The Nader blame game.

[Senior citizen]

Okay, let's say you're part of the Democratic Party leadership. You know there was proven election fraud in Florida in 2000, you know that not a single Democratic Senator would support the Congressional Black Caucus protest, and you know that Gore caved and there is a lot of anger out there. What do you do?

Blame Nader!

Again, you're part of the Democratic Party leadership. You approve of the war, despite all the lies, the torture, everything, and you know that most liberals do not. You're running a pro-war candidate and you want Democratic votes, but Nader, being against the war might get some of them. What do you do? You say that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, and that Bush is MORE pro-war than your candidate. That's right:

Blame Nader!

Okay, you're part of the Democratic or Republican Party leadership, and you want to retain corporate (fascist) control of America, but you know that much of the electorate prefers democracy. The biggest threat to the corporate parties is from Nader, so you pull every dirty trick you can to make him look crooked and immoral (send in forms signed "Mickey Mouse"), give him corporate party support to alienate liberals, demonize him, vilify him at every opportunity, and say that he is the enemy, rather than your corporate party colleagues in either of the corporate parties.

Blame Nader!

Some people will be blaming Nader until the day they die. They don't care about stopping the war, ending corporate rule, having free and fair elections, or anything else. They just don't think that Americans like Nader should have the right to run for office. He takes votes away from the corporate parties, and for fascists that's the biggest sin of all--much worse than torturing and killing innocent civilians for oil, or rigging elections. Why, that no-good-so-and-so actually OPPOSES many of the things that both corporate parties either favor or just go along with. We can't have that, now, can we?

I feel so guilty about having been taken in, and having given my vote to a pro-war, corporate party candidate (Kerry), that if Nader doesn't run in 2008, I'll probably write him in. If his running mate, Peter Camejo runs, he'll definitely have my vote.

Nader has been telling us all along that there's no substantive difference between the two corporate parties, and that instead of voting for the lesser of two evils (the supposedly less pro-war candidate), we should, if we oppose the war, vote for an anti-war candidate. What really makes me angry is that I believe that Kerry won the election, and that he didn't bother to contest it because he, as one of the people on the inside, knows that Nader is absolutely correct--that there isn't any substantive difference between one pro-war candidate and another, between him and Bush.

I know he won the debates. I'm not the world's greatest debater, but even I know that he could have done even better. Why did he hold back? It really hurt me to see "my" candidate shake hands with the war criminal. Well, what are a few war crimes between frat brothers?

I've been wondering how long I'll last on DU. I think I was welcome only to keep me from voting for Nader. It worked and I feel used and abused. I know I'm not the only one. I think DU is giving us a cooling off period, to dissipate our anger about having been used, and will, prior to the next election, return to being a corporate party strategy tool. The election rigging got more sophisticated, so the third party bashing probably will also.

Maybe I'm committing DU suicide in posting this, but that's how I feel.

There is nothing like DU anywhere. I love it here. But I'm reminded of the time, years back, when a guy showed up at Chabad house with a silver Ferarri and asked if anyone wanted to go for a ride. I declined, but the Rabbi needed to get somewhere and accepted. I was the one who got the phone call to bail the Rabbi out of jail. Why did I decline the ride? I've never ridden in a Ferrari, but I knew the guy who was driving it couldn't afford it, so it was probably stolen, which turned out to be the case. I get by with cheap food instead of luxury foods because I'm poor and I don't want to go to jail for stealing foods I can't afford. If DU turns out to be another luxury I can't afford, I'll really miss it, but I'll forego it. More innocent Iraqis died today because I voted for a pro-war candidate instead of for Nader. That's how I see it. My bad.

[Bombtrack]

1. I don't have time to go through that whole thing right now

but I stopped at the "pro-war" democratic candidate thing. The only truely "pro-war" candidate to run in the democratic primary was Lieberman.

[Senior citizen]

2. That graphic is exactly what you , the chimp, and Kerry are saying.

You must really get a laugh out of posting it here.

