Talk about chutzpah: Nader blames Gore's loss on conservative Democrats

[dolstein]

Nader is quick to point out that a far larger number of Democrats in states like Florida voted for Bush than voted for Nader. But what's his point? Is he blaming Gore for not making more of an effort to appeal to conservative Democrats? Now I may be going out on a limb here, but I'd be willing to bet that any further movement by Gore to the right would not have met with Nader's approval. After all, the reason Ralph got into the race in the first place is because he thought Gore wasn't liberal enough.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. But he is right. His point is that there is no reason to blame the Greens

for Gore's loss when far more Dems did not vote for their own party.

[trotsky]

4. And exactly why was that?

Probably because Gore was viewed as "too liberal" by most of those Democrats.

Exactly how should Gore have addressed this? And how does Nader presume to pick up those votes?

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. No, in the case of Florida it had to do with this..

"Why would Democrats and liberals vote for (gag) Bush? Some Democrats may have been so appalled by Clinton's personal behavior and Gore's fundraising escapades that they flipped all the way to Bush, while others found no defining economic difference between Gore and Bush, so they voted on the basis of George W.'s (false) claim to be the integrity candidate. Some liberals noted that Bush actually has proposed less of an increase in the Pentagon's already-bloated budget than Gore did, and some were so angered by the vice president's atrocious record of selling out working families, environmentalists and farmers that they wanted to give him the double-whammy of taking a vote from him and giving it to Bush. In any event, Gore failed to close the deal with these voters -- a fact that has nothing to do with Nader."

Full article: http://www.commondreams.org/views/112800-108.htm

[trotsky]

9. Truly, that's pathetic.

some were so angered by the vice president's atrocious record of selling out working families, environmentalists and farmers that they wanted to give him the double-whammy of taking a vote from him and giving it to Bush

Oh yeah, that makes a LOT of sense. Someone who's liberal enough to be upset with Gore on those issues figures they'll "show" him by voting for Bush - who is even WORSE on those issues.

That kind of thinking is more typical of unrepentant Nader voters - perhaps you've heard the old phrase, "cutting off your nose to spite your face"?

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. Well, cross-party voting does happen. A lot of my fellow Greens

are flipped out because I am voting For Kerry/Edwards just to get * out.

But I can't make them understand that I am not doing backflips over the prospect,; I am doing it because voting my conscience this time around means getting a murderous admin out of office. (And, pray to God, into Leavenworth.)

[trotsky]

12. Big kudos to you, GPV.

Hey, I myself voted for Nader in '96 AND '00, but mainly because I live in a very safe state (MN). But this year we're considered a battleground and NO ONE gets my vote but Kerry/Edwards.

I acknowledge that cross-party voting happens, I just don't think that many liberals intelligent enough to be disappointed with Gore would ever consider voting for Bush. I mean, c'mon.

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. True enough, I would think they would vote for Nader

BUT, I think there were probably a lot of Reagan democrats down there who saw Bush as ray-gun's heir apparent. *snort*

I cannot wait to get Kerry into office and just keep after him about election reform. At least I think he'll give me the time of day. * never would. * won't listen to anyone outside of his circle of cronies.

[no name no slogan]

28. Et tu, trotsky?

I did the exact same thing in 1996 & 2000, and I'm in MN too!

This year, I will vote for Kerry/Edwards. HOWEVER, that does not mean that I am by any means satisfied with this ticket-- not by a LOOOONG stretch.

After seeing the preliminary platform that came out yesterday, I'm still pretty pissed off. Supporting Sharon and the wall, abondoning Kyoto, calling for more troops-- these are things that the Repubs should be doing, NOT the Democrats. At least they got the $7.00 minimum wage in there, although that is about 1/2 what it truly should be if it tracked inflation since the late 60s.

Even if we win November 2, the REAL work starts November 3.

[GreenPartyVoter]

31. "the REAL work starts November 3." I am with you right there!

I'll be setting up petitions for election reform measures for people to sign and send to Kerry. I'll also continue to link my site to activism websites that promote progressive agendas through petitions of their own.

