America thinks thanks to the ho MSM. Oh and the Love Story thing--- not... the Love Canal thing...not...

and on and on...

Go learn something BuzzClick instead of acting the fool.

[Buzz Clik]

111. Poor trumad.

Consider this phrase: "massive gaffes". Massive is an adjective modifying gaffe; that is, massive is my description of the size of the gaffe. For most people with English as their first, or even second, language, if I had intended to suggest that the list of gaffes was massive, I would have said, "massive list of gaffes" or "huge number of gaffes." You seem to be struggling with the language; I'm sorry, but only you can help that.

If I told you that I went to the zoo and saw "massive elephants", would you assume that I saw some uncountable number of pachyderms, or that elephants are large animals?

[trumad]

112. So what you're saying is---

he misstated that he went to Texas with Witt but it was actually his senior assistant so in your mind it was a massive mistake...

Go read Somerby Buzz---- and report back to the reality based world.

Speaking of parsing meaning---- God.

[CatWoman]

123. Poor Buzz Clik

give it a rest, already.

Bottom line: Nader is a monumental asshole, and always will be.

While Gore didn't run a "perfect" campaign, he was still obviously the people's choice.

Why are you trying to take it out on Tru?

Take it out on the spineless mother fuckers who allowed this shit.

[H2O Man]

133. I think it

is important to take a look at Al Gore and George Bush today, and ask if there really isn't any significant difference between the two? I agree with those who think Gore is a far superior choice.

[nam78_two]

166. I cannot even half seriously compare Bush and Gore-then or now.nt

[Buzz Clik]

135. LOL!

"Give it a rest." Translation: I've got nuttin'.

[Kelly Rupert]

162. Better translation:

You got nuttin', and it's pointless to argue with someone who keeps repeating long-debunked trash.

[Reterr]

169. You said it.nt

[mondo joe]

67. I do remember that Gore's campaign was wretched. I really do.

I remember the embarrassing Tipper kiss, and the debate make up done by an undertaker. I remember how Gore distanced himself from Clinton, and made almost every mis-step possible.

But to my thinking that's all beside the point on the Nader issue. The Naderites weren't complaining that Gore was running a dumb campaign, but that there was NO DIFFERENCE on policy between Gore and Bush.

They were wrong then, and wrong now.

[Buzz Clik]

75. Some Naderites saw no difference between Gore and Bush.

Some simply thought there wasn't enough. Others were simply disenchanted with all of them.

I didn't like Gore the candidate. I really like Gore the torch bearer for global warming. But I voted for Gore in 2000 anyway.

Yeah, I'm pissed that Bush is president. Yes, he's horrid and his administration is crooked. But I don't blame Nader.

[Ignacio Upton]

119. Gore was so worried about himself, that didn't try to BE himself

The 2000 Election was a good example of theft and thuggery on the part og the Republican, collusion in the MSM, and Nader's grandstanding, but part of the reason why Gore barely won was because he fucked up during the campaign. He shouldn't be run on the advice of Donna Brazille he should not have been as worried about what the MSM had to think. Instead, he tried to readjust himself to their scrutiny, and instead made himself look more disingenuous. He has since said that he regrets his campaign style ever since. If he were to run today, he would not have these problems.

[Flying Dream Blues]

84. And Nader was sooo presidential. What a load of crap. He is

a spoiler of the worst kind, because he KNOWS he is giving the race to the enemy of both Dems and Greens. To be making a "point" at the country's expense is reprehensible. Why not throw his support to the Dems at the end and be a man? I HATE that MF for putting us through this. As another poster said, "NO NADER = NO BUSH"

[Buzz Clik]

105. Actually, the problem wasn't Nader -- it was the people who voted for him.

If Nader were the steaming heap of ca-ca that you Gore apologists claim him to be, then he would have garnered about ten votes nationwide.

Did you ever stop to wonder why so many Floridians voted for Nader knowing that Florida was close and they could be giving the election to Bush? No? Of course not. But don't feel alone -- the entire Democratic Party learned nothing from the experience.

[Kelly Rupert]

163. Actually, and unfortunately, they did.

They learned that the left wing of the party is fickle and childish, and it pays off better to court the center. Another one of Nader's wonderful legacies.

[Deja Q]

66. Don't forget the Supreme Court ignoring the results of the 'popular vote'...

Gore was a weak candidate.

And the public wasn't over Clinton at the time either...

Nader is a mosquito. Always was, is, and will be, who can't get 5% of the vote.

There were MANY factors and Nader is unfairly scapegoated for it all.

Doesn't mean Nader's a nice guy, but still.

[Tom Joad]

55. I think it was those who voted for Bush who spoiled the election.

[Buzz Clik]

80. Please. You're getting off topic.

[Tom Joad]

85. Oh yeah, its the "I hate the Left" fest. Sorry. Carry on

[Buzz Clik]

89. Indeed. We don't let trifles like vote counts interrupt a good rant.

[Tom Joad]

95. Yeah, and aint' it odd that no one brings up that Gore chose a reactionary republican as his

running mate (only registered as a Democrat, but his ideology was clear to all who knew hime)? or that gore went into the "debate" with Bush on foreign policy telling us he agreed with every US military aggression of the last 25 years or so. Nahh. stuff ain't worth talkin about.

[Buzz Clik]

106. Ouch. Big ouch. Well, Gore fans? Anyone want to justify Lieberman?

Nice shot, Joad.

[dsc]

134. Yeah

Iraq and the rest weren't issues back in 2000. At the time Lieberman voted with us over 90 percent of the time. Lieberman was wrong on some corporate issues but had a terrific record on Civil Rights, women's issues, LGBT issues, and the enviroment. In addition, as the first Jew running for VP on a major ticket he brought excitement that Kerry wouldn't have. He likely was the reason Gore won Florida (though it ended up getting stolen). Clearly by 2004 Lieberman's foreign policy problems have been brought to bear and make him a bad choice now, but he wasn't a bad choice then.

[Tom Joad]

151. Iraq sanctions at the time were killing hundreds of thousands of civilians

Clinton had authorized bombing on Iraq, in an effort to promote regime change.

Iraqi children may not have been on your rader, and obviously Lieberman/cheney gave not a rats ass about such nonvoters, but it was to millions of antiwar activists.

[dsc]

165. Name one politician, just one, who advocated the removal of sanctions

Even Kucinich advocated keeping them. In point of fact, one reason, probably the largest reason, I narrowly supported the war was I saw that as the only way to get rid of sanctions. I know of no Democrat, nor do I have knowledge of even Nader, being against sanctions back in 1999, 2000.

[Kelly Rupert]

149. Better than Cheney n/t

[Tom Joad]

152. Those VP "debates" were more like make-out sessions. Most people just screamed at them to get a

room and get it overwith.

[Reterr]

167. Interesting that someone like you who is typically to the right of about 90% of DU

embraces the same people who you typically call "far left" when it comes to the one guy who cost Dems the 2000 election...
You are up for all lefty-bashing except when it comes to Nader right?

Things that make one go "hmmmmmmm"...

[The Magistrate]

93. Fact Indeed, Sir: They Do Not Come Much Colder Than That One

[Lusted4]

100. Just think if everyone would have voted none of the above in 96

like Nader had campaigned for when they locked him out of the debates, We would probably not have NAFTA and all the other bullshit legislation Clinton signed into law.

[philosophie_en_rose]

101. Absolutely. Fuck Ralph Nader . And the pretentious hypocrites that support him.

:yourock:

[LoZoccolo]

113. YEAH!

:applause:

[ulysses]

138. hi, Skinner.

It will doubtless come as a shock to you that I disagree. :D

It's at best arguable that Nader handed Bush the presidency, given the myriad irregularities that marked that poll, but what I think people miss (over and over and over) is that Nader in 2000 didn't happen in a vacuum. There just aren't that many folks out there who would vote for Ralph, or vote third party, in an average year. We've seen that in Nader's electoral irrelevance since 2000.

I voted for Nader for the first time in 1996, out of frustration and anger with the direction I saw in my party under Bill Clinton. I voted for Nader again in 2000 because I didn't see that direction changing under Gore. It was that simple and, given what I know now, I would do the same.

Yes, he spoiled it. And if he and his apologists had an ounce of credibility, they would say "Damn right we spoiled it. That was the whole point."

What's good for the goose, then. If Clinton/DLC apologists had an ounce of credibility, they would say, "Damn right we fucked the left. We meant to, and for eight years, that strategy played well for us." I genuinely don't get, nearly seven years on, why anyone is mystified by what was nothing but a reaction to Clinton's strategy of triangulation.

[Hippo_Tron]

156. Bush is systematically destroying our civil liberties...

Moving us into a constant state of war, and destroying the middle class at a rate that is exponentially greater than anything under Reagan, Bush, or Clinton.

Complain all you want about Clinton's triangulation and keep supporting third party candidates. Another 8 years of this shit and we may not have a country left in which to complain about triangulation.