[Bombtrack]

15. Um, you aren't making any sense

Me and Kerry say one thing about the position he has had on the war, people like you and chimp say the other, false thing about Kerry's position, which is conflating the Iraq resolution with being "for the war".

[Senior citizen]

16. Hey, same to you, buddy.

Kerry said we have to win this war. Is that pro-war enough for you? I haven't distorted his position, and it isn't about the Iraq resolution.

Now that the election has been stolen for the chimp, your graphic is in poor taste, no matter how much satisfaction it gives you.

That's what fascists have always said to liberals.

That you and Kerry are using the chimp to say it to us, speaks louder than words.

[Bombtrack]

17. I have the graphic becaust it shows what a douchebag Bush is

What an unstatesmanlike empty suit he is.

It's frigging preposterous to just proclaim it has some meaning that you pull out of your ass about me agreeing with him in any way shape or form.

[Senior citizen]

21. That would have been appropriate prior to the stolen election.

It has a different meaning now and is extremely inappropriate.

But you already know that.

Your reasoned and well-worded discourse explains it all.

Not.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noiretextatique]

3. and ironically enough...nader may be one of the ones

to blow this election scam wide open. some are still speculating that his is agreeing to recounts to help *...
let's face it: nader could not win, even if he was the best candidate.
he didn't even have the support he had in 2000, because of many things you mentioned.
i have been saying this for four years: democrats enabled the coup by not tackling the disenfranchisement issue, and republicans would steal the 2004 election again because of that acquiesence. it's easier to blame nader than to face the truth.

[greenohio]

58. Not to mention greens were attacked constantly

on this board. The fact of the matter is the country is in the center. To win, the Democrats will need to move to the center. If you can't stand it, vote green.

[aquart]

4. Nobody had to tell me to blame Ralph.

And last night I saw a New York county that went Bush because of the Nader vote. Small thing, and added into the main total which went Kerry, but there it was, pissing me off.

[Senior citizen]

10. OMG! This is BIG!

You really saw a New York county where the vote wasn't rigged, where there was no fraud whatsoever, and the chimp really won it? How did you get the audit logs? Have you notified Ida Briggs and Bev? We can save a whole lot of money if you already have proof that no votes were switched from Kerry to Bush or Nader by means of fraud, because then we won't have to spend the money to audit.

C'mon, aquart, give it up! How did you get the proof? Have you posted it yet?

(We already know that pukes wanted Nader on the ballot because it makes the fraud less obvious if votes are switched from Kerry to Nader than if they are switched from Kerry to Bush. New Yorkers are pretty sophisticated, even in the 'burbs, and they were the closest to 9/11. Most of them are LIHOPpers or MIHOPpers. I'd be really happy to know that some people were sane enough to vote for Nader in large enough numbers to effect even a single county's outcome, but I can't just take it on faith.)

[parasim]

5. I totally agree with you.

I never could undertand the extreme hatred toward Nader from many on this board.

[sweetladybug]

7. Nader is a hero to me now. And I never blamed him in the 2000

election because of Gore's loss (since I knew the 2000 election was stolen along with the 2002 election and this year's elections)

[Kahuna]

25. Well you know. If you aid and abet the repukes so that they control..

they entire government, stolen elections is the logical result. Say buh bye to legitimate elections. Because thanks to Nader and his crew we have seen the last of them.

[ramapo]

6. Nader deserves blame but not for election results

You can't blame Nader for 2000 any more than you can lay blame Pat Buchanan or any of the other third party candidate who received more than 535 votes in Florida. And nobody here "blames" Ross Perot for helping Clinton get elected.

Nader had little impact in '04.

I agreed with Nader's message in 2000 though I didn't vote for him because I was afraid of what might happen.

My problem with Nader is he basically disappeared after his 2000 post-election news conference. Sure he went on his book tour but he did nothing to help the Green Party or to grow the progressive grass roots in general. Then he comes back in '04 with his same shtick having nothing to show for the past four years.

I'd love a viable third-party movement to shake up the status quo. It certainly won't be led by Nader.

[Skink]

12. Recount

I hope Nader and other 3rd party canidates draw attention to this years voting Fraud. As far as N.H. goes it does matter if there was machine fraud. I remember seeing startingly similar statistics weighted toward Kerry in the N.H. Primary from the opti scan counties. Now I don't think Kerry was behind it, no just a party interested in hedging their bet and tweaking their hacking skills, heck if machine vote fraud was found out they could pin it on the dems.
A N.H primary loss could have been a huge blow to Kerry paving the way for Edwards, Clark or Dean.

[QC]

8. Please explain this bit.

More innocent Iraqis died today because I voted for a pro-war candidate instead of for Nader. That's how I see it. My bad.

I'm having a hard time following your logic here.

[Senior citizen]

11. The logic of ending the war by voting for a pro-war

candidate isn't easy to follow either.

What's interesting isn't our own logical abilities or lack thereof, but the fascinating "logic" that the voting tabulators seem to have followed.

[LoZoccolo]

29. Then you concede that your statement is illogical.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[amber dog democrat]

9. If you wanted to vote for Nader - you might have done so.

I respect your right to make decisions and stand by them. You don't need to know what i think about Ralph - At this point it did not matter - but I question whether anything could have stopped this war once the fix went in.

This juggernaut has a life of its own now. We will be dealing with it for a while.
One thing I want to share with you is my growing sense that we have already lost this way but the decision makers don't yet have the courage of feel the necessity to admit it. Worse than Vietnam.

[Senior citizen]

14. Well, we've got many returned Iraqi veterans protesting the war.

What we don't have is what John Kerry had in the Viet Nam days: A Congress that will listen and respond to truth.

[Liberal Veteran]

13. Sorry, but I have no love left for Nader because...

...in between 2000 and 2004 he did ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING to try to strengthen the progressive/liberal movement. Then he shows up at the last minute for his usual "blah blah blah...parties are the same" bullshit and then whores himself out for the republicans.

It's sad because I used to have a lot respect for the man. Now I am somewhere between contempt and indifference to him.

[Senior citizen]

18. Okay, please explain to me why the "blah blah blah....

parties are the same" ISN'T bullshit.

Neither of them wants a recount.

Both of them are pro-war.

Neither of them want to make corporations more responsible.

Both parties favor NAFTA, GATT, etc.

The pukes act like fascists.

The Dems act like kinder, gentler fascists.

In opposing globalization, corporate money-bought legislation, and by offering himself and his life's work as an alternative to the corrupt corporate party system, Nader WAS trying to strengthen the progressive/liberal movement. That's why the Democrats saw him as such a threat. He offered a real alternative to politics as usual and the status quo. And while the pukes didn't see him as a real threat, and in fact, felt that his candidacy might be useful to their election fraud, the Democrats DID see him as a major threat, and did everything possible to keep him off the ballot.

Many of the people who don't admire and respect Nader, think he was wrong to run at all.

Well, suppose that in your city or town there were some problems and you wrote letters to the papers, talked to civic groups, and went to your councilmembers with solutions to those problems, but nothing was done. Suppose that you decided that the best way to get those problems solved, or at least to get people to pay more attention to your solutions to those problems, was for you to run for office. And now just suppose that the people already in office, or backed by the major local parties, decided that since they had no real response to your position, they would just try to keep you off the ballot. How would you feel? This used to be America. This used to be a democracy where every citizen was free to run for office if they qualified, and the way to oppose them was to appeal to the voters, not to keep them off the ballot. Some of us old fogies remember those days.

[Liberal Veteran]

19. I disagree with you wholeheartedly.....

The democrats are not by and large "pro-war". You are taking a vote out of context to suit your own agenda. As another person said, other than perhaps Lieberman and Zell, pro-war is a GROSS misrepresentation of why a yes vote was granted on IWR.

NAFTA was passed by MORE republicans than democrats and most democrats believe in FAIR TRADE, not free trade. Do I need to explain the difference?

And the notion that democrats don't wish to make corporations more responsible is ludicrous on the face of it. Why do you think corporations favor republicans so much if that is the case?

I'll be the first to agree there is too much corporate influence in ALL politics, but you don't see the democrats out there trying to weaken enviromnental laws, open wilderness to industry, give huge corporate giveaways, and weaken worker protections the way the republicans are.

If I believed the two parties were exactly the same, I'd be the first person to drop my party affiliation. But I don't because it's not factual.

[Selatius]

28. They may not be pro-war, but it can't be denied that they folded on IWR

Regardless, I doubt anyone here seriously disputes the notion that the DLC takes corporate cash because they do, and that is what angers many progressives in the party, and that's why there will always be a consistent antagonism between people in the DLC and everyone else in the party. I don't want a party beholden to big business/special interests. I want a party for the people, but unless there is a serious fight to purge the party of careerists who are simply in it for the paycheck and corporatists who worship greed, I'm still going to be an unhappy little "d" Democrat instead of a big "D" guy.

[sangh0]

40. Selatius, you just blew the Golden Rule

"Never retreat"

If you're going to admit that "Dems are pro-war" was a lie, why would we believe an even weaker line of argument?

Your argument is based on completely ignoring the glaring differences in the parties, while fetishizing the most tenous of comparisons. There's a reason the big business gives more to the repukes, but we'll never hear you tell us why that is.

[Selatius]

47. It's not ignoring the differences on the parties

Your argument is based on completely ignoring the glaring differences in the parties, while fetishizing the most tenous of comparisons. There's a reason the big business gives more to the repukes, but we'll never hear you tell us why that is.

Anyone who looks at the parties in detail could plainly see there are differences between the two; it's why I am a Democrat to begin with, but the fundamental fact remains that we have a system that gives the advantage to those who have the money and the resources in this country, and as long at that is the case, this party will be subject to the same pull that the Republicans are subject to as well. The fact that the corporatist DLC even exists inside the Democratic Party is a shameful one at that as well as the fact many have sold out, especially when it comes to the workers in this country. Big business gives to candidates in both parties, and yes, they do give more to Republicans, but that's because they are in power. They give to both parties so that no matter who wins, they at least have a sympathetic ear, a foot in the door.

[noiretextatique]

20. what do you mean he did nothing?

what was he supposed to do? everytime nader made a statement against * and his policies, people here dismissed it as nothing...or worse.

[shockra]

27. This Nader hate really depresses me

Nader did NOTHING for four years? Just read from the F.A.Q. page at his website:

What has Ralph done since 2000?
Just because you may not have heard daily of Ralph on the corporate media, doesn’t mean that Ralph has been silent.

Apart from being the same consumer advocate he has always been, uplifting young people’s civic interests, and writing books, Ralph has continued to speak out on all kinds of issues, for a sample:

the many reforms that need to be made in the electoral process, including, the corrupt funding of public campaigns, the disenfranchisement of voters, and the vote-counting machine deficiencies;
the quagmire wars in Afghanistan and Iraq;
more corporate-managed globalization;
corporate war profiteering;
the corporate crime, fraud and abuse crime wave;
the need to send corporate crooks to jail;
the need for integrity in accounting;
the mad cow disease and food hazards generally;
the annual Congressional pay raises while the living wage is nonexistent for 45 millions workers;
the ill-suited appointments by the Bush Administration;
the exclusionary Commission on Presidential Debates;
low income neighborhood redlining, payday loans and rent to own rackets and other predatory lending;
lead contamination and record rates of asthma in children;
the subordination of sustainable economic and technological solutions to environmental devastation and government indifference;
the criminal injustice system and the need to open wider the civil courts to defrauded or wrongfully injured people presently denied justice; and
the need for more consumer health, safety and economic protection.
Additionally, Ralph has recently started four new citizen organizations.

Earlier this month, along with several third parties and former candidates, he sued the Federal Election Commission for not acting against the two-party controlled partisan Commission on Presidential Debates.

What has Ralph done to build the Green Party?
As the New York State Greens wrote recently:

"Ralph Nader has done more to grow the Green Party than any other individual in this country. He has run as our presidential candidate twice, and has helped the Green Party tremendously in raising funds in between campaigns. He has supported numerous local Green Party candidates, and has attracted media attention that the Green Party would not have received otherwise. Green Party enrollment surged after both of his presidential bids..."

Specifically, during the election, Ralph helped:

local Greens start 450 new local Green chapters,
achieve ballot lines for several states,
support state and local candidates;
make the party grow from an association of states to a national party;
recruit and share lists of tens of thousands of volunteers; and
start 900 chapters on college campuses, all resulting in the largest vote for a progressive candidacy in 75 years.

Since 2000, Ralph:

wrote Crashing the Party, touting the Green Party and its platform;
attended 45 fundraisers in some 31 states, at his own expense, raising more money than anyone for the Green Party at the national party, state and local levels;
sent representatives to the Global Greens Conference in Canberra in 2001; the Hiawassee, GA meeting in 2000; the Santa Barbara, CA meeting in 2001; and the D.C. meeting in 2003; Ralph attended the Philadelphia, PA conference in 2002.
has met with dozens of Green leaders around the Globe as they visit D.C.;
went to Europe in 2002 for the 3rd annual Congress of European Greens in Germany, and visited the French and Swedish Greens before their elections.

[newyawker99]

50. Hi shockra!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[m berst]

23. Well said

The debate and the resultant growing split among Dems is the very similar to what happened to opposition parties in Germany and France right before fascists took over there. One group thought that working within the system and taking a centrist approach would rally the people and avert the catastrophe. They were loathe to call the fascists for what they were, and purged the "extremists" and and "alarmists" who urged taking a strong and unambiguous stand against fascism. The other group thought that there was no safe compromise with fascists.

In both Germany and France, the moderate centrist efforts isolated the strong uncompromising voices, which they saw as an annoying and disloyal irritant. This left the dissidents to be picked off one by one by the fascists, and the centrists looked the other way or in many cases collaborated with the fascists.

When the showdown final came - and it always does - the left had already purged, or permitted the purging, of its strongest people and had rejected the strong anti-fascist stance.

The centrists tried to work with the fascists as though they were just another political party, and set to work on moderate programs. The centrists were steamrolled flat by the fascists.

It really surprised me to see liberals on liberal boards telling people "if you don't like it why don't you leave." That used to be real extremist right wing fringe crackpot stuff.

My friend and colleague from France, when he showed up a couple of years ago, was apalled at what had happened to us here. I think that the changes are gradual, so we aren't as aware of them and when someone comes here from outside they get an overview that it is hard for us to see. He said that we are like a third world country now with the exception that we are a third world country attached to a monstrous war machine.

Apparently, the social collapse here is really obvious to outsiders, from the sprawl, to the decaying infrastructure, to the incessant shreiking and screaming right wing propaganda in the media, to the chronic crisis mentality and incivility, to the difficulties everyday people are having with mere survival. Everything is difficult or impossible to do, and nothing works right. Predatory hucksters are on the loose and control every aspect of people's lives. We are awash in sales pitches, rip off schemes and scams, catch 22's, surprises, price and rate increases, and declining or non-existent services. Everyone is living on credit and slaving away to barely make ends meet.

He said it is like walking into Hell, or into some post-apocalyptic sci-fi movie.

I don't know what it is going to take. So many people don't want to look at things because they say it is too depressing. To me, not looking at it is the depressing thing. Then, people say they are overwhelmed and feel helpless and hopeless about this stuff, while in my mind it represents a big and exciting opportunity. Reminds me of a blank canvas. But as many tell me, I am "the only one" who sees things this way. That must make me "wrong."

I have to believe that the complete unwillingness of the DNC, the Kerry campaign, and the majority of Dems and liberals to discuss issues of race, class and empire, not to mention the clear and present danger of fascism and totalitarianism, must be a unconcious mimcry - a mirror reflection - of the right wing totalitarian mindset.

So support and defend the Democratic party. I have no objection to that. Supporting the Democratic party isn't really what this argument is about, though. On all of the boards I have told the ABB people that no votes are being won for the Democratic part yby their arguments, and no one has ever challenged that. Those who are going to vote the Democratic party will, and those who will not are so few as to be inconsequential. Yet a Democratic party apologist will spend days and days arguing with anyone who strays from the party line.

Party line - you are for us or against us. The choices are the Democratic party or Bush. Get used to it. That is the only thing to decide and the only thing to talk about. Everything that anyone says or does either helps the Democratic party or hurts the Democratic party and that is the only way to assess or interpret anything.

Attacking Nader is about reinforcing the false hope that we are not facing fascism. No one wants to face that. It seems too outrageous and too frightening. The Democratic party represents a safe emotional haven. That is why people are so intolerant of any critics. Not because the critics are hurting the Democratic party or helping Bush, but because they are threatening the illusion that there is minimal danger and that a crisis can be averted relatively painlessly.

This illusion would be OK - I certainly don't want to frighten people - were it not so dangerous.

The showdown is coming, and it will come regardless of who is in the White House. It is inescapable. The question then becomes how do we prepare for the coming crisis? That is more important than how we vote. You can't beat fascists with the parliamentary process. They will cheat, they will rob, they will murder, and having a weak and burdened and centrist Democratic party may actually help their plans rather than hurt them.

Before the the Kerry campaign, there were actually more people agreeing with me than there are now - which is odd, don't you think? Did Bush become less of a threat? Is the Democratic party stronger than it was? Has the situation in the country improved? We have more evidence today than we did a year ago about what the Bush cabal is doing, and less excuse for putting our heads in the sand, do we not? The Kerry campaign has caused people to be less alert, and less open to discussing and considering the dangers.

But I have expressed these sentiments 1000 different times 1000 different ways over the last year or so, and was saying the same thing 5 years ago with little effect. In fact, right from the start this was my only interest and my only reason for being involved in politics at all. Now time is running out.

We have thrown away 9 critical and valuable months with infighting. That has not only weakened our community, broken our momentum, and driven tens of thousands of people back out of politics, but it has not gained the Democratic party one vote. Yet people persist, more aggressively than ever. Are they trying to convince themselves? Must we all join them in this exercise in self-delusion?

We have seen played out again for ythe last 9 months the very reasons we all got so interested in the first place being invalidated, and we have watched them slowly evaporating until there is barely a trace left. The danger grows greater and greater while we grow weaker and weaker, as all of our enthusiasm and hope is pounded and pounded and pounded into one thought and one thought only - mindless loyalty to the Democratic party. This gains nothing for the party, and it in fact weakens the party and it weakened Kerry's chances. Yet still they persist with the Nader bashing and the Democratic party loyalty tests.

[ReadTomPaine]

46. Impressive points you make here. Thank you for this.

[shockra]

48. Yes, superlative post

Through and through.

In this case the Democratic Party attacking the far left ended up weakening both.

Ironically, I was a Deaniac until Dean dropped out and started bashing Nader. That only made me more curious as to what there was to be so afraid of. So I started reading Nader's positions, and agreed with them. Kerry never appealed to me at all so it was an easy defection.

As much as I loved Dean I wasn't going to be told who *not* to vote for. I was insulted by the implication that I shouldn't think for myself, *this* time, or *any* time.

I'm old enough to remember watching Nader on the Donahue show as a teen, and being very jazzed by his appearances. He was so bright, concerned about people's welfare, and gawkily funny that it made a deep impression on me how rare a bird he was. He was inspiring. My god, if I had had to see into the future the kind of antipathy he would wind up attracting I would have been absolutely sick.

[Julien Sorel]

49. He's still a rare bird.

About to become extinct. Several years too late, but sometimes you have to take things as and when they come along.

[OrwellwasRight]

54. Great points! I'll make this short.

I voted for Nader in 96 (I still get asked "Did he run in 96?" Yes, folks!).

I didn't vote for him in 2000 because I liked Gore much more than I ever liked Clinton and because Bush appeared to me to have a hell of a lot more destructive potential than Dole.

If Katherine Harris wasn't a lying, cheating, immoral, beeeeaaaaach, and had not scrubbed folks improperly from voter rolls, would the world be different today? Most likely.

If every Nader vote in 2000 had gone to Gore, would the world be different today? Most likely.

As m points out, it not only is not productive to waste hate on Nader and his supporters, it could actually HELP the right. Many of the statements in reference to Nader supporters seem nasty and uncalled for.

That said, it creeped me out that Nader let Repubs gather signatures to get him on the ballot in MI (and elsewhere), and I for one will never support him again. But nor will I villify third parties. We need all lefties!

Thanks, m.

[Kahuna]

24. I'll tell you why Nader is to blame. He is responsible for the

entire government being in control of the repukes. Got it? So you can bitch about what the Dems are and are not doing. But because Nader knowingly helped the repukes to achieve one party rule, I blame him. Yes. And a lot of his voters who were also old enough to know better.

[Selatius]

30. Katherine Harris did more damage in 2000 than Nader ever could

She was the one who purged how many? 58,000 voters? Is that right?

[LoZoccolo]

31. Katherine Harris is not on our side.

Nader pretends to be, and gets too much credit for his act.

[Selatius]

35. I don't deny Nader may be an egomaniac in it for his own reasons

But if we're going to get into a discussion of who or what cost us the election in 2000, then the answer is clear: Katherine Harris and the fraud in Florida.

[LoZoccolo]

38. No it's not clear.

Because eliminating either one of those things could have led to a Gore victory.

[Selatius]

39. To correct, it may have been both afterall

Nader won 97,421 votes in Florida in 2000.
Bush won 2,912,790.
Gore won 2,912,253.

The difference between Gore and Bush was just 537.

How many votes were purged by Katherine Harris again? How many of those voters were Democratic leaning? How many of those were African-American???

[noiretextatique]

52. blameless democrats against democracy...again

why did gore leave it to the NAACP to investigate the erroneous purging of non-felons in florida?
why didn't a single democratic senator join the CBC's protest? (i think they were pissed about the purge of non-felons too)
why didn't gore say what others said about the SCOTUS decision...that is was treasonously partisan?
have you ever heard of SCOTUS?
do you REALLY believe in paticipatory democracy, or only when it's conveinent for democrats (ross perot)?
do you REALLy believe democrats are still blameless?
did nader's paricipation in 2004 "win" the election for bush?
so many questions, so tired of asking them.

[LoZoccolo]

26. My vote for most senseless part of this thread goes to this.

More innocent Iraqis died today because I voted for a pro-war candidate instead of for Nader. That's how I see it. My bad.

Somehow this person's theory of causation has gone nonlinear.

Post your votes for this or any other part of the thread here.

[Cheswick2.0]

32. Nader is partially to blame and Gore didn't cave

Gore fought the right, the Nader "left", the media and ultimately his own party in the form of the DLC during the election and afterwards.

He fought for 36 days basically alone.
Where was Nader and his duopoly lie then? Seems to me I remember Nader chuckling about the whole thing with Katherine Harris.

[Skwmom]

33. I've come to realize that many of the Democrats are just

as delusional as the Bush supporters. The Democrats have only themselves to blame for the current state of the Democratic party.

[Cheswick2.0]

37. I have found Nader people to be more delusional and even more obnoxious

than the DLC drones.

