Because Of Nader, President Gore Is Not Finishing His Second Term
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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Before we go giving Nader so much credit remember that in this alternate reality we'd also be saying good by to VICE PRESIDENT LIEBERMAN. Let's just say there's plenty of blame to go around for losing the 2000 race.
I'm happy to see that a preponderence of the comments here are in support of Nader's right to run as a third party candidate. It is absurd to blame Nader for Gore's loss in 2000 and then go silent on why this country re-elected Bush in 2004.
So - answer this: Who do you blame for the 2004 presidential and congressional election results? The stupidity of a large portion of the electorate? Well, that's my answer. We live in a Democracy, and when your favorite candidate doesn't win, you sometimes have to accept that fact and move on. Try to do better next time. This blame game is childish and counterproductive to the cause of improving the state of our nation. Mr. Budowski, you seem to be endowed with a powerful ability to know what "would have" happened given a Gore victory in 2000. Any intelligent reader will reject a lot of your arguments out of hand, since you, nor anybody, *knows* what WOULD have happened in Gore's presidency. My hypothesis is he would have been assasinated or somehow removed from office in order to get that hawk scumbag Lieberman in charge. Business as usual...
The election was STOLEN. For real. At least 90,000 probable Democrats lost their vote in Florida alone.
So it wouldn't have mattered if Ralph didn't run.
Why doesn't anyone care about that anymore?
It's easier to point and blame someone else.
nader's criticisms are valid, his method for pushing his agenda is not. obviously, gore has many reasons to fault his own campaign for his loss. but nader and his merry band of nitwits are part of the reason that we now have the chimp in office. it's irresponsible to deny that fact, just as ralph's run in the face of global warming and iraq is irresponsible. he will cost the democrats votes and he will bite into the potential democratic sweep that might give a president obama the needed veto-proof majority to enact sweeping changes. but no matter, a few self-righteous "progressives" out there get to feel superior by voting for "purity."
So your answer is to vote Democratic so that they can do...nothi
In that case, thank God.
Gore and his globalwarminmongers would have raised taxes and completely destroyed the economy. Been a bit of a cold winter, hasn't it? Could be global cooling starting again. Let's keep that CO2 handy, just in case (you do know that warm is better than cold as the greatest concentration of life is at the equator where it is hottest and the lowest is at the poles where it is coldest.)
This man will be running for Pres., until he takes his last breath. This time, however, he will not be a factor in dertermining the next Pres.
If you've actually researched the topic you'd see that it's far more complicated than you're making it out to be. CO2 traps heat, but can also deflect sunlight in the winter. This leads to much hotter summers (the 18 hottest years on record all occurred within the past 20 years), and very cold, albeit much shorter winters. The general trend is a steady warming however. Funny, you flat-earthers talk you you've got it all figured out. I would have assumed that you'd at least know the dumbed-down elementary version.
Oh please - put the blame where it belongs - on a partisian Supreme Court selling out millions of disenfranchised voters to protect the civil rights of a priviliged frat boy . Blame a bunch of slimey Repug operatives paid by the GOP to go down to Fla. and hector voting officials.
Blame it on Dim wimps like Gore and Lieberman ( who eventually showed his true colors) who couldn't abandon their pseudo- gentility to stand up for the people who supported them.
Blame it on all these sanctimonious Repugs who should be embaressed at what they've done to the country but won't admit making a mistake...
But don't blame it on democracy!
Considering how many posters have been attacking the dominance of big business in the US, it's interesting that they're now attacking perhaps the greatest opponent of that dominance the US has ever produced. Many posters have bemoaned the demise of the Edwards campaign, saying it was ignored by the MSM, that it was indicative of how truly progressive candidates are shut out. Nader certainly has a large ego (how could he not have have and accomplished what he has?), but he certainly isn't running because he has serious expectations of becoming president. He's running precisely because most of the issues that progressives care about are either being ignored or soft-pedalled by Clinton and Obama, while he intends to starkly highlight them and in so doing force them to confront them. Perhaps he read NYT writer Gail Collin's Feb. 23 column about the silence of the leading Democratic candidates regarding the issue of gun control, which mentions Obama's climbdown on the issue (after supporting gun control as an Illinois senator) with the ending zinger "Yes We Can't".
What a stupid post. Nader should run for president, he'd be a great president.
Another "poster" on HUFF call Ralph an a**hole.
I can't believe the crybabies!
It's not Ralph's fault, that Gore couldn't carry his home state, or Ohio. It's not Ralph's fault, that the Supreme Court picked our President.
Ralph is not responsible for the war, or the lies, or the present economy.
If your candidate (Gore) was so weak he couldn't fend off Nader, he deserved to lose! And what did Gore do while all this was being done by G.B.? He was silent! He went off to make $$$$$! Gore is a crybaby!
What else can we blame Nader for? Global warming, the nuts in Iran, home foreclosures, unemployment, etc., etc.....
Try putting the blame where it belongs; Al Gore, the Democratic party, and the weak press who didn't ask the hard questions when Bush and company were ruining our reputation, our government systems, and our military.
It's been eight years and people STILL think that Nader caused Gore to lose? Really? Shouldn't the focus of Gore's loss center on Gore's own mistake of demanding recounts in specific counties, instead of demanding a statewide recount? It was based on that criteria that the stacked Supreme Court decided the recount was illegal and should be stopped. So there's point two: the Supreme Court, which had been padded with flagrantly biased justices during Reagan's and Daddy Bush's administrations. And let's not ignore how blatant Florida's state government was about stopping the recount at all cost.
i get really really tired of people claiming Nader spoiled Gore's chances. Sure, a handful of people voted for him who MIGHT have otherwise voted for Gore. But as pointed out already: Gore and his campaign underestimated the voters, expecting them to stay somewhere in the middle, so Gore made his campaign about staying in the center (hence his ludicrous choice for running mate, which by itself probably turned off a LOT of Democrats).
Let it go. Nader didn't cause the last eight years of bullshit and misery. Nader didn't hand over a second term to The Worst President In U.S. History. Keep the attention focused where it belongs: Bush and his eight years of destroying democracy.
Last note: i think it's a great expression of what scraps remain of our Constitution that someone other than a Republican or Democrat is willing to put a serious effort into presidential candidacy. As difficult as the Two Party system makes it for anyone else to be a contender, at least Nader is standing up to that exclusion and saying it's wrong, just like he's stood up to the other corporations who endlessly screw over common people.
First of all, everybody who runs for president has a healthy ego, let's face it. Each candidate out there thinks he or she is the one who can lead this country in the right direction. That takes a very healthy ego.
The Iraq War might not have happened if Democrats in Congress showed some spine and worked to hold this president accountable.
I think Ralph Nader would probably get a kick out of you accusing him of having a midlife crisis at the age of 74.
In America, we prize ourselves in encouraging multiple parties to run for office. Imagine if we lived in a country where Nader wasn't able to participate, because the ruling party(ies) acted as dictators, and decided who and who not to allow to run. One of the most ludicrous statements I've ever heard, is when someone says, a third party candidate cost us the election.
Quit whining.
It's up to politicians and parties to win votes. If they fail, the error is ALWAYS theirs: they couldn't get the sale, or weren't offering what that voter wanted. Yelling at the candidate that voter *did* vote for, or even worse, at the voter, is futile, wrong-headed, and unbelieveably arrogant. No candidate owns votes. A candidate who can't earn these votes doesn't deserve them.
If Al Gore thought he deserved--or was entitled to--the support of everyone who voted Nader, the failure was his, because he didn't go out and earn that citizen's trust and support.
Anyone who thinks Nader does this for his own ego is not very alert or cannot understand that the Repubs and Dems are a mirror image of one another. He gave a brilliant explanation this morning to knucklehead Russert, who set it up beautifully for Ralph to jake it into the bloody bullpen. Gore lost in a squeeker to Scalia's "Undue Harm" ruling...n
Originally, I also blamed Nader for Gore's defeat in 2000. However, after educating myself with the facts, it became apparent that while Nader may have contributed to the Democrat's defeat, it is not accurate to assign him all the blame.
It is just possible that having Nader run in the 2008 election might end up being a plus for the Democrats. Perhaps it will scare them enough to run a REAL campaign (unlike the lackluster one in 2004).
After 8 years of "the Decider" and his criminal "administration", if the Democrats can't give the Republicans a REAL thumpin' this November, they might was well close up shop.
I am so happy we finally have a true progressive in the race. I will be casting my vote for Nader. The two party system is corrupt and still has not learned its lesson. I will dissent.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
