NADER'S 2000 VETO - KNEEL DOWN & PAY HOMAGE

Nader has almost become a name like Quisling or Benedict Arnold but if we can go beyond the dementia of conditioning, we can see that Nader is the man who forbid the Democratic Party from calcifying into republican lite. As the party searches for its and soul, we need to show great respect to Nader.

America's future must not be in the oil fields of Arabia or in the bombing of the innocent children of opec nations. We need this generation at home and not killing and dying in the streets of some third world country merely to satisfy pollution politicians thirst for oil, blood, and power.

By the force of our nation's collective will we can create a whole economy based on renewable energy. It might take a generation or two, but doesn't it make more sense to create in our own back yard what we really need to sustain our existence? That would be much better than following fossil pollution politicians to armageddon for the sake of an energy system that is toxic, expensive, temporary, and evil.

We subsidize our precious oil with a global military, multiple gulf wars, thousands of innocent dead (so-called collateral damage), our own dead and maimed youth, and a debt that we may never pay off. Let's instead put are money in renewable energy. At least the money would stay in this country and not go to some country were it would eventually end in the hands of terrorists.

Be ahead of the history curve. Give Ralph Nader his due.

Bull that man needs to be shown the door!

Respect? If not for Mr Big Ego, President Gore would be naming Supreme Court Justices.

NADER NEEDS TO SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP

Nader is the man that delivered Bush the White House. Its that simple. Gore wouldn't have launched a war with Iraq and he wouldn't have passed tax giveaways to the rich. Nader is the reason we are in this predicament today. Nader is the reason Roe v Wade will likely be overturned and maybe Griswald too.

c.f. Bush v. Gore

Gore would have trivially won the recount... hence Diebold next time around, to prevent recounts being possible.

isn't close without Nader. The Supreme's don't get the case without Nader. Gore would have won by 3 points without Nader in the race.

we wouldn't be in this goddamn mess.

listen to him and read his books.

I'm not the least inclined to read any of his books; he lost ALL credibility in 2000.

NT!

There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance---- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."---Herbert Spencer

Ralph could have helped the Democratic party. He chose not to. I'll let that slide, but I won't give him credit.

I just can't think of anything bad enough.

:nuke:

But I get what you're saying.

THe man clearly has ego problems.

I will NEVER EVER forgive Ralph Nader for 2000!!!!

Oh how different the world would be if he had just not run!

Not to mention all the dead and maimed people.

Or do you think the attacks (LIHOP through MIHOP through plain incompetence all the way through to PNAC) would also have happened under President Gore?

Don't think so. If there's any kneeling to be done, Nader can kneel before his maker and ask forgiveness if he wants, but I'll be happy to stand by with a copy of his record in case he forgets and tries to get up and go off to one of his friendly meetings with his pals on PNAC.

That's a new one to me - what can you offer as evidence? (If true, I'm very interested in the connection!)

Did Biden and Albright bring him into the PNAC fold, or did he make his own way?

This is really very interesting, I hope you have a link handy so I can read up on it.

Who cares what the loser has to say? He didn't care about Americans when it counted.

He had a chance in his life to make an incredible difference and he chose to fuck over the entire world.

I've owned 3 Corvairs over the years and they were a lotta fun!

The Democratic party found it's soul by losing.

You are assuming of course that we ever win again in order to implement the good things you talked about.

By making it clear who we are not, we can become who we are.

we are LOSERS, and that is not who we WOULD have been if he had just shut the hell up!

He's not into anything other than Ralph Nader!

How you English say, 'I one more time, mac, unclog my nose in your direction', sons of a window-dresser!

I wave my private parts at your aunties, you cheesy lot of second hand electric donkey-bottom biters


No chance, English bed-wetting types. I burst my pimples at you and call your door-opening request a silly thing, you tiny-brained wipers of other people's bottoms!

Yes, depart a lot at this time and cut the approaching any more, or we fire arrows at the tops of your heads and make castanets out of your testicles already! Ha ha haaa ha!

And now, remain gone, illegitimate-faced bugger-folk! And, if you think you got a nasty taunting this time, you ain't heard nothing yet, dappy English k-nnniggets! Thpppt!

but until the old senile king dies, the new prince cannot lead us to the promised land. This is a quantum leap in thinking and many cannot bear the great nausea incurred from rising above one's primary conditioning. But do not despise me for acting on my dream of a better world.

I don't see any....do you?

Funny, I remember Nader as that guy who took money from GOP groups so he could stay in the campaign in 2004 and all but sabotaged Gore in 2000.

Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue?, 1966



He's great on some issues, has an excellent past before 2000, yet gets all hopped up on the wrong side and is too naive/simplistic on political realities of our time.

Like Newman's painting, he's bold...but also predictable and questionable on his intent.

Fuck Ralph Nader...

RL

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

It's easier for partisans to blame an outsider than take responsibility.

The freepers spew their vitriol at Clinton, despite the fact that the latter governed as a centrist/rightist.

The liberals despise Nader, despite the fact that the consumer advocate is farther to the left than most of the unprincipled politicos DUers deem "heroes."

Amusing, no?

Clinton was repuke lite and the repukes impeached his ass. What we need is a next level politician who can actually make a difference but out of necessity make deals with devils. Now we have a lot of "unprincipled politicos" who support the status quo and cynically feign whatever view it takes to keep their power.

How is that for irony?

junior is what he is...an evil meglomaniac dictator.

Nader professes to be this clear cut liberal yet he is partially responsible for the mess we are in. Nader accepted Repuke monies. Nader sold out and lost the ability to lead. For that I say forget the idiot.

Gore tried to stop the man who stood up to General Motors 40 years ago. That power play blew up in Gore's face. It was an asinine decision by Gore and he paid the price for his foolish miscalculation.

For that I blame everyone involved......but Nader sealed the deal. Nader's credibility is gone. You need to move on to a Liberal who cares more for us than himself. Try Kucinich. He is genuine.

The neo-liberals, the same doughfaced charlatans who voted for the IWR and the Patriot Act, yearn for nothing more than a kinder, gentler empire. And they get our votes just because they have a soft spot for abortion.

I swear, I feel like I'm in the middle of "Revenge of the Sith": no matter which faction wins, democracy loses. You know why? Because the Republicans and the Separatists are controlled by the same guy.

n/t

I do not despise Nader for his beliefs, but for his strategy. As I said above, He could have helped the Democratic Party. He chose not to. Regardless of how you estimate the cost of that decision not to help, it was, to be redundant, NOT HELPFUL!

If I were running as a third party alternative to a corporatist and militaristic party, you better believe I'd intend to serve as the greatest threat I could possibly be.

Why else would a person run?

He put his agenda above the agenda of those who were trying to DEFEAT the BFEE. He can do that, it is still a moderately free country, but he does not earn any respect from those of us who saw that the most important IMMEDIATE goal was to defeat the BFEE.

In the war against the BFEE, you can't be a conscientious objector

But that doesn't mean I can't admire Nader for being a shit-stormer (a la Eugene Debs and Henry A. Wallace).

What can I say, I like the rebels.

n/t

Your mentor is his greatest asset.

If you've seen the innumerable images of dead Iraqi children as I have, you'd tend to shy away from discriminating between Bushco--which opted for a direct approach by way of cluster bomb--and the Clinton mafioso, who chose the more sophisticated route (8 years of economic sanctions). I'll tell ya, Clinton's Plan Columbia, and the depleted uranium his military left in the soil of Yugoslavia, were real corkers.

Sometimes I wonder whether Bush Sr. and Clinton, who have become bosom buddies of late, ever compare the body counts they've accrued. It would be a fascinating exercise, if only it were to be conducted in the Hague.

Look at the 8 years of prosperity under Bill, and the mess junior has left us in and it looks like night and day. Nader really has you fooled. He tried the same thing as an excuse Nationally and was just as foolish.

No one compares with this administration. You couldn't be more wrong.

And why is it farcical to compare the bloody footprints Clinton left in Iraq, Columbia and Yugoslavia with the ones Junior made in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Haiti?

P.S. I didn't even vote for Nader; I was a reluctant member of the infamous ABB brigade.

For some, though perhaps not the poster you replied to, that's enough to explain away ANY inhumane foreign policy.

Odd that your post ignored his post and instead touched on DOMESTIC policy - which of course was more favorable to Americans under Clinton, no question.

The foreign policy stuff is pretty important, though.

Bush*s BEST assets are The Republican Lites within the Democratic Party. They consistently rise above Party Allegiance and "Party Ideals" to help bush* further destroy the Working Class and continue his Wars.

These are the people Nader warned us about.

I wonder how long it'll take that to sink into the concrete of blind partisans' skulls?

N/T

Nader sold everyone out except the right wing. He is squarely on the scrap heap of history for anyone even remotely on the left. Shit man, even Nader's old buddies hate his traitorous ass.

Well, I guess he could've pulled out their chairs, opened doors, fed them through straws, and let them park in handicapped zones. After all, they don't seem to be able to handle their own fucking campaign! Rove and the filthiest of dirty tricks isn't new.

When a two-percenter becomes the pebble that Democrats complain caused 'em to fall flat on their face, I really gotta wonder whether they're equipped to handle the job in the first place.

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

Every natural-born citizen over 35 years old can run for President. Every voter can vote for whomever they wish, even with a write-in. If the Democratic Party and its partisans can't find anything more productive (i.e. earning support) to do than kvetch and whine that people exercised their rights and entitlements as citizens and voters, then it's unlikely they'll do any better. After all, it's a fucking democracy, right?? Stop talking like you don't like it that way and maybe more people will listen!!!

Quite frankly, it looked like a dive to me. The so-called "centrists" and "DLCers" seem to be taking a dive ... and then pointing the finger of blame at whomever and whatever is handy. If there was only one reason to think they're taking a dive it would be that the Chimperor, by virtue of being the absolute worst pResident in this country's history, should've been beaten like a souffle. And he wasn't. Any decent candidate should've completely buried whatever 'votes' were fraudulent or tallied for third party candidates. They didn't.

Part of the 'dive' seems to be the Keystone Kop partisans running hither, yon, and into each other, pointing the finger of blame du jour. Wow! What 'leadership'! I've yet to see any concerted and coordinated effort to build and articulate a firm, clear, liberal vision to which the 'leadership" (elected Dems) subscribe and promulgate. They ignore Kucinich, the only one I've heard that's steadfastly and unapologetically liberal. They're taking a dive. Wimping out. Apologizing. Kowtowing.

Your are ranting to the wrong guy. You haven't addressed any of MY arguments, yet you reply to MY posts. I said that Ralph could have helped the Democrats, he decided not to, that was his right, I don't like those decisions. That's all I said. Where you get the rest of this crap is beyond me. If you don't wish to address the issues I brought up, that is ok. But if you really want to be appreciated, send your responses to the people who are discussing those issues that you bring up. You seem to want to talk about how terrible the Democrats are. Thats fine, but my discussion is about Ralph's decisions.

preach it!

I voted for Gore/Lieberman. I voted for Kerry/Edwards. I served in Viet Nam. I'll defend any person's right to vote for anyone they wish, and defend any natural-born American over 35 years old who wishes to be a candidate for the Presidency. Nobody owes anyone their vote. I reject the "bogeyman" scare tactics as the moral equivalent of Smirk's "Terra! Terra! Terra!" campaign. It is no more ethical for a Democrat to proclaim "if you're not with us, you're against us" than it is for the Chimperor to make such an asinine claim.

Harris, and Jeb, or maybe Gore was a terrible candidate, making it so close that any of these things matter. :dem:

More Florida Dems voted for b*s* than Floridians who voted for Nader.

90,000+ Democratic voters were illegally purged from the voting rolls before the election.

Harris was co-chair of the b*s* campaign.

Early use of DRE voting machines showed many quirks and potential fraud.

The USSC made a one-time ruling they didn't really have the authority to make to stop the recount that would have showed that Gore WON Florida.

But somehow, everything from the war in Iraq to global warming is "Nader's fault".

I'm no fan of the guy's ego, but for fuck's sake, some people are so blinded by their hatred of Nader that they ignore or explain away the rightwing coup that took place - a reaction the rightwing surely loves and counts on.

Have fun enabling the thieves, guys - I won't join in your myopic fascination with Nader's small role in the 2000 election.

male body parts are NOT required for courage; understand ?

but ARE YOU BLIND?

Nader is the reason that Shrub got as close as he did in Florida so he could have his Court buddies steal the election!

Gore lost 130,000+ votes because of Vader!

So I consider not having a Democratic President "any" of the party's problems.

I consider not having a President Gore appoint one, two or maybe THREE Supreme Court Justices "any" of the party's problems.

I agree that Dems don't stand up to the Repukes, but NADER is the reason we don't have someone in the WH and appoint those in the SC

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

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

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

the majority, what do they stand now that they are in the minority, and whether there is a correlation between standing for something or standing for whatever the wind brings.

In addition to all that, none of us can afford to ignore the serious flaws in our electoral system, including how the votes are counted.

A political party can be either a party of coalition with the government, or it can be a party of opposition. There is no middle ground on this! We can be a political party or a political society, but we cannot be both.

Some Democrats had the misguided notion that the way to be successful was by enabling the Republican agenda, to never oppose them on issues such as national security or civil rights. If the Democratic vision for this country were similar to that of the GOP, one could entertain such notions like the ones advocated by DLC stalwarts such as Al From. On the other hand, if the Democratic vision for this country is materially different from that of the GOP, it doesn't make sense to make it easy for the GOP to achieve its goals.

there is no clear message. It is either a "yes dear" to the repukes or a frothing cacophony of anger. Where's the message?

...but it's shocking to see some of the responses to this thread. Many of the posts sound like RWingers attacking their most hated enemy. What I see is denial about a broken election system and perhaps the most corrupt government in American history.

And I'm sure the Bushie Republicans love to see the so-called 'left' act like them when it comes to choosing scapegoats that completely avoid the real problems. They probably relish the thought of most of the blame for 2000 being directed elsewhere.

I hope to God that the posts on this thread don't represent the majority of Democrats. But I have a feeling it does. It's a reflection of why Democrats are in the minority and perpetual victims.

It always amazes me, too - people can choose between blaming Nader, or THE ACTUAL COUP THAT TOOK PLACE...and go with Nader.

Insane.

Welcome to DU - but don't expect many Nader lovers here! :hi:

N/T

he appears only in the year before election year.

I used to support Nader. Met him once. Actually participated in a little joke he played on Dan Quayle.

But what Nader did in 1999/2000 was about Nader's ego and not much more.

Whatever else you may say: We are paying the price for what he did. He has to accept that.

campaign has proven its stupidity.

... this argument gets rehashed here every few months. As the level to which this administration will stoop and fail becomes more and more apparent, many of us become more and more angry.

There was no single factor in the decision going to Bush in 2000. The players involved include:

1) A less-than-stellar campaign by Gore

2) Questionable actions and downright fraud in Florida

3) A Supreme Court that will live in infamy, 5 members who tarnished their names in history forever

4) Ralph Nader taking precious votes after saying he wouldn't in key states



Now, let's review each of these. Gore made mistakes, but he was doing the best he could. Believe me, if he had it to do over, he'd do much better. I am reluctant to blame a person who is doing their best with the best intentions, so I still have a measure of respect for Al Gore.

Florida, what can we say? We all know what went on. A Republican machine set into motion a series of moves to deprive Gore of votes. They were our enemy, and they played that role - no surprise here.

The SC is supposed to be non-partisan, but it proved otherwise. Once they stuck their butts into it, there was nothing we could do. Again, forces against us wielded power against us, not really a surprise.

Now Nader. Nader, the progressive. Nader who claims to want the same things most progressives want. Nader, who convinced himself perhaps, that there really was no difference between the Dems and the Reps. Nader, who is supposed to be a friend of progressive, who put the final nail in Gore's candidacy.

What is different about Nader? Nader was supposed to be our friend, that's what. It gained him NOTHING to get those votes in FL, but it might we have cost Gore the election. We'll never really know, it is possible that the Republican machine would have found a way to steal a few more votes or whatever. But the point is that it was a treacherous act. If someone takes a knife to my back, the fact that it didn't kill me isn't much of a mitigating factor in my mind. We're looking at intent here, and Nader was JUST PLAIN FLAT EGREGIOUSLY WRONG in his assertion that Bush or Gore are equivalent, and he actively and treacherously went about thwarting Dems. I don't think he is a force for good.

...I'm puzzled over the "betrayal" thing.

Nader is not a Dem. He did not run as a Dem. He ran as an alternative to both parties.

However flawed his comparison of the two parties (not as completely flawed as some suggest - corporatism really IS a huge problem with both parties), he never claimed to be on the Dems' side, so I don't see how it was betrayal to run against Gore.

If you mean it was betrayal to run in Florida...I kinda disgaree. I'd say that was breaking a promise, and that's a betrayal of trust, but anyone who thought Nader was on Gore's side was fooling themselves.

A shitty thing to do, but betrayal? Wouldn't he have to be loyal in order to betray?

I don't know, just thinking out loud here.

He was supposed to be on our side. Not as in on the Democratic party's sid. Our side as in the little people. The consumers. The workers. The environment. The elderly. Children. The powerless people of the world. He betrayed people, not a political party, with what he did and what was so despicable about it was that he knew he was doing it. He was not an alternative to one of the two major parties. The ONLY roll he could play was that of spoiler to the Democratic candidate and he played it willingly. And he had every reason to know how bad it could get.

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

This is a man who had the opportunity to help the American people by withdrawing from a race he had NO hope of winning and making sure George Bush wouldn't get in the White House. He stubbornly, for reasons not really disclosed, decided to stay in the race and LET BUSH IN. Any complaints Ralph has today will only fall on deaf ears. He had a good reputation and could have built a solid base for himself. His credibility is gone. He should just be thankful he can walk away from it.

I didn't expect all the venom here at DU. Nader is the John Huss of American politics. People are so focussed on winning the next election, that a broad strategy for the always new day gets sacrificed.

Many, like me, want to get the neo and theocons out of DC.

If you can't tell we're widely diverse here, I don't know what to say.

I don't blame Nader for the loss in 2004, nor wholly balme him in 2000. But as a political mind, well, he ain't my cup of tea.

We fight with the gloves off in GD/P. We aren't delicate by any means. I welcome differing opinions, but if you are going to post things that I disagree with, you are going to hear from me.

I don't think you quite got my main point, either. KNEEL DOWN before anyone in all caps is gonna give me a rise.

I'd like to think it would do the same for any progressive.

n/t

Enough of Nader.

Ralph...Go Away!

would *still* be a dickhead.

And with good reason. Not ONLY was he a hypocrite for taking money from the likes of the Swiftboat Vets. for "Truth" but he tried to throw around his "power" by saying he hoped Kerry would pick Edwards for his running mate, saying that would "help." Why the heck should he care who the Dems. pick for VP, state it publicly, hold meetings with the Dems., declare the Dems. are "better" than the Repubs., then go on to run anyway after what happened in 2000? And the FACT is that if he didn't run in 2000 this country would be in a whole lot better shape. Bush wouldn't have been able to steal the election. Gore would've gotten about 100,000 more votes in FL. They did the math on who would've not voted, who would've voted for Bush, and who would've voted for Gore. So you're right. He was drunk with power and it was all about him.

history will record Nader for who he is

the man who fucked this country

right in the ass

Nader could run in 2008, assuming his ego hasn't dwindled. President Frist? Allen? Delay? Bush? Just shoot me now and get it over with.

:rofl: :spray:

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

8 Years of Bushnader or 8 years of Gore/Lieberman

Who do you choose?

I know who most rational DU'er would choose.

There were not any other REAL choices.


Loser! (Your choice of words...not mine)

seems like we took the bait huh?