• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Thank You Ralph Nader!

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,045
Location
Yokohama, Japan
I just wanted to express my sincere thanks to supergenius Ralph Nader and all those geniuses who voted for him.
Gore, Bush, hey what's the difference? I mean, just because Gore is a big critic of the Iraq war and concerned about global warming, that doesn't make ANY REAL DIFFERENCE, DOES IT? I mean the same evil corporations would be pulling Gore's strings too, right? On behalf of all the grateful people of the world, THANK YOU RALPH NADER!!!!
 
The scary thing is that if Ralph and people like him didn't run, the Democrats would run out of people to blame. Which would make even less people vote for them.
 
strathmeyer said:
The scary thing is that if Ralph and people like him didn't run, the Democrats would run out of people to blame. Which would make even less people vote for them.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Nader didn't lose the election for the Democrats--the Democrats did. Nader makes a convenient scapegoat.

I voted for Nader in 2000, and again in 2004. I don't regret it either time; Nader came closest to representing my viewpoint, not Gore, Bush, or that schmuck Kerry. It's unlikely he'll run again in 08--he's no spring chicken--but I'll be damned if I'll vote for someone like Hillary Clinton. If she gets the nomination, I'll be more than happy to vote Green again.
 
Maybe the odd timing of this thread's appearence is because Nader appeared on The Daily Show with John Stewart a couple of days ago.

I used to think Nader was truly one of the great men in my country, and in some ways, maybe he is, but on Stewart's show he came across as self-centered and uncompromising. The fact that he was willing to let the country be controlled by a politician whos views oppose his strongly, rather than one whose views were roughly parallel makes me wonder about his priorities. During the election, he said Bush and Gore were essentially the same, a postion that obviously could not have been more wrong, especially environment-wise.

So the fact that Nader was willing to sacrifice the environment to his ego makes me very sad. I have lost much respect for him because it doesn't matter how enthusiastic you are if you are not pragmatic.
 
Cleon said:
Bingo. Nader didn't lose the election for the Democrats--the Democrats did. Nader makes a convenient scapegoat.
Click to expand...

It should be obvious in any close election that a change in any small variable could have meant a change in the results. Nader was one such variable. Undoubtedly, if he hadn't run, most of his votes would have gone to Gore, just like if Perot hadn't run in the Clinton/GHW Bush election, most of his votes would have gone to Bush. Though it isn't clear to me that Perot's policies were closer to Bush's than Clintons, buisnesspeople was the demographic he was commanding, one that traditionally votes Republican.

But of course, there are always many factors.

So you may call Nader a "convenient scapegoat" if you like, but unless you can show that the Democrats would have lost even if he hadn't run, then your not making a good case for that.
 
Tricky said:
So the fact that Nader was willing to sacrifice the environment to his ego makes me very sad. I have lost much respect for him because it doesn't matter how enthusiastic you are if you are not pragmatic.
Click to expand...
In Nader's world view, the political/industrial complex is the prime bogey man, with the environment an important second. Given the way politics in Washington work, he is dead right about his assessment on Gore and GWB in that regard, particularly given his activist past and points of emphasis over a fine career as a pain in the butt to the rich and indifferent.

I have as much respect for him as I always had, he is who he is. Given his long career and the many successes he had that made things a bit smarter and safer for the average Joe, I don't mind if he reads his own news clippings now and again. He has earned the right.

I renewed my admiration for him over his frank, incisive commentary at the Seattle Word Trade meeting/protest a few years back. He was the only guy on the panel with anything of substance to add. I also give him Kudos for being a leader who skewered Governor Rowland of CT, when that corrupt official tried to pull a fast one -- to move the Patriots to Hartford without due diligence up front.

As it turns out, Rowland was pretty crooked, and eventually got caught in a larger bit of skullduggery.
From USA Today:
Former Gov. Rowland gets a year in prison for graft
By Matt Apuzzo and John Christoffersen, Associated Press
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Former Gov. John G. Rowland was sentenced to a year in prison and four months of house arrest Friday for selling his office in a corruption scandal that destroyed his career as one of the Republican Party's brightest and fastest-rising stars. The judge imposed the sentence after Rowland pleaded for leniency and confessed that he had lost his way morally and developed "a sense of entitlement and even arrogance."