[Skinner]

159. Hi, ulysses.

It is not arguable that Nader handed Bush the presidency. I think the reason why there is any disagreement on this is because Gore supporters and Nader supporters are thinking of this differently. I was a Gore supporter in 2000. When I say something like, "FACT: If there were no Nader in 2000, there would be no Bush presidency," I am not implying that Nader was the *only* variable that *entirely by itself* was enough to hand the presidency to Bush. What I am saying is that Nader was in fact a variable that that *entirely by itself* was enough to tip the presidency to Bush, and I think the final vote tally in Floridy makes that obvious to anyone who cares to look.

When a Nader supporter reads my statement above, their reaction is "Well, Nader wasn't the only reason Gore lost" -- a statement which I would consider so obvously true as to be hardly worth mentioning. The 2000 election was so close that there are probably dozens or even hundreds of things that could have tipped it the other way. Among other single variables that would have definitely *by themselves* tipped the balance to Gore: The butterfly ballot. Other variables that by themselves probably would have tipped the balance to Gore: Had Gore been a slightly better campaigner, Had the Supreme Court not stopped the recount in Florida, Had Gore spent just a little effort to win his home state of Tennessee. There are plenty of other variables that led to Gore's loss, but off the top of my head I can't think of any others that entirely by themselves would have definitely or probably tipped the balance.

So, yeah, there were lots of other factors that led to Gore's loss. But that does not change the IMHO obvious fact that the presence of Nader, entirely on its own, was more than enough to tip the election to Gore. But the thing I find more strange is why neither Nader nor his supporters have any desire to acknowledge that fact. Which brings me to the other point in my post:

Why don't Nader or his supporters say, (I'll use more polite wording this time): "Yes, we spoiled it. The reason why we spoiled it is because we think the Democratic Party has gone too far to the right, and we felt that we needed to do something about it. We showed you that you write us off at your peril." It seems to me that if the intent was *not* to spoil it, then Nader would have run in the Democratic primary. Instead, he chose to run as a third party candidate in the general election. Let's be frank: He did not have any hope of winning. As a third-party candidate, his only hope was that he could draw enough support from the Democrats to get their attention. If that was the intent, then it seems to me that actually having a decisive effect on the outcome (which he did) would greatly increase Nader's relevance, but for some reason he and his supporters refuse to admit that he had such an effect. Why would they do that? It makes no sense.

As for the DLC, I hope this doesn't sound like I am defending them, but I think it is pretty obvious that the whole point of the DLC was in fact to fuck the left. And furthermore they actually *do* say as much, practically all the time. Every time one of their members opens their mouths the message is the same: They say that the left were a bunch of pathetic whiny losers who were causing the Democratic Party to lose elections, and still threaten to do so. The DLC dragged the party to the center, and they say that is why Clinton won.

[Hippo_Tron]

155. Nader and his apologists should've known better

People can argue all that they want that it was Katherine Harris and the SCOTUS' fault and those were indeed factors just as Nader was. But Nader was the only non-Republican factor and he was the only factor that at least claims to support causes that are left of center.

Nader voters are like the people who were so concerned about how bad the SPD was in the 1933 Weimar elections that they couldn't pull their heads out of their asses long enough to see the bigger picture.

[MLFerrell]

158. To be fair, Skinner...

Gore DID win the 2000 Presidential election.

That aside, Nader's suctioning of Democratic votes made the SCOTUS' installation of der Chimperor that much easier.

[Greyhound]

6. I can hear the heads exploding already.

:popcorn::hide::beer:

[4bucksagallon]

7. Nader is and always will be a media whore, who doesn't deserve the time of day.

I'm not against a third party but please not another Ralph Nader or another Ross Perot. What we have now is bad enough.

[youngdem]

9. Ralph Nader is a turncoat egotistical asshole

Who is only interested in Ralph. After all, if he really cared about the environment, he wouldn't have kept Al Gore out of the White House in favor of Oilman GWBush.

This prick actually said he didn't think there was any real difference between Bush and Gore ! What a stone stupid motherfucker.

Can anyone doubt this is an egotistical idiot with blood on his hands at this point?


Yes, yes....Gore still won Florida? Feel better? Didn't think so. If Nader actually had a fucking clue about politics and how to accomplish any of his goals, he would have backed Gore in exchange for environmental protection, which Gore would have happily (and faithfully) agreed to. Noooo, instead, this prick destroys his party, his cause and damages the lives and welfare for millions of people because he just couldn't bring himself to admit there is a difference between Al Gore and Bush.

Fuck him.

[orpupilofnature57]

16. A little Harsh ,but well stated. In 2000 I wanted to hunt him down and

make him ride in a Corvair.

