In 2000, the argument from Nader was that there was too little difference between Gore and Bush

to matter.

Gore is the ANTI-BUSH. He is everything dim son isn't. How heartbreaking to find out the hard way.

spouting that exact particular line.

I'm not always right, but I certainly was then.

O8)

right AND happy, and had Gore take the office that he won in that election.

And Nader certainly didn't help.

I've studied ACIM and know this question but I don't know what YOU mean by this... please explain?

:shrug:

On DU, the assertions regarding Nader's alleged responsibility (or lack thereof) are hardly balanced or proportional. Such assertions serve to exonerate the Bush voters and the gross violations of justice in elections. Further, such a diagnostic serves to misdirect any affirmative efforts to impove conditions.

In consideration of all this and more, I can only wonder why anyone would continue to cling to a matter of such belief at the cost of cooperative efforts to achieve compatible goals. It doesn't seem productive to me - i.e. it doesn't seem to lead to better choices.



I try to keep the mental image of a sign before me: "Stop! Look!! Choose." (It's a LOT better than counting to 10, I've found.)

I refer to the NLP Presuppositions. I'm sure not perfect in my practice. Yet.

grossly wrong he was. I don't blame Nader for Bush. I blame the SCOTUS.

and teaches it to all his male friends!!

it infuritates me!!

hubby chooses happy!!

fly...the wife that is always right!!

... on his next birthday, for Christmas, or just because you love him.

David is a personal acquaintance of mine - and he's for real. (I find the 5th track particularly relevant for me. The 2nd is "chicken soup" for the liberal soul, imho.)

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2000-10-12
Funny how time changes all things.
I support Gore but I don't support the BS that Nader is the reason Bush won. I can't slice crap that thin. If Democrats had been Democrats it would have been a damn landslide. And they still have not gotten the picture, look at the war funding and the fallout that will come from that.
Now I'm no big fan of James Carville but he nailed it the other night speaking with Leon Penneta and Bill O.
"The good news for Democrats is that they will have to talk their way out of the Presidency, the good news for Republicans is that they are perfectly capable of it.”

:rofl: :rofl:

Well said. I sure do agree. of course.
It's such 'box canyon' for reasoning, I just can't see the value of such a perspective.

He was far less so back in 2000, IMO.

This is not to say that he wasn't a far better option back then, he was, but I don't think anyone considers the Al Gore of today anything close to the Al Gore of 2000.

of Bobby Kennedy. It's hard to come up with a list of public figures who are willing to do that. :)

I think the Clinton influence in 2000 was too strong. I'd have voted for Gore in 2004, and he'll be right up there if he runs this time.

more able to be himself in public.

Philosophically, he was progressive then and he is now.

I think he is as loose as he was in 2000.

At one point, he was a literal "wooden speaker". I don't think I have ever seen a worse speaker, and I've been to a lot of business meeting and conferences. But one of the reasons why I so greatly admire the man is his ability to overcome every obstacle he has set his mind to.

LIEberman as his running mate. He didn't need to do that in order to secure the Jewish vote for the Democrats (most Jews vote Dem anyway). Gore chose LIEberman as part of his move to distance himself from Clinton and the Lewinsky stink.

Gore was a DLCer. I don't know where he stands on the DLC or "New" Democrats now but in 2000 he was pure DLC.

Had we had to Gore of today in 2000, the results would have been much different. All of those Dems who voted for Bush because he seemed like a good guy to have a beer with, might have voted for Gore. Heck, Gore might have carried his state of Tennessee.

If the Dems continue the Republican tradition of giving Bush everything he wants, a la war funding, then they may find themselves working hard for their seats in 2008.

a LOT of us. Biggest difference? Gore doesn't have to steal elections. Gore wins them.

http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/3076161

:shrug:

Who are you talking about?

when the election was obviously stolen. Not one.

But it hurt to see Al Gore left standing at the altar. So much. And it hurt to see no one stand up for ripped off black voters. We can't let that happen ever again. EVER. That's how they stole OH, too, in 2004.

We can do better than that.

and every time i even think about it my heart breaks. that was horrible.

We can never allow that to happen again. :cry:

and he's decimated everything the Nader votes believed in.

Anyone who can seriously argue Nader didn't cost Gore the presidency is simply in denial. This has been litigated and litigated on DU since 2001.

It's a little surprising to see someone contend that since the Supremes made an outrageous decision, THEY caused Bush to be President. Nader behaves like a grown-up, the Supremes don't even get involved.

How do you spell S-I-N-E Q-U-A N-O-N?

either way

And the vote cout shows that Gore won

It was the USSC... I know nobody wants to blame the rightful owner of the guilt here, but oh well

It's not an agree or disagree issue.

sent Jim Baker to fix the election.

It doesn't matter how many votes Nade got, Baker was sent in to fix it for Junior.

Geezus, can we please just identify the biggest threat to our republic? It's not Nader.

figured that out. Nader is just a distraction, imho.

very popular among Democrats. Without Ross Perot in the 1992, we very well may have had a second Bush I administration. Ross Perot definitely took votes away from Bush I, thus tipping the election to Bill Clinton.

There's a LOT of work to be done ... and far more than one election will flow under the bridge before that work is done.

Trying to lay all the blame at the feet of Ralph Nader is childish and lame. It's what I expect from guys like James Carville and Paul Begala.

At least Nader didn't have a neo-con fool like Lieberman as his running mate...

Lieberman was Gore's VP, he's only one upped by Dick Cheney in his support for this war.

I think the neo-cons planned it that way.

Unfortunately, they are all too capable of arranging THAT sort of thing when they want their war on.

I understood the broad argument. That the Dems and Rethugs were majorly corrupted by lobbyists and corporatism, etc., but it was a greatly overemphasized argument in the details - to the point of being pure sloganeering and branding. I have found out that Gore was MORE effective and compassionate than I expected and that Bush was MORE corrupt and sociopathic than I was aware. But not by much.

or the future of peace in the middle East or natural disaster recovery or Social Security or corporate domination of our government or the education system in the US or international relationships...or even 9/11, when it comes right down to it. There would not have been a 9/11 if Gore had been allowed to take his rightful place in the White House.

Think of all the lives that would have been spared, here and in the Middle East. Think of how much better off just about every person on this planet might have been...

:grr: when I hear that. We are still living with the catastrophic effects of that lie.

:D

Consider this thread a gift.

well done :)

People wonder about my posts, "why do you have to keep talking about Nader?" Well, I want to establish a good base of contempt for his run, so that it's all prepared should he announce.

Check.

I'd rather have that than for the government to decide what is a smear and what is not a smear. And there are plenty of facts with which to smear in the Nader phenomenon.

definitely needed to be drug tested or have a mental exam. After nearly 6.5 years it is pretty clear they are not the same or would not be the same. You didn't need to be an Einstein to figure out that one. May Nader's name live in infamy.

I ran in 2004, but I think I'm going to sit out 2008 unless Nader runs again. Of course I'm still not old enough to actually take office, but then again, Sharpton knew he was going to lose too.

:rofl:

Had I been elected, we would have been weaned off of oil some time in the middle of 2006.

:rofl:

Forkboy '08!

I worry about you.

elected. i heard him on leno's show saying he had to wait 17 days or something to get sworn in.

they thought it meant Bush wasn't very right wing and all the crap from his campaign in those days was true. these were people who were mostly ok with things but had issues with Clinton's personal issues and thought it was time for somenoe new.

i heard Nader on the radio a few weeks ago spouting the same bs about the current Dem candidates.

...if it wasn't Nader helping to stir up the "failed Democrats" meme.

Stupid ran as a moderate. Remember "compassionate conservatism?" He was going to make sure the widows and orphans didn't starve while he cut the taxes of ordinary people, no word about a windfall to the rich.

Gore ran as a conservative, "business as usual" Democrat. He was packaged so blandly that there was no clue he'd ever stood for anything else but an economic boom that hadn't done much for about 80% of us.

Now a slight majority of us saw right through the GOP packaging job to the right wing moron standing up on the stage who had never told the truth about anything in his life and had a track record of fucking up Texas even more than it started out, not an easy thing to do. However, Gore only represented more of the same as we saw wages fail to rise, income and wealth continue to concentrate, and jobs disappearing offshore.

