Nader's Running Mate: "Get Beyond 2000"

Don't bother tryiing to defend yourself against the Nader-baiting, Democratic sycophants who believe in continuing the war, oppose free, single payer, universal health care and support unbridled free trade like NAFTA (Hillary and Obama refuse to commit to immediately, safely pulling out all US troops and contractors and thus favor continuing the war, oppose single-payer, free universal health care and, despite campaign rhetroric to the contrary support NAFTA).

I wish Nader's campaign really did cause Gore to lose in 2000. Unfortunately it didn't. But the way progressives acted, getting down on their hands and knees and begging forgiveness from the DLC after they were portrayed as having caused Bush to win, caused them to lose the leverage they would have had if the Dems believed that progressives might bolt again. If they had caused Bush to win, then they would have had leverage to force the Dems to act like Dems for the next period. Instead the Dems collaborated in going to war and funding it, assaulting the Constitution and assisting in destroying the labor movement and allowing the courts to become ideological institutions for right wing nuts, rather than impartial judicial bodies.

So long as Dems believe progressives will act like Pavlov's dogs and salivate by voting Democratic no matter what every time they ring the Nader-baiting bell, ignoring the facts that the Dems have been as pro-war as Bush, as anti-single payer, free, universal health care as the insurance companies and as pro NAFTA as the corporations -- and have collaborated, and continue to collaborate on the assualt on the Constitution, they will continue to move to the right.

Progressives need to understand that if the Dems refuse to support progressive positions, they don't deserve progressive votes. And they need to use their vote as leverage to force the Dems to do the right thing, or lose.

Nader has every right to run for the presidency. The problem is that he never has the courage to wage a serious campaign as a presidential candidate. The ego tripping comes across as iffy when he waits until the nomination process is half over, then picks a couple of issues, that the announced candidates have not sufficiently addressed, to use as his reasons for jumping into the MIDDLE of a year long campaign.

He's not in it to win it, but to play the attention-getting spoiler for one side or the other. Nader is lazy.
Too lazy to do the serious fund raising, too lazy to plan a campaign strategy, too lazy to debate, too lazy to (maybe too old) get out on the stump and really let people hear and see him. Just putting his name on the ballot is not enough.

He was too lazy in 2000, 2004 and now a repeat in 2008 does not deserve to be taken seriously.

Many Iraqis will not get past 2002. Are you brain dead Mr. Gonzalez?

We who survived cannot until this POS leaves office, DOOFUS!

The Democrats were still bitching about 1888 as late as the 1920s.

The dead Iraqis are getting beyond 2002 asshol..

I said this previously, but feel compelled to repeat it: VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE. I have had it with voting between the lesser of two evils. It's like eating something you know is going to make you sick, but you swallow it anyway.
Voting your conscience is REAL CHANGE. Don't stay away from the voting booth because you can't bring yourself to vote Republican or Democrat. This isn't about Nader. If you think he bites, use the write-in option. It's there for a reason.
Electing the lesser of two evils has led us to this dismal state of affairs. I just learned a new word from a poster on another thread: KAKISTOCRACY: Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens. (Greek kakistos, worst, superlative of kakos, bad; )

Nader's nadir?

I will never forget nor forgive Nader for 2000. His campaign was and is bought and paid for by Republicans. He reminds me of the Old West - when some Indians would track for the Cavalry and turn on their own people.

Ralph Nader means nothing NOW and cannot effect any election NOW.

He is irrelevant to today's elections

But in 2000...............he was a knife in the back of DEMOCRACY. We know that now, back then he was only a thorn in our side?

Wow. You mean Nader is Egotistical? Really? Huh...And here I thought he was just an old man who had squandered his admirable legacy whilst facilitating a presidency that has undermined the US Constitution, curbed our civil liberties, alienated our allies, engaged in pre-emptive war, conducted torture, stacked the US Supreme Court with Conservative Justices, raped the environment, robbed what remains of the middle class, sold-off labor and our jobs to the lowest bidder...ohhhh, I could go on, but my hands are cramping.

Yes, Perot split the ticket too. You have no chance of winning. None. Perot was not in the race to masturbate himself publicly - he was in it to win. You and your imbalanced running mate, Nader, are in this to make a statement. Why don't you both go to Kinkos and make yourselves a BIG poster - Write whatever you want on it...and parade around the country - there's your statement. I'll even throw in for the copies at Kinkos! But don't mess with our future just so that you can stroke yourselves and play out your fantasy.

The reality (I know, this reality thing is a difficult concept for the two of you) is that Nader (and now you) are despised and hated by the VAST MAJORITY of intelligent progressives, liberals, and democrats (not to mention a healthy margin of everyone else) due to his behavior in 2000 (and to a lesser extent 2004, but only because he was effectively ignored). Those who do not find him offensive, find him creepy. Yes, creepy. He is at best imbalanced, at worst a sadistic jerk. And you, your his groupie. Stop it. It is irresponsible and selfish. Grow the F up. If you do, there might be milk and cookies in it for you.

Just about everything Gonzalez says here is true. The facts are sometimes hard to face, but you have to come to a realization, learn from them, and move on. Its nearly 8 years gone by and some Democrats havent learned anything from the failure in Florida.

The roughly 98,000 Nader voters, and roughly 18,000 Buchanan voters were nothing but a scape goat. If you operate under the assumption that registered Democrats only voted for Gore and nobody else, that means that atleast 900,000 Democrats didnt even bother to show up to the polls in 2000 (3.8 mil registered - Gore's 2.9mil votes). If you operate under the assumption that only 40% of Independents/No Party voters might have gone Gore's way, then that 'no show' figure jumps to as high as nearly 1,450,000 people did not even show up to cast their vote at all. George W Bush won by exactly 537 votes in 2000, and its supposedly all Nader's fault? Give me a break.

If Democrats dont permanently get over this "Blame Nader for all our Problems" mentality, Florida, a Republican leaning state already, will be lost for another generation.

For the 2000 General Election, there were 3.8 million registered Democrats, 3.43 million registered Republicans, and 1.35 million registered "No Party affiliation" out of the 8.75 million registered Floridians.

For the 2008 Presidential Primaries, there were now 4.14 million registered Democrats, 3.83 million registered Republicans, and over 1.9 million registered "No party" out of 10.2 million registered Florida voters.

So to do the math, in a little more than 7 years, there is a gain of 1.45 million more total registered voters. Democrats have gained only 350k, the Republicans 400k, and "No Party" 550k. You cant blame Ralph Nader for this pathetic voter outreach by the Democrats.

Its totally understandable why 2 million Floridians might want no part of the Republican party. All you Democrats who still blame Nader need to only look in the mirror for why they want no part of you either.

I voted for Nader in 2000 and I'm not afraid to admit it. Given all that's happened in the last 7 years it's easy to forget that at the time, Bush and Gore were advocating almost identical policies.

The Gore of 2000 was bending over backwards to show everyone how conservative he could be by choosing Lieberman as a running mate and bragging about his support for the first Gulf War. Likewise, Bush was running as a "compassionate conservative" who wanted to avoid foreign entaglements and "nation building". It wasn't until after the election that they truly differentiated themselves.

I'm giving Obama my vote this year because he actually appears to differ from his opponents on some key issues. If the Democrats want my vote they have to earn it.

On the playground of the Huffington Post Charter School, a kindergartener who thought he had the sandbox all to himself berates the new kid: "My candidate's supporters are a movement. Your candidate's supporters are a cult."

everything in politics is about ego, we're no different! wow this guy's a real winner, a perfect fit with nader...sorry but everything about the last 7.5 years makes it kind of hard to just get over what happened in 2000.