Because Of Nader, President Gore Is Not Finishing His Second Term

If the Academy Awards could give a lifetime achievement award for vainglorious pomposity and self-indulgence, the Oscar goes to Ralph Nader.

Had Ralph Nader not run in 2000, President Al Gore would be finishing his second term. The Iraq war would never have happened, Abu Ghraib would have been nothing more than a fiction in horror movies. There would be a progressive majority on the Supreme Court rather than Roberts and Alito.

Had Ralph Nader not run in 2000, President Gore would have received the Nobel Peace Prize for historic global warming policies enacted during his presidency.

Now here comes Nader again, mid-life crisis and all, a little boy in a man's body, desperately in need of gainful employment, and pathetically in need of media attention, doing it again.

It is a shame that someone who had made such enormous contributions promoting honest conduct for corporations, major protection for consumers and significant support for the environment is reduced to another pathetic vanity play that can only help those he once battled on behalf of us all.

It wont matter, voters will not make the same mistake again, but make no mistake, when the award is presented for ego, vanity and pomposity the Oscar goes to Ralph Nader.

Comments

[alexcharner]

Thank you Brent

[SolarPowerGuy]

Good golly, it's eight years later, and some people think that the horsepuckey is still fresh!

I'm a long-time Green Party member, and former Nader supporter. He received my enthusiastic support in 2000 AND in 1996. No one seems to remember that he ran four years earlier as a write-in and earned nearly a million votes.

I won't go into my reasons for withdrawing my support for Nader beginning in 2004 unless requested. It's sort of inside baseball, if you're not a member of the Green Party. I've posted it elsewhere on HuffPo.

I will tell you that I did NOT have a change of heart because I believe that Democrats have improved, in fact they've gotten WORSE.

NOT because I believe that the stakes are higher, and so progressives must "compromise" to stop the Republicans.

Most importantly, for all you inexplicab­ly-toadyin­g Democrats, I did NOT abandon Nader because I believe in "the spoiler effect." AND neither does Al From, chairman of the DLC in 2000, who told you all to call off the dogs, right after the election.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041226192948/www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=3&kaid=86&subid=84&contentid=2919

You ignored Mr. From QUITE effectively -- so why, then, do you hang on every rightward-leaning word of other DLC leaders, such as Hillary Clinton?

Remember that, in 2000, eleven percent of YOU Democrats DEFECTED from Gore and voted for BUSH. Only four percent of Republicans betrayed THEIR party. And yet YOU have the audacity to SCOLD the 2.6% of the electorate who went for Nader. Shame on you.

[kerrylus]

It's simple:
-Al Gore won Florida.
-The Supreme Court overruled the state and refused to count votes
-Al Gore won the popular vote
-Al Gore won the election

Who to blame:
-The people (all of us) for not rising up and being more active in protecting our democracy.
-The Supreme Court
-The Media for its misrepresentation of the facts, and its biased and adolescent spin against Al Gore

Why it is important that Nader and other third-party candidates continue to run:
-because everyone should have access to running for president, not just the democrats and the republicans
-because we as citizens should not have our candidates pre-screened and weeded out us.
-Because it is essential to have a progressive voice that holds the "left", right and middle to addressing issues like global warming and corporate greed.

Blaming Nader is childish and irresponsible. You are scapegoating him. What happened to Gore was a symptom of far bigger and ongoing serious problems in our country. Read The Assault on Reason by Al Gore, it spells it out.

[TurnThePageGA]

Sorry but at least 2/3 of those 98,000 votes that Ralph got would have gone to Gore. The Supreme Court would never have gotten involved. Ralph has to live with that and all the anti-Nader stuff that has happened under the Bush Administration.

[Caolas]

Let me clue you in on something.. There were 49 other states participated in that 2000 election. And Florida was, and is, a Republican leaning state.

From 1952 up to, and including, the election of 2000, Florida has gone in the Democratic column only three times. Three times in thirteen elections. The first was Johnson in '64 and he was running against Goldwater. The second was Carter in '76. It wasnt until '96, when there was no George HW Bush on the ballot , that Florida went for Bill Clinton. The candidate "George Bush" has won all four times it has been on the ballot while the Democrats had won only 3 times in the last 50some years. So please, stop crying about Florida.

As has been mentioned, Al Gore didnt even win his home state of Tennessee. The last person to be elected President without winning their home state was Woodrow Wilson in 1916, and he was running for his second term (He carried it his first time). If Gore wins his home state, he is President.

If Al Gore won Nevada, a state Bill Clinton carried twice, he would have been President. The same is true if Gore would have won the state of New Hampshire, which was carried twice by Bill Clinton.

If Al Gore had carried West Virginia he would have been President. In losing, he joined Walter Mondale, George McGovern, and Adlai Stevenson's second run of 1956 (he won in '52) as the only Democrats in 68 years (1932-2000) that failed to win West Virginia.

Al Gore cost himself that election. Not only for failing to win over those who wound up voting for Nader, but also for failing to attract any of the 40% of eligible voters who didnt even bother to show up to the polls.

[runswithscissors]

Let's see. Gore said that he agreed with Bush an unprecedented 39 times in a single debate. Lieberman was his running mate, and we all know how he feels about Bush. What basis does anyone have for saying that things would be different?

Before becoming prez, Bush was involved in several dubious business deals, and then became one of the most corrupt governors we've ever had. Yet people still voted for him because he said that Gore claimed to have invented the internet. I've got an idea...blame the people!!!

[Fairfloss]

How many excuses are there now for Al Gore not becoming President?
Chads and hanging chads, some people not being allowed to vote in Florida, judges, the Clintons, and now Ralph Nader. Al Gore did not become President because HE did not win the election. When he lost, in hide and sulked, which only proved he lacked strength and leadership qualities.
GET OVER IT ALL READY.

[2LaneIA]

Amen, Mr. Budowsky. I watched his performance, such as it was, this morning, and wondered why Tim Russert gave him the time. Then again, maybe Tim and his corporate masters think that Ralph will help get McCain elected. Wouldn't that be swell.

[ProWarDem]

Never give up. Vote your heart.
http://www.nader2008.org

[Democrat2008]

Welcome back, Ralph Nader.
We’re glad to see you back, although most of us believe that you had siphoned away the votes for Al Gore back in the 2000 election. But to put it in your own words, it is certainly not YOUR fault. In the meantime, Al Gore received the Nobel Prize as a reward for his environmental activism, and what have you done? Oh, we forgot. You’re running again.

[OSUMercutio]

We can play "what-ifs" all day long but it's pointless.

If Bill Clinton had resigned after being impeached, Al Gore would have been elected.
If the votes were counted correctly, Al Gore would have been elected.
If Al Gore had not run a centrist campaign and spoke passionately about the environment, he would have been elected.
If Al Gore had won his home state of Tennessee, and clinton's Arkansas, he would have won.

[white4green]

If I'm not mistaken, if Gore won Tennessee -OR- Arkansas he would have won. Also, don't forget the approximately 250,000 Florida Democrats that voted for 'W'. (That's a staggering 11%, according to "SolarPowerGuy" (above).

[OtayPanky]

Brent Budowsky: Because Of Nader, President Gore Is Not Finishing His Second Term

===

What a crock of crap...one that has been recycled endlessly by libs for way too long, now.

It's not because of NADER that Gore lost, but because of GORE. He campaigned like he had a stick up his behind the whole time. Like Kerry, and like Hillary, he simply failed to connect with the electorate.

And that election SHOULD have been a walk in the park for him. Instead, he actually didn't even win his home state of Tennessee. Hell, even Walter Mondale, who lost every other state, won his home state in 1984.

Our body politic is well served by all the quixotic, independent characters who are willing to toss their hats into the ring. They often articulate deep and important truths that others won't. They have a history in our country that goes right back to the beginning.

No one - NO ONE - should try to bully them off the stage, or blame them when one of the mainline candidates doesn't get the job done.

'Nuff said!

[tbone99]

If the country refuses turn out in sufficient numbers to vote for a black candidate or a woman candidate because they 're just not ready to break 400 years of tradition , then who are you going to blame?

[Lemeritus]

Well, there's where Nader might come in handy, don't'cha think?

[uglicoyote]

Is Nader and a**hole. Perhaps. That doesn't negate his right to run for President. Last time I checked, anybody who has met the constitutional requirements and can anti-up the necessary simoleons to mount a campaign, has a right to do so.
Two points:
1. The Al Gore of 2000 is not the Al Gore of today. I damn near voted for Nader because of Lieberman, but I held my nose and voted Dem. Gore and Lieberman were the two moderate Republicans in 2000.
2. This election is the Democrat's to lose. If we lose this one then we might as well fold our tent, regroup, and consider a new party. If we lose it won't be Nader's fault. It wasn't his fault in 2000 either. It was ours.

[ElkoJohn]

so those of us fed up with the Repug party and their Dem lackeys cast our protest vote for Ralph. The Florida vote was in question bc of hanky-panky at the polls, the Supreme Court elected emperor Bush as Prez, Billy C. passed on the opportunity to resign over his girlfriend to allow Al to run as the incumbent, emperor George suspends Habeas Corpus, ignores our Constitution and international law with impunity, and tortures our "enemy combatants" in secret prisons. Only a very few Dems in Congress are concerned. Our fearless leader, Nancy P. takes impeachment off the table. Our fearless leader, Harry R. defends the big money lobbyists giving pols aid & comfort with "what's wrong with that" -- So to register a protest vote now, you can vote R.Paul or R.Nader. And look at it this way, eight more years of Repugs would bring the Am.Empire to its knees, and then perhaps the 50.05% of voters who vote Repug all the time might get an education, so why not? It's a free country isn't it? NADER NOW & FOREVER.

[bg66astoria]

Another fine post. Clear thinking that we get in too few places these days. The real campaign funny season must have started since we now have an advocate who refuses to accept his disastrously negative impact on our current system. Where are his 'handlers' or medics to advise him to say no?