"I let my pride get in my way," the three-term Republican told U.S. District Judge Peter Dorsey.

Rowland, 47, pleaded guilty in December to a corruption charge, admitting that he sold his office for more than $100,000 in chartered trips to Las Vegas, vacations in Vermont and Florida, and improvements at his lakeside cottage. He resigned last summer amid a gathering drive to impeach him.
Click to expand...
You can say what you like about Ralph. He may have hit the Peter Principle point at gadfly and consumer advocate, but he's still got plenty of thumbs up in my book.

DR
 
Last edited:
Tricky said:
So you may call Nader a "convenient scapegoat" if you like, but unless you can show that the Democrats would have lost even if he hadn't run, then your not making a good case for that.
Click to expand...

No, I don't need to show that. All I need to show is that the Democrats failed to provide a candidate strong enough to pick up the votes that wound up going for Nader--which I can do by pointing to the fact that a number of people voted for Nader and not Gore.

Yeah, I will continue to refer to him as a "convenient scapegoat," because that's really all he is. If the Democrats had run decent candidates, Nader wouldn't have gotten the votes that he did. It's easier for them to blame Nader than to admit that they just didn't attract the people who voted for him.

Nader didn't lose the election for the Democrats--the Democrats did. If their candidates weren't strong enough, it's not Nader's fault. It's the Democrats'.

The interesting thing is that in 2004, even if all Nader's votes went to Kerry, Bush still would've won both the popular and electoral votes. So who do you blame then?
 
Cleon said:
No, I don't need to show that. All I need to show is that the Democrats failed to provide a candidate strong enough to pick up the votes that wound up going for Nader--which I can do by pointing to the fact that a number of people voted for Nader and not Gore.

Yeah, I will continue to refer to him as a "convenient scapegoat," because that's really all he is. If the Democrats had run decent candidates, Nader wouldn't have gotten the votes that he did. It's easier for them to blame Nader than to admit that they just didn't attract the people who voted for him.

Nader didn't lose the election for the Democrats--the Democrats did. If their candidates weren't strong enough, it's not Nader's fault. It's the Democrats'.

The interesting thing is that in 2004, even if all Nader's votes went to Kerry, Bush still would've won both the popular and electoral votes. So who do you blame then?
Click to expand...
Nader, and of course suspiscions of voting fraud, the NeoCons, Pat Buchanan, and anyone else who comes to mind. :)

DR
 
I think it's a problem throughout the west, that any party that is even somewhat to the left will invariably be so concerned about how to appeal to conservative/right-wing voters, that they'll disqualify any leader or political platform that might actually appeal to, well, leftists.

During the Bush/Kerry election, which is without comparison the US presidential campaign that was best covered in Europe (like, they even aired some of the actual debates) this was perhaps more obvious than ever. I mean, here we have someone like Bush, who is obviously not afraid of being controversial and making a lot of people pissed off. Then we have Kerry, who I'm sure is really much more reasonable and would actually have been a better president in several respects of some importance. But.. he's so afraid to show it that he only came out as a sort of 'Bush light'. I remember during one debate, where Bush did his usual number by proclaiming how he'd 'track down' terrorists wherever they were. And so Kerry feels a little uncertain, and has to top Bush.. so he responds by saying that he will kill terrorists wherever they are.

Norway is perhaps one of the few counter-examples. The Social democrats had been losing voter support for many elections. Conservatives, and, what is even worse, a xenophobic right-wing 'anti-establishment' party were marching forward. Then the Social democrats actually went to elections with a program that seemed a lot like, well, social democracy: improvements in the public sector, an end to Thatcher-era privatisations, significant commitments like (real) debt relief to third world countries, and more reasonable demands in trade negotiations them... and not only did they win the elections, they are actually still very popular after a year and a half of actually following through with much of what they said they'd do.
 
Tricky said:
Maybe the odd timing of this thread's appearence is because Nader appeared on The Daily Show with John Stewart a couple of days ago.

