How could so many smart people have voted for Nader (or still support him)

[fujiyama]

I don't get it. This isn't intended as flame bait, but it's an honest question.

We knew before hand that George Bush had one of the worst records on the environment during his time in Texas. We knew his tax cuts would be a massive windfall for the wealthy and that it would cause the defecit to balloon.

We knew that he preferred unilateralism based on his statements on various treaties...Sure enough he abrogated various treaties within months of entering office. He walked away from Kyoto, the bio weapons convention. It wasn't a surprise though.

We knew that he would have the tendancy to appoint right wing judges and possibly even supreme court justices (we may yet be able to avert this).

We knew so much, but the people that voted for Nader DIDN'T? I ask this because my own friend voted for him last time (he was 18 and stupid if you ask me but our state went blue luckilly by 5pts...otherwise I'd still have been on his case).

But how could any person that has progressive or liberal beliefs not vote for those beliefs or vote for the only way for those beliefs to have SOME possibility of getting enacted?

I'm still amazed that the substitute op ed writer (Barbara Einriech) voted for Nader -- in FLORIDA. How? She seems relatively intelligent. I'm sure she was angry about some Clinton policies, but these people knew that a vote for Nader was about as good as not voting at all.

I'm glad to see most liberals have caught on to Nader's game. However, I'm afraid some are still not getting it. Maybe these people really don't care about the future. Maybe they want to piss away their votes.

Either way, I still don't get it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. In 2000, the press rolled over and played dead

as far as getting out any information about the bad things Shrub had done. I didn't know about the AWOL until well after the election; the only thing I had against him was that I know how he screwed the people of Arlington on the baseball stadium deal.

In 2000, Nader was the candidate of the Green Party. I believe that many folks, like me, felt that Clinton and Gore had taken the country too far to the right, especially on NAFTA. Frankly, Gore didn't seem to have any new ideas of his own that I heard about (could it be that this, too, was the fault of the media?).

This time around, things have changed. More folks are aware of media bias, and more and more are going online to get their news. Nader is not the candidate of the Green Party, but rather is taking in Republican backers to get enough signatures to get on ballots.

I can't talk for all those who voted Nader in 2000, but I can talk for the six of us who did in my precinct. We are all voting Kerry this year. We understand now what is going on, and what the stakes are.

[flordehinojos]

2. Some of the people (MANY of the people actually) who are signing Nader's

petition to get on states' ballots are REPUBLICANS who know Nader will syphoon votes from Kerry not from Bush.
:mad:

[Warpy]

3. The good news is

that after Kerry's tour de force speech at the convention, Nader has a little less support from the left and more support from the right. I know quite a few diehard Naderites who have grudgingly admitted after that speech that Kerry may not be so bad and that they'll probably end up voting for him. I've heard a few of Bush's less ardent supporters say that after that speech, they probably won't vote for Bush, but they can't bring themselves to vote Dem, so they'll probably vote Nader as a protest.

I'm beginning to think this may be remembered as the year of blowback, as every rotten thing Roves does blows back and hits his own party.

[formernaderite]

4. I'm voting for Kerry this time but.....

...frankly I found the DNC looked like it was trying to be repub-lite. All the military crap, the flag waving, and the reporting for duty statement etc. turned me off.
Sorry, it's just not my thing...my skin crawled and I was repulsed. {br}Yes, I'm worried that others may feel as I do, and decide to vote third party or not to vote at all.

[paulk]

20. I thought the "reporting for duty"

statement was a reference to Bush's AWOL -

[CaTeacher]

33. I thought "reporting for duty"

was kind of cheezy and lame. Sorry. That is just how I felt. It was a stupid way to begin.

[eaprez]

5. As a protest....just as Kerry's NO to the 87 Billion

...was...there was no way his no vote was going to change the outcome just as their vote for Nader wouldn't put a 3rd party in the white house. I think had Nader people had an inkling that they'd be casting a vote for Bush they would have thought better.

[liberalmike27]

6. Nader

Nader didn't cause Gore's loss. Voter purges in Florida caused them. Speaking of the media, for three or four years now, they didn't even mention this. Seems like the appointed ones brother instituting voter purges based on bad lists, one of them from Texas would have been big news. Until recently, it has been almost totally ignored by the media, and only a few passing mentions have appeared of late, and certainly not in the detail it needs to be explored.

