Ralph Nader deserves more respect than he gets

[Better Believe It]

Nader deserves more respect than he gets
By Tony Norman

October 23, 2009

Ralph Nader has been the victim of more playa' hatin' than just about any figure in contemporary American politics. Merely whispering his name is enough to elicit hisses of derision across the political spectrum.

The Right hates Mr. Nader because his decades of activism have emboldened ordinary citizens to challenge the prerogative of big business to profit at the expense of the American consumer.

Many on the Left resent him because they believe his perennial presidential quests siphon votes from the Democratic candidate. Though he's never received more than 2.74 percent of the popular vote, liberals continue to blame him for making the Bush presidency possible instead of blaming the U.S. Supreme Court for stopping the Florida recount in 2000.

Nation columnist Eric Alterman and filmmaker Michael Moore, a former supporter, have slapped Mr. Nader around for repeatedly playing "spoiler" and risking a repeat of 2000. Glancing over back columns, I'm ashamed to say I did my share of Nader-bashing during the 2004 presidential election, too.

In retrospect, it was easier to scapegoat Mr. Nader than to question the values of a so-called progressive political party that would nominate candidates as beholden to corporate interests as the incumbent we were desperately trying to unseat.

Mr. Nader says without equivocation what millions of people believe in their hearts but are afraid to vote for when the polls open. Even folks who don't like him acknowledge his honesty and concede the value of his critique of our thoroughly corrupt political process. It is easier to fault him for occasional lapses in decorum and political correctness than his political positions, which are solid and irrefutable.

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09296/1007770-153.stm

[Taverner]

1. Disagree. He handed the presidency to Bush in 2000

That is unforgivable

[Better Believe It]

4. Thanks for the info. I thought the election was stolen by the Republicans with Supreme Court help.

I'm really happy you got the Republicans off the hook on that and that Leiberman had nothing to do with it.

Your political wisdom should be shared with everyone on this planet. I'm so grateful to you!

Was Ralph Nader also responsible for John Kerry's defeat in 2004?

[patrice]

5. That was stolen and there were some bad calls made. And I have seen

some analyses that said the Nader vote would not have affected any of that.

[Cal Carpenter]

10. In some parallel universe where everyone who voted for Nader

'would have' voted for Gore (oh, and his running mate Lieberman, of all people)...

Wasn't gonna happen.

Can't believe that tired old scapegoating still gets used.

[Jim Lane]

125. You're totally misstating the position you disagree with.

You don't need to think about a "parallel universe" where every Nader voter would've voted for Gore if Nader hadn't been on the ballot. We can ignore the Nader voters who would've voted for some other hopeless candidate, or cast a blank ballot, or stayed home -- they're irrelevant to the political process (by their own choice). Of the rest, some would've voted for Gore and some for Bush.

Polls that Nader himself cited indicated that more of his voters would've gone for Gore than Bush. If the nationwide percentages held in Florida, Gore would've gained about 13,000 more votes than Bush, and would've had a cheatproof margin.

Nader's folly doesn't excuse the unlawful purge of Florida voters, or the Supreme Court's connivance in the theft of the election. Nader is not the only culprit in giving us Bush. He certainly bears part of the blame, however, and it's far from "scapegoating" to say so.

[Kahuna]

11. And he did so, gleefully.

:puke:

[zonkers]

93. He relished the role of spoiler.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[yurbud]

58. so you think he cost Gore more votes in Florida than the 90,000 blacks the GOP purged from

the voter rolls?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

169. I still don't know why someone isn't sitting in jail for violating the Voting Rights Act

There's a lot of detailed info about that purge in Greg Palast's The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, the book that made me permanently cynical.

[yurbud]

61. and he hurt Gore more thanSupreme Court stopping Florida vote count Gore would have won?

in every conceivable scenario according to a consortium of major newspapers that actually finished counting the ballots?

It's kind of surreal how corporate Democrats will blame everyone EXCEPT the GOP and corporations, even when those are the culprits caught red-handed.

[defendandprotect]

71. 300,000 "Democrats" in Florida voted for Bush . . . but that had nothing to do with it ...???

[iamthebandfanman]

103. sad.

people who think like you are.

[Echo In Light]

111. Gore himself disagrees. Nader provided a great alternative mythology to a dreaded conspiracy theory

That's how crucial it is that CTs are fervently denied in this country.

[pnorman]

118. No, it was the 5-4 SCOTUS that "handed it to Bush",

not to mention Katherine Harris. Nader did what all third party candidates are expected to do in our two party system (well, closer to one point two), only he did it with more gusto than most commonly do. And had Lieberman and the other guy run aggressively as Democrate, the outcome would NOT have been "close enough to steal"!

And Nader then, was very close to the present "purists" here on DU, who seem to see "not a dime's worth of difference between Obama and ...."! Are they the same who are now bum-rapping Nader?

pnorman

[G_j]

139. no, perpetuating a falsehood is unforgivable

why must people insist on perpetuating an easily debunked falsehood against a brilliant and talented progressive?

I see you have all kinds of links to back up the hit and run slander.
:sarcasm:

[JackRiddler]

153. Did you get some kind of Stockholm Syndrome after the Bush junta seized power?

Gore won the election. Bush's crew stole it. Blaming Nader is a form of denying that a tyranny was established in this country.

[patrice]

2. I agree. It's all a process and he has had an important role.

[SIMPLYB1980]

3. Nope.

[Better Believe It]

6. Who designed that graphic? Some right-wing corporate hack?

[SIMPLYB1980]

24. Nope just a smart Liberal.

You know someone who was smart enough to vote for Gore.

[iamthebandfanman]

120. Yeah, its always smart

to blame one person WHO DARED (how dare him!) to run for president in a race that was decided by the supreme court.

yeah, thats real smart.

with 'smart' people like that representing our causes, its no wonder liberalism is always on the defense.

[The Magistrate]

7. No, Sir: the Smidgen Of Respect He Does get Is Far, Far More Than He Deserves....

[inna]

9. Prove it.

[DontTreadOnMe]

19. the defeat in his run for public office proved it

The people have voted.

[bertman]

53. The "people" voted for George Dubya Bush. Twice. So WTF does your comment mean?

[Umbral]

47. How dare you question The self-appointed authority!

I mean, why else would anyone call himself 'The Magistrate'.

[Hekate]

64. Read his sig-line. It's a major clue to his handle. nt

[Cirque du So-What]

8. Drivel

Nader deserves every bit of scorn that comes his way from Democrats - not just liberals - who know that his narcissistic run for president played a factor in getting Numnutz elected in 2000. I remain unapologetic in my fervent hope that he is somehow rendered unable to run for president in 2012. I'll take the karmic hit if it keeps his name off the ballot.

[Better Believe It]

14. Why don't you think anyone should have the right to run for President?

You don't have to vote for a socialist, an independent, a libertarian or other 3rd party candidate.

Why do you think people should only be allowed to vote for a Republican candidate .... or a Democratic candidate for office?

[Cirque du So-What]

34. We're all so fortunate to have someone willing to speak for us

Where did I even IMPLY that Nader doesn't have the right to run for president? As long as he's qualified, he can run. It doesn't mean that I have to like it.