I used to think Nader was truly one of the great men in my country, and in some ways, maybe he is, but on Stewart's show he came across as self-centered and uncompromising. The fact that he was willing to let the country be controlled by a politician whos views oppose his strongly, rather than one whose views were roughly parallel makes me wonder about his priorities. During the election, he said Bush and Gore were essentially the same, a postion that obviously could not have been more wrong, especially environment-wise.

So the fact that Nader was willing to sacrifice the environment to his ego makes me very sad. I have lost much respect for him because it doesn't matter how enthusiastic you are if you are not pragmatic.
Click to expand...

Well said, I no longer consider Nader important or helpful. i.e.he is useless.:mad:
 
Tricky said:
...just like if Perot hadn't run in the Clinton/GHW Bush election, most of his votes would have gone to Bush.
Click to expand...
I really hate to bring this up, but this has not been established, at least not enough to have changed the result of the election. Maybe you didn't mean it that way.

If you didn't, sorry...
 
Cleon said:
No, I don't need to show that. All I need to show is that the Democrats failed to provide a candidate strong enough to pick up the votes that wound up going for Nader--which I can do by pointing to the fact that a number of people voted for Nader and not Gore.

Yeah, I will continue to refer to him as a "convenient scapegoat," because that's really all he is. If the Democrats had run decent candidates, Nader wouldn't have gotten the votes that he did. It's easier for them to blame Nader than to admit that they just didn't attract the people who voted for him.

Nader didn't lose the election for the Democrats--the Democrats did. If their candidates weren't strong enough, it's not Nader's fault. It's the Democrats'.

The interesting thing is that in 2004, even if all Nader's votes went to Kerry, Bush still would've won both the popular and electoral votes. So who do you blame then?
Click to expand...

I disagree with this. If Nader hadn't run in 2000 then Gore would've won. Yes, if the Dems had run a better candidate in 2000 then the Dems would've won, but so what? If the GOP had run a worse candidate in 2000 then the Dems would've won too (and don't say there were no worse candidates than Bush because there were). Or if Nader hadn't run in 2000 _and_ the Dems had run a better candidate than Gore then the Dems would've won by a lot. So what?

The bottom line is that in 2000 Nader constantly said the Dems and the GOP were virtually identical. He didn't say Gore was bad, he said the Dems were bad. He said over and over that the only difference between the Dems and the GOP is the difference in speed with which they drop to their knees, which considering what has happened since then is obviously nonsense.

Nader knew his running in 2000 would increase Bush's chances of being elected so when I see him rail against Bush on TV now I'm not buying it for a minute. He can say whatever he wants but his actions reveal his intent.
 
Cleon said:
Bingo. Nader didn't lose the election for the Democrats--the Democrats did. Nader makes a convenient scapegoat.

I voted for Nader in 2000, and again in 2004. I don't regret it either time; Nader came closest to representing my viewpoint, not Gore, Bush, or that schmuck Kerry.
Click to expand...

So Al Gore and George Bush were equally far from your viewpoint?

If Gore had taken the positions that would have satisfied the purist Nader voters, he would have lost more voters in the center than he would have picked up on the left. Gore positioned himself about as well as possible.

Is this a time travel thing, or just a database hiccup?
Click to expand...
Last time I checked the repercussions of 2000 are still being felt. In fact Bush's Supreme Court nominees will still be around for perhaps another three decades. The Iraq war continue until at least 2009 and its repercussions will last much longer.
 
Puppycow said:
In fact Bush's Supreme Court nominees will still be around for perhaps another three decades.
Click to expand...
Does it occur to you that this is and was also true of justices nominated by Truman through Clinton?

Why is the nomination package by Bush so special to you? Could it be your bias?

DR
 
Puppycow said:
Last time I checked the repercussions of 2000 are still being felt. In fact Bush's Supreme Court nominees will still be around for perhaps another three decades. The Iraq war continue until at least 2009 and its repercussions will last much longer.
Click to expand...
This just in:

After six years of being president, Bush still sucks!:eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom