General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis "Nader" talking point is convenient
but you are placing the blame in the wrong lap.
Had Al Gore actually fought the counting of votes, he would have been President. I was in Florida in 2000. That was the most crooked election and counting of votes in industrialized countries. Blaming Nader is convenient, but Gore is the one that all of you should be pointing the finger at. Harris is crooked as a barrel of snakes, everyone knew it at the time, but Al Gore just gave up quietly. In retrospect, it makes me wonder what they had on him.
Nader is convenient because he is used to say "See, this is what happens when you don't vote for a Democratic candidate even if you can't hardly recognize the D in him/her except for the attachment at the end of their name, and what happens when you naysay the policies of the third way!".
The reality is that Gore folded like an accordion when he should have fought the decision. You have to ask yourself why. I know I do, because I fucking voted for the man, my girlfriend voted for the man and we dragged other people to the polls to vote for the man.
Your talking point is invalid. Too many of us GOTV in Florida for Gore, but he threw in the towel without a fight. So NO. I don't blame Nader - I didn't vote for him. I blame GORE for not stepping up to the plate for whatever reason.
I won't entertain the idea of anybody else that cries NADER when Gore was his own worst enemy by not fighting the decision, and neither should any other good Democrat. I don't have to be in love with third way to be a Democrat, and I can vote for Democrats that I want to vote for. That does NOT make me a Nader lover, since I didn't vote for the SOB in the first place.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Authoritarians don't like to blame the Democratic politicians, like Gore or Obama, for anything. It goes against their nature!
roseBudd
(8,718 posts)
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,835 posts)I just can't call that "folding like an accordion."
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Florida was in the middle of it, and if he didn't fold like an accordion, origami might be a better metaphor.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)I didn't vote for Nader, but I can understand why some did. The other two parties certainly were not the same back then, but they were too similar for many, especially economically speaking.
Besides, it's not as though Bush faced a defiant Congress.
So yeah, I can't really fault Nader, since those were votes that Gore didn't earn.
malaise
(269,004 posts)Gore didn't want to damage America's image in the world but standing up for a fair election would have prevented Bushco from destroying the country's image for decades to come.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Gore did our nation and the world a disservice by not fighting it. I was in Florida, and that bullshit made me politically aware like nobody's business.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)made a difference.
The other problem is that it went to the SC, and we lost there. However, all Gore needed to do before it went to the Supreme Court is demand a recount of all of Florida, then it would not have gotten to the SC. By "Cherry picking", they SC was able to intercede.
No question about it, Gore had piss poor advisors and legal team
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Gore won! Nader had nothing to do with Bush ending up the winner.
By the way what would all of you Nader haters do about the third party problem? Would you change the constitution to only allow two parties to have candidates? A lot of people on DU say this country has a two party system but they are wrong, Nader had a right to run and people had a right to vote for him, period. Don't like it change it or find a better place to live.
Did Nader cause the Jews in Florida to vote for Pat Buchanan? Someone that crafty should be President.
The "other problem" as you call it was the only problem, period. Lots of people worry about the makeup of the supreme court because of Nader, seems we had a problem with the court before Nader, who are we to blame for that? Again, if Nader was responsible he should be President. Nader had nothing to do with the makeup of the 2000 supreme court and he has nothing to do with the makeup of the 2014 supreme court. If you really want to fix the problem start talking about impeaching a supreme court justice, not blaming a loser politician.
The election was stolen plain and simple and people allow themselves to be distracted from that fact. Nader doesn't belong in jail for this but someone does, but 12 years later let's keep focusing on Nader and wonder why when it happens again.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)the election to be stolen. This has nothing to do with hate, it is fact.
I do not think anyone said that Nader did not have a right to run, but he was a spoiler plain and simple because he made the election closer than it needed to be.
As I said if you read my post that this would have all been avoided if Gore had requested a recount of the whole state in just certain areas right after the results, which was why the process took longer, and the reason it got to the SC and we were screwed
We are going to agree to disagree
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)want to make this one so special? Is it in fact a diversion? You admit that the election was stolen, do you think Nader stole it? Do you think Nader had anything to do with the makeup of the 2000 supreme court? Why don't you blame Pat Buchanan or the Jews that voted for him? I don't expect you to answer me but please answer those questions for yourself.
There were a lot of bad things done in that election mainly in Florida, Nader had nothing to do with any of them. You and others are just doing a disservice by diverting attention from the true problems. I honestly believe you are being used and don't realize it. If this were a soccer game and your team lost would you blame it on the fan that streaked onto the field or the official(s) that made a lot of bad calls.
Who in fact did the illegal deeds during and after that election? Several people and organizations were involved which all have a common link, and I will give you one free hint, none of them were Nader. Put the blame where it deserves to be otherwise nothing gets fixed.
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)And sorry but short of staging a coup, there was nothing more to be done. Exactly where else do you think he could have gone after the Supreme Court?