[youngdem]

22. or a pinto

:rofl:

[4bucksagallon]

24. Or a Suzuki Samari....... I owned one at the time and his diatribes cost me money.

They never were any more susceptible to rolling over than any other suv but old Ralph and his big mouth said they were so IT MUST BE TRUE. Can't stomach him anymore.

[iamjoy]

12. Sorry, Doesn't Change My Opinion

Nader made the election close enough for it to be taken from Gore.

And it wasn't just the people who voted for him, it was attacking Gore's left flank while Dubya attacked his right.

Does Nader really think there's no difference between Gore and Bush? Sure lots of Dems voted for the IWR, but that may never have come up if Gore had been president. If Gore were president, we would have two more like Breyer and Ginsburg on the Supreme Court instead of more Alitos/Renquists. The impact of that has yet to be felt, but once it is, it will be for generations.

As another DUer suggested, if Nader was so interested in changing things, why didn't he run as a Democrat for the nomination (like Lamont)? Nader could then have worked from within to change things. Or, why didn't he support Kucinich who is a true unabashed progressive? Why didn't he spend time between election trying to change the two party system by lobbying for real campaign finance reform and a change to the electoral college rules?

Simple, because Ralph is in it for his ego.

[H2O Man]

13. I respectfully disagree.

I think that people should assume responsibility for their actions, and it seems that Nader & friends continue to deny that his actions played a significant role in the 2000 election. I say that as a person who believes that the 2-party system should face serious challenges, in order to give the American people greater choices. However, in the context of the 2000 election, Nader's run did far more harm than good.

[orpupilofnature57]

19. Exactly , departing from responsibility ,He knew the outcome.

[cali]

15. Counterpunch that vile slime rag:

How predictable. Sometimes I wonder if they're not secretly funded by repukes. Unlikely as that is, their eagerness to slam the dems at every possible moment is undeniable.

This is utter crap. As for Nader, any idiot that can't see the difference between Gore and bush, doesn't deserve one word of praise on DU.

[TheCowsCameHome]

20. What exactly does he do between elections?

If he's so dedicated why doesn't he run for a lesser office and make changes from within?

[orpupilofnature57]

23. Spews, raises revenues, in short Sells his views, just like they all do.

http://www.nader.org/

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

21. Please just give it up.

You ain't gonna convince anyone here.

[obaman08]

25. Has the last 6 years not shown there would have been a difference?

If a Dem were in charge(Gore) DO you think the scandals and corruption that have occurred would have under Gore's leadership. The incompetence of bush and the war in Iraq is directly related to Nader's run for president. As such, he should take full blame.



As for this...

"They killed him for saying there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties," Donahue says. "And then the Democrats spent the next four years proving that he was right. The Democrats folded on the war. They folded on health care and No Child Left Behind. They hid under their desks."


THE DEMS HAD NO POWER THE LAST 6 YEARS!! BUSH AND THE REPUBS RAN EVERYTHING.

[Old and In the Way]

26. How about New Hampshire?

He spoiled that race for Gore. If Gore won NH, Florida wouldn't have mattered. Nader took 22,000 votes....Bush beat Gore by 7000 or so votes. Assuming those 4 votes had gone to Gore, Florida wouldn't have mattered.

Nader's "strategy" was to run contests where he could spoil the Democratic chances. His largest donors were Republicans.

Thanks Ralph!

[TreasonousBastard]

27. Nader can take a hike for all I care.

[Frances]

28. I hope you won't get angry Treasonous Bastard,

but I think that Kucinich is playing the same role that Ralph played; that is, he's attacking Democrats from the left while Cheney is attacking from the right. That just makes the right stronger. I don't belong on the right. I belong left-middle. I don't like seeing my side weakened by either Ralph or Kucinich.

[H2O Man]

32. There is a significant

difference between: {1} a democrat attempting to move the democratic party to the left during the primary season, anmd supporting the party in the election; and {2} a third party candidate who attacks the democratic party during the election.

[Frances]

34. Your points are well taken H20 Man

and I had no problem with anything Kucinich did in 2004.

But ending the war in Iraq is my main concern now, and I think that by attacking Democrats from the left while Cheney attacks from the right will prolong the war. I think that Kucinich is enabling Bush today in 2007 just as Nader did in 2000.

[H2O Man]

44. I think it is

good to examine what tactics that Kucinich is using today, and I think that many good and sincere democrats are going to find areas of disagreement .... and even strong disagreement. You raise a valid concern about one of those areas of disagreement. The discussions that result from people debating these various positions and tactics is a good thing. It may be that some of what a person like Dennis K does actually does harm the anti-war efforts, and indeed benefit the administration. Again, that is a valid concern, and a frank and open debate on this helps the democratic party.

