Ralph Nader as Mad Bomber

This is an important article about Nader that suggests his real motive in 2000 was to punish the Democrats for not adhering to his agenda over the years. He was especially angry at Clinton and passionately hated Gore, according to this. It is a long article, but here are two snippets that give a feel for what is said:

http://www.soc.qc.edu/Staff/levine/Ralph-Nader-As-Suicide-Bomber.html

In Tarek's unforgettable phrase, Ralph Nader wanted to hurt, wound and punish the Democrats. This was much more than indifference. Nader was not simply opposed to helping the Democrats, he actually wanted Gore to lose. He didn't particularly want to elect Bush, but his desire to punish the Democrats out-weighed that. It also seemed to me that the desire to hurt Gore was not Tarek's personal mission, it was his beloved uncle's crusade.

Further, I had learned that the campaign's mission of punishment trumped getting political influence for Nader and for the causes he had long fought for. It trumped the potentially brutal effect of a Bush presidency on many Americans and other innocent people around the world. Punishment wasn't Nader's only campaign goal, just the most important one. But his supporters were not being told this. The campaign was not putting on their banners the motto: "Vote For Ralph Nader Because He Wants To Punish, Hurt And Wound The Democrats."

snip

Then, in October 2002, the reporter Jonathan Chait published an article titled "The Man Who Gave Us Bush" in the magazine The American Prospect. It was technically a review of two new books, Justin Martin's biography (Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon) and Nader's own book about the campaign, Crashing the Party. Chait, however, had more in mind than book reviewing. He used the space to make a thoroughly-argued case that Nader intended to defeat Gore and that he had lied throughout the campaign to disguise this. A few others had said this in print before, but only briefly. Armed with new information from the two books, Chait launched a full-scale attack on Nader's career and credibility. Although Chait was, I think, overly dismissive of Nader's many earlier achievements, his arguments about what Nader intended and did in the campaign are sound.

Nader ran for president based on his reputation for honesty and truthfulness, for being a reformer who tells it like it is. But in order to justify what he was doing, throughout his campaign, and then in his book, Nader misled and misinformed his often young followers in a multitude of ways. Chait described well the techniques Nader used to fend off questions that he could help Bush.

Hey, that's progressing! The Two Minutes' Hate sessions need to be shaken up from time to time with new material.

is posted on Buzzflash today. It's very long. I read it and it makes a convincing case that Nader set out to see that Gore would lose and was happy when it happened.

It's not a "two minute hate." Read the article and decide for yourself.

Nader, his trust fund "looking to find themselves" college students, tenured college professors and limousene liberals don't have to live with the consequences a Bush presidency. There is a reason why Nader polled poorly among non-whites and working people: they are the ones who have to live with the consequences of a Bush presidency.

Drunk on Ego and Power he cares nothing for the "causes" he used to champion.

as badly out of touch with real America as Gee Dubya is. He knows absolutely nothing about the majority of us, and I really haven't seen any evidence that he even cares anything about the majority of us.

and besides that it's a dupe.

is something I hadn't heard. I think itis important to get the story out.

remember the GOP money? The Grover Norquist friendship? Ralphie just loved playing with the big guys - still does. And when a Naderite attacks Kerry, remind him that while Tweedle-dum Gore was speaking against the war in Iraq (BEFORE IWR), Nader was fighting for the Lakers/NBA.

Cheney-Nader-Bush isn't going to get 40% combined.

Ralph Nader will justifiably go down as one of the most insidious Repukes in American history for his role in the 2000 election, but the twirp and his supporters will be useless and meaningless in 2004.

Kerry will kick the entire set of Repukes back to obscurity.

for putting Nadar on the top ten conservative idiots list. It made DU sound every bit as shrill and insane as Ann Coulter.

The article can't believe that anyone would claim there is no difference between Gore an Bush. Look at what the Clinton presidency did: it signed one of the most punitative anti-welfare bills since welfare's start.

Just look at Kerry and Bush right now. Kerry wants to *increase* the military. And why do I want to vote for this guy, I keep asking myself?

Under both Democratic and Republican presidencies, people's lives continue to get worse--their health insurance becomes unaffordable and they work longer hours. The US has waged illegal wars under both Democrats and Republicans and supported a brutal foreign policy.

And the article actually has the nerve to criticize Nader supporters for being rich and out of touch with the common people? How many Democrats are not millionairs? Besides, this "we stand for the common man" argument is the same bogus stuff the Republicans throw at us. In fact, all politicians give us this crap.

Democrats need to take seriously people's discontent with the party and how the Democrats keep selling out the people they claim to help instead of becoming Nadar bashers.

Yes, I now that Nader has a bit of an ego and now may not be the time for him to run. But I am really sick of the Nader bashers.