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

[steverexxx]

And if Al Gore was president now, he'd be campaigning for his VP Joe Lieberman to become the democratic nominee. It seems to me that Ralph Nader has succeeded in pushing the democrats to the left. Al Gore and John Kerry are much more liberal now than when they were running for president. I hope Nader pushes Obama even further left.

[pmorlan]

I voted for Gore in 2000 and was very upset when Bush was given the presidency but I think it's just plain silly to blame Nader for Gore's loss. I'd blame the Supreme Court or Gore himself for picking Joe Lieberman as his VP before I'd blame Nader.

Good grief, Nader had every right to run and still does. Where do you get off telling people that they can't run? I bet you also were one of the people that kept telling Edwards to get out of the race because he might "take away votes" from your favorite candidate. This may be news to you but your candidate has to earn votes. He/she doesn't get them by default.

I know it's hard to tell these days but we still live in a democracy and no one, least of all you, has the right to tell someone else that they can't be a candidate. Maybe you need to grow up.

[nomobull]

this is not 2000 or 2004 voters are doing homework i am and know others who are. nadaer obviously didn't.

[Thorn]

If Gore couldn't pull those votes off of Nader, whose fault is that? Why don't you go all the way and blame Bush for all those votes that were "rightfully" Gore's? And why stop there? Foreign people didn't vote for Gore. Dead people didn't. (Mostly.) Imaginary people also didn't vote for Gore.

Be more creepily biased.

[CitizenE]

Time to drag out the old scapegoat politics again; really, it's easy to see why Nader is often so little infatuated with Democratic party. If pigs had wings, Mr. Budowsky; given the state of the economy at the time, the popularity of the Clinton administration, an honest person would have to surmise that the election should not have even been close.

The problem, then as now, is the problem that Nader has repeatedly pointed to--politics in Washington does not represent the interests of most of our citizens, though it does a good job of fooling people about it.

In the last debates both Clinton and Obama, before elucidating their plans, blandly accepted the premise that the surge has been such a great success, despite the ongoing daily violence there, albeit moving from the 3rd to the 6th or 7th rung of hell, despite the cholera outbreaks, the lack of potable water or electricity, despite one of the world's largest if not the world's largest emigrant crisis, not to mention the ongoing crisis of displaced citizenry, despite the ever increasing US investment in permanent bases, despite no drawdown of US forces there, meaning our military forces who were close to the bone months ago have not miriaculously gotten stronger, despite growing numbers of veterans coming home with ruined lives.
Rather than pout about Ralph Nader, why don't folks like you remember what is actually at stake right now. This being caught up in petty politics and whining about why the Democrats didn't get it together in 00 bodes extremely ill in my opinion for 08-12.

[LAcarlito]

Though I agree 100% with your comments about Nader, he did not cost Gore the election in 2000. Gore's arrogance in 2000 cost himself the election. He ran from using a very popular Bill Clinton and lost Arkansas (as well as his home state of TENN).

Everyone focuses on the 90,000+ Nader votes in FLA, but Gore's inability to swallow his pride and use Clinton in 2000 cost him the election. But everything else you said about the ego-maniac Nader was spot on!

...BTW, when we see how Bill Clinton is helping his wife this time, maybe Al Gore wasn't wrong.

[OverIt]

I agree with you LAcarlito. I LOVE LOVE LOVE Al Gore but he grossly underestimated how much people still loved Bill Clinton and how much leeway he had in the election. I think Gore had been through the ringer so much under the Clintons' barrage of scandals over the years that he felt it was his time in 2000... almost a foregone conclusion. In fact, he felt so comfortable that he had the Democratic base in his corner that he went out of his way to add the most Republican-leaning "Democrat" to his ticket as a way to start reaching across the aisle. Looking at Lieberman today it is painfully clear that this was a miscalculation. It never should have been that close in FL and Gore should have won many more states than he did. But as they say, hindsight is 20/20.