We have a wide range of candidates, who are advocating a wide range of positions on important issues. A Dennis K or a Rev. Al Sharpton (should he decide to run again) often take positions that are distinct from the more "mainstream" candidates. Sometimes, these are very popular with the progressive left, and sometimes not. However, their participation in the primary season tends to bring the interest of a wider audience to the democratic party, and has the potential to make the party larger, stronger, and more representative of that progressive left. And it makes it more likely that the democratic candidates will win in general elections.

Nader, on the other hand, engaged in actions in 2000 that took votes from the democratic party. More, these actions reduced the progressive left's influence within the party. And, most of all, it resulted in the dark forces behind the Bush-Cheney ticket to steal the election.

[TreasonousBastard]

36. Not angry at all, I agree..

that Kucinich has pretty much lost it and is flapping in the breeze.

There will always be people like them who let their idealism get lost in their ambition.

(Assuming it was idealism that drove them in the fiorst place)

[mmonk]

30. Whatever his intent, spoiler is what he became.

I agree with his right to be one but I'm not going to put my head in the sand and say nothing about the republican power grab that has occured had anything to do with his candidacy's removal of votes that would have gone to the democrats.

[davhill]

37. They wouldn't have been able to steal Florida

Without Nader it would not have been close enough. Gore would have taken the state and the presidency. I lived in Florida in 2000 and knew a lot of people who voted for Nader and against Gore as a protest against the Clinton administration policies. They never dreamed the monster that they were enabling.

[PhilipShore]

69. I agree

Most of them -- actually believed Bush when he said he was for the Kyoto Treaty. I told many of them, that Bush and the Republican's are bald face compulsive liars and warmongers -- that the day the get in office will start World War III.

[Buzz Clik]

38. For the record: this thread is a classic hit-and-run, flame bait bullshit.

This little time bomb was exploded 90 minutes ago, and the original poster has not posted again.

Although I agree with the sentiment of the OP, I won't fight his fucking battles.

I'm out.

[trumad]

49. You dissed Gore up above

and now you're out... Who is hitting and running?

[Buzz Clik]

50. I didn't start this thread, and I won't be the only one to carry the load.

If you want somebody to pile on, find someone else.

However, feel free to respond to my comments -- I've said them before, and I'll say them again. But I won't carry on alone when the spineless turd who start this fight is hiding under a rock.

[trumad]

62. This is waht you said up above about Gore

Your ignorance is alarming....

"Did you not notice Gore's bizarre behavior in the debates? The endless string of massive gaffes by Gore? The bumbling incompetence by Bush? It was Goofy versus Donald Duck, and the United States lost".

Do you really believe this and if so. I'm gonna need some proof about his "massive gaffes".

Otherwise, you're full of shit.

[Buzz Clik]

81. I gave you a list of gaffes that made headlines.

I really don't give a shit if you don't give those some level of credence -- the press certainly did.

[trumad]

87. The press... LOL

You're a fool for the Press.

Go read Bob Somerby for a couple of days that then come back to me... If you're still spouting this shit then you're a God Damn fool.

[Buzz Clik]

107. Yeah, yeah.

You've been sprinkling me with insults from the beginning of this discussion, but the best argument you can give me is whether or not Gore's errors reached the level of massive gaffes.

Tom Joad asked the "Gore, Now and Forever" crowd to please justify why he picked a closet Republican as a running mate and why Gore took the remarkably offensive position of defending every US military aggression for the previous 25 years. And as you struggle to think of some rationale for those amazing tactics, try to tell me why a true Liberal (and I do mean capital L Liberal) would ever tolerate such actions to the point of voting for Gore?

[CatWoman]

127. it's amazing that after all this time, nothing

I mean, NOTHING, has been learned.

"Gaffes"????

Seems to me that every time Gore burped, it was seen as a "gaffe".

[Lost-in-FL]

39. Because he wanted the attention, and he is getting it...

There are still idiots that would vote for him in a heartbeat.

[WinkyDink]

41. No, what "sets Nader apart" is his assertion that Gore and Bush were the same.

[natrat]

42. nader sucks shit and shoulg go play in traffic on the L I Expressway

[skipos]

43. I blame Nader for perpetuating the Bush=Gore lie

and I blame Greens for running against solid progressives like Wellstone and Lamont. If those guys weren't good enough for Greens, NO ONE will be.