[dolstein]

14. Wishful thinking

Sorry, but your argument that Gore failed to seal the deal among liberal voters doesn't fly. Liberals voted for Gore in overwhelming numbers. Indeed, Gore's support among registered Democrats was even greater than Clinton's level of support in 1996. And turnout was particularly strong among core Democratic constituencies like African Americans and union households. The reason why Gore did so well in Florida in the first place was because the base turned out in such large numbers.

The fact is, no Democrat EVER gets 100% of the Democratic vote in a presidential election, just as no Republican gets 100% of the Republican vote. The 85%+ support Gore received from Democrats is unusually high by historical standards. Nader is surely smart enough to realize this, even if his ego won't allow him to admit it publicly.

While you are correct that Clinton's personal behavior cost Gore support, this was almost entirely among independents. And Gore did about all he could to minimize the electoral damage. Indeed, Clinton's toxic affect among swing voters like blue collar women and suburban moderates was the main reason cited by campaign staff for why Clinton wasn't allowed to campaign for Gore.

If you want to argue that Clinton cost Gore the election as much as Nader, you won't get any argument from me. But the fact is, the Lewinsky scandal happened long before Nader decided to get into the race and make things even more difficult for Gore than they already were. And it certainly doesn't justify Nader's decisino to go around the country lying to voters about how Gore and Bush were essentially the same (a lie Nader continues to repeat to this day). Nor does is justify his decision to spend a disproportionate amount of time campaigning in battle ground states after having told supporters early on that he wouldn't do that. It is quite obvious that Nader structured his campaign with an eye towards inflicting maximum damage on the Gore campaign. Indeed, Nader made no secret of this. So it really is disingenuous of Nader to blame other people for costing Gore the election when Nader himself actively set out to do precisely that.

[GreenPartyVoter]

21. But what is odd about all of this is that people worry about

what effect Nader had on Gore's votes. The whole point of running for election is to garner votes. Nader did what he set out to do.
Every person owns their own vote. No party or candidate is "entitled" to anyone's vote. The Greens do not own mine, and I am registered with them.

Now in the case of 2000, when I voted for Nader it seemed like the perfect time to cast a vote of conscience that would tell the Democratic establishment that their choice of ticket wasn't progressive enough for me. After all, how could an idiot like *, who couldn't speak English ever get elected into the White House?
Unfortunately, I did not foresee the theft of the election, and neither did most folks who voted outside of the Big Two.

I'd love to see Kerry unseat the Thief in Chief, not because I think he's going to be the most progressive leader we've ever had, but just because I want to see * go down in flames. I will get a lot of satisfaction out of that.

Too bad it won't bring back all of the lives and livelihoods lost in the last few years.

[dolstein]

29. Let me point out our fundamental disagreement

You say that the whole point of running for office is to garner votes. I say that the whole point of running for office is to get elected.

It was ALWAYS clear that Ralph Nader could never win the 2000 election, and it was pretty obvious that Ralph Nader wasn't even making an effort to win. Ralph Nader offered one "non-spoiler" rationale for his candidacy -- to garner the 5% of the popular vote needed to qualify for federal matching funds, thereby increasing the likelihood of fielding a viable Green Party candidate in future elections. But this rationale rings hollow once you take into account the fact that Nader pursued a strategy designed to inflict maximum damage on Gore, while actually reducing the likelihood that Nader would reach the 5% threshhold.

You can repeat the mantra that "nobody is entitled to any candidate's vote" all you want, but that argument is nonresponsive to the complaints that I and other DU'ers have. My beef with Nader has to do with his strategy -- which was clearly designed more to punish Gore than to help the Green Party -- and the flagrant dishonesty with which he pursued that strategy. Even today, after all the harm Bush has inflicted on this country, Nader still insists that there wasn't any difference between Gore and Bush. Nader's own public statements confirm that he was motivated by a desire to harm Gore and the Democratic Party. I don't see how Nader and his supporters can possibly complain when people seek to pin responsibility on Nader for outcomes he himself specifically intended to cause. Now if Nader wants to, he can certainly attempt to argue that the country is better off because Bush was elected, and that things would be better still if Bush were re-elected. But by seeking to deny responsibility for an outcome that he himself not only desired, but actively sought to bring about, Nader is simply displaying more of the medacity that we have come to expect from him.

