General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Yes, Nader cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000. [View all]JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)That's a big assumption. Some of them would have stayed home or voted for candidates of other parties. I voted for Gore, but in retrospect, I'm not sure I did the right thing. The mistakes of the Clinton presidency have taken a big toll on the country. NAFTA? the repeal of Glass-Steagall? the reappointment of Greenspan to the Fed? welfare reform (we don't hear much about that one's effect on poor women during this economic recession but it has to be hurting)? RFRA or RIFRA (and now Hobby Lobby and who knows what is coming)? increased deregulation (our banking scandal)? The Telecommunications Act? What was his policy with regard to NSA surveillance? Did that really just start under Bush? The list of questionable bills signed and policies and appointments that really didn't help the country as much as a more independent president's actions might have is pretty long.
And how would a Nader presidency (impossible as it was) have affected the country? Does anyone bother to ask that question?
I repeat. I voted for Gore, but I'm not sure that I was right. I like Gore, but what would he have done in his presidency? More deregulation? CAFTA??? Would Gore have been willing to regulate banks enough to prevent the 2008 crash? I'm not sure.