Ralph Nader appreciation thread.

[Pab Sungenis]

I appreciate that he's not running.

And hope it stays that way.

[Old and In the Way]

1. Thanks Ralph! nt

[onehandle]

2. Amen. nt

[mike_c]

3. flame bait....

Slow day in your world, huh?

[AnOhioan]

5. Agreed....but then the Nader-haters need no excuse

[Pab Sungenis]

7. I don't hate him.

I'm just glad that isn't playing spoiler this time around.

[LiberalLovinLug]

74. Did he plan to run in 2012 and then bowed out? Did I miss something?

If not, then yes its flame bait.
Bringing up old news in order to poke at an old scab that you know will have a polarizing effect on DU.

All this to re-badmouth an outstanding US citizen that has looked out for consumers for decades. Who stands for ideals that the Democratic party USED to stand for. What many of us wish our Democratic representatives WOULD actually stand for and vocalize.

Not only is Ralphs running not the only reason Bush Jr. won, Harris and the Supreme Court did their part as well, but also the methodical march to the right that the Democrats and the DLC are heading. If Gore had been more firebrand about the Corporatocricy of America, and undue influence in Washington in his campaign, Ralph would have had the wind knocked out of his sails, or maybe even not run at all.

My god, so hypothetically, had Martin Luther King been running because the Democrats had refused to fully support de-segregation, and clung to their previous position on the topic, causing enough of the liberal base to vote for MLK and upset the vote, I suppose you'd be dragging his name through the mud as well.

Believe me, I can understand the ANGUISH. But to bad mouth someone who put himself out there to talk truth to the American people, knowing he would take abuse from both sides, is just wrong.

[brooklynite]

77. Considering the number of "Primary Obama now" threads floating around, I think it's a fair post.

[TheWraith]

8. For pointing out his responsibility for the Bush administration?

Yes, because it's useful to remember what happens when that delusional, "Democrats and Republicans are equally at fault" bullshit is allowed even the slightest crevice of acceptance.

[AnOhioan]

14. He was not responsible

You can tell yourself that ad infinitum, but that does not make it so.

Blame Gore for running a lack-luster campaign, blame Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris for rigging the Florida vote, blame the Justices of the Supreme Court who allowed the travesty that was Dubya to occur.

I will not castigate the man for speaking his mind and running for office.

[MisterP]

19. they sure don't seem to want to blame Jeb and Harris, or acknowledge that 2000 was a coup

or even blame Gloria LaRiva

[TheWraith]

26. And infinite denial doesn't change the fact: without Nader we wouldn't have had Bush.

No Nader campaign means no 97,000 votes in Florida, and Gore puts the state in the bag easily. Everything else wouldn't have meant shit. It's really easy to blame Gore, but some people still haven't learned the lesson from Nader 2000: that the "Democrats and Republicans are equally bad" line is total, utter, and complete horseshit. There is no comparison.

[frylock]

30. tough shit..

nader didn't break any laws by running.

[dionysus]

33. was it worth it to you? nt

[frylock]

45. take it up with the 300000 registered DEMOCRATS in FL that voted for bush

[LiberalLovinLug]

80. Oh Snap!

[ellisonz]

38. +1

"The Nader Fallacy"

[LiberalAndProud]

75. It can be aruged that he only made Florida easier to steal.

Jeb did for Junior what he promised; he delivered Florida Electoral votes. Would it have been possible had Nader not run, I can't answer that question. The vote count was manufactured, of that I have no doubt.

[dionysus]

32. he sure as hell shares some responsibilty. he's not the bebbe jesus, he's an egotistical douche who

negated his entire career for running on a flat out lie, and being one of a few things that gave us bush.

he's got blood on his hands.

PS ask the hypocrit how his raytheon stock is doing

[Webster Green]

51. Oh , bullshit.

If anything, Obama and the rest of the wussie dems have proven Nader correct. The only difference in the two parties is how quickly they get on their knees to service their corporate masters.

Nader has always made far more sense than Obama. I'm not sorry I voted for him in 2000, and I think I may just write him in if I decide to vote in the 2012 presidential election.

And, the notion that Nader is responsible for the Supreme W. Court appointing the chimp is just absurd.

