So... Ralph Nader should have foregone his right to run

[whatchamacallit]

for the good of a party to which he didn't belong, whose platform he didn't entirely support? Is this the sentiment of DU's democracy loving democrats?

[Kolesar]

1. Yeah, and the voting decision by the SCOTUS today was Obama's fault

/sarcasm

[Apophis]

2. Democracy is fine, as long as there are only two parties involved.

[whatchamacallit]

3. Exactly

[bigwillq]

5. It seems like many folks here think that.

[dsc]

4. No but he shouldn't have been a lying pos

He got money from lots of people by promising he wouldn't campaign in swing states which he then did.

[SidDithers]

14. +1...nt

Sid

[geek tragedy]

6. He should have run on ideas instead of trying to kneecap Gore and help Bush win.

Also, anyone dumb enough to believe that Bush=Gore is accountable for helping that happen.

[Recursion]

7. Depends. What was his goal?

I'm still fuzzy on that.

[Marrah_G]

8. It's fucked up.....

[riqster]

9. Absolutely not!

He had every right to run. However, accepting money from the Bushies and publicly hoping for a Bush victory didn't do much for his cred.

I will say that he and his adherents need to step up and accept the partial responsibility that they bear for the debacle of the Aughts. Including those that still hurt us today (The SC, for example).

[Democat]

10. Nader has a lot of rights. So did Bush and Cheney!

I guess we can't blame them for anything they did wrong either because they had their rights?

[onehandle]

11. He should have run for a House seat, but instead he ran to satisfy his BIG FAT EGO. nt

[leftstreet]

12. What's with the Nader Hate today? I thought that was Fridays n/t

[EC]

13. as far as I'm concerned

all third parties should stay out. See Maine for what happens. ala LePage...


Nothing good ever comes from running a third party.

[arely staircase]

15. he should go to hell

how's that?