'Why do you think people should only be allowed to vote for a Republican candidate .... or a Democratic candidate for office?'

Again with the mind-reading...not MY mind, mind you, but you musta been picking up something.

[Harry Monroe]

49. I voted 3rd party in 2000.

I wasn't about to vote for either Gore or Bush. I already knew Bush was a mental midget, not fit for the office of President of the U.S. and I kept waiting for Gore to distance himself from Clinton (I considered his perjury a big deal though it pales now in comparison to the corruption of the past 8 years). My vote was basically a protest vote; if Gore and Bush had been the only 2 candidates on the ballot, I would have simply stayed home. OK, dump on me, but in the 2000 election, that's how I felt.

[Hippo_Tron]

56. If you knew Bush was a mental midget why wasn't that enough to vote for Gore?

History shows that bad things happen when people who are not fit for office get elected. Sometimes politics is about voting for the lesser of two evils.

[Harry Monroe]

59. I thought I had explained that thoroughly enough. Sometimes politics is also voting your principles

And in 2000 I was still pissed at Clinton for committing perjury and therefore leaving himself wide open for impeachment. He should have known better. Gore didn't distance himself enough from Clinton in my view, ergo, I could not vote for him on principle. Granted, it is now small potatoes compared to what has occurred in the past 8 years, but perjury was and is still an impeachable offense and Clinton disappointed me with his lack of honesty and integrity, something that I still value in my public officials.

[Hippo_Tron]

69. Seems like a game of Russian Roulette to me

Voting third party or staying home is fine if there's no Katrina or 9/11 during the mental midget's presidency. If there is, we're all pretty fucked.

[Harry Monroe]

94. In 2000, how were we to know there would be a Katrina or a 9/11?

It's not Russian Roulette at all. I'm a firm believer in a protest vote. I wonder what would happen if everyone in this country would decide to vote for the 3rd way and shut the Democrats and Republicans out completely. I would wager they would first shit their pants and then they may both come to change their ways. Frankly, I am sick and tired of the partisan politics on both sides and I've come to the conclusion that those of us on the left side and those of us on the right side will never convince each other of our viewpoints, so entrenched have we become in partisan and poisonous politics. We are not even trying to attempt to even understand that the "other" side may have a valid viewpoint after all. It is fruitless, pointless and I feel like it is akin to banging your head against the wall again and again expecting a different result when you know nothing will happen except a huge knot on your bloodied forehead.

I've also just about completely stopped watching television or any news (especially cable outlets which have become "entertainment" outlets; to call them news outlets is laughable). I only watch sports now, which is enough for me. Everyone here should try this experiment: Turn off the TV completely for one month. No news, reality shows, insipid sitcoms etc. Then come back to me and tell me what you think of television. The more time I spend without being plugged into tv and media of other sorts (the internet for example), has convinced me that we, as a country, are no longer working together to find common ground and solutions to our problems, but rather are simply yelling at each other, as if this will convince the other side to come to our entrenched conclusions and views. Our country is suffering as a result and I don't see us surviving too much longer as a unified republic if things don't change for the better and we start cooperating!! I've come to a point in my life where I'm trying to divest myself of poison and hatred.

A 3rd party in this atmosphere is a sane and credible choice if for nothing else than as protest of the failed status quo.

[Hippo_Tron]

135. There's always a certain probability that events like that are going to happen

Just like there's a 1 in 6 chance you get the chamber with the bullet in it. If both candidates are truly qualified to run the country then I can understand it. If it were Poppy or Eisenhower or Nixon vs Gore then it would be one thing. But we knew full well that Bush was not up to the task of running the country. Sitting out or voting third party was a gamble that nothing catastrophic would happen.

[Harry Monroe]

145. It is my right to vote third party if I fucking feel like it!!

So fuck off!! I've already explained my reasons for doing so. If you can't respect or accept them, well sorry. I'm not going to do so again.

[sabrina 1]

114. Clinton did not commit perjury

He may have lied in a deposition, that is debatable. However, that deposition was for a case that was dismissed on its merits so the 'lie' if there was one, was not relevant to any case that was heard. To commit perjury, the lie has to effect the outcome of a case.

Aside from all that, the rightwing assault on the Clinton presidency was far more egregious than his attempts to stop them from their main goal, which was to use the Judicial System as a weapon in an attempted coup d'etat of an elected president. It was war on democracy and the public rejected it.

As far as your right to vote your conscience, no one can question that. But it seems your decision was based on the lies and tactics of the rightwing. And btw, I am not one who blames Ralph Nader for 2000. I blame the same gang of rightwing criminals who tried to bring down the Clinton presidency. But facts are facts and Clinton did not commit perjury, no matter what you may think of him.

In my opinion, now and then, regardless of how I felt about either of the major candidates, those who perpetrated this crime against democracy, from Melon Scaiffe to the huge network of allies, including their propaganda arm, Fox News, should have been indicted for treason.

[Harry Monroe]

146. Well, it's not the first time I've voted third party.

Here's a radical idea!! Let's ALL vote third party!! If the whole country did so as a protest, it would bring the current 2 party system to its knees!!
And may I add it would definitely reform the current political system!!

[sabrina 1]

157. I don't disagree with that

I wish there were more parties. But the way the country is divided now, we would probably get a party that would attract disillusioned Democrats and another that would attract disillusioned Republicans. Which might get us better candidates on both sides I suppose. Mostly we need a media that reports facts and does investigative journalism. What we have now is infotainment with very little news and lots of jingoism. People have to work to find real information so it's hard for them to vote responsibly.

Eg, I had a lot of discussion with some rightwingers last weeek and almost all of them simply repeated talking points from Fox/Limbaugh/Beck eg 'Obamacare will come between us and our doctors' or 'a Public Option is socialism'. But when you ask them to explain how 'Obamacare' will interfere with their doctors, they can't explain it and usually resort to name-calling. But I did find one guy who was willing to admit he wasn't sure what the whole issue was about. I asked why the right didn't like the Baucus Bill since it pretty much gave the Insurance Industry everything they wanted and didn't have a public option. It is a Capitalist's dream come true. And was that what they meant by 'Obamacare'. He said he didn't know that and he went and found the bill and read as much as he could about it. We ended up agreeing on a lot of things, but that is rare as the indoctrination of the media is so intense it's hard to de-program people who rely on it for news.

So, until we have an informed electorate we will keep getting politicians who can fool them.

In my post above though, I just wanted to correct the statement about Clinton committing perjury and wasn't disagreeing with your right to vote for whoever you felt was the best candidate.

[HERVEPA]

113. Yeah, keep your principles intact. They're more important than the ill....

that it brought down upon this country and the world, The hundreds of thousands or millions of people killed, the crap brought down upon the poor and minorities of all types.
And bullshit to anyone who says Gore wouldn't have been president if Nader hadn't run.
Yeah, the Supreme Court was rotten and stole it for Bush, but they wouldn't have had the opportunity if not for Nader.

And if you think the Republicans are no different than the Democrats, as Nader said, then you're blind as a bat, and don't even have the sonar.