All of this Nader crap is just a ruse by the media to dupe people into focusing on Nader, while ignoring this very important issue of fair elections. We need to get off the Nader crap.

As far as all of this stuff we are hearing, most of it is the same bluster to discourage people from voting for him, or signing petitions to get on the ballot. We need true electoral reform in this country, a system that will allow for a true majority, rather than a simple plurality to win the presidency. Then we can all vote for who we want. With Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) we can all choose the candidates we want, and I wouldn't be surprised if most of you would vote for a Nader-like candidate. At least it would gauge the lefty support in this country.

I agree that Democrats still are too far to the right, they support the death penalty, terrible drug laws with mandatory sentences, prejudiced sentences for crack cocaine which only about five percent cocaine, and war. Part of the problem lies with the party itself, and no one can deny this. If you want Nader to not be a threat, make sure you vote for a candidate that will appease the left, not jump into unjust wars, not support state killings, not build huge deficits, encourage living wages, keeps jobs in America, not cut welfare, and fight against all the demagogue that changes minds' of Americans. The democratic party has only itself to blame for third party inroads. But both parties are still clearly in the grip of a very wealthy political donor class. As long as money rules the roost, 90% of us will be screwed, and politicos on both sides will make laws to help the very rich.

[mzmolly]

15. Who's *they*

I agree that Democrats still are too far to the right, they support the death penalty, terrible drug laws with mandatory sentences, prejudiced sentences for crack cocaine which only about five percent cocaine, and war. Part of the problem lies with the party itself, and no one can deny this. If you want Nader to not be a threat, make sure you vote for a candidate that will appease the left, not jump into unjust wars, not support state killings, not build huge deficits, encourage living wages, keeps jobs in America, not cut welfare, and fight against all the demagogue that changes minds' of Americans. The democratic party has only itself to blame for third party inroads. But both parties are still clearly in the grip of a very wealthy political donor class. As long as money rules the roost, 90% of us will be screwed, and politicos on both sides will make laws to help the very rich.

Sounds like you've been listening to Nader without much research on your own?

I get so tired of listening to Nader's BULLSHIT regurgitated here as fact-nothing against you personally BTW.

Let me begin by saying a candidate named Dennis Kucinich *with a near identical platform to Mr. Naders* ran for the Democratic nomination, and lost. Believe it or not, we have to run a candidate who represents our values, and actually has a hope to WIN an election when we make a choice in the primaries.

Further, Kerry and many of "them Democrats" are opposed to the death penalty and the other issues you mention.

As for the terrible drug laws, try living next to a crack house, and watching kids in your neighborhood get shot over drugs before you complain so fervently. I saw Clinton's impact on inner cities MYSELF. I saw the Democrats lower poverty, lower crime, lower the deficit, GROW JOBS, raise the minimum wage, help people out of THE SLAVERY of the welfare system, etc.

As to your comment on the money train, "DEMS are in the back pocket of a wealthy political class" it is also inaccurate.

John Kerry got 92% of his money from individuals *who can contribute a max of $2000.00

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00000245

Nader's rhetoric sounds good, and allows one to remain perpetually pissed off without doing a damn thing about it, but it's a cop out.

As to your suggestion that voter purges caused Gores loss they were partially responsible. However, Nader lied in 2000, and he's lying again. Gullible people believe him. The election in Florida was decided by less than 600 votes, Nader and his lies garnered him 97,000. If Nader had run an honest campaign, based on his platform, I'd not have an issue, but he lied to you when he said:

Gore and Bush would be essentially the same on Foreign Policy, Environment, Civil Rights and Workers Rights etc... My issue with Nader is not that he offers a left alternative, it's that he's a lying mother f-er.

[fujiyama]

16. Well said

I agree that Nader has the right to run, but his lies are what piss me off. I'm sick of his nasty rhetoric mostly filled with half truths.

I also think he's proven himself to be a whore to RWers. I don't think he's so gullible to believe that Hannity actually likes him or agrees with him on the issues. He seems like a willing tool for the right.

[vi5]

7. I'm the last to defend Nader, but in 2000 the climate.....

was such that people had become jaded by the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years, so many on the left rightfully looked not as much at what had been done, but more on what was still left to be done. They feared that Gore would be more of the same and would not move enough to the left to follow through in some of the areas where Clinton faltered or moved right.