[Skwmom]

51. I find that the Nader voters aren't people easily swayed by

propaganda and false memes (unlike others who jump on the bandwagon once a false meme is repeated often enough).

[LoZoccolo]

34. This is another funny part.

Okay, you're part of the Democratic or Republican Party leadership, and you want to retain corporate (fascist) control of America, but you know that much of the electorate prefers democracy. The biggest threat to the corporate parties is from Nader, so you pull every dirty trick you can to make him look crooked and immoral (send in forms signed "Mickey Mouse"), give him corporate party support to alienate liberals, demonize him, vilify him at every opportunity, and say that he is the enemy, rather than your corporate party colleagues in either of the corporate parties.

Yes, we are to believe that his Republican donors wanted to alienate liberals from Nader so they'd vote for Kerry instead, thus giving Kerry a better chance.

[jpgray]

36. Nader owns stock in Halliburton, Raytheon, General Dynamics and Boeing

He is profiting off the war both ways--by fleecing naive idealists who oppose it, and by investing in the companies who profit shamelessly off it.

Are you saying you want to fight for the kinder, gentler hypocrite? I thought a vote for Nader was a vote for a clear conscience? Remember the comedy of his attacking Gore for holding Occidental Oil stock when he himself had some? Ah Ralph, how deeply you have tarnished your memory.

[mzmolly]

61. AMEN!

:toast:

[quaker bill]

41. Outside of his role in contesting NH results

Nader is and always was irrelevant.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dark]

43. Well, would you rather we blame Clinton?

[noiretextatique]

57. clinton is not blameless

if he had the good of the party in mind, he could have resigned and let gore become president. obviously, he wasn't thinking about that.

[John_H]

44. LOL! Nader supporters are such fucking idiots that it's not worth

half a breath reasoning with them. Moran.

[noiretextatique]

53. the poster voted for kerry, in case you missed that

and do you support nader's recount efforts NOW? if so, you are a moran, per your own definition.

[StopTheMorans]

45. read my handle, and apply it to yourself

[Doomsayer13]

55. Nader got what he wanted - he should quit bitching

Nader WANTED Republicans to gain power. He said it himself. He WANTED things to get worse before they "got better". He WANTED to defeat the Democrats. And now he has the audacity to bitch and moan about how bad things are. Well, you'll excuse me if I don't buy his shit for a minute.

Is Nader to blame for Gore's loss? No, not entirely. Gore ran a shitty campaign and Harris stole it from us. But there is also no doubt that him breaking his pledge to run in the swing states and him making a last ditch effort to defeat Gore helped Harris steal it. And do we have to take his constant bitching and moaning about how bad things are in America and how the Democrats have done nothing? I think not. This was his goal. This is what he wanted.

I would be content with never having to talk about that old coot again, but as long as he and his supporters feel it their perogative to harp on how terrible the Democrats are, I reserve the right to remind them that this is the America they wanted and the America they campaigned for. Him and his apologists will have to live in the America they helped create, even if they don't want to take responsibility for it.

[Swamp Rat]

56. I'm still your friend Senior Citizen!

:)

And I can relate! :(

[Skidmore]

59. Oh, for cryin' out loud....

yeeesh!!

[HR_Pufnstuf]

60. Anyone notice that Nader did not get the 7%...

... that all the polls in May had him at? Because it was NEVER real. The MSM made it up. The 7% Nader Vote was used to show that Kerry would be behind Bush if Nader got 7%, and it helped stop Nader, and made the Dems start the Blame Nader campaign.

And does anyone even know that the Reform Party (conservatives) backed Nader? Why was that kept so quiet in the MSM? Cuz it would hurt Bush by saying so..

New Rule - Corporations that give $ to any candidates should be kept from Polling. No more public manipulation.

[planetwarming]

62. Democrats Don't Take Global Warming Seriously Enough

Kyoto is not enough, and yet they are unwilling to even have that. We need to decrease emissions by 60-80% by 2030-2050. It won't matter what reductions we make after a certain point.