Is t a possibility that Nader was paid off by the Republicans to spoil

[KlatooBNikto]

Al Gore's chances in 2000?

[leftofthedial]

1. It's not a possibility. It's a fact.

look at who donated to his campaign.

[Gman]

2. Yes

very possible.

[ck4829]

3. Incredibly subversive. Yes, they did it in 2000 and 2004.

[Sugarcoated]

6. This reminds me of something I read

The backers of Al Sharpton - it was a very well known former Nixon cronie and his hispanic wife? Did anyone else read that? When the whole Dan Rather smear/set up was going on, there was a bunch of speculation about who gave that guy in Texas those supposed fake documents. This RW couple were being tossed around as being behind the handing over of the fake docs. Anyway, it doesn't take a genius to see what their strategery was by backing Sharpton.

[bryant69]

4. Bad phrasing

Since it lets people make Nader look a lot more sinister than he really is, in my opinion. Nader is a fool and a tool, but i don't think he really conspired with the Republicans. He just turned the other way and cashed their checks.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[frylock]

5. al gore lost in his home state of tennessee..

how was that Nader's doing?

[Benhurst]

12. It wasn't. But if you want to the truth of what happened

in Tennessee in 2000, click on the following link:

http://www.alternet.org/story/10589

[barbaraann]

20. Bush lost his homestate of Connecticut.

n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

7. It is as possible as the possibility that the sun will rise tomorrow

And, too, that the cock shall crow ...... three times.

[Cleita]

8. I don't think so. Nadar is a genuine foe of corporate interests

gaining too much political power. He's that last person they would back or pay off. He isn't a liberal though and should have been honest about this before running with the Green Party.

[rock]

9. yes

[whistle]

10. Yes, not just possible, but probable

[kansasblue]

11. I disagree.

He has the forsight to see the dangers of large corporation on democracy. He's been trying to get the word out for years. He's fought corporation for years. Of course those corporations which own the media make him look the fool. You all are buying it. Do you really know what Nader stands for? I agree he's no saint but he is fighting the good fight.

Do you remember it was Nader that sponsered the first recount of the 2004 election?

Now before you flame me how bought you take a brief look at

http://www.votenader.org/


check out the issues. Those are issue that the Dems should be fighting.

[TahitiNut]

13. I don't believe so.

First, we must always remember that campaign money can be given to candidates whose campaigns are already seen to serve the interests of the donors. There's very little question that splits on the right serve the left, and splits on the left serve the right. Thus, it's not unreasonable to assume that conservative interests would contribute to Nader, just as liberal interests contributed to Perot and Buchanan.

As a former employee at Chevrolet during the "Unsafe At Any Speed" days, I've found times where I've disagreed with Nader. I have never, however, seen Nader as a sell-out. On the spectrum of corruption (politics for sale), Nader has always been at the far end of least corruptable, imho. I have never doubted his commitment to his principles ... as he sees them. I don't think he can be bought. If anything, that's been a handicap in his gaining any major party traction.

While I can see rational reasons for disagreeing with Nader, I cannot see letting that disagreement lead to attacks on his integrity.

[Just Me]

14. Are you implying Nader conspired to help Bush win?

I know he's hard-headed and was too damned stubborn to drop out, but to imply that Nader intentionally conspired to hand Bush the victory is just over the top.

[Rowdyboy]

15. You even need to ask? Of course he was....He sold out to the high bidder

Why are we talking about this puny asshole nader again. Has he raised his head out of the sty today or something? He's not worth the time or bandwidth.

[dbonds]

16. I think they enabled him, but he wasn't in on the plan.

They probably had his ear telling him it was the right thing to do, we needed a 3rd party.... but I seriously doubt he was doing it to get * elected.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. You mean like the Democrats paid off Ross Perot?

Of course, the Republicans were delighted to see Ralph run. Just like the Dems were cuddling up to Ross in '92.

Gore lost because he ran a lousy campaign and abandoned the left.

[NoPasaran]

22. Gee, do you really think the Dems were that clever?

I think Gore could have won even abandoning the left to Nader if he hadn't distanced himself from Clinton as much as possible.

Of course, counting the votes would have been nice too.

[ToeBot]

18. Hummm...

Unable to accept responsibility, constantly blaming others for their failings, using irrelevant issues as a smokescreen and/or wedge. Who are we talking about here?

[dbonds]

19. Wrong, it is not bush this time

[NoPasaran]

21. I don't think so

In Nader's mind, it's all about Ralph.

[Q]

23. Another thread mentioning Nader and not the Bush election fraud...

...and the illegal Supreme Court decision?

The Bushie Republicans won't HAVE TO rewrite history. Democrats are doing it FOR them.