And I'm sorry but Gore in campaign 2000 gave those people every reason to worry that he wouldn't continue the fight in the direction of left rather than right. Picking Leiberman, conceding too many points to Bush, not fighting back against the smears.....so many others.

For many of us, we had a horrible feeling about Bush but let's be honest: it was a hunch based on some information from his time in Texas, but there was nothing in his record that indicated he would go as drastically far right as he did. Many Nader voters I'm sure thought he would move the country rightward and that it would snap dems back into fighting/left moving mode, but still nowhere near the destruction of the country as has happened.

I had a horrible gut instinct about Bush that prevented me from wanting him in office and made me vote for Gore no matter how lukeward I was on him. So while I can't claim to have been in the head of Nader voters last time around I can somewhat see where they were coming from in 2000.

This year though...no way. There is too much at stake. I refuse to give any benefit of the doubt this time around. Sorry if that is closed minded but the future is at stake and any reservations I had about Kerry have been completely washed away.

[fujiyama]

17. .

[Greedy Oil Puritan]

8. I dislike Nader...

I like his politics, but I feel as though he's a personality cult figure whose in the game for his own self-gratification.

[seventhson]

9. They are NOT smart

they fell for the repuke propaganda that Nader was spewing in stupid stupid ways

I can see voting for Nader in a safe state where the numbers are high for the dems as protest against, for example, Kerry's war vote - except that I believe Nader is in fact a corporate spook, spy, mole, and deep cover operator for the Princetonian neocons and rethugs.

[BlueMole]

10. No States are "Safe"

Nader: Unsafe at any polling place

:beer:

[seventhson]

11. I agree - my point was, though

taht whiole I do not support this theory - I understand it

except that I believe NaDER IS WORKING FOR THE REPUBS.

[BlueMole]

12. Yeah

Working for the Repubs, idolized by the blind left. Nader got 80,000 votes in FL 2000. With the rigged voter roles, St. Ralph just made FL easier to steal.

[glitch]

29. How could anyone be friends with Grover Norquist? I mean really.

It just doesn't make sense. It's the kind of fact that makes me take your post seriously.
He's either a spook or he's lost his mind. He's been treated like a cult leader for so long by the left, perhaps he's started to believe he's infallible. He definitely believes the ends justify the means, which makes him an extremist, IMO.
At any rate, he no longer warrants the attention he gets. Not from democrats or greens or any progressives. I say let the RW blow their money on him and everyone else should ignore him. I do not believe the polls about him at all. I know Nader voters that regreted their votes in 2001, I doubt very much they've changed their minds. And I seriously doubt he's getting new converts, other than disaffected republicans.
Let them have him.

[mike_c]

13. this IS flame bait and besides, you answered the question...

...yourself.

"...how could any person that has progressive or liberal beliefs not vote for those beliefs or vote for the only way for those beliefs to have SOME possibility of getting enacted?"

Read the Green Party platform. Then read the DNC platform. Things haven't changed much since 2000. Which is more likely to result in progressive reforms? Put another way, which is more similar to the conservative Republican agenda?

[George_Bonanza]

28. Well, the Greens cut Nader off, so...

[WI_DEM]

14. I know very intelligent, hard working, decent people who will not

vote for Bush or Kerry because of the war. They are sincere people who do put principle ahead of party.

[fujiyama]

18. If they are not voting for Kerry

they are NOT putting any principle ahead of party. Especially in a state like WI which is very close. They're putting their own self gratification ahead of everything.

Sorry this time there's no excuse. Last time was one thing (hell my friend told me that he honestly didn't believe enough people could vote for Bush and that's why he voted for Nader) but now we have seen how bad this administration is.

[mdguss]

19. They're Not Smart:

They'll probably answer, "Because bringing our troops home is the only way to bring peace to Iraq." They think that statement is for peace, but in my view it is fundamentally (as Nader has proven time and again to be) intellectually dishonest.

If troops were pulled out of Iraq within 90 days of Nader being sworn in, war lords would fill to power vaccum. They'd fight battles for power and violence would reign in a war torn country. So while it's easy to say that pulling the troops out is the best way to bring peace to Iraq, that view is intellectually dishonest.

Peace will only be brought to Iraq if democratic institutions and means are built (this will take years). For that to happen, American (and hopefully more international) soldiers stay to discourage violence.