And Nader was financially supported by the Republicans. How's that strike you.

Yup, your damn right. I'm still mad as hell.

[Harry Monroe]

147. “Always vote for principle, thorish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

John Quincy Adams

[DontTreadOnMe]

12. I'll NEVER forgive Nader

He hurts the Democratic Party. Go away Ralph, you have done enough damage in the last 10 years to make us all forget what you stood for before you ran for Ego President.

[Better Believe It]

16. You apparently forgave George W. Bush and the Supreme Court for their theft.

So don't lecture us about forgiveness. The old character assassination swiftboat type campaign against Ralph Nader just won't fly among thinking progressives in 2009.

You're now on ignore.

[defendandprotect]

72. Remember the GOP sponsored fascist rally in Miami-Dade County to stop the recount -- ???

Not to mention Fox/Jon Ellis recalling Florida from Gore - !!!

A great example of our corporate-press using computers to lie to the country --

They've been able not only to report vote totals ... but to PREDICT and CALL elections

for various candidates -- and CALL electoral votes!!

Amazing what the computers have done since the mid-1960's/late-1960's . . .

And, coincidentally, just about the time we were putting The Voting Rights Act in place!!

[uppityperson]

13. I respect him a LOT, truly. For all the good things he has done over the yrs. BUT

I disrespect him for his presidential run and the crap that has come out of him since.

Seatbelts? Yes. Presidential stuff? no

[Skidmore]

15. Cue the tiny little violins for

Ralph.

[Better Believe It]

18. You're now on ignore for all posts you write.

[Skidmore]

25. Sorry, not a Nader fan and I consider him a spoiler.

Would not vote for him if he were the last candidate on earth.

In the meantime, I'm pleased to appear as an "ignore" in your universe.

[defendandprotect]

73. Of course, the Supreme Court didn't "spoil" anything --????

Nor did the GOP fascist rally to stop the vote count in Miami?????

How about 300,000 " Democrats " in Florida who voted for Bush???

And, finally, no matter how you count the votes, Gore won --

So . . . you figure that all out and decide that Nader did it????

:think:

[sabrina 1]

119. And the role played by Fox when Bush'

cousin claimed the other networks were wrong for calling the election for Gore.

The effort to suppress all discussion of that crime in the 2000 election has worked apparently. There are actually people who have forgotten the facts and 'blame Nader' as they were intended to do.

What I don't understand, and didn't back then, is why it was ever in the interests of Democrats to let the rightwing off the hook for this. I remember expecting Rightwing blogs to ban the subject, but when it happened on the Left, I was stunned.

And we have seen the results over the past eight years for what they called being 'pragmatic' and 'bi-partisan'. Those words will forever mean 'defeatist' and 'weak, unwilling to fight' to me from now on.

[defendandprotect]

175. Your comments probably deserve a separate post . . ..

I'm been trying to get DU'ers to understand not only the dangers of the voting computers

but the dangers of the corporate-press using the large computers - and the power it gives them!

Used to be that they could only report actual vote tallies.

However, the large computers which began coming in during the mid-1960's gave them the

ability to not only report votes, but to PREDICT them . . . and they then moved to

CALLING wins for candidates and CALLING states for candidates based on electoral votes.

Jon Ellis/Fox moved one step further: RECALLING A STATE!!!

Btw, these large computers and the voting computers both came in during the mid-late-1960's --

coincidentally, just about the time America was passing The Voting Rights Act!!


Talk about "shock and awe" -- the public was still trying to deal with 2000 election when Bush gave us

9/11!! Followed by Anthrax attacks on Congress which shut them down for months!


AND . . . keep asking about all of this ...!!

What I don't understand, and didn't back then, is why it was ever in the interests of Democrats to let the rightwing off the hook for this. I remember expecting Rightwing blogs to ban the subject, but when it happened on the Left, I was stunned.

And we have seen the results over the past eight years for what they called being 'pragmatic' and 'bi-partisan'. Those words will forever mean 'defeatist' and 'weak, unwilling to fight' to me from now on.

I also don't understand why so few Democrats pursued investigation of 2000 and 2004.

I've read that Gore actually sent Jesse Jackson home from the area of protests to the "butterfly"
ballots, etal. I'm sure you remember Theresa Lepore? Think she turned out to have attachments
to the GOP?!

However, pretty much the only thing the Democrats did was blame Nader -- a critic they were anxious
to rid themselves of!

Nice post --

:)


If you're interested, there's an interesting website here --]
http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm
The family keeps it up with a copy of the book on line: "Votescam/The Stealing of America"
Your library can also get a copy of the book for you.
And it can be purchased for a few books here and there.

Basically, these are two reporters in Florida who began to investigate the computers in the
late 1960's . . . signed a book deal . . . and then the book was withdrawn from stores!

[Cirque du So-What]

36. You can put me on 'ignore' too

as I've returned the favor.

[Harry Monroe]

50. Ooh, can I get on his "ignore" list also??

How childish!! "You're now on ignore" Ooh, I'm so scared and shamed!! Personally, I've never used the feature, feeling it a tool for the extremely sensitive wimps amongst us.

[Danger Mouse]

17. Meh. Meh. Double meh. Triple meh!

I don't see Ralph Nader as needing much in the way of respect OR scorn.

[Taitertots]

20. A new term named after him, a Nader

An election spoiler. See Ross Perot, or Teddy Roosevelt. Hopefully third party Ron Paul in 2012.

To my knowledge he wasn't on enough state ballots to win. There was no way he could have won and all he did was hand the election to the republicans. If he wasn't a piece of shit he would have bowed out at the last minute and pushed his supporters to Gore.

[Better Believe It]

23. You're now on ignore for all posts you write.

"To my knowledge he wasn't on enough state ballots to win."

You're dead wrong on that point.

And you think that all of Nader's supporters should have voted for that piece of shit you supported in 2000, Joseph Leiberman!

[Taitertots]

27. Everyone knew Nader had zero chance of winning

Thanks for putting Bush in office. Vote Bull Moose 2000

[sendero]

30. Please put me on ignore too..

.. Nadir is an ASSHOLE.

[Harry Monroe]

55. So, do you put everyone you disagree with on ignore?

I can't see how that's any different than Fox News. You can ignore those you don't agree with or offend you just to get a view to fit your "reality" but it doesn't change the message by shooting the messenger. Feel free to "ignore" me also so you can perfect and shape your own sanitized "Fox News" version of DU.

[Vickers]

21. Fuck him.

He did some good stuff 40+ years ago, but lately?

Meh.

[MarjorieG]

22. He surfaces every four years to knock the Dem candidate, not so much work in years before.

We asked him to take on the anti-democratic voting machine industry, etc, but his attention grabbing is more self-serving.

He promised in 2000 to campaign, be available, in non-swing states only, but didn't. Took GOP money to keep his road show going.

Ask old-timers about worthiness and we say no.

[Better Believe It]

26. You are 100% wrong on every single point you made!

But, I really don't blame you.

You're just gullible.

You really need to check out your information before you simply repeat misleading and false political spin you've been given.

[MarjorieG]

29. Talk about purist spin. I almost don't post on your threads.

[Better Believe It]

67. Do you have credible links for your claims?

If you do, post them!

Thanks!

[olegramps]

86. I think that Nader should have supported the Democratic candidate.

I think the Nader could have been very beneficial to the Democratic Party if he had come forward and supported their platform. There is little doubt that he basically shares the values of the Democratic Party, but I don't see where he furthered the values that he strongly believes in by launching an independent campaign.

He could have been a strong influence within the party and represented those who share his progressive values. Rather than getting his constituents progressive ideas as part of the platform of the Democratic Party, he chose a very ineffective path that led to no where.

Of course he has every right to run for president, however, I would not consider voting for him since he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning even if I agreed 100% with his platform. I would rather vote for a party's candidate in which I would agree with most of their platform rather than see a candidate win in which I don't agree with any of what they stand for. Whether you like the situation or not, we have at present a two party system and it us against them.

[malaise]

28. I will go to my urn

a Ralph supporter. He did more than enough good for me.

[Hekate]

31. He lost my respect when he said there was no difference between Bush and Gore...

... and that was before the election debacle. That I didn't blame him for immediately. It took another two or three years for me to recognize that he actually had a role in that debacle himself.

I used to think of Ralph Nader as one of the Good Guys -- not so much any more.

Hekate

[Better Believe It]

65. Nader never said that! Perhaps Nader said there wasn't much difference between Cheney and Leiberman

Is that what you had in mind?

:)

[Hekate]

68. No. Nader was talking about the top of the tickets, as I recall, and the nature of the two parties

He was pretty clear about it: there would be no point in voting for the candidate of either party (Bush and Gore) because there was no difference between them. Having read Molly Ivins on Bush, I was stunned. But Ralphie was adamant.

Sadly, he was quite wrong about that.

I don't hold him entirely responsible for the outcome, but it was a perfect storm of corruption and coup d'etat, and he definitely added his bit of spit and wind to it.

Hekate

[mrs_p]

129. i was at a nader rally when he said it

he called them tweedle dee and tweedle dum. fall 2000, key arena, seattle, eddie vedder played the ukulele

can i be on ignore now too?

[Hekate]

144. Well done for remembering actual facts!

Thank you, thank you.

Hekate

[Patriot 76]

32. So you're a Green?

Telling me to respect Ralph Nader.

When you show nothing but disrespect and disdain to the current President.

Sorry.

[EFerrari]

106. Ralph Nader is not a Green. n/t

[depakid]

33. Here's a fact for the shallow and narrow minded partisans

If Democrats hadn't repeatedly and cynically sold out their traditional values and enabled, legitimized and voted for and enacted right wing policies, Nader wouldn't have had a constituency at all!

Those who foolishly blame him for being right all along and running where Democrats CREATED a vaccuum, might want to bear that in mind.

[blondeatlast]

35. Hell, the Corvair wasn't even that bad of a safety hazard. He's neutralized all the good he

once did and now stands in the corner waving his arms and shouting "Look at me! Look at ME!"

I can't respect anyone who does that.

[AllentownJake]

37. If Ralph was doing the work he does every odd 4 years

that he does when there is a Presidential Election and media spot-lite I'd be more inclined to agree.

However, he's become little more than a trouble maker showing up every four years to stick a fork in the eye of the party and aid people whose policies are totally out of line with what he believes not just 50% out of line with what he believes.

[Hekate]

38. All these people you are putting on ignore! Was this by design when you posted? You flushed'em out

... for sure.

:eyes:

Hekate

[Harry Monroe]

62. Yeah, I guess he showed 'em!!

Ignore people you disagree with!! Then you can create and shape your own version of D.U. Kinda like why people watch Fox News!! Those comments that'll be left will agree with your viewpoint. You won't have to bother with opposing views!! Life is good!!

[Hekate]

63. Eh, someone I disagree with has to be pretty disagreeable before they get the Iggy Prize.

[Bumblebee]

39. NOPE. Less. His ego is larger than his common sense or the interests of

this country. He gave us 8 years of Bush.

[ipaint]

40. He never lost my respect.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/unreasonableman/

[Lost-in-FL]

41. Fuck that. nt

[geek tragedy]

42. Fuck Ralph Nader and all of his moronic supporters.

Fuck the whole damn Republican-enabling lot of them.

[azmouse]

54. +1

Said simply and said well.

[Robb]

43. I'd say he gets exactly the respect he deserves. nt

[trumad]

44. 4000 Americans dead in Iraq because of Nader

[defendandprotect]

75. That had nothing to do with the Supremes . . .????

Nothing to do with 300,000 "Democrats" in Florida voting for Bush?

Nothing to do with the GOP-sponsored fascist rally in Miami-Dade County to stop

the vote counting mandated by the Florida State Supreme Court?

A violent rally with no police interference which did succeed in stopping the vote counting!!

:eyes:

[trumad]

78. Fuck Nader

92,000 voted for nader in Florida...

[CTLawGuy]

81. 97,488 FL votes for Nader

Margin of Bush's "victory" 537.

It was KEY to Bush's ability to steal the election that Gore could never get ahead on the first count or automatic recount. Don't tell you don't think Gore would have netted at LEAST 537 votes from Nader voters if he weren't in the race?

[trueblue2007]

84. The reason Gore lost is NADER!!!

I hate Nader because of that. He is an old has been who used to be.

[Sebastian Doyle]

128. Gore didn't lose anything but a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court

And even THAT vote was rigged by the Bush Crime Family.

[defendandprotect]

99. 300,000 "Democrats" voted for Bush in Florida . . . !!!

And other third parties also took tens of thousands of votes --

PLUS, 3,000+ butterfly ballots were obviously misdirected to Pat Buchanan!!

AND, Gore actually won Florida!

Keep in mind that Fox -- as other corporate-press does -- used the large computers

to RECALL Florida from Gore. And then CALLED it for Bush. CALLED electoral votes for Bush.

Computers are not only a threat to voters where votes can be hacked and switched --

but large computers used by corporate-press are also a threat giving corporate-press a power

then shouldn't have to PREDICT, RECALL, CALL elections for candidates, CALL states electoral

votes for candidates.

And all of this with corporate-press began in the mid-late-1960's --

Coincidentally, just about the time we were passing The Voting Rights Act!!

Corporate-press should be limited to simply reporting actual votes cast.
*************************************************************************

[NNN0LHI]

83. How do you think we ended up with a Supreme Court made up of mostly wingnuts?

It was because some people were stupid enough to fall for the "Dems are the same as Rethugs" lie that Ralph pushes to help the Rethugs gain control to put them there.

He preys on the low hanging fruit among us who do that majority of their thinking from below the waist.

You can't figure that out?

Don

[Better Believe It]

95. Because the Democrats gave away the right to filibuster against them

You forgot that little minor detail. How convenient!

Any more questions?

[defendandprotect]

104. Thank you . . . we need those constant reminders . . . !!!

[defendandprotect]

101. You mean 300,000 "Democrats" who voted for Bush in Florida????

There was enough right wing influence on the Court -- given Democrats having helped

put Clarence Thomas on the court -- to give W a gang of 5 on the Supremes to put him

in the Oval office.