[Cheswick2.0]

53. how voting for a man with as little personal integrity as Nader has

is a vote of conscience is beyond me.

[no name no slogan]

67. 30,000 FL Dems voted for Bush, while only 3,000 FL Dems voted for Nader

Methinks that if one is to blame a group of Democrats for Florida in 2000, one needs to look at the 30,000 who voted for Dubya.

Or how about the fact that Gore said "I agree with Mr. Bush" 39 TIMES in the 2000 presidential debate?

Sorry Dolstein, but Nader did NOT cause Gore to lose the election-- Gore did.

[dolstein]

71. The Gore campaign died from a thousand cuts

A few self-inflicted (the sighs at the first debate), most inflicted by others (the hostility of the press, the butterly ballot, the Lewinsky affair). But there is no denying the fact that a pretty serious gash was deliberately inflicted on the Gore campaign by Ralph Nader. This was not an unintended consequence of a campaign drive by altruistic motives. Nader's own public statements confirm that his campaign for president was very much intended to hurt Gore and punish the Democratic Party.

So we have a political wound, deliberately inflicted, which contributed to the fatality (Nader's vote provided Bush's margin of victory in both New Hampshire and Florida). That makes Nader a political murderer. The fact that other people hurt Gore too doesn't mean that Nader shouldn't be held responsible for the harm he himself caused.

Your post does not in any way refute my charges. You don't deny that Nader intended to hurt the Gore campaign. You don't deny that Nader's campaign had its intended effect.

Your argument fails in one other respect. The so-called Democrats (and anyone familiar with the South knows that a large segment of registered Democrats are actually Republican voters at the presidential level and have been for decades) who voted for Bush were never within Gore's reach. These people would have voted for Bush regardless of whether Nader ran. But some of Nader's supporters -- more than enough to make the difference in Florida -- would have voted for Gore is Nader handn't run.

[dolstein]

6. No, he's not right

The fact is, the overwhelming percentage of "Bush Democrats" would not have voted for Gore under any circumstances. These are people who haven't voted for a Democratic presidential nominee in decades, if ever. The are, at least on cultural issues, as conservative as any Republican. The only reason they remain registered Democrats is either through sheer laziness or because they want to vote in the Democratic primary in local contests (which, in certain parts of the South, are still dominated by Democrats).

On the other hand, roughly a third of Nader's supporters in 2000 would have voted for Gore is Nader hand't been on the ballot -- twice as many as would have voted for Bush.

So Nader is essentially blaming voters who would never have been "in play" to divert attention to the fact that a small but significant (at least in a tight election) number of Nader voters were very much "in play."

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. If Nader hadn't been on the ballot, I would have voted for

the socialists. Or maybe the Natural law party.

[library_max]

15. Well, that's you.

But if only five or ten percent of the Florida Nader voters had voted for Gore instead, it'd be President Gore right now. And Nader could have conceded and thrown support to Gore, assuring Gore's election, when he saw that the race was going to be close. Instead, he tilted it to Bush.

[Forkboy]

18. NONE OF THE VOTES WERE COUNTED

so this is all moot anyways.

[GreenPartyVoter]

22. Yep. It is. I wish people would get more upset over election theft than

than they do over people making an honest run for the White House.

And if they don't like the spoiler issue, they can start pressing for election reforms like preferential voting and publicly funded elections.

[demwing]

27. Honest is the key word. Nader was not honest.

He was never set to make an "honest run for President," he set out to purposefully hurt the Dems. He said exactly that.

[Forkboy]

37. Nader is an ass

I dont deny that in the slightest.But he was a non event,and seeing people constantly act like freepers in thier hate for him instead of ever addressing the illegalities that went on in 2000,and damn well might happen again in 2004,is sad.

If the election gets stolen this time we deserve it.

[demwing]

45. I agree. Never forget the theft of the Whitehouse in 2000.

I think I'll put up a counter on my website, "Democracy Held Hostage-Day 1,328" (or whatever the count is at this point).

[LoZoccolo]

20. Are you voting for me this time?

I'm way better than Nader.

[Forkboy]

38. That's still up in the air

[Cheswick2.0]

54. you are one person

I know 5 Green voters, four of them would have voted Gore.