Fuck Nader. He gets all the animus he deserves. Actually, probably not enough.
gordianot
(15,238 posts)Unlike Lieberman, Nader has not disappeared. They are both right wing tools. Nader apologist make me sick.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)voter, or otherwise. I stated my case, I stated why Gore should have fought harder, and that's it.
You can agree or disagree, but don't ever try to conflate me with that bastard Nader, because I never voted for him and never will.
roseBudd
(8,718 posts)
CrispyQ
(36,467 posts)A right wing tool!
Yeah, it was all Nader's fault. 
calimary
(81,267 posts)as divisive, "sore loserman," not a good American, unpatriotic, and more. The media was against him - hell, they'd been that way from the beginning. Fell for the "oh ha ha ha he says he invented the internet" (which he did not), "oh ha ha ha look at him wearing earth tones" (yeah, they picked on his appearance and style of dress and pounded him with derision throughout the campaign), and more. Then they pounded him accusing him of being horribly divisive if he kept fighting - that he should get over it (that WE ALL should get over it) and "come together" la la la la for the sake of the country blah-blah-blah and be a good sport and bush won and all that crap let's just move on and not look back, gotta look forward, don't ask any questions, and SURE AS HELL don't investigate or try to look into this or run the numbers or anything.
There were armies of republi-CON operatives parroting the same talking point as though they were surgically attached in a long ding-dong daisy chain: "well, they counted once, they count again, they counted a third time!!!" The wording didn't even vary.
Also - If I had to blame one person, it'd be the worthless, spineless, MUSHmallow'd, flaccid, most ridiculously blah complete wuss donna brazile. A woman with fire in - well, someplace in another town somewhere over there. MAN, tell her to fight hard and she'll respond - "and how long do I get to nap? Where should I lie down? Who do you want me to NOT get in the face of? Sure don't wanna bother anybody... (and Al, DO NOT fight back! Always just be NICE!!! Put yer boxing gloves AWAY, honey! Maybe you should go take a nap, too...). 'Cause we just don't wanna risk upsetting anybody on the other side! Let's not fight too hard, okay? We've just GOTTA be NICE. And when they're coming to mow us down with a Sherman Tank, make sure you're stretched out on the pavement in a nice tidy straight line, okay? You know, where they can see you! It'll be, you know, nice!"
That woman makes me SICK. A plate of wilted lettuce would put up more of a fight than she did. An EARTHWORM would be a fiercer, more relentless, more ruthless opponent! Between her and ralph nader it's a wash, in my opinion. Both of 'em can go eat what comes out of the back end of my dog over the weekend (she ate something that didn't agree with her), as far as I'm concerned. I'm frankly amazed at how badly nader seemed bent on personally nuking everything he'd once worked so hard to build on behalf of consumer protection! I thought he cared about that stuff. I really did. I was a big fan of his, once. NO MORE.
Uncle Joe
(58,362 posts)greatlaurel
(2,004 posts)The Bushes had just enough cover from the Nader votes to allow the media to ignore the theft of the election in Florida and the SCOTUS. What else could Gore do after he lost in the Supreme Court? Start a Civil War?
Usually like your posts, but you are wrong on this one. Nader deserves a lot of the scorn for his actions in 2000.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)But Gore has his own load to pull by not fighting it. He could have Federally filed to have a vote count and not depended on Florida, either, where Harris, who is as criminal as the come, didn't have jurisdiction.
bradla
(89 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)George W. Bush was completely prepared for it. One would almost say he KNEW it was a DEFINITE POSSIBILITY.
I wonder way?
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)That election, particularly in Florida was so sideways the law of gravity couldn't save it.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I mean take a step backward and consider what we are seeing here on DU over the Nader/election subject...
There are so many people that are way more angry and filed with indignation over the fact that Nader, a 3rd party candidate, participated in the democratic electoral process!
Instead of being outraged and filled with anger at the fact that the democratic electoral process was subverted and their votes stolen...
One day, historians will look back at this as a kind of unique phenomena.
It is bizarre.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)During the 2000 campaign, plenty of people argued against voting for Nader. Although "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" is an oversimplification, it was foreseeable and was actually foreseen that a possible effect of Nader's decision to run in the general election (instead of in the Democratic primary) would be to divert enough votes from Gore to affect the outcome, putting Bush in the White House instead of Gore. Unfortunately, 2,882,955 voters ignored that argument and voted for Nader anyway. They took legitimate disagreements with Gore and overhyped them to the point of buying Nader's foolish insinuation that there were no significant differences between Gore and Bush.
After the election, of course, those who had noted this as a real possibility gloomily pointed out that it had actually happened. Although many other factors also affected the result, no serious person can deny that, if Nader had exercised his Constitutional right to run in the primary instead of in the general election, it's overwhelmingly likely that Gore would have become President.