[orpupilofnature57]

48. Utopians

[Justice]

46. Nadar will be remembered as the man whose ego gave us Bush

[TZ]

54. Yep. I like Nadar's stances but

he should not have run for president. And If he does again, he might insure another Rupuke in office. I do understand that both parties have problems (politics is loaded with these issues of corruption) but the Dems are certainly the lesser of two evils.

[The Count]

56. His campaign was financed by the GOP. Fake challenge. Dirty trick.

Famous last words: during the Florida recount: "Why don't they toss a coin?"
Anyone who pays attention to him after that is brain damaged.

[ToeBot]

57. Oh look, it's time for another 2-minute hate!

Feel better now? To bad it wont get you back the votes you're losing on the left. Oh I know, it doesn't matter 'cause you can make them back mining the "Center". Carry on.

[trumad]

63. Really--- what the 2006 elections are just a memory?

[sofa king]

59. Look around you: this is Ralph's world.

Spin it any damned way you want, but Bush couldn't have stolen Florida if he hadn't been within a few hundred votes. Those few hundred votes could have easily been converted to thousands of votes in favor of Gore if Nader had done the right thing and swung his support to the environmentally conscious candidate who had a chance to win.

Nader refused to do so, and this is the result: oil corporations dictating our fate; boundless corruption; endless war; golf course water hazards being used to hide the destruction of our wetlands; our old-growth forests being picked to pieces; the Indians robbed, the poor neglected, the veterans turned loose to brood in their own insanity. The pinions of our very democracy are being daily gnawed at by a scientifically illiterate mafia.

We're fucked, and Ralph Nader had a better chance than anyone--better than Al Gore himself--to avert it. He burned the village in order to save it, and you Nader idiots are picking through the ashes trying to tell us what a good thing it was. Screw you guys.

[PhilipShore]

60. I disagree 100%

No slander was out of bounds. Investigative journalist James Ridgeway describes Nader's enemies as "the meanest bunch of motherfuckers I've ever come across"--and it's worth stressing that he's talking not about some faceless corporate behemoth or right-wing Republican fanatic, but the liberal Democrats who Nader once counted as trusted allies


Nader -- by far -- never had my 100% support as a liberal, sure he wrote a few books about consumer rights, but the fact is that he was, and is simply just a armchair liberal.

The MSM -- like Hillary of today -- made him into a liberal god, specifically, so that he would take away votes from Gore in swing states. In fact he (Nader) was literally funded by the Republican Party.

I think, that Nader's campaign was the first time ever in the history of liberal politics, that someone was officially funded by the Republican Party.

Liberals, such as myself found this out, and fortunately, it is estimated that Nader lost half of his support, to keep him from getting his magical 5% to get matching campaign corporate welfare funding.

I think also, this is the first time, that people on the left, whom were openly anti-semitic, were key campaign workers for Nader. In fact, some of his campaign workers would literally quote Nazi antisemitic poster slogans, because they were to lazy to even come up with their own slogans.

Michael Moore the Republicans used as well, with his socialist followers, whom would attack the spiritual liberal left -- during the campaign.

Part, of the reason why Gore won was because -- many of Nader's voters left in droves, because -- when the Nader Raiders found out they were being funded by the Republican Party -- to write anti-Gore ads -- left Nader because they said, they intended to work for Nader and not the Republican Party, and they defected to the Democrats, or the Green Democrats, or traded their vote with a Gore voter in swing states.

The Nader campaign was manufactured not by liberals but rather by -- the thought control -- (PSYOP) experts.

[mondo joe]

65. Anyone who still says there is no difference between the parties has been in a coma for 6 years.

Or else has opted to ignore reality for some fantasy ideal.

[Skidmore]

68. Is that what you call it? A stand?

Yup, Ralphie stood up and helped the Repbublics piss and stomp on our Constitution, our civil rights, our economy, and our international standing. Not just once, but twice. Thank you, Ralphie, for standing for something.

Editing to add that after I get done working my way past loathing * and Cheney, St. Raphie is third in line for my scorn, especially given his role in the 04 elections.

[pretzel4gore]

70. somehow it seems the pigmedia would say bush won no matter what

i've noticed so many things do not make sense (if geebush smokes, drinks, screams curses at people and breaks wind publicly etc, why hasn't one single tape of him doing shit ever shown up? why didn't one single senator vote against certifying the 2k results as seen in F911? why hasn't even one msm mentioned the $ billion permanant embassy being built in iraq, or the Downing Street Minutes? why didn't hackers flip the '04 results to favour kerry, as gopig hackers supposedly did for dubia? etcetera) that had nader dropped outta 2k race, had we won by 10 million votes, and the pigmedia STILL insisted junyer won: what would have been the different outcome? i think it's vandalism to try take focus off bush mess by mentioning nader, cuz it looks like the RESULTS WERE DECIDED before anyone even voted, and all the details have been working out since then. we are a conquered or corrupt country; and until the pigmedia is castrated nothing can change.

[mike_c]

72. I didn't vote for Nader, but I've come to agree with him on most issues....

The democratic party dances to the same corporate tune as the republican party. Different steps, same tune.

[hayu_lol]

73. This sort of thread deserves an early burial...

Nader didn't have a drivers license when he attacked the Corvair. It was a pretty good car for the time.

Nader shouldn't have close buddies like Grover Norquist.

Nader should not accept funding from the GOP to run against Dems.

The Greens failed to get their candidate on the PA ballot this last time around. Good thing. Otherwise, we'd still have Rick Santorum in the Senate.

Florida 2000: 97,000 Green votes for Nader allowed the Bushies to steal the election. Greens deserve all the mud slung at them for their efforts to be sanctimonious. Just for once, I'd like to see any Green attack a Repugnant--ya know any who have?

There is so much more. There is a difference between the parties as we are seeing now in the ongoing investigations. Wouldn't have had the war except for Green votes in 2000.

I'm sure that others here would like a shot so I'll stop.

[bbgrunt]

78. Yes, but Nader wouldn't have been a problem if we had instant run-off voting.

\i'd rather work for that than spend all my energy and venom disparaging Nader.

[kiahzero]

76. Why Ralph Nader ran for President:

Because he's an egomaniacal dumbass fucktard who'd rather see someone who disagrees with him on 100% of the issues win than someone who disagrees with him on 10%.

Anyone who claims that there was no significant difference between Bush and Gore in 2000 is quite possibly insane.

[Buzz Clik]

77. Nader Haters: Do you ever stop to wonder why so damned many votes were cast for him?

It was a simply a matter of Nader running -- it was the huge numbers of those voting for him.

That moment was an opportunity for the Democrats to get a clue, and it was clearly an opportunity lost.

[trumad]

88. I thought you were out of this fucking thing.

I don't hate Nader anymore--- I hate the fucking idiots who stand up for him and I wonder why they fuck they're here on DU.

[Buzz Clik]

109. Dude, you have a problem with your language.

If you think that arguments can be won or lost by substituting foul language for more descriptive -- and far more effective -- words, then you're out of your motherfucking mind. ;)

[mondo joe]

96. The numbers weren't that huge - just enough to shave the vote. But I do think I know

why. I think a lot of people on the left got used to having a democrat in office, and forgot the realk difference between the parties. I think a lot of people on the left did the usual circular firing squad, fueled by idealissm over practicality.

It happens.

Unfortunately, Gore had a weak enough campaign that the Nader shaving left him vulnerable enough for the Republicans to do what they then did.

[philosophie_en_rose]

102. No need to wonder. The motivation of petulant hypocrites that vote like children

is their morally superior fantasies, which make them feel like true liberals but do in fact support George W. Bush.

Because stomping your feet and crying like a toddler is more important to one's ego than getting rid of Bush.

[Buzz Clik]

110. Here's an idea: let's have the Democrats run somebody who can actually win.

Even against a complete blithering idiot.

How's that for a plan?

[TZ]

115. nice idea

considering how the dems are already ripping each other's guts out already, I'm not convinced thats gonna happen.

[Kelly Rupert]

128. We did in 2000. He did in 2000. And he would have become President if not for Nader.

Again: Fuck Ralph Nader. Every single thing that happened in the last six years is on his hands. He knew what he was doing. He knew what the stakes were. And he stayed in.

[Kelly Rupert]

124. Because a narrow minority of liberals are emotional children

who think that the Democratic party must cater to them at the expense of the vast majority of liberals and centrists, and who are willing to throw their vote away and enable people like George W. Bush to become president so they can make their "point."

[Forkboy]

116. Haven't seen one of these threads in awhile.

:popcorn:

[Ignacio Upton]

120. Well...Ralph has been out of the spotlight more

Unfortunately it took one poster to initiate this flame war.

[nadinbrzezinski]

121. pass it on

[Kelly Rupert]

122. Nader gave us Bush. Fuck Ralph Nader. nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

125. Nader Was, And Is, A Completely Selfish, Ignorant, Deceitful, Dishonest And Misguided Piece Of Shit

In many ways because of him; we are in the situation we find ourselves in.

He's an utter piece of filth who shall not garner a smidgen of respect from me. He's worthless. Sorry.