[Cheswick2.0]

52. irrational argument

it is just one more effort by Nader and the Green party to pass the buck.

[WI_DEM]

2. Ralph has been all over the map on this issue

In this election cycle he has been lashing out at everyone--even the Green Party for not nominating him after he said he wasn't really going after the Green nomination.

[maine_raptor]

3. You almost nailed it, dolstein,

But the reason Ralph got into the 2000 race was not "because he thought Gore wasn't liberal enough", but because gore was not "Nader" enough.

Nader's runs for the Presidency have never really been about any political change, but soley about Ralp Nader. How else can one explain his continued run for the office every 4 years in spite of his obvious knowledge that he can never win.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. It's not about politics or strategy

Nader is simply rubbing salt into the wound and chuckling, calling Democrats "whiners" with the same hipster glee seen among Republicans and freshmen at a Pledge Week Smoker.

It's not about politics or strategy. It's about the little soul of a little man spending the last productive years of his life engaging in little acts of revenge. Ralph Nader, who was once the people's champion, has decided to wipe his slate clean in the name of soothing his offended sensitivity.

--bkl

[Forkboy]

10. If he keeps this up for three more years

he'll be even with the simpletons who blame him for Florida.

[library_max]

16. He's to blame for Florida. Facts is facts. /nt

[Forkboy]

17. Yes,let's look at some facts,shall we?

No votes were counted-FACT
SCOTUS selected the president-FACT
Over 90,000 people were purged illegally-FACT
Thousands of Dems voted for Bush-FACT
People were intimidated from voting-FACT
ALL of the above are illegal-FACT
Nader did something legal-FACT


Thanks for playing.

[LoZoccolo]

19. Nader got a ton of votes by lying - FACT

Little difference between Democrats and Republicans - LIE
Said he wouldn't campaign in swing states - LIE

[Forkboy]

24. Yep,those are facts,I agree

But seeing as though the votes weren't counted it makes no difference.-FACT

[Cheswick2.0]

55. if he hadn't done what he did...which you agree is fact

There wouldn't have been a need for a recount and all of our votes would have counted.

[Forkboy]

58. And if all the votes were counted

Gore still would have won regardless of Nader.

[GreenArrow]

33. not quite

"Fact" 1 is debatable, probably endlessly so.

[LoZoccolo]

51. Nader said Gore would have started the Iraq war.

This is not true. He was always against it.

[GreenArrow]

61. we'll never know will we?

Gore starting the war is not at all inconceivable, however. Had he done so, he would have sold it in a much more palatable fashion, but the groundwork for this war was alteady laid and someone was going to start it.

[LoZoccolo]

69. We don't know if Nader'll go crazy and push the button and nuke the world.

We'll never know will we?

(Nader, however, definitely said that Gore would which is a lie. He at the very least does not know that. I'm sick of how much currency people give this guy who lies about big things.)

[dsc]

25. It is illegal for Democrats to vote Republican?

Since when?

[Forkboy]

39. My bad.You're right,but that's not how I meant that.

Sorry,dsc,but I think (hope) that you understand what I was trying to say.Nader was a non factor.There a MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger fish to fry,and if we dont start paying attention instead of having wank off Nader hatefests 2000 will just be a prelude to another coup in 2004.

And this time we'll deserve it.

[library_max]

68. The votes were counted mechanically.

SCOTUS would never have had the opportunity to select the president if the margin had not been so close. Nader "legally" made the margin close by attracting some 80,000 votes away from Gore. Without Nader, it'd be President Gore - FACT.

The rest of your rant is just about Republicans acting like Republicans, and no, none of it was illegal.

[TexasSissy]

23. He's grasping at straws. Trying to dig his way out of condemnation.

It won't work. My mom always told me that my being bad was not excused because someone else was, too.

Got it, Nader? You've been pegged the spoiler because indeed you were (and will be?). You may not have been the ONLY spoiler. But you were the biggest spoiler, when you consider the ratio of votes affected by the number of people. (Thousands/one)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

26. Good point...just demonstrates how egotistic and contradictory he is

[Bombtrack]

30. He's a manipulative fuck who is attractive to psychotic freaks

I think we need to stop looking for a point in his bullshit excuses and focus on stopping him in his tracks in whatever way we can.

