Many Democrats remain miffed at activist Ralph Nader for costing Al Gore the 2000 presidential election. But Nader, who is the subject of the new documentary, "An Unreasonable Man," says he’ll run again next year if the Democratic nomination goes to Hillary Clinton, who is a "panderer and a flatterer" in his view. He won’t even vote for her. "I don’t think she has the fortitude," Nader said.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
33 Comments
Isn’t pandering and flattering part of politics?
Nader was a good man, and I respected him…before he allowed his personal opinions to jetison him into politics. He’s using his money and his name to affect votes. Sure wish I could do that. How about the rest of you?
Egotistical jerk, then and now.
People who are serious about running for high office start at the local level and work up.
Mr. Nader feels no need to do that. He just runs for president with the intention of splitting the liberal vote.
Splinter groups like his should be mercilessly CRUSHED by Democrats and anyone really interested in organizing for power.
Capn-
That’s not very “tolerant” of you, now, is it???
You’re right, Dems should worry about Nader; he probably cost Gore the presidency. But doesn’t he have as much right to run as anyone else?
He has a right to run.
And Dems have a right to crush him by any (legal) means necessary.
I just hope that this time around we are ready to marginalize him.
The success (or lack thereof) of Mr. Nader’s potential candidacy will be based upon, IMHO, the following:
1) The identities of the two major party candidates;
2) If the Democratic candidate is perceived as too moderate;
3) The number of young people who are not familiar with Mr. Nader who become infatuated with his message who then vote.
Good analysis VT. In 2000 Gore was perceived as “Bush Lite” and Bush was sold as a moderate. So, a significant chunk went to Nader; delivering FL and NH to Bush. I fault both Nader and Gore for that.
Ben,
When John Kerry was the nominee, Nader only got about 300,000 votes. Yet Kerry received more votes than either candidate in 2000. It’s silly to say “we” should marginalize Nader. He got 2.7 million votes in 2000 for a reason (several, actually), you know. Remove most of those reasons, and people won’t vote for him. It’s that simple.
If Gore had not contemptuously ignored and spit upon a huge portion of his natural base, Nader would have been just as irrelevant in 2000. That’s why nominating H. Clinton would be a huge mistake.
Nader’s service to this nation was to break the conventional wisdom that we had to go along with the prefab opposition for the sake of winning, at any cost. Most of us would say the price for that lesson was too high (although it’s dumb, anti-democratic, and mathematically dubious to blame that outcome on the mere existence of Nader’s campaign). But it’s one we needed to learn nonetheless.
P.S. I’m done. I have absolutely no intesting in arguing about 2000. August was right:http://xoverboard.com/cartoons/2003/2003_11_12.html
I like Nader. He’s a good man and advocate for the people.
I do NOT like that he deliberately targeted states that were close between bush and Gore in the 2000 race. That was over the line.
In Kansas my vote for a Democrat for President means next to nothing. So I likely would vote for Nader or whoever is to the left of the Democratic nominee. In the past, there have been websites which will match a green voter in a state that is close with a Democratic voter in a state where it is not close. I’ll probably use that.
Nader is a hero of mine. I hope he runs again. tee hee
JR
“In the past, there have been websites which will match a green voter in a state that is close with a Democratic voter in a state where it is not close. I’ll probably use that.”
I’m not at all trying to make any point here, JR, just asking a question. Just how does that work; how could there be a “trading” of votes from state to state? Surely this doesn’t amount to permitting people to vote in states where they are not residents. Perhaps I misunderstand what you’re saying.
I’d never heard of that; I’m curious as to what is offered and how it works.
GMC, from the 2000 election, this is my understanding of how it works:
1) No, it does not allow folks to vote in any state where they are not registered;
2) A Kansas, e.g., voter agrees to vote for Nader, although s/he would otherwise vote for the Democratic candidate; State X voter agrees to vote for the Democratic candidate, even though s/he really favors Nader.
Concept: for the third party candidate (Nader here) to receive sufficient votes to qualify his party for public funding in the next presidential election (although I sense this is a dying thing, given the early opt-out by HRC, among others), providing needed $$ to mount a campaign.
Source: elder daughter who participated in such, much to her father’s dismay.
Now there’s a guy who truly doesn’t care about America.
He knows he won’t win, and last year he admitted that he would prefer Gore over Bush, but that still didn’t stop him from screwing with the election then either.
As far as I’m concerned, Ralph Nader can vote however he wants to. I just don’t think it’s right that he tosses his hat in the ring, knowing he won’t have the votes to really compete, simply because HE doesn’t like the Dem candidate.
Egotistical, indeed, Capn.
So is he now the “decider?”
What’s that psychiatric condition where one feels more important than they really are?
there are many:
mania,
paranoia (thinks s/he is important enough to persecute)
narcissism (probably the one you’re thinking of)
Why blame Nader? It’s you people (at least the ones who vote for him and throw your vote away) who are to blame.If you aren’t blaming Florida, you are blaming Nader. Blame yourselves, for once.
Narcisism, I can think of a few on this board who fall under that category as well.
I DO blame myself, Fleetwood.
I blame myself for believing that people were smart enough not to vote for the candidate who would turn out to be the Worst. President. Ever.
There was a real complacency back then. We could never have believed what a total catastrophe this man could be.
Bush isn’t just a bad president . . . Carter was a bad president. Nixon was a bad president.
But even they didn’t take a vacation while terrorists were plotting the worst massacre on American soil, even they didn’t invade a soverign nation to set up a new government there, even they didn’t walk away from a major city destroyed by a hurricane.
We all share in the culpability that is George W. Bush.
Can there be any doubt even in your tortured brain, Fleetwood, that if George W. ran against Gore, knowing what we know now about how W. would play out, that W. would have “won”?
Uh uh Capt, not me. I tried to WARN people then about the impending doom.
Jesus H Christ, Capn’! If the 2000 Election was held today – knowing what we know now – the country would overwhelmingly elect Eddie, Frazier’s dog, over GWB.
Hell, my goofy cat would win over GWB, knowing what we know now.
Of course, catnip would be legalized.
GMC
Vaughn has pretty much summed up the concept on trading votes. It is honor system only of course. No way to confirm.
In 2004, I agreed through a website to vote for Nader here in Kansas. My partner (in Minnesota I think) agreed to vote for Kerry instead of Nader.
I accidentally voted Kerry anyway. I was distracted by a disturbace at the poll. I’ll have to tell THAT story sometime. But since I had voted early, I was able to inform my partner before the election of my mistake. She was so impressed with my honesty she kept our agreement and voted Kerry anyway.
Hey a Democrat has to do something to matter in this beknighted state.
fleet – you make a valid point. I do not blame nader for 2000 – I blame Gore and some of my friends who voted for Nader. My comments to them have not been at all pleasant.
I think voters will realize they’re doing more than making a statement by voting for Nader, they’re shooting themselves in the foot. Of course Nader is only important in a squeaker election. Not likely to be the case this time!
I do not know much about Nader except that he has put his name in on ballot in just about every presidental election for the last twenty or thirty years.Every time that I see his name, I have always thought he was just some no-name crackpot fool.I still think that of him today.
For arguments sake, the entire world and country are totally screwed up by one George W. Bush.
However, how much of that has changed in the last 15 months since he was re-elected?
For arguments sake, the entire world and country are totally screwed up by one George W. Bush.
However, how much of that has changed in the last 15 months since he was re-elected?
Pmom,The disorder you are looking for is narsistic personality disorder. Those folks believe the world revolves around them and that they are the center of the universe. I think that about describes Ralph.
After the experiences of 2000 I am certain that Nader will reach a nadir if he runs again. Those who voted for him thinking there was little difference between the moderates Bush and Gore will not make that mistake again.
I agree, I think if he runs it’ll be inconsequential, except for maybe the blow to his self esteem. I used to have a lot of respect for him when he busied himself with consumer advocacy.
Nader was not the main cause of Gore “losing”(sic) in 2000.
Dysfunctional main stream media, Faux (et al), AND gullible, lazy, clueless American citizens did that.
Early on, the RNC started a smear campaign, “Al Gore will say anything”.They “primed the pump”, with BS about ‘Love Story’, farm chores, and “invented” the Internet. MSM happily parroted the RNC’s BS.
The “liberal”(sic) NY Times even assisted the RNC, by misquoting Gore’s Love Canal remarks at a high school.
Later, the RNC nit-picked EVERYTHING Gore said during debates, etc, using computer databases of all his past speeches, and other info.The RNC feed those errors to MSM, who again happily spread them.
MSM also mostly ignored the MORE numerous false statements made by Bush, the “problems” he caused in TX, etc.
And, IF Gore HAD become president… all the damage the RNC and MSM caused would’ve prevented him from accomplishing very much.
Bottom line… accurately informed citizens are VERY important to a strong democracy.
“I do not know much about Nader except that he has put his name in on ballot in just about every presidental election for the last twenty or thirty years.”
You may be thinking of Lyndon Larouche, Wiseman. Nader ran a low-key non-campaign in 1996, but he didn’t start seriously running until 2000.