If Gore or Clinton is the nominee, watch for Nader to rear his ugly mug.

He's already indicated that he's considering a run in 2008.

Here's why:

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

RALPH NADER AS MAD BOMBER
_______________________________________________


Harry G. Levine

Department of Sociology, Queens College, City University of New York
March 2004 / hglevine@hereinstead.com

In the year 2000, Ralph Nader strapped political dynamite onto himself and walked into one of the closest elections in American history hoping to blow it up. He wanted to punish the Clinton-Gore Democrats for having betrayed him and the causes he believes in. His primary campaign mission was defeating Al Gore, but Nader concealed this from his supporters, even as he went after votes in swing states like Florida. On the day after election day, when everyone else was grim, and many Democrats were furious at him, Ralph Nader was a happy man.

The following essay presents evidence for this large claim and describes how I first learned this in the fall of 2000. Since the election, political discussions about Nader's campaign have often focused on its electoral effect. Did Nader's 97,000 votes in Florida defeat Al Gore making George W. Bush president? Most observers seem to agree that they did, but others insist that many factors defeated Gore. However, independent of the effect of the Nader campaign on the election results, one can ask about what Nader wanted to have happen. Now that he has decided to run again, in what promises to be another very close election, it is worth examining what Ralph Nader intended the last time.

SNIP

The combination of the Nader rally, Glasser's email, the weird encounter with Michael Moore, and the conversation with Tarek changed everything. Together they brought me into Nader's own Lewis Carroll-like alternate reality -- to the other side of the looking glass. Suddenly Nader was not a hero. Suddenly he seemed to have the soul of, say, Richard Nixon.

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.

SNIP

disastrous result.

:(

I suggest you look into them more closely.

the Green's help.

This is not a reason for Gore to back down, if he's interested in running, however. Just something for which he should be prepared.

Demonizing him doesn't do much.

THAT is what's fueling any potential jump into the race. It's got NOTHING to do with helping the country.

Strange egomaniac...

Then why did he RUN?

the Green party by jumping into the race.

Look at the disaster we have now from his interference.

Hopefully, we will not see a replay in 2008.

Much of his agenda SHOULD be the Democratic agenda anyway.

We SHOULD back single-payer health care.
We SHOULD push hard for real electoral reform.
We SHOULD challenged corporate power.
We SHOULD have an egalitarian vision of America.
We SHOULD, while being prepared to defend the country against outside attack, be skeptical about military solutions.

Whatever Nader's own secret motivations, the 2000 campaign showed the real depth of feeling there is in this country for a clear break with the conservative vs "moderate" status quo. We can win if we engage that sentiment.

"Moderation", whatever it once was, is a spent force and not worth trying anymore.

And they will be watching WHO the greens take their donations from.

Nader should just STFU and stay OUT of it. :grr:

several times if Clinton wins the nomination.

He says he is thinking about it.

I've seen it online but I'm not going to do them the favor of posting it.

I don't think he matters. His running shouldn't alter our strategy or our nomination choices.
.

Nader outlined a few steps for Kerry to actually win the election. Kerry ignored them. So Nader ran to hold Kerry's feet to the fire, while the Greens pretty much held the consensus that they wanted Kerry to win.

He's quite absolved (not that he was guilty of much to begin with); mad bomber he is not.

Too few Americans vote (only 65%)for a third party. Bush's base is 35% (29% if you believe the latest polls) and they all vote. Dem base doesn't always vote.

Please. Don't do it Ralph.

in not challenging the results seriously. Not a single Senator stood for the voters.

I think Ralph's usefulness also isn't in the Presidential race it's elsewhere but I don't blame him for 2000. Anyone who can run against Bush and not win by 10 percent has their own issues.

But then, he's the only one who shines his own halo publicly. :eyes:

This unfact being dragged up repeatedly doesn't make it true.

But when you want to SPIN, it's easier to call something an *unfact*.

"UNfact" -- weee, a NEW word!

Enjoy your stay on DU. :rofl:

Once the Supreme Court ruled against him, there was nothing legal that he personally could do to become President in 2000.

There were other things that other people could have done - - most importantly, a single Senator would have had to join the Florida 13 to challenge the Florida electors. Excepting or challenging the electors is the responsibility of the legislative branch. Gore, as Vice President, did not have the ability to challenge the electors in Congress.