The Green's are frigging scary people ok. (Did anyone see their convention?) It's laughable that they are potential democratic voters that would be more advantageous to appeal to than non-dogmatic, non-ideologue, independants.

[ulysses]

32. wow.

*That* was helpful. Hope you feel better now.

[KG]

34. give it up, uly

the conservative dems will never get it.

[ulysses]

35. I know.

I'm just waiting for someone to openly call for violence against Nader or Cobb.

[Cheswick2.0]

56. some of us liberal democrats

Will never get over it either.

[tinanator]

65. Isnt that what Kerry said to do?

Wasnt that the quote?

[CWebster]

62. I'm sure you would feel more comfortable with Republicans

then.

They would appreciate your sentiments.

[Dr Fate]

36. It would KILL him to join arms with DEMS, just once.

He cant stand up beside Democrats even once-

Oh- but he will GLADLY accept those GOP Dollar$ & petition signatures.

[tinanator]

40. now thats not true

he has been spotted with and pretty much endorsed Kerry's ticket.
What more do you want?

[Dr Fate]

42. "Pretty much endorsing" Kerry,-AND running against him?

Nader needs to make up his mind, in that case.

Never heard of "endorsing" a DEM candidate by running against him and collecting $$$, signatures & support from the GOP...

[tinanator]

43. Well if you feel he is a threat in this election

Kerry must be the weakest candidate of all time.

[Dr Fate]

44. How can he be a threat?- you say Nader "endorses" Kerry.

But seriously,

Who would want the media, GOP & Nader all going against DEMS?

Why am I supposed to embrace this 3 way alliance against me?

Is a 3 against one fight a "threat?"- I suppose it is.

[tinanator]

46. Its all up to you

If you feel that the corporate media might not be a threat under some circumstance, or that the GOP is Nader's pawn or whatever, I just cant assign blame for those two givens on an individual who should be the first to point out the corporate oligarchy they represent to the citizens of the USA. Whether he does that effectively or at all I cant say. The subtext of the Nader blame game is that there were no more important aspects to the fraud of 2000. Its a shuck and jive to help the Democrats who blew Gore off in Novemeber 2000 and during the lead up to 2004 wash their hands like Pontius Pilate. so to speak.
When the same actors raise their voices against the disenfranchisement of THOUSANDS of black voters, I would be willing to listen, but the one note march against Nader is nothing but propaganda.

[Dr Fate]

48. It's simple- Nader can stand up with DEMS, OR...

...continue to except GOP dollar$ and campaign against Kerry.

I dont hate Nader, I just wish he would promote unity amongst progressives & DEMS, instead of campaigning against DEMS. We have enough people attacvking us witout Nader joining in.

You are a nice guy- I'd much rather talk comics w/ you than argue.

[tinanator]

49. I think Nader should be free to stand anywhere he wants

and voters should be free to choose their candidates as they please in a clearly unrepresentative and undemocratic rigged system. Im not arguing with you, just the mindset that subliminally absolves the Bushcorpfamilia's theft of an election by focusing blame on something as peripheral as Nader's candidacy. It is wrong to do that.

[Dr Fate]

50. I dont blame Nader for 2000. I blame myself.

I am talking about 2004- and I would be a Nader fan if he was on my team instead of campaigning against me & excepting money & signatures from people trying to destroy me.

Nader can do what he wants- but I dont have to like it or endorse it.

Doc- out.

[Cheswick2.0]

59. nice side lateral arabesque

Nader didn't endorse Kerry and Nader is only a threat in that he can do what he did in 2000, lie to gullible people and get them to throw the election so that he can feel personally vidicated.

[Cheswick2.0]

57. he can't because he can't be king shit in the democratic party

like he can in all his little non profits and third parties looking for relevance.
The fact that he is now lashing out at the Greens is funny as hell. they are strange and MM is fat. Gore is just like bush....etc
He's pathetic.

[John_H]

41. Thankfully, we're all beginning to agree that Nader and his minions

are self-absorbed fools.