The peace movement should ask itself what will, long-term, bring the most peaceful solution to Iraq? A unilaterial American pull-out is not the answer to that question.

[no name no slogan]

24. Don't know much about Iraqi history, do you?

If troops were pulled out of Iraq within 90 days of Nader being sworn in, war lords would fill to power vaccum. They'd fight battles for power and violence would reign in a war torn country. So while it's easy to say that pulling the troops out is the best way to bring peace to Iraq, that view is intellectually dishonest.

Unfortunately for you, current events belie the above statement.

In cities like Fallujah (where Americans have been FORCED OUT of the city) and many others not occupied by the "allies", a form of civil order and government has taken hold. The Iraqis are proving the premise that "they cannot organize themselves" to be false.

The Iraqis have been living under the hardship of war and starvation for the last 14 years. Even they are ready to run things for themselves, REGARDLESS of how they do it. Fully 70% of Iraqis want the troops to leave AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, regardless of the consequences.

Certainly, there will be some factional fighting among some of the more extreme groups-- just like there is in almost every country. However, Iraq has a long history of secularism and tolerance. Iraqis of different religions (Shia, Sunni, Christians, even Jews) have lived together relatively peacefully for hundreds if not thousands of years.

The writing's on the wall. The Iraqis want us OUT. They want to control their own destinies, and rebuild their country the way THEY want it-- not the way Halliburton wants it. This is not a country we can "stabilize", nor is it a war we can "win".

[janx]

21. A lot of very capable and even brilliant people voted for

Nader last time. They didn't have the same information you or I did about Chimpy. They didn't like Chimpy, obviously, but they didn't know just how dangerous he was.

Believe me, I know some of them well and am related to some of them. I've asked them.

[fujiyama]

22. The friend I mentioned

is one of the smartest people I know. He's working on his PhD at one of the most prestigious technical universities in the country.

He sincerely told me that he honestly didn't believe that so many people would be stupid enough vote for Bush.

[janx]

25. One of the friends I mentioned (hell, more than one!)

is a nationally acclaimed poet. She did not realize how serious the situation was.

[bushwakker]

23. I think a lot of folks didn't realize how fucking crazy the GOP is

I knew Bush would make Reagan look like Mario Cuomo. Many voters who don't pay as much attention seem to think there's no difference between Dems and GOP.

[janx]

26. Exactly. In some instances, there isn't much difference.

Politics is politics, with all of the accompanying corruption and disappointment. But in the important and critical policy instances, there certainly is a difference, provided that the politicians we vote for actually deliver what we insist upon.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. In 2000, a lot of people (at least in Oregon)

were unhappy with Clinton's caving in to the Republicans and his Republican Lite initiatives, such as Welfare Reform and NAFTA. (I voted for Nader in 1996 for these reasons, but only because I knew Dole would lose.)

I was part of a lot of political discussions in the fall of 2000, and for most people, it boiled down to how bad they thought Bush would be. If they were horrified by the prospect of a Bush presidency, they voted for Gore. If they were optimists and thought that Bushboy would be no worse than Poppy, then they voted for Nader.

Sad to say, I didn't know anyone who was enthusiastic about Gore. It was more a matter of pragmatism. The more mature voters took the attitude, "Bush is too horrible to contemplate, so I'll vote for this guy I'm not really that crazy about." The ideologues and the youngest voters were most likely to stick with Nader, no matter what.

If only Gore had shown the feisty side of himself that he's shown ever since his Saturday Night Live appearance, he would have won the 2000 election so decisively that the Republicanites would not have been able to steal it.

[democracyindanger]

30. Book smarts v. Street Smarts

God, I hate academics.

[WillyT]

31. It's The 'This Time' I Have A Real Problem With !!!

But hey...

You can vote for Mickey Mouse in a democracy, just don't ask me to repect you for it.

:shrug:

[Princess Turandot]

32. No matter what people thought abt policies in 2000..

of Bush vs. Gore, there were three other names Nader supporters should have kept in mind:

Rehnquist
Scalia
Thomas

All things considered, the chances of a Republican president nominating a conservative justice were (and are) far greater than
they would have been with a Democrat. No one should have considered
that an acceptable risk.

Al Sharpton may have had the best line of the convention when he said that if George Bush had appointed the members of SCOTUS in 1954,
Clarence Thomas may never have made it to law school.