But even if a Senator had joined the challenge to the Florida electors, there was no chance that challenge would have led to Gore being declared President. There was some question about what would happen after the electors were challenged, but none of the possible scenarios would have gotten Gore into the Oval Office. Either:

1.) The Congress would vote to except the Florida electors, and Bush would be President. This is the most likely scenario, since the Republicans had the majority in Congress.
2.) The Congress would vote to reject the Florida electors, and the Governor of Florida was supposed to pick a new set of electors. Given that the Governor of Florida was Jeb Bush, G.W. Bush would be President.
3.) The Congress would vote to reject the Florida electors, and the Florida State Legislature would pick a new set of electors. The Florida state legislature was heavily Republican and had issued a statement that if Gore was declared the winner, they would send a new, pro-Bush set of electors up to D.C., so we know with 100% certainty that if they got to choose, Bush would be President.
4.) Any one of these scenarios would cause Team Bush to ask the Supreme Court to step in again and proclaim Bush President. Since they already stepped in to an area where they had no jurisdiction and proclaimed Bush President, they almost certainly would have agreed to step in and declare whatever course was being pursued unconstitutional and declare that Bush was President.

As Gore himself has said many times, once the Supreme Court ruled against him, there was no remedy except to launch a civil war. If you really think we'd be better off having a civil war, I respectfully suggest you take a tour of duty (or two or three) in Iraq and experience a civil war in person.

people who don't follow his advice.

You're right, he's not a mad bomber. He quite coldly, lucidly, knows exactly what he is doing.

It's anyone who votes for him in the future who is crazy.

...who didn't deserve an ounce of it. The fact is he's done much more good as a private citizen than most of our politicians in public office have done. I don't think he should run for President again but this Boogiemanning of him is getting ludicrious.

His EGO keeps him jumping into this race.

I'm sick of these old men running races on things they did 20 years ago.

Psychoanalysis from afar. Freud's ghost must be jealous!

And then discuss it.

But you have a very idealistic view of Nader which is not borne out by the facts.

who is Nader that one has to listen to him and he can hold others feet the the fire ?

i have a hard time believing or trusting anyone who thought there was no difference between Bush and Gore. Nader never won any elected office.

Nader also said he didn't care if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade .

He's in no matter WHO the nominee is. Trust me.

Last week went a long way to prove that there really ISN'T much difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. Some of us were disheartened and heart-broken about it, but I have a feeling it just lit a fire under Nader's a**.

TC

Wrong, if it means doing the best thing for the country and not just his huge, narcissistic ego.

If he did he wouldn't stick his neck out so much. After all in 2004 he advised Kerry on how to beat Bush -- he was only running to make Kerry more progressive.

He has an ENORMOUS ego. Sometimes that's a good thing, and sometimes it's not, but it makes him act like he's just this side of delusional most of the time.

(btw -- everyone in politics has a HUGE ego. They have to have one to do the things they do.)

TC

Indeed anyone going to the show must have a huge ego, it's mandatory I think, but he had this teensy bit of ego not entirely commensurate with the whole package sort of thing going on.

Ain't it the truth?

TC

and personally is very difficult to get along with.

As has been reported frequently by his ex-followers.

of Nader.:thumbsup:

What a monster, indeed.

that wonderful part of his legacy has been nearly negated. What he'll be remembered for is 2000 and 2004. It's human nature.

TC

All recieved more than the Bush-Gore vote gap in Florida -- not that the election was legitimate to begin with. Thousands of people disenfranchised by Mr. Rove and Ms. Harris, after all. And of course the Democratic Leadership wouldn't send out one Senator to challenge the election because "Gore told them not to." What about the tens of millions who voted for Gore? They should just go home and die because Gore decided not to challenge election integrity?

And ah yes Lieberman in the VP slot. The guy who wanted to invade Iraq only a few weeks after 9/11...

It seems Nader is just a convenient punching bag. That's sad.

but you conveniently forget that little fact. :eyes:

The Reform and Constitution folks often have GOP constituency.

And I don't think Nader minded Republicans giving him money, whereas in some states they voted twice as many in number as Democrats for him (New Hampshire). A populist candidate attracts all political parties disaffected members.

that Nader has done. Also, there really is enough blame to go around for everyone on the 2000 loss. My support was and is for Gore who I respect immensely for the things he has done and could have done if he had won the election. I really do not think our country would be in this mess now if he had won. Having said that, I was pissed at him in the way he ran his campaign and I always felt he should have run on the 8 great years he and Clinton had and he should have had Clinton out there every day on the campaign trail. However, he got sucked in as the Dem party did by the media and republicans talking up the fact he had to distance himself from Clinton. That was pure BS as Clinton went out one of the most popular presidents we have had and he could have put Gore over the top.

With all that and Nader in the race, you see what the result was and is.

I am all for Ralph helping out in some way and yes, he has done a lot of good for all of us and I do believe his heart may be in the right place but he needs to stay out of the presidential race and find another avenue for helping whoever the candidate is going to be. We cannot stand another republican term especially with the potential of more Supreme Court justices that could be appointed.

But, if you meet him, ask him... he'll take all the credit for saving us from ourselves, so I think it's fitting to assign him all the blame as well.

TC

has been corrupted by power. And he has even admitted that he prefers to have a bigger boogeyman in the White House. From the same article:

"He excoriated the Democrats in general, called Gore and Clinton 'liars,' and said: 'Let me tell you something: I'd rather have a provocateur than an anesthetizer in the White House. Remember what James Watt did for the environmental movement? He galvanized it. Gore and his buddy Clinton are anesthetizers. '"

________

Got it? Nader would rather have a James Watt in an administration, galavanizing Nader's supporters -- and increasing the donations to his organization.

I've talked to a few Green Party people in the past weeks and it is pretty much a given that they don't want Nader to run as a Green.

There are reasons such as some financial issues as well as the fact that he doesn't do much for the Greens after he loses...as well as a lot of Greens don't think he actually helps thir cause anyway.

it will be our job and our mandate to make sure the Nadar doesn't have a chance in the world...

It will be our job to remind all of those who voted for Nadar....helped put the current President in office....

I am sorry if this hurts peoples feelings but it's time to stop dancing around the issue here....

We will remind them that 3500 + AMERICAN soldiars are dead because of that vote....

We will remind them that 9/11 happened on * watch...the President that they aided....

Folks this election...this election is going to be the most pivotal election in American history.....our lives, our futures are on the line...

Make no mistake about it if another ideologue Republican gets into office..Romney, Guilliani, Thompson.....(because votes were given to the green party or third party) our country, the United States of America will be not the America that we grew up in...it will not be the America the founding fathers invisioned.....

Last election PDiddy (Puff Daddy) the wrapper had a vote slogan "Vote or Die".....people made fun of him and the slogan.....well his slogan was right on then and it is right on now....Use your vote wisely....because you won't be able to take it back.....

it will be our job and our mandate to make sure the Nadar doesn't have a chance in the world...

...quit dicking around and be Democrats. Nader'll never have a chance.

where I was going...

because I didn't spend a lot of time venting on what "Nadar" voters need to be reminded about...

I would call it reminder..."There are always consequences for ones actions.....even though there are good intentions"....

We all need to be reminded once in a while...because sometimes we forget. I am including myself in this category.....

In the end...the Democratic party must win...I will tell you this.. when it is decided who our Democratic nominee will be....no matter who it is...I will work tirelessly to get him/her elected.

That's my pledge....that's my duty...

and nor has it ever been. We are a big tent and there is room for everyone. While some will see a progressive as a breathe of fresh air, others will see lefty wackos. Please remember that this country has been pulled way to the right, just as the article stated. To get back to the center ala Clinton/Gore in one Presidential term will be a amazing, to get any more left than that, would be a miracle.

While people are fed up with Bush, they are not ready to quit the repub party. Even here, many are pointing to Ron Paul, but Thompson may have a great chance with repubs, even those who voted for Kerry last time. And with the media we have, any one left of center is going to be called a wacko, just look how Kucinich is treated.

Here in DU land, being left is good and fine, put like they say "it won't play in Peoria".

zalinda

Too bad Kerry wouldn't take on the corporate agenda seriously in 2004 which would've won him the election easily. Populism always plays in America; it's proven.

I doubt if Populism would play in the time of war. Remember, during the elections many people still were not against the war, in fact about 50% of all people STILL believed Saddam had something to do with 9/11, and 70% of the repubs did. The media was very complicit in keeping this lie alive. Even here in Syracuse, I ran into many people who still believed the BIG LIE and our paper printed the truth about the war in June of 2004.

I was surprised that Kerry did so well. Probably every TV station in the country played the swiftboats' ad on their news show, they did here on all stations at 11. They probably played it at the 5 and 6 news hour too. There was little, if any, rebuttal of the commercial. People also don't like to change "horses in mid stream", and while Bush wasn't doing well in Iraq, few thought that he was incompetent as they do now. And, we also know that Rove is the king of dirty tricks and media manipulation, so unless there had been a landslide, with the media behind him, Kerry didn't have a chance.

Now that people are tired of the war, and gouged at the gas pump, populism may work. But, you have to understand, while people are sick about corporate and outsourcing, they are very careful about what and to who they say it. Their reasoning, corporate is what gives me my job, if I attack them they will go away and I'll lose my job. Again, media's fault....headlines....City loses 5,000 jobs, Big Company cuts 1,300 jobs........Big Company relocates to Cheaper City and so on.