Unfortunately, I don't think you can point to anything that Ralph Nader has said which

hasn't proved true. We now have the poisonous DLC in the White House with Obama!

And, you will notice that many prominent Democrats -- from Wm. Greider to Michael Moore --

are telling you that you have to deal with Democratic "Blue Dogs" and others who do not

support public option/Medicare for all -- even if it means soliciting and supporting other

more liberal/progressive candidates vs the incumbent!

Wish Nader was wrong about the buying of government, but unfortunately, he isn't.

[superduperfarleft]

85. So I guess all the Democrats who voted for the IWR have nothing to do with it?

Funny, I don't remember Nader being in Congress with a (D) next to his name voting to send those 4,000 americans to their deaths, but I do remember plenty of "good" Democrats doing so.

[NNN0LHI]

88. I blame Nader and the idiots who voted for him for those IWR votes

What came first the IWR or Nader enabling the Republicans?

It was Nader and his supporters enabling the Republicans wasn't it? There wouldn't have been any IWR vote if Nader and the shitheads who voted for him had not put Bush into the White House in the first place.

After seeing what Naders cohorts the Republicans did to Max Cleland I don't blame any Democrat who voted for the IWR.

I hold that against Nader too for even putting the Democrats in the position of either having to vote for IWR or have done to them what happened to Max Cleland. Nader was the enabler for that.

I am glad the Dems voted the way they did. Voting against the IWR would not have stopped Bush from invading Iraq. It would have only put more Dems seats in jeopardy after the Republicans finished comparing them to bin Laden like they did to Max Cleland. Which is exactly what Nader wanted.

Nader is a snake. And the people who defend him are not any better.

Don

[defendandprotect]

105. 300,000 "Democrats" in Florida who voted for Bush . . . enabled him . . .

to a degree ... because in the end the election was stolen.

First by Jon Ellis/Fox News and then by the fascist GOP rally --

and then by the Supremes.

In the end, press consensus confirms that Gore won.

Next, you'll be telling us that Nader is responsible for Swine Flu--!!!

:eyes:


Maybe Nader also designed the butterfly ballot which gave Buchanan 3,000 votes?

No -- it was an "alleged" Democrat who did that -- a woman who was later revealed

to be connected to Repugs.

3,000+ votes --

and eventually the difference was 537 votes --

Actually, before they stopped the legit vote counting in Florida, Bush was down to

a 34 vote lead!!!

[JackRiddler]

155. How do you live with your bullshit piled so high, really now?

[sabrina 1]

158. Nader voted for the war in Iraq?

I thought he was vehemently against it. Too bad Hillary Clinton, Kerry, John Edwards and all those other Democrats who voted for it didn't pay attention to him. If they had, they would not have had the problem of trying to justify or apologize for it later.

Bush and Cheney and the neocons had something to do with it also. Were you around when all this happened?

[NNN0LHI]

45. We have a Nader Nut here putting people on ignore for not bowing to Ralph?

Why can't the Nader Nuts start their own website?

Put me on ignore too motherscratcher.

Don

[BzaDem]

46. He gets FAR more respect than he should.

The OP is a case in point.

[Raine]

48. He gets none from me, I despise him

but each to their own.

[bobbolink]

52. Respect? At DU? Is it April Fools again already?

[UTUSN]

57. UnReKKK forever. Neh, he don't deserve NOTHING!1 n/t

[bertman]

60. It's threads like this that make me wonder why the fuck I am a Democrat. If you have

ever heard Ralph Nader speak you would know that man has a better understanding of the problems our nation faces than 90% of the politicians in Washington. He speaks truth to power and he knows what he's talking about. And he offers solutions to those problems that few politicians would dare consider.

Recommend.

[defendandprotect]

74. Absolutely true . . . and Nader's been telling truth for decades . . .

Additionally, most of what we all know today, we know because of Ralph Nader --

LOOK AT HOW MANY PEOPLE AT DU ARE STILL TRYING TO DEAL/ABSORB THE INFO THAT BOTH

PARTIES ARE CONTROLLED BY CORPORATIONS!!!

And, Ralph was talking about the buying of government/government agencies since Nixon!!!

Also amazing that some feel hurt that Nader attacks Democrats for what they do wrong!!!


Thanks for reminding Democrats about what we should have known years ago !!!

:)

[BzaDem]

76. Its responses like these that make me wonder why you are a Democrat.

Our party would be well served by having people like you leave the party and try your chances at the polls (in whatever new party you choose) for an election or two. Failure really does wonders to focus the mind. If more people did this, they would come back to the Democratic party with a much better understanding of reality.

[Greyhound]

77. It's been done and the Democratic Party became a national joke. n/t

[bertman]

89. I've been a Democrat for over 40 years, supporting Democratic candidates at the

local, state, and national level. But I've always felt that there were others who were far more truthful, knowledgeable, and willing to work against the corporate power structure than most of the Democrats who were elected. Ralph Nader was one of those people.

It's an indictment of the narrow-mindedness of many Democrats that they refuse to hear what a man like Nader has to say and to use it as a way to improve our party.

I think I'll stick around for at least a few more years so I can piss off people like you BzaDem.

:evilgrin:

[Better Believe It]

96. So you want a party run by the DLC? You got it!

A big tent for everyone except those on the left.

Take them for granted while you crap all over them.

[Better Believe It]

97. So you want a party run by the DLC? You got it!

A big tent for everyone except those on the left.

Take them for granted while you crap all over them.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

66. Nader can go fuck himself.

[Better Believe It]

98. How exactly is that done? I assume you have experience in this area?

:)

You're now on ignore for crudeness and a lack of civility.

[defendandprotect]

107. Very funny . . . !!!

:evilgrin:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

151. Ooh, the Nader ass-kisser has me on ignore.

Go dip into your trust fund and choke on a hackey-sack, loser.

[DerekG]

70. Prophets don't get respect, only vitriol

I could hate the guy, but after the bailouts, drone attacks, and this watered-down public option shit, I'd prefer to shake his hand.

[Le Taz Hot]

79. K & R with one correction.

It's not the liberals that won't forgive him, it's the Milquetoast Party Faithful that hold the completely misguided view that Ralph Nader was responsible for the 2000 Selection that won't forgive him. Liberals have known all along that he was correct in that BOTH PARTIES ARE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY THE CORPS.

[La Coliniere]

132. Ain't it the truth.

Well said. I've never had a beef with Nader. Speaking truth to power is what makes the man tick.

[CTLawGuy]

80. Vehemently disagree

NT

[TexasObserver]

82. Unrecommend

[cherish44]

87. They would have stolen the election with or without Nader on the ticket

Yes they were that powerful and that evil.

[WI_DEM]

90. Not when he felt that there wouldn't be much difference between a Gore and a Bush presidency.

[Better Believe It]

108. Links please. Thank you!

[HardWorkingDem]

121. In a perfect country, yes, he does, but not this one...

On the face of it all, I agree with so many positive Nader comments here, but added up, all they do is end up being a Pyrrhic victory.


We all understand the importance of what Nader was pushing for and how wonderful his ideals are and how important they are for us to remain to have hope, but in the end, we also have to look at what has happened in 2000 with realism.


There was an expose on Nader and his ego (I can't recall who wrote it or where it appeared; it might have been in The Nation and by Eric Alterman - I just can't remember) and it was written by a former strong supporter of his who had grew disillusioned with Nader's ego and stubbornness.


When I think of 2000, I think of all the young men and women killed and injured in Iraq, as well as the innocent Iraqis (now, I mourn for the one's in Afghanistan as well, but do believe if Gore had won, that is where we would have ended up anyway - but it would have been done smarter).

And all the other disasters of the Bush Administration. Then I recall how often Nader kept pointing out that there really wasn't a difference between the Democratic Party/Gore and Republican Part/Bush. Also, from some accounts Nader said he would not campaign in states where it could take votes away from Gore, and he did not do that. He did campaign in those states.

Friends, whether we agree or not, there IS a difference between the two parties and the goals of the two parties. Yes, they are both whores for money and power, but there is a difference. And of course, there is a huge difference between these two and more liberal groups/parties and so on. But this is the world we now live in and when people say there really isn't a difference, I tell them they don't follow politics closely enough.

[Better Believe It]

141. Ralph Nader has pointed out the differences in the two corporate run parties more than anyone else!

And he's also pointed out how they are financed and controlled by Wall Street and big corporate interests, something that most of us on DU understand and don't challenge.

Nader has been campaigning very hard this year, not for office, but against the Wall Street banksters who are responsible for the Great Recession.

We appreciate his work and legacy. I urge you to follow his progressive non-electoral activity and ignore right-wing political spin that consists mainly of personal attacks and false shiftboat like attacks against him.

Read both sides and think for yourself.

[HardWorkingDem]

143. Um....the article I read was not....

right wing spin.

And frankly, I'd like you to show me where anything I typed is "right wing spin."

Oddly, I find that sort of argument is pretty common to shut down debate.


And actually, if Nader did want to defend himself about that election, he should get a copy of the Nation analysis that Pat Buchanan actually hurt Bush more than Nader did Gore.

But still, in the article I read, it was pointed out, Nader promised (at first) not to campaign in areas weak for Gore (oddly, I think one way to examine his ego was that technically he didn't campaign in the state of Florida, but he did campaign in area markets that bled into Florida).

[Better Believe It]

148. Do you have a link to that article and Ralph Nader's response?

[HardWorkingDem]

152. No.....

All I can say is it was either in the Nation or maybe the New Republic (before they went all too crazy)....it may have been by Eric Alterman, but I'm not sure...

[Better Believe It]

174. Well, that article simply wasn't accurate.

The best and only reliable way to find out Ralph Nader's views in 2000, 2004, 2008 and now is to read what he actually wrote or said.

I learned some time ago that political spin doctors and character assassination squads have demonstrated a remarkable ability to misrepresent and distort someones political views. We saw it happen with the so-called "swiftboaters" outfits in their campaign against John Kerry in 2004 and we saw others conduct the same type of character assassination campaign against Ralph Nader that very same year!

Fortunately, President Obama and his campaign staff didn't engage in that kind of bull shit against Ralph Nader during last years election. He ran a clean campaign.

[HardWorkingDem]

177. Sorry to disagree and we'll have to leave it at that...

Have you ever thought that maybe what he wrote and said were different from his actions? On top of that, I remember in the article how many people who went on the record, were long time Nader people as well.

One last thing....if you are going to keep linking Duers with the crap of "swiftboaters" and the like, remember I told you the article was either in the NATION or New Republic. I'm thinking it was the Nation (on top of that, if I also recall, both the Nation and Progressive made harsh statements about Nader over this election).

So, are we clear? The Nation, Progressive and New Republic - hardly bastions of the right.

[BolivarianHero]

91. Nader needs to shut the fuck up...

He has credibility with me until he sided with the FMR on Terri Schiavo.

http://newappeal.blogspot.com/2005/03/schiavo-nader-allies-with-christian.html

So did that wretched man Jesse Jackson, who also cheered on the Saudi King's anti-atheist rant referred to by ignorant theists as a "speech".

[bvar22]

92. I'll give this a recommend.

Everyone should read and study everything Nader has written.

Blaming Nader for 2000 is easy, but not productive.
Ignoring the Base, "Centrist" triangulation (seeking bi-partisan consensus), abandoning LABOR, and drifting to the Right created a vacuum on the Left that Nader stepped into. If not Nader, it would have been someone else.

There is a lesson to be learned from 2000, and blaming Nader avoids that lesson.
There is no way to control Nader, or future Naders, OR what they will say about The Democratic Party.
The problem WAS that The "Centrist" Democratic Party gave Nader plenty of legitimate ammunition, especially LABOR.
No one OWES the Democratic Party votes for being "not as bad as The Republicans".

In an interview with Jon Stewart, Al Gore himself said that, "It was not Nader's fault. It was MY fault for not convincing the Nader voters that they should vote for me."


If the Democratic Party continues:

*The Wars,

*Increasing Military Spending,

*Trickle Down stimulus,

*Wall Street Bailouts without legitimate re-regulation,

*Not prosecuting Bush War Criminals and War Profiteers,

*Transfers multi-Billions of Public Money to the For Profit Health Insurance Industry,


...if the Democratic Party continues along THIS path, then they had better NOT take MY vote For Granted.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[sabrina 1]

160. Good post, thank you ~

And as I recall, it was the Democratic Party that left Nader, not the other way around. I feel exactly as you do, and while I supported the Democrats so far, not as enthusiastically as I used to, if your list is not addressed now that they have no more acceptable excuses not to do so, I will be looking elsewhere also, as will most of their base.

Nader did not lose the 2000 election for Gore. Everyone knows that, even many who keep saying it. It was stolen and they got away with it. We were promised it would not happen in 2004 if we donated and worked for Dems. We did that, and they caved even faster that time. There was no Nader factor in 2004. Just another stolen election, and more 'shhh, let's not talk about it someone on the right might call us names' from the Dems.

I think as time goes by, and we learn more about how the Dem Party is bought and paid for also, more and more people are admitting that Nader was right. He just got to his position ahead of the rest of us.

[bvar22]

173. You would think...

...that Transparent and Verifiable Elections would be a Front Burner Priority Issue for the Democratic Party.
Over 92% of ALL Americans (Democrats AND Republicans) support it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x446445

This would be an EASY Win/Win for The Democratic Party.

So, WHY hasn't The Democratic Party MADE Transparent & Verifiable Elections a priority issue?

Only ONE answer.

[spanone]

100. he had my respect in the seventies, not anymore.

[Owl]

102. uhhhh.... NO

[EFerrari]

109. It's harder to be criticized from the left. I'll rec for Ralph. n/t

[sabrina 1]

110. Mis-directed anger at Nader, and the willingness of Democrats

to make it almost a crime to discuss the stolen election of 2000 by the SC and the Bush machine, contributed to letting them off the hook for what turned out to be one of the worst eight years in recent history.