[tinanator]

47. how deluded must you be to speak for all of us?

many folks see through the DLC's campaign, and most wont bother with the lunacy and nonsense of back and forth squabbling with people who are so severely math challenged they cant count votes.

[zoeyfong]

60. Dems to Nader: You're either with us or you're against us.

And don't you dare say there's no difference between us and Bush. Look, all you Nader-haters, the fact is that the democratic party is not doing it anymore; *someone* is going to step into that void, whether it is Nader, or somebody else, it's going to happen. Did you notice that there is *no anti-war candidate* among the two major parties? Face it, the war is a major issue, and anti-war voters are well within their rights to withhold their vote from the democratic candidate and give it to someone who opposed the war.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. No top dems are fighting for anything that will seriously address the exploding growth of the working poor in america, and the concurrent disappearance of the middle class. Congressional dems won't do anything that will jeopardize the relationship with their corporate benefactors. And of course they don't support any meaningful campaign finance reform, so the government of this country will remain for sale to the highest bidder for the forseeable future. They glady sacrifice the civil rights of unpopular minorities, and grandstand for maximum political gain while they do it.

Nader is also right about conservative dem voters, but the problem is that dem leaders continue to allow repugs to define the debate. Dems are constantly on the defensive and are doing a very poor job at appealing to more conservative voters, without compromising the core values of the party. As we all know, when people are asked, issue by issue, where they stand, most people are in agreement with democratic positions on the major issues, but the overriding factor in their party affiliation is Repug propaganda, plain and simple. Current dem leadership is allowing the party to be defined by repugs, and their continual knee-jerk attempts to show themselves to be the opposite of the latest repug criticism only makes them appear fickle and without any consistent moral foundation.

The long and short of it is that there is a huge void in the area of principled liberal leadership in this country, and *someone* is going to step into it. If the democratic party doesn't like that, i suggest that they work to close that void.

[CWebster]

63. Damn purist!

What amazes me is they don't even struggle with the grey areas. It has been reduced to simplistic battle rallying cries and emotionally-driven reactionary allegiances, mirroring Republican "us vs them" strategies which demonize and de-humanize the other with no critical thinking about the complexities.

And they consider themselves progressives, if not liberals. But they have abandoned all that means to take up the centrist cause which mirrors Bush. They have been played.

"We won't be fooled again"

HA!!!

[library_max]

72. A "huge void" which attracts 3% of the popular vote.

Yep, that's pretty huge. Kerry had better go after that 3% and abandon the 48% Gore got plus any hope of eating into Bush's 47%.

/sarcasm off/

Nobody wins a national election by chasing his own party's fringe extremists. Several presidential candidates of both parties have lost pursuing that strategy, but that's another story.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. DLC apologists still blame the left.

The DLC apologists still blame Nader for the loss that they engineered.

Expect the same if Kerry loses because of his rightward tilt.

[library_max]

73. Nice pre-emptive whitewash.

If Nader screws us over again, it won't be his fault - again. It'll be what he intended to do (again), it'll be what he said he was going to do (again), but it STILL won't be his fault. It'll be our fault. And you heard it here first.

:eyes:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. Nice DLC whitewash.

It wasn't Gore's fault he moved to the right. It isn't Kerry's fault that he voted for the war and still supports it. It isn't Kerry's fault that he's supporting apartheid in Israel. It's Nader's fault. Right?

[library_max]

75. Supposing Gore really did move "to the right,"

how did that cost him the election? Aren't you guys always going on about the Democrats who voted for Bush instead of Gore because Gore was too liberal? Please try to get your story straight.

[fujiyama]

66. That's the tired old argument

all Nader supporters use.

The problem is that it makes no sense. So apparently Gore wasn't conservative enough. Oh wait, he's not liberal enough. Oh shit, who knows.

Nader is a fuckin tool of the republicans, whether he wants to be or not. After hearing about what's happening in OR and AZ, I'm thinking he's completely willing and has no intention other than to hurt democratic chances in the fall.

[JHBowden]

70. Exactamundo!

Since the Greens don't want us to move to the right, why do they make this silly argument? It remains factual that while Nader's run was not necessary for a Gore loss, it was indeed sufficient. *That* is what peoeple are pissed off about.