[zappaman]

57. Agreed n/t

[Mnemosyne]

60. And everyone forgets the votes deflected by the thought of Lieberman as POTUS. n/t

[zappaman]

62. Very true.

Running away from Clinton, a lackluster campaign, and picking that douche for the VP slot was what killed Gore's chances.
Not Nader.

[Mnemosyne]

87. I know many dems here that could not stomach Lieberman and did not feel

comfortable enough with him to vote for Gore.

He did win though, until the Supremes selected that future war criminal.

[deutsey]

66. +1

[G_j]

70. thanks

That is the truth

[TheWraith]

4. I would appreciate him even more if he ran for President of Neptune. nt

[Autumn]

6. I also appreciate Nader

not running. I also appreciate the good things he has done. I lay the blame for 2000 right where it belongs, on a corrupt supreme court.

[TheWraith]

9. Without Nader, there would have been no Supreme Court case.

Yes, it is his fault.

[mike_c]

17. that is utter non-sense....

The SCOTUS ruling did not mention Nader, was not about Nader, and had zero to do with Nader. It was, on the other hand, all about Gore's failure to run a compelling enough campaign to energize voter support, and his failure to fight for a recount in Florida. Are you suggesting that all those fucked up Florida ballots resulted from voters who voted for Nader when they meant to vote for Gore? Because that's the ONLY way the SCOTUS decision could have any thing to do with Nader at all, and it's utterly delusional. That NEVER happened.

[TheWraith]

23. It's the facts. Without Nader, there would have been no court case.

Gore needed a couple thousand votes in Florida to seal it up and prevent the court case. Nader siphoned off NINETY SEVEN THOUSAND VOTES. If even ten percent of those had gone to Gore, there would have been no court case, and no Bush administration. "Fucked up Florida ballots" have nothing to do with it.

[mike_c]

37. so you want to deny those 97,000 people their birthright to vote for the candidate of their choice..

...because YOU know what's better for them? Sheesh. No wonder this country is so screwed up.

[dionysus]

39. that's a strawman and you know it.

[mike_c]

52. it is not....

The DUer to whom I was replying lamented that those 97,000 people voted for Nader, and has expressed the wish that they not have his candidacy to cast their votes for.

The point is that those voters CHOSE the candidate they thought best represented their interests. That's democracy. That's the way it's supposed to work. Claiming that a candidate should not run because YOU or anyone else knows better than their choice at the ballot box is just about as anti-democratic as the worst self-serving republican one-percenter nonsense. People voted for Nader because the democratic party candidate was not good enough to earn their vote.

It wasn't Gore votes mistakenly cast for Nader that lost Florida. Never happened, no matter how hard some folks work to believe it.

[zeos3]

54. +1

[Old and In the Way]

46. Check New Hampshire's outcome

Without Nader spoiling that contest, Gore gets NH and it's 4 electoral votes. Florida becomes irrelevant.

George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 273,559 48.07% 4
Albert Gore Jr. Joseph Lieberman Democratic 266,348 46.80% 0
Ralph Nader Winona LaDuke Green 22,198 3.90% 0

George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 50,460,110 47.87% 271 50.4%
Albert Gore Jr. Joseph Lieberman Democratic 51,003,926 48.38% 266 49.4%

[libinnyandia]

18. And his legacy now includes President Bush's legacy, including Citizens United.

It is ironic that a man who spent his career fighting corporate power made possible Citizens United.

[TheWraith]

25. I agree. Unfortunately the man today has little in common with the man back then.

He's turned into either an outright Republican shill, or one of those people who thinks that the "answer" is to let the Republicans destroy everything, and then a liberal paradise will magically rise from the ashes. So he's either a tool or a fool.

[Autumn]

22. You and I will disagree on that.

Ralph Nader had every right to run for President, as does ANY American. It was a corrupt supreme court who stepped in and appointed Bush. When all the votes were counted Al Gore had won the Presidency.

[TheWraith]

24. Doesn't change the fact that Nader helped create the Bush administration.

Without Nader siphoning off 97,000 votes, there wouldn't even have been a recount.

[SOS]

83. Or

Gore could have selected Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) as his running mate.
Without that miserable bum Lieberman on the ticket, Gore would have easily carried Florida and Tennessee.

[frylock]

31. without voting this would never have happened..

why not blame the founding fathers? it would make as much sense.

[dionysus]

40. strawman. if you're going to sabotage elections, own up to the consequences.

[frylock]

47. nader had every right to run for president..

typing strawman a thousand times doesn't change that. 10 years on and people still can't bother to fucking educate themselves on the 2000 election.

[zappaman]

58. How did Nader "sabotage the elections"?

By running for President?
Do you know what democracy even is?
Is he not allowed to run?
Ridiculous!!!

[dionysus]

64. sabotage in that he knew where he'd be peeling votes from... in that he promised not to campaign

in swing states, then did anyways.

of course it's a free country, he can do whatever he want. i hope it was worth it.

[Old and In the Way]

49. We could have lost Florida if Ralph had kept his promise and not competed in close states...

like New Hampshire.

Without Nader spoiling that contest, Gore gets NH and it's 4 electoral votes. Florida becomes irrelevant.

George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 273,559 48.07% 4
Albert Gore Jr. Joseph Lieberman Democratic 266,348 46.80% 0
Ralph Nader Winona LaDuke Green 22,198 3.90% 0

George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 50,460,110 47.87% 271 50.4%
Albert Gore Jr. Joseph Lieberman Democratic 51,003,926 48.38% 266 49.4%

[AtomicKitten]

10. Ditto.

[Xipe Totec]

11. You could have saved me a facepalm.

My forehead is still hurting.

Good one, you got me!

[chrisa]

12. Naderites... -_-

lol

[quinnox]

13. Second Nader thread that makes me miss

hide thread ability from DU2, I simply have no interest in Nader threads.

[dionysus]

34. you had enough interest to post in one.

[bluestateguy]

15. I figure right about now former President Gore would be dedicating his library

And the national debt would be just about paid off (that's for all of you "deficit" fanatics).

[George Glass]

16. I know that's right!

Go Obama! Yay team! He's a Democrat and I'M a Democrat!

And even if he acts like a Republican (or worse), I can say that MY TEAM WON!

[dionysus]

35. i hope you enjoyed your brief visit to DU. sleep well, sweet prince.

[frylock]

82. did you go run tell mommy?

[dionysus]

84. you may grieve for your TSed troll friend as you wish.

[frylock]

85. i'm all broke up

boo-fuckin-hoo

[DevonRex]

86. Now why would you say something like that? Seriously.

What good does it do? What purpose does it serve, exactly?

[Jim Lane]

20. Agreed. I wonder if, at some level, Nader himself agrees.

He's never repudiated the stupid things he said in 2000, notably the implication that there was no significant difference between the parties.

One possibility is that he still believes that. Another possibility -- maybe I'm being too charitable toward him, but hear me out -- is that he's come to recognize that, although Democrats are far from perfectly good, Republicans are pretty close to being perfectly bad.

A less radical suggestion is that he still believes in that false equivalence but has at least come to realize that running as a third-party or independent candidate accomplishes absolutely nothing. Many of us are of the opinion that it's worse than useless, with 2000 being the prime example of how it can be absolutely horrific, but even if you reject that view -- with the perspective of several years, did Nader's runs achieve anything in terms of what the government of the United States actually does?

Please note that last qualifier. "Giving voice to progressive ideals" or the like doesn't count as an answer. Did he change any actual policies by the route of electoral campaigns outside the major parties?

[lillypaddle]

21. whew

had me going there! You are a very bad boy!!!

[MineralMan]

27. I appreciate that he's not running, too.

I'd appreciate not hearing a word from him throughout 2012.

[dionysus]

28. i like it.

[Generic Brad]

29. I thank him for his great work on auto safety

I salute him for his dedication to consumer protection.

[dionysus]

36. he did some good before he went around the bend. now he thinks bloomberg should be president. sad.

[The Wielding Truth]

41. I was just thinking of him today when I was putting on my seatbelt. Thanks, Ralph.

He fought for this and saved tens of thousands of lives.

[SomethingFishy]

42. What in the fuck is with the Nader obsession on DU?

The only time I ever see his fucking name is on DU.

The guy is irrelevant.

[quinnox]

44. agree,

and this has been going on for a long long time. There is an obsession with Nader, I only wonder when the guy is no longer around what these folks will direct their attention to.

[frylock]

48. nader derangement syndrome

[BootinUp]

43. hell yes!!

[Old and In the Way]

50. Funny, though...the same people claiming we have "Nader Derangement Syndrome" -a term I first heard

from Republicans telling us we had "Bush Derangement Syndrome" - are the same ones doing their darndest here to destroy our Democratic President's re-election chances. As the Selected One would say, "First time, shame on me...2nd time...won't get fooled again!"

I guess the only question I have is, what progressive Pied Piper 3rd Party candidate will Republicans be financing in 2012 to run an independent campaign to the left of Obama?

[yurbud]

53. and when exactly can we criticize or ask the president we voted for for more without you guys waving

the GOP boogey man?

Honest to god, if you guys are trying to help Obama, it's having the exact opposite effect.

Or more likely, when people here vote for him, it will be in spite of, not because of you.

[Old and In the Way]

63. Criticize away! Hey, I'm not happy with the accomplishments to date, either. The difference is,

I put the blame squarely on the American voter who elects him, then 2 years later decides they want to put a whole bunch of teabaggers in Congress and give Republicans control of the House and with enough opposition in the Senate to fillibuster everything. And the sad fact is nothing will change until they figure it out and start electing progressives/liberals to work in their best interests.

When are you guys going to admit that no Democrat or Independent President, no matter how liberal or progressive, will deliver the goods until there's a Congress on the same page? Presidents can set the vision, they can give the speeches and energize the base, but we're kidding ourselves if we think they can, by themselves, deliver on the promises. There was a brief moment of hope in 2008, but the Democrats couldn't capitalize (or, maybe, wouldn't capitalize) on the opening. We got a half baked healthcare bill and lost the PR war in the process. Then 2010 pretty much shut down the opportunity altogether. Until the American people start putting liberals/progressives in Congress, we're playing defense. Right now, defense is at least holding the WH and perhaps getting another nominee on the Court.

I'm from Maine. In 2010, 68% of the people voted for the independent candidate and the Democrat. Both would have been reasonably progressive people to replace John Baldacci, the Democrat. The end result? We got a teabagger elected with 38% of the vote. Obama is not the enemy and shooting holes in him is not going to solve the problem.

[jerseyjack]

55. First of all, who ever felt inspired to vote for Gore?

Is it Nader's fault that he was running against a wet dish rag of a candidate? Then Gore tells Clinton to stay out of the race.

Nader or anyone else has the right to run in any race they choose.

Don't blame Nader, blame Gore for being uninspiring.

[Eliminator]

56. OK It has been 12 years now

If 12 years ago, you told me people would still be complaining about Ralph nader 12 years later, I'd have said you're crazy.

[Pab Sungenis]

65. They were 12 long, very destructive years.

One wonders "what if."

[ChadwickHenryWard]

79. Time doesn't enter into it.

First off, I don't think Nader did anything blame-worthy. It is his right to run for President, and if an American wishes to cast his or her vote for him, that's democracy. But eleven years ago this month, the United States Supreme Court hand-picked the President. It represented the total breakdown of American democracy and the bald power grab in which Americans finally of no say in who their leader is. For me, it was a watershed moment in my education as a citizen of the United States, and the first lesson on how power operates and decisions are really made.

However, I must agree that I am really surprised that people still blame Nader for it.

[sasha031]

59. i believe they would stole the election with or without Nader

[Mnemosyne]

88. Watch the footage of jr. & family the night of the election - no sweat at all, complete confidence.

You are correct - they were determined to take power and knew it was in the bag.

[DonCoquixote]

61. amen

Blessed be, and all that jazz

[unionworks]

67. Thanks Ralph! n/t

[mistertrickster]

68. Aha! Great. Wish I could rec it more than once. nt

[yellowcanine]

69. I heard Ralph Nader speak way back in 1972. I thought then that it was "all about Ralph"

and I still think that way.

[LanternWaste]

71. I imagine that fewer candidates on any given ballot

I imagine that fewer candidates on any given ballot and fewer choices in any given election makes many people very happy.

[wryter2000]

72. I'll drink to that

Even though your subject line tricked me.

[a2liberal]

73. Should I wander into this minefield?

Nah, let's just leave it at "I appreciate Nader but for other reasons".

[azurnoir]

76. Lol and may it stay that way n/t

[AverageJoe90]

81. He's a decent guy...........

But he made an awful mistake running in 2000.