Blaming Nader is a distraction from the truth about that election. And it's always from the DLC types who seem to find it impossible to take on the rightwing, but have zero problem attacking the base of the Dem Party. Saw it all over so-called Progressive blogs. While it was definitely okay to blame Nader, the real cause of Gore's loss was often banned for discussion. It never made sense to me and still doesn't.

[Echo In Light]

112. It's a preferred mythology that allows continued denial and hatred of "conspiracy theories"

[sabrina 1]

115. True, as if the SC decided the outcome of an election

was a 'conspiracy theory'. Still, it was a forbidden topic on major so-called progressive sites and many people were banned for bringing up. Talk about playing into the hands of the rightwing.

In the 2004 election, I really wanted Ralph Nader and anyone else who might effect even the slightest way the outcome of the election, to not run. By then we already knew how disastrous Bush was for this country. I remember begging everyone to just vote for Kerry whether they liked him or not as we could not tolerate another four years of Bush. Most democrats did realize that by then.

But to blame Nader for the outcome of the 2000 election is buying into the excuses of those who do not want, for whatever reason, to acknowledge the real reasons why Bush 'won'. To me he will never be a legitimate president, not because of Ralph Nader. And airc, in 2004 when Nader was not a factor, a historic objection to the results of the election was made by one courageous Democratic Senator and will remain there for history to judge. At least it was something.

[Echo In Light]

116. PNAC plans, a big 'new' enemy/phony "war" vis-a-vis false flag to justify the PNAC plans

That's why the Establishment entire came down hard on unfavorable (to the plan) views of WHY it was so crucial that the 'right' admin be installed, no matter what, no matter how obvious - that's why anyone who sourced credible evidence to the contrary (of official bullshit) was attacked so vehemently.

To be honest, I voted for Nader then, as Gore had my state locked up (well, provided one actually believes that any part of our national "elections" are anything other than necessary illusions), and I again voted for him this last time around after Kerry buckled like a belt and quietly walked away in 04

[mikelgb]

117. wow what a telling thread

I know Nader is a fun punching bag, but when it comes down to the facts, how Bush obtained the Presidency, Nader had nothing to do with it

and his comments or those like them are echoed and applauded here everyday, just as long as his name isn't attached to them

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

122. "I felt like a nigger."

-Ralph Nader, on the subject of the lack of respect he receives.

[SlowDownFast]

123. I'll rec this. Ralph's less of a sellout than Obama and our Dem Congress. n/t

[bvar22]

124. WOW. This thread is now at +9.

DU hasn't sunk as far into "Centrist" Hell as I thought.

[The Straight Story]

126. If all those people who voter for gore had voted for nader, we would not have had bush

But they stuck with the party guy.

[Jim Lane]

131. And if all the Gore and Nader voters had voted for John Hagelin, we wouldn't have had Bush. So what?

The reality of U.S. politics is that neither Nader nor Hagelin (who ran as the candidate of the ) had a chance of winning. So why should Gore have deferred to Nader, any more than Nader should have deferred to Hagelin?

There's a mechanism in U.S. politics by which people of generally consonant views settle on a candidate around whom they'll coalesce, so that they don't scatter their votes and deliver the office to a candidate they all strongly oppose. The prospective candidates run in primaries (or, in some states, compete in caucuses). Thus, in 2000, some people preferred Bradley to Gore, but when Gore won the primaries, most of the Bradley supporters voted for Gore in November.

Here's an alternative: All the progressives who want to run will run in the general election. Every progressive voter can vote for a candidate who exactly fits his or her views, with no compromising necessary. Meanwhile, on the other side of fence, the conservatives will pick only one candidate. They'll stupidly follow the lesser-of-two-evils, hold-your-nose-and-vote-for-X philosophy. Ha! They're so unenlightened! We'll be morally superior to them in every election for the foreseeable future. Of course, they'll win every election for the foreseeable future, but, hey, you can't have everything.

[Sebastian Doyle]

127. Just saw Ralph on Ed Schultz' show.

Say what you want about his ill fated Presidential campaigns - but when he's doing what he's REALLY good at - arguing for the common man against corporatist shitheads, he's right on.

[Jim Lane]

130. In this post a Nader-basher tries to begin a civil conversation with the Nader supporters

I'm among those whose opinion of Nader fell precipitously because of his actions in 2000. You folks disagree. We won't convince each other. Let's skip the arguments that were already stale before they were regurgitated (by me, among others) in this thread.

My question is: Wouldn't Nader have done better in the past, and do better in the future, to run in the Democratic primaries? He'd be included in debates, instead of standing out in the parking lot complaining that he wasn't on camera. He'd bring disaffected voters to the polls where they could support progressive candidates for other offices. He'd even create a corps of people who not only shared his views but who had some knowledge of the party machinery, and could help move the Democratic Party significantly to the left.

In 2000, I would've voted for Nader in a Democratic primary. I was willing to give up my chance to influence the choice between Bradley and Gore because there wasn't much difference between them. In the general election, however, that didn't apply, because it was obvious that there was a huge difference between Gore and Bush (despite Nader's contention to the contrary).

Obviously, he wouldn't have won the nomination in 2000. But it was even more obvious that he wouldn't become President in 2000 by running as a Green. It's not consistent to reject a primary run on the basis that it would certainly fail, and then turn around and say that the certain failure of his general-election campaign is irrelevant because it's all about principle and because he was laying the groundwork for future electoral change.

This question doesn't apply only to 2000. In 2012, Nader would get more of a hearing for his ideas if he mounted a quixotic challenge to Obama in the primaries than if he mounted yet another quixotic general-election campaign. He would also avoid the danger of taking votes away from the Democrat and thus electing the Republican, an outcome that has an enormous human cost.

[sabrina 1]

142. Your post makes sense ~ this is what Kucinich has done

and Ron Paul and Gravel and while they were in the debates, the debates were stimulating and issues were raised that the two major parties would not raise.

I did support the Dems in all the elections and was very worried in 2004 especially, about anyone splitting the vote and handing Bush another four years. As it happened, there was no need to worry, by then everyone was just too scared to risk that. The real fear was that what happened in 2000 would happen again, and it did. And again the Dems decided to just not talk about it.

My objection to blaming Nader for the 2000 election results is that it is just not true. All it does when people make that claim, is to get people like me, eg, who didn't support Nader in any of the elections, to come to his defense.

People do not like hyperbole. Everyone knows what happened in 2000 and I am as upset by those blaming Nader and distracting from the real cause of Gore losing, as Nader bashers are at Nader.

The issue of stolen elections is far too serious to overlook out of a desire to bash Nader. And if Democrats fail to bring about real change now that they are in the majority, a lot of people will look back and wonder if Nader was just ahead of the rest of us.

However, my beef with Nader is that he should have run for Congress and then the Senate. I think he would have easily won a seat in Congress. I don't think he accomplished much by running for president. He would have the platform if he were in Congress to speak about the issues he cares about, and a vote to cast. Or, he could have done as you suggested in your post, run in the primaries.

Other than that, I've rarely disagreed with him on the issues, and I know he did not, even if he wanted to, hand the 2000 election to Bush. That was done by the SC.

[Jim Lane]

161. One can be a Nader basher and still care about stolen elections.

You write: "The issue of stolen elections is far too serious to overlook out of a desire to bash Nader." I agree. An event can have more than one proximate cause. Nader bashers shouldn't overlook the Florida voter purge, the warped Supreme Court decision, etc. -- but Nader supporters shouldn't act as if those things make Nader's folly go away. All of these were factors in the Florida result.

That's why, in another post in this thread, I argued that, without Nader, Gore would have achieved a cheatproof margin in Florida. If Gore had won by 10,000 votes, there would have been no way that Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush and the Supreme Court could have stolen it. Nader's conduct gave them the opportunity.

I don't think many people are using their grievance with Nader as an excuse for ignoring issues of electoral integrity. Nader himself could have taken up, as a high priority, the problems of electronic voting, but has not done so.

I hadn't thought of your suggestion that he run for the Senate or the House. His problem there would be that he has a broad national following, but it's dispersed throughout the country. I'm not sure there's any specific district or state where he could win against a local politician. It certainly would be an interesting race, though!

[progressivebydesign]

133. Nader can STILL kiss my ass. n/t

[PeaceNikki]

134. Ppppppppppt.

Funny stuff.

[SpartanDem]

136. No he doesn't

and I'm perfectly happy to blame both him and SCOTUS

[creeksneakers2]

137. Nobody knows how a fuller recount would have turned out

The vote was so close that it was within the margin of error. Whichever side got some lucky breaks would have won.

We do have much better reason to believe that if Nader hadn't run Gore would have won. Exit polls showed that.

[TheWraith]

138. No he does not. He deserves a punch in the nuts.

We have him and his bullshit to thank for 8 years of George W Bush and the near destruction of this country. His name should go down with Benedict Arnold's.

[G_j]

140. nevermind

[Kurska]

149. Nader is a fool, a tool used by right wingers to drive a wedge between democrats.

That is it, he has surrendered any sort of legitimacy when he attacked Obama during the presidential campaign.

The man just doesn't care what damage he does if he gets attention.

[Skittles]

150. this is total bullshit

it's not an either / or - we detest Nader for his ego display in 2000 AND the Supreme Court for sucking up to bush - but Nader's fuckup was easily the most preventable factor in bush being president

[depakid]

159. Many detest Nader because they're incapable of taking responsibility

for the fact that Democrats created his constituency- and damn near everything he warned about came true.

INCLUDING Democrats rolling over and over on Supreme Court (and federal court) nominees- no matter how egregious, from Thomas and Scalia onward.

That's my theory on a lot of this. Your own party betrayed you and their own traditional values by enabling the far right- and in so doing created a vacuum. Kinda hard to accept. Much easier to blame Nader (or whoever might have come along to fill the void).

[Skittles]

162. he would have been more effective without pulling that senseless stunt

[depakid]

163. Maybe, maybe not- in hindsight it's always easy to say

Trouble was the Democrats had, on issue after issue become little more than Republican lite -and all too often not so lite. They bought into right wing propaganda (and took more than a little money for their causes).

The campaign Gore & Liebermann ran seemed to indicate that direction would continue- which is why Nader & the Greens got over 5 1/2 of the vote in Oregon (causing the corporate media to drone on and on in 2004 about it being a "battleground state").

The base- a diverse coalition of Dems who we saw in the Battle of Seattle had about had enough. Some did the lesser of two evils- some were genuinely enthusiastic about Gore 2.000 and others simply said- this has got to stop.

Poly Sci 101, when it comes right down to it.

[Skittles]

164. I had great respect for Nader before 2000

I suspect a lot of people did

[Jim Lane]

165. No, it's not just hindsight. People using foresight said the same thing.

Hindsight is when the Naderites say that Gore should have done this, that, or the other progressive thing that would have peeled a few votes away from Nader -- but might also have cost a few votes from more centrist voters.

Hindsight is saying that Gore should have spent one day more campaigning in Florida (to pick up the few hundred votes he needed) or one day less campaigning in Florida (going instead to New Hampshire, and thus picking up the votes he needed there). It's probably correct that either of these strategies would have worked, but there was no way to know at the time.

On the other hand, the danger that Nader would draw votes from Gore, thereby securing the election of Bush, was quite obvious in advance. Many commentators raised the point before the election. There were times when Nader himself even seemed to relish the prospect.

[johnaries]

154. That was true once, but he has long since jumped the shark IMHO.

[WhiteTara]

156. Ralph Nadir is despicable

and opportunistic. I can't stand to look at him.

[geek tragedy]

166. Ralph Nader is a racist piece of shit.

And I question that anti-racism credentials of anyone who continues to back him.

[ecstatic]

167. You can't be serious

:puke: f*ck that selfish phony!!! And a late -1 too!

[LWolf]

168. The desperate willingness of so many

to use him as a scapegoat does not speak well for the Democratic Party, to say the least.

If Democrats fielded better candidates, they'd have nothing to fear from Nader or any other 3rd party candidate.

[hunter]

170. Mr. Nader perfected the art of greenwashing. He's the guy with the shovel following the elephant.

The corporate leaders of our toxic consumerist nation are often irritated by Nader, but they know very well they need him, and he knows they need him.

He's just another guy in a suit, playing the "good cop" in the dank dark room where we are all kept handcuffed to the table.

If I'm voting for a guy in a suit there are any number of Democrats much preferable to the smelly bloodthirsty bad cops of the Republican Party. Please, please, of course our Democrats are part of the same political machine as the Republicans. But Democratic politicians like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and yes, especially Barack Obama, are nothing like the the corrupt slimeballs of the Bush administration.

Personally, I dream of someone who will tear down Frank Zappa's wall behind the curtain and break us free of our chains. I wait for someone to storm into the temple and knock over the tables of the money changers. I want leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. who can inspire and lead people to join together and reject the forces of oppression. I want my leaders to be capable politicians with a clear vision of a sustainable future and a thirst for social justice; I want leaders who are ferocious defenders of human rights, most especially the rights of people who have not the resources to defend themselves.

Ralph Nader is not such a person, he's a player on the stage, the perpetual candidate of the nervous white guy, the guy who knows things have to change but doesn't want things to change too much.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

171. No He Doesn't. He's An Utter Piece Of Egotistical Filth. FUCK NADER.

[SeekerBlue]

172. Nader is right and has always been right.

You know it, deep down.

[hunter]

176. I'm a social justice leftist and Nader's too far right for me...

Nader is Corporate America's court jester, in the old sense. He says what needs to be said in the oligarchs' houses, the things they don't want to say themselves, the things they know deep down are true, without being a threat to their political power. He does their bidding for free, he reads the mood on the streets and brings it back home to the masters.

Put some seat belts in it, put some air bags on it, put some scrubbers on the smokestacks, and carry on business as usual, leaving the compliant consumer units placated and feckless and willing to work too hard for to little yet another day.

Speaking the deeper truths to power is a dangerous business. Nader won't go there, he won't take that risk, and he never has. The blemishes on the surface of corporate America are his main concern. He never addresses the rot within and stays well clear of the rubber bullets and tear gas, the general strikes and the jails, and anything else that might upset the system.