People are not as smart as you give them credit. Many, many people (and I was dumb founded when I found this to be true), either don't care or aren't curious. We, here at DU and on other forums are the exceptions not the rule. We watch CSPAN, we read newspapers, we read blogs, we read magazines, we look for the truth, other people.......not so much. It's a sad state of affairs, but that is where this country is, that is why so few vote.

zalinda

:shrug:

at his own game, be Democrats. Nader was considered to be left of center. Again, I will say, the repubs have moved this country to the right, starting with Reagan. We are so far to the right, as a country that Nixon and Eisenhower read like liberals.

If Nader truly wanted what was best for this country he would have pulled out. But he didn't care about the little people, so he was worse than an centrist dem, because he KNEW they would get hurt. He wanted to teach the dems a lesson, and damn the millions of people who would be hurt or died because of his actions.

Nader is not stupid, he knew what he was doing, he was slighted and got even, no matter how many people get hurt. He also knows, or should, that this country is like a huge boulder, with leverage you can move it, but only a little at a time. If Gore had been allowed to be President, we could have moved the country a little more to the left. While there was the possibility that we wouldn't move any more to the left, we certainly wouldn't have moved more to the right and we would not have RW supreme court justices.

zalinda

The Dems don't have to take the Greens' position on everything, or even many things, to render progressive, third party threats moot. Then again, taking the position that the country's so far to the right that we can get away with being Dwight Eisenhower is a recipe for continued conflict.

voting their conscience, period. Its stupid and undemocratic.

The winner (usually the person you don't want to win) doesn't care about your opinion, and the loser isn't any longer in a position to hear or do anything about that anyway. Also the types of candidates that "voting your conscience" usually creates are the kind of candidates that aren't very practical about politics, so they don't get anything done anyway.

At least if you vote for a Democrat-even a compromised one-you can get people on the lower levels elected who can listen-and someone who holds the line on other issues such as choice, freedom of religion, freedom to marry and other issues. Considering the toxic stuff coming out of the Republican Party lately-OOg the Caveman is more loving and progressive-any breathing Democrat is better.

Nader could have run as a Democrat and actually placed himself in a position to influence Democrats directly instead of asking them to take up his causes indirectly. He could have been Representative or Senator Nader, an appointed head of the EPA, or at least have gotten like-minded Democrats elected. He could have been the "Naderite" wing of the Party. Instead he sulks outside the tent and moans that Clinton and Gore didn't give him sufficient attention.

Just like Republicans and any other political party mostly based on how they appeal to voters, they cannot rightly blame some voters for voting one way or another, and constantly demonize them forever after if they want those same voters' votes the next time they are up for election.

to be the Democratic candidate and Nader won't be an issue.

"This is not an administration that's as mean as it could be. Bush is not that kind of character."

Bush mean? Nadir says "No"

you do not need to reinterpret Nader's words for us.

I believe it is true that Bush is not as mean as he could be....like any evil that decides to remain in power he is as mean as he can get away with.

See how loose those interpretations can get?

Just post the words if you want to make a point.

is precisely why he is so villified by many here.

There are many people who will place party before principle, and you will see those people excoriate anyone who is thinking of not voting for the party as a "Naderite", often out of the blue.

A person's vote is their own, it is their right to vote any way they see fit. No party owns anyone's vote, and to presume that indicates a fundamental disconnect with the tenets on which this nation was founded.

The loss of the 2000 election is a multivariate problem, and that is a fact (butterfly ballot, hanging chads, failure to appeal to a broader range of voters, Nader's candidacy, media complicity, semi-riots by Republican operatives, corruption in the Supreme Court, etc.). That is not up for dispute, as the article seems t indicate in the first couple of paragraphs. The very fact that the article tries to cast doubt on the facts indicates to me that there is an agenda in the rest of the article, and that may be to bring up the demon spectre of Ralph Nader, the man who single-handedly brought us Bush, to keep all you pissed-off little lefties in line with the party even though your stomach's hurt from being kicked in by our leadership on recent bills.

That frame worked in 2001 up until 2004. It doesn't work, any more.

I will not villify another DUer, my brother/sister in arms, for a vote for Nader, past or present. I know why they voted the way they did, and I cannot disagree with their principles, if not their strategy. I believe that making other progressives feel obliged to vote for the party and raising up the spectre of Ralph Nader is a form of Democratic McCarthyism that has no place in a community that is charged with acting in good faith.

If NAder wants to run, he will find what he found in 2004, a pissed-off group of lefties who are waaaaay less strategically naive than they were in 2000. Hell, most of the blogosphere are more knowledgeable about gaining power for the left than Nader is. Nader doesn't seem to know that there is a power struggle in the party right now....once caused by the awakening of the left and the slow rise of populism. If he runs, he will receive very few votes, but it won't be a result of Democratic loyalists running around with his head on a pike for all to see what happens to traitors to the party.