[Kelly Rupert]

126. I think you're being a bit generous. n/t

[AshevilleGuy]

131. You win! May I add "narcissistic"??

Damn, you can GET DOWN!!! :thumbsup:

[and-justice-for-all]

129. I like Ralph...

..and I actually voted for him too. I have heard him speak, watched interviews and such, I could not see any reason why not to vote for him.

Knowing that in '87 Nader pushed for legislation for airlines to install heavier and more secure cockpit doors in their aircrafts, only to be told "NO" by the airline companies and their crony friends on the hill.

I dont understand what all the discontent is for Nader....I think he is one of the better politicans I have come to know over the years.

[0rganism]

132. Ralph Nader has been a huuuuuge disappointment

In the year following the ruinous election of 2000, Ralph turned his attention to the truly pressing issue of the day: fairness of basketball refereeing.

He could have done so much for promoting democracy in America. His very candidacy spoke to the need for instant runoff voting, while the elections themselves were cesspools of collusion and corporate malfeasance. But he left that all behind, published a book or two, and focused on other things.

Until 2004.

Perhaps the REAL Ralph Nader was replaced with a clone sometime in September of 2000. The one we have now is a shadow of his former greatness.

[omega minimo]

136. Scapegoating Nader allows Dems to ignore crucial issues

which may not matter, if they view progressive voters, "idiot liberals" and "The Left!!" as irrelevant, expendable and powerless.

"Gore won both the popular vote and the election in Florida that would have given him a win in the Electoral College, but the Democrats were too timid to fight the Republicans' theft of the White House.

"But Nader's real crime for Democrats is that his campaign represented a popular challenge to the two-party corporate-dominated system--and the deeply engrained politics of "lesser evilism"...

"...Nader... gave voice at a crucial time to the need for an alternative to the corporate duopoly that dominates U.S. politics."

As Skinner asked:
"What the fuck is the point of running a third party candidacy if you *don't* want to have an effect the outcome?"

The outcome might have been to have more Democrats recognize that those issues and those voters matter. Even now.

[Greyhound]

137. Apparently not, how we imagine that we'll win by rejecting so many of the Party's

natural supporters is beyond me, but I guess we'll see.

[TZ]

139. issues vs. Bush

Yeah Nadar makes good points. But at the expense of splitting the democratic vote so we have this evil slimeball in the White House. If Nadar runs again, which I hear he is thinking about it could be bad. Think on this: President Brownback. Lets worry about getting the Reupublican Slime out of office first and then address Nadar's issues later. Gore seems to understand that sometimes you can accomplish more of your goals by being a private citizen than by being President. Lets hope Mr. Nadar gets this message

[ulysses]

140. "and then address Nadar's issues later"

When?

[Kelly Rupert]

141. I don't know, how about

AFTER WE CONTROL WASHINGTON? Like, say, after we own the White House and Congress? Like, you know, after we can actually pass legislation?

Oh, right, passing legislation. The one part of politics Nader seems to totally ignore. He sure does love the "complaining" and "posturing" parts, though.

[ulysses]

142. like we did in 1993, for instance?

Ah, thems were the days.

[Kelly Rupert]

143. Compared to the last six years, courtesy of Mr. Nader?

Hell yes they were.

[ulysses]

144. appendicitis is peachy compared to leukemia.

:shrug:

[Kelly Rupert]

145. And if you had a choice, you'd be a fool to pick leukemia n/t

[ulysses]

146. and an equal fool to not try to treat the appendicitis. n/t

[Kelly Rupert]

147. Giving yourself leukemia is not a good treatment for appendicitis.

And this metaphor is now falling apart.

[ulysses]

148. LOL

Fair point, re the metaphor. Point is, though, that they'll both kill you.

[Skittles]

150. gawd I cannot believe nader-apologists still have the nerve to wax on

can we just pretend that egomaniac was all just a bad dream? :puke:

[ulysses]

154. sure, you can.

That's all up to you.

[upi402]

157. Corporate (D)'s and all (R)'s are just 2 sides of the same damn coin

Nader *WAS* right about that. Donahue's quote was right too. A thin dimes difference between the corporate Dems and Rethugs - concerning policy and legislation.

[natrat]

160. and nader is a bought and paid for whore-literally

[Kelly Rupert]

161. I would think after the last six years

there would not be a single person so blind--so stupid--as to believe "both parties are the same."

Apparently I have too much faith in humanity.

[Mark E. Smith]

168. Nader is a paid for GOP shill

And he'll be back again in 2008 fighting for his Republican paymasters.

He's the Manchurian Harold Stassen.