Nader's Sorry Legacy

[Maddy McCall]

NADER'S SORRY LEGACY
The Green Party's goal: Ensuring that Republicans take over the Senate

By Joe Conason

June 10, 2002 | Ralph Nader can talk out of either side of his mouth about the consequences of his Green Party presidential candidacy and third-party spoiler strategies. What he says at any moment depends on whether he is avoiding blame for Republican advances or promoting himself and his followers as the inexorable progressive vanguard.

In the immediate aftermath of the November 2000 election, there were moments when Nader celebrated the defeat of Al Gore as his own victory. But there were also moments when he insisted that his third-party campaign didn't affect the outcome. He occasionally cited a poll that shows he took relatively few votes from Gore, although most surveys indicate that he drained away more than enough to "elect" Bush (for a convincing analysis, read this Reason article by Matt Welch).

Nader often threatens to deliver both houses of Congress to the Republicans unless the Democrats surrender to his ideology. But sometimes he will claim -- as he did not long ago in Slate -- that Green votes actually helped the Democrats gain control of the Senate, by mobilizing left-leaning voters who otherwise wouldn't have showed up at the polls.

In other words, he wants to have it both ways. As the self-appointed scourge of the Democratic Party, he feels entitled to destroy it for its political sins, without assuming any responsibility for the ill consequences of his moralistic posturing.


Only paying members can read the whole article at Salon. However, the article in entirity is posted off-site here: http://www.hereinstead.com/sys-tmpl/naderssorrylegacy

[KC21304]

1. This looks to me like GOP goons infilitrating the Green party

and running candidates against Dems. I know there was a hint of this in 2002 but I guess we didn't pay enough attention. Is it possible that some of the Greens are so distracted with their enemies in the Democratic party that they don't see the enemies in their own ?

[DennisReveni]

2. Sorry Joe just plain wrong.

See this is what happens when partisan Democrats distort the truth.
300,000 registered DEMOCRATS voted Bush in FLA 2000.
1.1 MILLION Gays voted Bush in 2000.
We know the SCOTUS stole Gores victory, Nader had nothing to do with that.
Or Purged voter roles.
Or the fact that Democrats have been LOSING to Bush since 2000.
Or the Democrats that voted for Arnold.
Next time Joe take a minute and examine the REAL problems with the Democrats.
Like Clinton signing Defense of marriage, which will now be used against gays to deny them their civil rights.
Or NAFTA, which has continually drained US jobs to parts distant, cheap and without worker protections.
Or media Deregulation which gave us the horrors of Clear Channel and distorted messages.
Yes, Nader is a nice easy target to blame.
And of course it does take your anger away from the weakness of your own party.
Doesn't it Joe?

[lovedems]

3. I respectfully think you are wrong

Nader ran in swing states and let's say for example he wasn't on the ballot in Fla. Guess what? There wouldn't have been a SCOTUS to give the selection to the chimp. Yes, that's right, Nader all by himself lost Gore Florida. No Nader=No recount=No Chimp. Gore would have taken the sunshine state had Nader stayed of the ballot like he said he would do in swing states.

Nader isn't a friend of the democratic party and deserves all the animosity he gets.

Edit for terrible grammar!