Is that criticism of Nader some kind of "unique phenomenon" that historians will puzzle over, like the War of the Worlds hysteria? No, it's a very sensible reaction. In 2004, when Nader ran again, with the Bush presidency well along, and people able to judge Nader's argument lumping the two major parties together, he drew only 465,151 votes (although the total number of votes cast went up by about 17 million). In other words, more than 80% of Nader's previous voters deserted him.
There is the verdict of history. Every few months these arguments re-erupt on DU, but in the real world, the argument is over. No left-wing minor-party candidate has come anywhere close to Nader's vote total of 2000 -- not Nader and not anyone else (and not all of them combined if you add up all the fringe candidates). As long as the calamitous result of 2000 is alive in memory, I predict that none will.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)My "prediction" has been falsified? What does that even mean? Do you mean "shown to be false", Jim? I don't see that.
1. You: "would be to divert enough votes from Gore to affect the outcome,"
But there is not really any evidence that it did affect the outcome. Gore won even in Florida. It seems the best argument your side can muster is that it "made it close enough to steal". I'm sorry, but that is so laughable. It still means it was stolen, so your anger is misdirected.
2. You: "if Nader had exercised his Constitutional right to run in the primary instead of in the general election:"
What a strenge way to put it. You almost seem to imply that there is a Constitutional "right" to run in a primary election (putting aside the fact that the Constitution has zero, zip, zilch to do with such things) but not run in the general election. Weird to say the least...
3. Is that criticism of Nader some kind of "unique phenomenon" that historians will puzzle over, like the War of the Worlds hysteria? No, it's a very sensible reaction.
No, it's not like that. It's more like blaming a customer who was buying bread at a store for the fact that the store was robbed...because of his "distraction".
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Of course Nader affected the outcome. The outcome I care about is that Bush became President. One can condemn the Supreme Court decision and yet believe that Katherine Harris's illegal voter purge also affected the outcome. One can condemn both SCOTUS and Harris and yet also believe that the butterfly ballot affected the outcome.
Nader made his mark in tort law. An elementary principle of tort law is that an event can have more than one proximate cause.
Let me tell you about a real-life case I worked on. The landlord of an apartment building negligently failed to repair a broken front-door lock. As a result, a nonresident gained entry to the building and sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl who lived in the building. As is customary in such cases, the actual perpetrator had no money, so, on behalf of the girl, we sued the landlord.
You write, of the 2000 election, "It still means it was stolen, so your anger is misdirected." In the lawsuit example, the analog would be, "It still means there was a sexual assault, so your anger at the landlord is misdirected."
Fortunately, the law in New York, where this happened, is not that dimwitted. Yes, the perpetrator was at fault (and the good news is that he was captured and did some time). Nevertheless, the landlord was also at fault, even though all he did was to create the conditions under which the perpetrator was able to do harm.
In case you miss the analogy, the sexual perpetrator stands in for the Supreme Court, Katherine Harris, and everyone else you want to implicate in stealing the election. The landlord, who did not commit a crime but without whose bad decision the perpetrator would not have been able to commit the crime, stands in for Nader.
The other good news is that, on behalf of the assault victim, we obtained a substantial sum of money from the landlord. Call our anger misdirected if you will. I think it was the right result.
(I know the analogy isn't perfect. The landlord had a legal duty to repair the lock. Nader did not have a legal duty to refrain from running. My point is that I can still condemn him for a bad decision, to which I now turn.)
2. Nader's decision to run
Two errors in your comment here. First, as a side note, the Constitution does have something to do with the right to run in a primary. See, for example, the Supreme Court decision in Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944), applying the protections of the Constitution to primaries. The Court held: "When primaries become a part of the machinery for choosing officials, state and national, as they have here, the same tests to determine the character of discrimination or abridgement should be applied to the primary as are applied to the general election." The specific case was about the right to vote in a primary but the same principle would apply to the right to run.
Second, you read me as implying the exact opposite of my actual meaning. The background here is the extremely annoying habit of Naderites on DU to respond to any criticism of Nader by piously intoning that he had a right to run. This response is annoying because, AFAIK, no one on DU, in all our many Nader threads, has ever actually made the argument that he did not have the right to run. This comment is a complete straw man and a distraction from the real issues.
What I pointed out, and what the Naderites generally prefer not to acknowledge, is that, although Nader did indeed have a right to choose to run in the general election, he also had a right to choose to run in the primary instead. We should put the issue of "right to run" behind us -- it's an excuse for not considering whether he made the right choice. I can (and do) maintain that he had a right to run in the general but that it was a catastrophically wrong choice.
3. Criticism of Nader
My landlord analogy isn't perfect, but your customer buying bread is even worse. Sure, the coincidence of a customer being at precisely the wrong place at the wrong time might happen to facilitate a robbery. To invoke another concept of tort law, though, that's not reasonably foreseeable. Therefore, the customer is not at fault. By contrast, as I pointed out, "it was foreseeable and was actually foreseen that a possible effect of Nader's decision to run in the general election (instead of in the Democratic primary) would be to divert enough votes from Gore to affect the outcome, putting Bush in the White House instead of Gore."
Foreseeability makes a difference, both at law and in common sense. If you dig a deep hole on your property and leave it unguarded, and neighborhood kids come to explore it and one falls in, you're going to be held liable for the injuries, at least in New York. The difference from the bread example is foreseeability.
roseBudd
(8,718 posts)Irreparable harm to people and the planet.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Why do people always jump to the ego thing? Because he ran despite knowing that he would lost, right?
That represents ego and narcissism only if you can see no other reason for running. But to me, the reason is clear. To try to push the Democratic Party to bargain and accept a more Progressive platform. They didn't. That is where we still are.
Frankly, I think the same experiment could still work and should be tried with even more vigor.
roseBudd
(8,718 posts)subsequent campaigns. His stupid columns. Nader like George W. Bush is a legend in his own mind.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)But it is an entirely unsupported statement based on your confidence in your ability to read people's minds or intuit their true motivation.
It is completely unconvincing conjecture.
roseBudd
(8,718 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The SCOTUS ruled. Who should he have appealed that decision to?
As quietly as one can when going all the way to the Supreme Court.
How? Launching an armed rebellion?
How 'bout entertaining us with a specific course of action Gore could have taken once the SCOTUS shut down all recounts, and no one in the Senate would challenge the vote count?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and you leaped to "they are suggesting armed rebellion!"
The reality is that Gore folded like an accordion when he should have fought the decision
[div style="display:inline; background-color:#FFFF66;"]How? Launching an armed rebellion?
We have laws in this country, and we are entitled as citizens to both be tried under them and try the laws.
Good grief.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And those laws end at the SCOTUS.
Again, what exactly should Gore have done? Not "fight". Not some vague bullshit about "legal battle". What specifically should Gore have done?
The SCOTUS cut off any further legal battle. The only remaining vector was Congress objecting to the vote. But that requires at least one Senator to sign on. No Senator was willing to do so.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)or an arbiter of our laws.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Instead, you pile on additional bullshit.
Again, what exactly should Gore have done? Not "fight". Not some vague bullshit about "legal battle". What specifically should Gore have done?
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 45.2, the Clerk is directed to issue the mandate in this case forthwith.
It is so ordered."
-- per curiam decision of the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, Bush v. Gore, Dec, 12, 2000
Game over.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It's game over for further legal battles.
It's not game over for the election. Congress could have intervened. No Senator agreed to do so.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Congress has the power to make rules for the election of its own members. They have the power to impeach. They don't have any power over the decisions of state or federal courts. I suppose they could have asked the court to reconsider? Or maybe tried to impeach some justices, approve the president's replacements, and then have the case reconsidered?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Or does not certify the election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000#Post_recount
Aerows
(39,961 posts)thank you, cheapdate.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)And they would have been happy to defy all calls to do so.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Harris is and always will be the most shady of politicians.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I like to refer to myself as blowback against Republicans for what they did in 2000.
Without that, I would have probably never become active.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)That disgusting pile of BS made me aware of politics.
madokie
(51,076 posts)Kerry quit too early 4 years later too.
I think the bush/cheney, aka little boots/darth cabal had something on most of our Democratic politicians is what I think, still do as far as that goes
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)The animus directed at Nader enables our party to avoid facing some -- dare I say it? -- inconvenient truths.
1. The election was stolen.
2. The corporate media was giving Bush a pass and putting Gore on the defensive.
3. Gore ran a shitty campaign.
4. Joe Lieberman?? Seriously?? (nuff said)
5. Failure to heed the concerns of disaffected Democrats was a big mistake.
6. Failure to recount all the votes was an even bigger mistake.
7. The Al Gore that many of us admire now is not the same NAFTA-loving Gore who was keen on "reinventing government." In 2000, he was the poster boy for the DLC that many of us loathe.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)If the Al Gore we admire now had been anywhere in evidence in 2000, he would have been sworn in.
Uncle Joe
(58,362 posts)As for running "a shitty campaign" if you truly believe point 2. "The corporate media was giving Bush a pass and putting Gore on the defensive," then running a good campaign against the corporate media was all but impossible, considering their massive powers of propaganda and brainwashing, especially in 1998-2000 in regards to that election.
The Internet being a mere shadow of itself compared to today.
I believe Gore ran a good campaign but it would've been a great or historic campaign had the corporate media been honest brokers, but they sure as hell weren't.
As for point 5 Gore was up against Florida Law which dictated what areas could be recounted and he had no problem with the Florida Supreme Court's final decision to recount all the votes in the state.
The Supreme Court; being in Bush's pocket from the outset ran a delaying action to kill the clock and then used that as an excuse that there wasn't time to recount the votes.
Al Gore has never been static, he evolves with the times and his role in it, you may be shocked or surprised by the Al Gore of today compared to his days as Vice-President when his primary job was in supporting and furthering the Clinton Presidency, but I'm not.
Ralph Nader knew there was a major difference between Gore and Bush but he didn't care, he also knew his campaign stood a snowball's chance in hell but he didn't care, Nader wanted more than anything to make a statement, and where we are today is a direct reflection of that statement.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)In fact, I considered adding a suggestion that Gore's campaign was only framed as shitty by the corporate media, but then again, there's Joe Lieberman.
But if you accept point 1, all other points are moot, aren't they?
Reminds me of the old joke: "Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how'd you like the play?"
Uncle Joe
(58,362 posts)under Clinton would allow.
I have no doubt had he been President, what we're seeing today is much closer to his inner progressive core.
As I posted down thread and since you placed the comic there, it's wise to remember Lincoln chose Andrew Johnson as his Vice-President during his second term.
In both cases, I believe Lincoln and Gore were trying to heal a rift, by choosing running mates that could appeal to those people disaffected by real and perceived immorality.
Both had to bring the nation together in a macro game of tug o war.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)When Gore came out with "Earth in the Balance," my first admittedly cynical reaction was "Whoops! Guess he won't be running for President."
In other words, I thought it was a courageous book that correctly sounded the alarm on a vital issue. I figured that doomed him as a candidate. Many of our fellow citizens have a pathological aversion to the truth.
I was surprised when he ran but deeply disappointed when he appeared to take the corporatist path, a route where facts that implicate fossil fuel corporations, for example, are not generally appreciated as they tend to discourage big donors.
Uncle Joe
(58,362 posts)1. The corporate media literally pre-screwed the American People in their coverage of that election/selection as they would go on to do again during the run up to the war with Iraq. I view the corporate media as the prime culprit had it not been for them, I'm Al Gore would've won in a landslide too large for the Republicans too steal.
2. Bill Clinton's irresponsible actions in the White House, he literally had Gore fall on his political sword for him, testifying on the White House lawn that he believed Clinton and that the charges regarding the Lewinsky Affair were baseless. Later Clinton comes out and tells the truth but the mass psychological damage had been done. By lying to the American People and tying it to Al Gore making the corporate media's mass brainwashing job of portraying Al Gore as the chronic liar/exaggerator, it was a seamless propaganda transition going from "I did not sexual relations with that woman" to "Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet, etc etc etc, for at least a year and a half prior to the election that was the meme.
3. The Florida debacle, purging and disenfranchising the American Peoples' right to vote and actually have their votes counted, The confusing Butterfly Ballot Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush and the Republican controlled Florida Legislature.
4. Whether one wishes to admit it or not, Ralph Nader's run damaged Gore by taking votes from him, this was especially true in a couple of key states. Nader's message that there was no difference between the parties essentially also worked to muddy the waters, had Nader campaigned for Gore the outcome would've been entirely different. I'm not suggesting that Nader didn't have a right to run, but that doesn't make it smart that he did.
5. The Republican controlled Supreme Court without a doubt worked their hardest against the peoples' interest and kill any semblance of democracy. I believe they will be held in the same regard as the Supreme Court which affirmed separate but equal.
Of all those dynamics, I place preeminent blame on the corporate media, they worked from the mid 90s with one witch hunt after another, through the pre-election, recount and the Bush years to screw the American People with one lie after another. Had it not been for their reprehensible actions as an institution, none of the rest would've mattered. There were some cases of good journalists but they were as a sparse oasis in a vast desert.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)We still disagree, but at least your arguments are run on rationality rather than on a creepy irrational rage. I'm grateful for that.
We agree on where much of the blame lies (with corporate media), but let's face it: if an election is stolen, it's stolen. No one should ever have to start a sentence with "Sure, it was stolen, but..."
Your remark that "Ralph Nader's run damaged Gore by taking votes from him," rests on an assumption that Gore was somehow entitled to those votes. He wasn't. He had to earn them. I've been a lifelong Democrat, but detect growing arrogance and complacency directed toward people who hesitate to march in lockstep with the party. The implicit rationale is truly a recipe for arrogance. "What are they going to do? Vote for the Republican?"
I have a hunch that Nader tapped into the concerns of folks who felt as though their votes were taken for granted. As for the hyperbole that there is no difference between the two parties, I think on one specific (and very troubling) level, that's true: instead of being responsive to rank-and-file voters, both parties are wooing many of the same wealthy donors. (Another inconvenient truth is that in 2008 Obama received more defense-contractor contributions than McCain: $870,165 vs. $647,313.) This fact has badly damaged the integrity of our party and our system.
Uncle Joe
(58,362 posts)had Nader not run, many if not most of his votes would've went to Gore.
To be honest I still don't believe we have come out of or recovered from the coup of 2000.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)And why should we? I couldn't agree more.
The first step in recovering from a coup is to recognize it as a coup. I'm afraid that the majority of Americans aren't anywhere near that point.
Although your arguments about Nader have merit but are debatable, I suspect that some of the red-hot rage directed at him comes from people who are simply unable to come to terms with the fact that a coup occurred. And on one level, I can't blame them. It's a truly frightening thing to admit. Creating a Nader-as-bogeyman counter-narrative is a lot less unsettling. But it's very bad for the country's long-term collective mental health (as is, I might add, "looking forward" instead of making certain people accountable for their war crimes).
Uncle Joe
(58,362 posts)I don't believe Nader to be a bogeyman and I also believe some of it is mis-guided rage.
But if looking back on it gives pause to such a Don Quixote challenge in the future, this could be a good thing.
I believe the way our current system is structured, the most effective means of bringing about constructive, progressive change is to change the Democratic Party from within.
It may not be fast or glamorous but I believe it to be more dependable with less chance of serious, adverse consequences occurring as seems to be the case today.
I'm also convinced the Internet will greatly aide us in that endeavor.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Think about the people who changed this country who weren't directly affiliated with either party. Imagine if Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., had been Congressman Martin Luther King instead. I truly don't believe he would've been anywhere near as effective.
Further back in history, even though he was kind of a crackpot, in 1934, Dr. Francis E. Townsend devised what was known as the Townsend Plan. It was a scheme whereby every American over 60 would receive a monthly government allowance of $200 that they could spend but not save. The idea was to lift senior citizens out of poverty while stimulating the economy. Townsend Clubs popped up all over the country. At one point there were more than 5,000. It is widely believed that Townsend's focus on the plight of senior citizens jump-started the Roosevelt Administration's creation of Social Security. (Roosevelt, after all, initially ran as a budget balancer, not a deficit spender.)
Of course, it was LBJ who signed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and FDR who signed the Social Security Act. And so, although "outsiders" played a key role in changing the course of the country, it was essential to still have reliable Democrats within the party who could transform movements into policy and law.
Uncle Joe
(58,362 posts)They were in effect changing the party from within while not running for office, they were changing public attitudes which in turn altered party policies.
To my way of thinking activism is still trying to change the party from within even if you're not a politician.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
Uncle Joe
(58,362 posts)go figure.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)But that was the day the House died.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Alas, I fear the failure to come to terms with our past is woven into the fabric of our party as well as our country as a whole.
We'll never learn if we insist on demonizing, denial, and delusion.
Before we can "look forward," we need some truth and reconciliation on a number of fronts.
randys1
(16,286 posts)nobody would have voted for him
Aerows
(39,961 posts)because we all know he is a jerk. They blame some ephemerous guy with pseudo populous rhetoric to keep the mouths shut of anyone who would ever think of leftist populism again. THAT is what pisses me off.
Why not Elizabeth Warren? Why not Martin O'Malley? Why not Julian Castro?
No, it's a way to shut the conversation down and stop all discussion other than third way candidates, which frankly, I think most Democrats and Americans have had enough of.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)I can't believe that in a country of more than 316 million that all we can muster is the same tired bunch of corporate apologists.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Nader was 14 years ago.
What's important is 17 weeks away.
Focus on that.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)The most important. So maybe some of the third way types can quit trying to divide the party from our real goals - taking back the House and retaining the Senate - and stop the finger pointing Nader bullshittery.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Find the Democratic candidate of your choice and start working. I'm going outside my district, as Jim Sensenbrenner will have that seat until he dies in office (which can't happen a moment too soon, for my taste) and probably a year or two after that.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Nader's run would have been irrelevant if Gore had convinced the left to vote for him. He didn't.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)in a tornado. Gore was. That said, this whole "Nader" bullshittery has pissed me off to the point where I had to speak up.
If I criticize a policy, I'm not "for Nader". If I criticize Obama, I'm not "for Nader". In fact, if I want to take the whole entire third way platform and stick it in the dumpster, I'm not "for Nader".
All it means is that I'm a fucking Democrat and remember what we stand for.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)
alfredo
(60,074 posts)The fix was in.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)he would have lost two centrists.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Same as Nixon in 1960 (who was privately encouraged by several people, including Eisenhower, to refuse to concede and demand investigation of widespread voting irregularities that, if he'd done it, might have won him the presidency).
dsc
(52,162 posts)Florida law was crystal clear on the way recounts worked. Gore could only call for recounts in counties which BY THEMSELVES, might have enough votes to overturn the election. That is what Gore did. He followed the law. The law that as a Florida citizen, you should know.
allows for recounts. It was ultimately a Federal election.
Saying that, however, I want the point of my post to get through - you can be a Democrat, you can detest some of the third way policies, and not be a Naderite. I didn't vote for the man, yet it gets slung around like candy. You might as well just call someone a traitor.
I'm no traitor, and neither is anyone else that is critical of certain policy decisions, and that is a fact.
dsc
(52,162 posts)at least not in the sense of how recounts are conducted. In point of fact, that is why Bush v Gore was such a bad decision among other reasons.
Gothmog
(145,250 posts)The SCOTUS could not even rule in this case if Nader had not screwed Gore. Here are some facts on this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html
Nader-voters who spurned Democrat Al Gore to vote for Nader ended up swinging both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush in 2000. Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report and political analyst for National Journal, called "Florida and New Hampshire" simply "the two states that Mr. Nader handed to the Bush-Cheney ticket," when Cook was writing about "The Next Nader Effect," in The New York Times on 9 March 2004. Cook said, "Mr. Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, cost Al Gore two states, Florida and New Hampshire, either of which would have given the vice president [Gore] a victory in 2000. In Florida, which George W. Bush carried by 537 votes, Mr. Nader received nearly 100,000 votes [nearly 200 times the size of Bush's Florida 'win']. In New Hampshire, which Mr. Bush won by 7,211 votes, Mr. Nader pulled in more than 22,000 [three times the size of Bush's 'win' in that state]." If either of those two states had gone instead to Gore, then Bush would have lost the 2000 election; we would never have had a U.S. President George W. Bush, and so Nader managed to turn not just one but two key toss-up states for candidate Bush, and to become the indispensable person making G.W. Bush the President of the United States -- even more indispensable, and more important to Bush's "electoral success," than were such huge Bush financial contributors as Enron Corporation's chief Ken Lay.
All polling studies that were done, for both the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections, indicated that Nader drained at least 2 to 5 times as many voters from the Democratic candidate as he did from the Republican Bush. (This isn't even considering throw-away Nader voters who would have stayed home and not voted if Nader had not been in the race; they didn't count in these calculations at all.) Nader's 97,488 Florida votes contained vastly more than enough to have overcome the official Jeb Bush / Katherine Harris / count, of a 537-vote Florida "victory" for G.W. Bush. In their 24 April 2006 detailed statistical analysis of the 2000 Florida vote, "Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency?" (available on the internet), Michael C. Herron of Dartmouth and Jeffrey B. Lewis of UCLA stated flatly, "We find that ... Nader was a spoiler for Gore." David Paul Kuhn, CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer, headlined on 27 July 2004, "Nader to Crash Dems Party?" and he wrote: "In 2000, Voter News Service exit polling showed that 47 percent of Nader's Florida supporters would have voted for Gore, and 21 percent for Mr. Bush, easily covering the margin of Gore's loss." Nationwide, Harvard's Barry C. Burden, in his 2001 paper at the American Political Science Association, "Did Ralph Nader Elect George W. Bush?" (also on the internet) presented "Table 3: Self-Reported Effects of Removing Minor Party Candidates," showing that in the VNS exit polls, 47.7% of Nader's voters said they would have voted instead for Gore, 21.9% said they would have voted instead for Bush, and 30.5% said they wouldn't have voted in the Presidential race, if Nader were had not been on the ballot. (This same table also showed that the far tinier nationwide vote for Patrick Buchanan would have split almost evenly between Bush and Gore if Buchanan hadn't been in the race: Buchanan was not a decisive factor in the outcome.) The Florida sub-sample of Nader voters was actually too small to draw such precise figures, but Herron and Lewis concluded that approximately 60% of Florida's Nader voters would have been Gore voters if the 2000 race hadn't included Nader. Clearly, Ralph Nader drew far more votes from Gore than he did from Bush, and on this account alone was an enormous Republican asset in 2000.
The SCOTUS would never had a chance if Nader had not been stupid
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)Fuck all the people on this site with nocritical or analytical thinking skills whatsoever.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Your well-reasoned argument contributed a great deal to the overall level of discourse.
roseBudd
(8,718 posts)
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)LOL
Do GOPers still scream about Ross Perot handing Clinton the Presidency?
It's just part of the Democratic Party machinery to blame someone else !!
LOL
DURec
alfredo
(60,074 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)But that says some pretty frightening things about our so-called "democracy."
Perhaps Gore got to sit in on the special movie screening they show all incoming presidents, according to the famous Bill Hicks routine.
alfredo
(60,074 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts).... but not much!
alfredo
(60,074 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Anyone who can remember what Democrats used to be can't help but feel discouraged.
alfredo
(60,074 posts)the post Civil Rights Act Dems. Sure glad the racist elements went Republican and left our party alone.
I learned to hate Republicans during the McCarthy hearings. I developed a visceral dislike for tail gunner Joe. What a hateful old man.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)The southern Dems of that period were an embarrassment to anyone who thinks that the Democratic Party has always stood for civil rights.
alfredo
(60,074 posts)
Orangepeel
(13,933 posts)Gore didn't "give up quietly." He and his team used every legal maneuver possible. Short of chaining himself to the oval office desk, what the hell was he supposed to do to fight harder?
Gore didn't always make the best decisions (e.g., which counties to contest), but not knowing exactly what to do in an unprecedented situation, is, in my opinion, much more forgivable than intentionally trying to make things in the country worse in order to teach democrats a lesson.
There were several reasons that Gore wasn't declared the winner and Nader was only one of them. But Nader WAS trying to make Gore lose. That's not debatable. He is on record saying so before the election.
So fuck him.
roseBudd
(8,718 posts)cerveza_gratis
(281 posts)Justin Bieber was six years old and maybe was unspoiled.
It was just a crazy fantasy that Michael Jordan might return to the NBA to play for the Wizards
Mark Zuckerberg was soon to become captain of his high school fencing team
Dude, Where's My Car was fighting it out at the box office with What Women Want (with tender male lead Mel Gibson, ugh)
cali
(114,904 posts)do tell exactly HOW Gore should have fought the SCOTUS decision. Without a fight? Jaysus Keerist.
David Boise ring a bell
I really dislike revisionist history.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)You are free to disagree. At least I don't bullshit around and pretend it is for yours and the party's own good to support the corporate candidate of the day.
cali
(114,904 posts)with one of the best legal teams possible, what should Gore have done? Held a gun to their heads?
He fought until there was no place else to fight.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Rep.?Clyburn, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, and other members talked with reporters about the contested Florida presidential election and ballot recount.?They called for a complete hand recount throughout Florida because of reports of voter intimidation and other infractions in minority precincts.?They answered media questions
http://www.c-span.org/video/?160508-1/florida-vote-recount
Aerows
(39,961 posts)And what happened of that hand recount? That's what pisses me off about people that forget history.
G_j
(40,367 posts)thanks!
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I didn't. Al Gore could have taken it and run with it. Everyone knew something ugly went down in Florida.
dirtydickcheney
(242 posts)that Gore had absolutely no interest in becoming President.
This is something that Democrats need to recognize.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)I think there was probably something sort of Oedipal going on. He may have felt trapped in the "family business." I think Al was probably far more comfortable being a policy wonk. And I don't mean that in a disparaging way.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)...spot on. Nader is an egomaniac. It served HIS purpose to aggrandize himself to punish Democrats. Unfortunately the politicians didn't miss a beat. It was the rest of us who suffered.
Yes, Ralph, there IS a big difference between the parties. As we have seen yet again today.
I have no idea what you're talking about re:Gore. He didn't lose the election. Nader made it close enough to steal.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)my respect for the man begins and ends with his efforts on AGW.
He did kinda the same thing with his efforts to paint Bush as the liar -- and worse -- he was over Iraq, but couldn't quite get the "I" word to pass his lips. http://www.ontheissues.org/Assault_on_Reason.htm
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Don't think I am lauding Nader. I just despise these talking points that seem to lead to the same point Republican ones lead to - be a drone, support who you are told to support, or else.
I'm not built that way, and I'd like to think our party isn't built that way.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)with Gore, and no, I understand your point quite well.
I've long thought Nader to be a scapegoat for those who prefer not to deal with some inconvenient truths.
I also think we lefties aren't collectively built that way, or at least suffer far less from such influences. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/06/30/next-time-conservative-calls-you-sheeple-show-them-this/
that's one of the reasons why this board has suffered the discord it has the last couple of years and more
Aerows
(39,961 posts)didn't mean to double post 
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Nominating the war-mongering asshole Lieberman WAS a betrayal that cost him the job.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)that isn't pointed out often enough
He wasn't a Palin in substance and form, but that undoubtedly played a role in the support he lost from some.
Rex
(65,616 posts)is someone that is insincere and not to be trusted in the least bit.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)It was a disgrace and Lieberman completely undercut Gore. The military votes which flooded in were a farce. There was no way to verify if many of them were cast before the election or not or who was actually casting the votes.
IronLionZion
(45,442 posts)The only lesson to be learned from this is every Dem vote counts. GOTV! Forward!
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)Until that happens there are other lessons besides GOTV lessons to be learned. The best GOTV in the world will not necessarily overcome rampant voter suppression or vote stealing in a close election.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)put the blame where it lies. Much as we may not like him, Nader played by the rules to get on the ballot. Gore played by the rules in fighting for an accurate count of the votes but he could not go against a 5-4 SCOTUS decision without tearing the country apart. His mistakes were those anyone would have made given the complexity and the chaos of the Florida election system, which was mostly the fault of Florida Republicans. Let's not forget that it was the Bush team and their allies - aka Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, the Florida Republican Legislators, and assorted Republican thugs from around the country who fought against an accurate count of the votes cast. All this after employing various tactics to prevent legitimate voters from voting or having their votes counted correctly. And then the SCOTUS undercut Gore and the voters of the whole country by handing down a decision clearly based on partisan considerations rather than the law or the Constitution. Put the blame where it lies.