Nader had a point, kind of, to the average voter who was being disinformed by the press and only had the campaign packaging to go on.

Yes, he was dead wrong. We knew. He probably knew. Unfortunately, the DLC campaign handlers still hadn't gotten the point by 2004, and we all know how well that one worked out.

I'm hoping that whoever the nominee turns out to be will dump the usual suspects and build his/her own organization and hit the campaign trail ready to point out the differences between the two parties.

If that doesn't happen, we risk losing again, and we have too much to lose.

including all the media who attacked Gore as "wooden" while neglecting to mention that he -- unlike Bush -- was actually making sense.

In principle, Nader is right: the Democrats no longer represent the interests of the vast majority in this country. They ignore the public and subvert Democracy. The Democrats are no longer the party of the working man and so forth. They haven't been for a long time.

HOWEVER, there are a hell of a lot worse Democrats than Gore, though. I'm convinced that he would have made a good president. I can't believe he chose that gutless little punk Limpman as his running mate.

What really infuriates me is all of this talk about how "if Gore had been in office during 9/11 he would have been hiding under his desk." What a bunch of foolishness. That REALLY pisses me off when I hear that.

Plus, I think if Gore had been elected, he would have shown his true colors and started trying to get shit done about climate change and energy. Plus, our country wouldn't be in the horrific fiscal condition that it is due to the Bush tax cuts. I don't think Gore would have really cut taxes, even though he said he wanted to.

The corporate masters were severely scared of Gore; this can be seen from all of the fraud.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

between a Gore and a Bush Presidency, no matter what he thought about the Democratic party.

And he is also wrong to say that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Yes, the Democrats may fail us on issues like NAFTA. But the Republicans fail us ACROSS THE BOARD.

The differences may be more and more incremental, but they are not inconsequential.

He's right about the role of corrupting role of corporate money and the diminishing differences between the parties. Anyone saying there would have been no difference is smoking crack.

but he's right because something he didn't (ie The difference is incremental) say is true

Yeah, that's unnecessary overanalysis; distorting what you know I said in order to pretend like you pulled one over on me intellectually on an internet forum.

A statement of absolutes would cover a lot of ground. No two objects, people, or anything are ABSOLUTELY alike. I think he was overstating and exaggerating slightly to make a point in a campaign period (you know, like every politician in the history of the world has done to some extent at one time or another). I highly doubt that Nader feels that Gore and Bush are absolutely the same in every single way (ideologically speaking, of course). However, his larger point is that there aren't enough substantive differences between the Republicans - the shadowy policy makers of the economic elite's public relations firm - and the Democrats to warrant the the latter being considered a true opposition party. Of course, if you really want to get cute, then we can get into the subjectivity of a "true opposition party," etc, but I think we know the general substance behind Nader's argument. Point is: the substantive differences between the Republicans and Democrats are not as strong as the economic majority want them to be. That is Nader's general point, thus justifying why a third party is necessary. You know this. The basic argument is nearly incontrovertible when looking at real facts and not playing semantic games. Of course, political ideologies are subjective (what is far enough left or right). A strong factual case, nonetheless, can be made to support Nader's assertion.

and of course, you're his official spokesperson

I'm making an assumption that Ralph Nader is a smart enough person (what, I believe he graduated from Yale) to realize that George W. Bush and Al Gore are not the exactly same in every single way. This is not an enormous leap.

Play all the semantic games you want, the substance of the idea has validity.

between a Gore and a Bush Presidency. What? Gore?

you know that Molly voted for Nader in 2000, right?

I must have missed that one.

The whole article, by a sociology professor in New York, is well worth reading. The writers provides a great deal of evidence for his conclusion that Nader's true aim in the 2000 election was to punish Gore and the Democrats -- by deliberately helping Bush to win.

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

SNIP

Before October 2000, I regarded Ralph Nader as a heroic public figure. I'd used his book The Big Business Reader in a class and heard him speak on campus in the 1980s. In the summer and fall of 2000, like many people, I was quite worried about the chance that Nader's small percentage of the vote in one or more of about ten close states could switch the election to Bush.

I felt somewhat reassured by Molly Ivins's faith in Nader. In a widely circulated column in July of 2000, she called him "the sea-green incorruptible, the truest, purest, best, smartest, longest-standing, hardest-working, never-sold-out Good Guy in the whole country." Like me, she also proudly identified herself as committed to "lesser-evilism." She regarded Bush and Cheney as much the Greater Evil and wrote a campaign book (Shrub) about Bush's awful right-wing political views. Given Ivins' politics, her long career as a savvy observer, and her apparent knowledge of Nader, it seemed to me that she gave reason to hope Nader might withdraw, at least in the close states. I was not the only person in America longing for this.

SNIP

I'd find it odd if she did apologize. She cast her vote in a blood-red state and allowed that progressives in swing states would have to do some tough soul-searching if they wanted to do the same. Also, she used her last breath decrying the party's gutlessness and telling Hillary she oughta take a hike, pretty much the same sort of stances that caused her to vote for Nader in the first place.

:)

:)

:)

Bill Moyers was also on that show, fwiw. May've been an early Ring of Fire.

Why don't you spend your time waiting by looking for it yourself? Sure it's not your job proving someone else's link but it is good for you to practice your own research skills.

Molly could sometimes be wrong too, but she was aware and honest and had integrity, so she acknowledged it when she was.

I respect her for that.

Sure it's not your job proving someone else's link but it is good for you to practice your own research skills.

So there's no link?

I do not care if you don't believe I heard her apologize.

If you were really curious you would do your own research.

then put the burden back on the questioner.

So there's no link, right?

biggest moronic assholes we've ever known. Fuck nader.

It's the only possible explanation.

Neither Gore, however, nor any other "democratic" candidate, save Kucinich is anything remotely like the "anti-Bush." They all serve the status quo in terms of the class war.

There were those of us who knew Nader was wrong but we couldn't convince those who had drunk his Kool-Aid otherwise. You can't change the past so there is no reason to dwell on it. It's time to look forward.

Back then, Gore sucked. He was feeble, watery, vague and robotic. The kiss? Good grief. Then Bush at least tied him in the debates. Gore had a terrible terrible right wing running mate--at least everyone on earth has to admit that now. Gore ran a lifeless campaign. He pretty much deserved to lose. Unfortunately, he lost against someone who was even worse.

Stop defending his 2000 election failure. Sure the other sided cheated, but Gore and LIEberman deserve castigation for running such a shitty campaign where they could be cheated by such an asswipe.

Gore might be a different man today. But he isn't running. So it's sort of a moot point.

The problem with your logic is that you're suggesting that since Bush is such a twat, then Gore was a freaking hero. Well, he wasn't. Just because Bush sucked it doesn't logically follow that Gore was much better. He wasn't. Maybe he is now, but a) he isn't running and b) we don't know his platform even if he was.


CLINTON/OBAMA

Both candidates tried to position themselves as centrists, when in reality, Bush was the most extreme ultra-right-wing president our nation has ever had, and Gore, well, he actually was and is a centrist.

As a democrat who had hoped to see proposals for single-payer healthcare under Clinton, but instead got a corporate giveaway plan destined to fail, had hoped for a reversal of the Reagan-Bush tax cuts on the rich and hikes on the poor (which happened when federal cuts in funding to the states forced the states to increase regressive taxes like sales taxes and user fees, as well as cuts in services), had hoped for support for labor but instead saw Clinton sign the disaster that was NAFTA and do NOTHING about the offshoring pehnomenon that exploded during his term - I was GRAVELY disappointed in Clinton's presidency, and foolishly bought into Bush's "moderate" act (after all, his dad had not been such a rightie)

Also, considering Clinton's amazing popularity, I never even though a gore loss was even within the realm of possibility, so I voted for Nader as a protest.

I wish I could say I was sorry for that vote, but the things I was protesting have yet to get any better. Gore's a great guy, but I'm more worried about keeping every American child fed than I am about the polar bears. Sorry, but that's just where I'm at personally.