Ralph Nader: unsafe at any speed (2046 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 1.02 on 45 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by loki (View user info) at 2004-02-23 14:22:09 EST
I used to have a lot of respect for Ralph Nader. I always thought of him as the champion of the little guy willing to take on big corporations and call a spade a spade. Now I can't stand the guy. Part of it is that I blame him for splitting the Democrat ticket and in effect handing Bush the Whitehouse. The end result is the opposite of what he claimed he was going for and now look where we are, thanks a lot Ralph.
This sort of thing seems to happen whenever a third party rears it's ugly head. I think I've heard similar complaints from the wide right about Buchanan in 2000.
Oh don't get me wrong, I think there is a huge problem with the fact that we only have two viable parties in this country, but what do we do about it now? The two parties are on the opposite side of just about any issue that you can name so automatically any upstart campaign will siphon off votes from the party that they most closely identify with. If you look at it that way it seems hopeless.
Now Ralph Nader is running again. This time though he doesn't even have the "wealth, power, and prestige" of the Green party behind him. This time he's running solely on the Egomaniac Party ticket. He claims that people like me who are calling for his head on a platter are trying to stifle his 1st amendment rights. To this I say bullshit. It's one thing to try to stop him from running through legal channels it's entirely another to ask him to think about the consequences of running and opt out.
Just because you have a right to do a thing does not necessarily mean that you should.
In other news, the esteemed Governor of California wants the law preventing non-US born citizens from running for the Presidency. I find it strangely ironic that the party he is from is decisively anti-immigration.
**All the President is, is a glorified public relations man who spends his time flattering, kissing and kicking people to get them to do what they are supposed to do anyway. **
Harry S Truman, Letter to his sister, Nov. 14, 1947
User Reviews
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2004-05-24 08:30:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Gent, you're the one.
Submitted by TheTruth (user info) at 2004-02-25 17:18:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Perot's a bit nutty...a bit fruity perhaps, but everyone should vote for him.
His extra large ears are reason enough.
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2004-02-24 11:42:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
**legal immigration...not exactly issues that resonate with conservatives).**
Once again, it's not legal immigration that conservatives have problems with, so much as it is ILLEGAL immigration. You want to live here, fine, thats one of the reasons this country was founded, but you have to go through the process first. Immigration laws are like traffic lights, they're there for a reason.
Submitted by Gent (user info) at 2004-02-24 10:59:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The only way in which Gore seperated himself from Clinton was by not letting Clinton campaign for him. In terms of policy, Gore was certainly a Clinton democrat. But we know that Clinton is a phenomena of politics... what worked for him would not work for anyone else. Gore wanted to ride the coattails of Clinton's popularity, but he didn't want people to associate him with Clinton's personal baggage. In the end, Gore ran one of the worst campaigns in recent memory (topped only by the start of Bush's 2004 re-election plan... legal immigration... Mars exploration... not exactly issues that resonate with conservatives).
Gore cost himself that election because, although he embraced Clinton's ideals, he didn't embrace his support. And, as I said earlier in this post, Clinton moved the party so far to the center during his administration, the two parties became too similar for a true liberal to distinguish between them. If you really want to call it what it was, Clinton was a great republican president. Budgetary surplus... decrease in federal spending... welfare reform... budget cuts for social programs. Those of us who voted for Nader, did so because he offered an alternative to this shift towards the center. The problem is, we had no idea how far Bush would take the Republican party to the right. If you remember the debates, Bush and Gore agreed on almost all the issues. But this year is different, as I wrote below... Nader won't "steal" votes from Kerry/Edwards... although in reality, he didn't steal any from Gore either... Gore cost himself that election with his timid campaign.
Oh... and that comment about Perot costing daddy Bush the election in 1992 is just absurd. Perot took just as many votes from democrats as republicans.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-02-24 09:51:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Jesus what happened in here?
Yea that was a typo, Arnold is looking to repeal that law. Actually it would take an amendment to the constitution so it's highly unlikely that it will happen.
When I said that I thought that Republicans are anti-immigrant I was basing that on the fact that I see them as isolationists, against nation building and they seem to be the ones trying to make it harder for people to stay in this country. What I was not taking into account is the fact that they are a bunch of greedy bastards so of course they would want more cheap labor coming into the country. What was I thinking. I still don't so much see them trusting one to run the country though.
**He was in with a good chance with preventing Bush taking the White House and surely it is obvious to everyone, Democrat and Republican alikem, that it was his primary motivation for running for office.**
He never stood a chance, he was not even on the ballot in all of the states. Everyone knew or should have known at the time that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. In fact, there were supporters of his making trades with people in other states where the election was close. Say someone like me who is in a state that is always Republican trades my vote for Gore to someone in a state where he stands a chance. Since my vote makes precious little difference, I might as well vote for Nader. I didn't like seeing that happen it looked too much like vote buying to me but it was going on.
**if Gore had won, Clinton would would have been pulling his strings and we'd still have Clinton as prez., just not as a person actually sitting in the oval office.**
That is pretty doubtful. If anything the problem with Gore's campaign was that he was distancing himself from Clinton. The two of them were not exactly getting along there towards the end.
El_Guapo - Like it or not it was Nader who handed Bush the election. I am not making up the numbers and yea I thin it's fucked up that the system works this way but it does. Gore would not have needed Florida to defeat Bush if Nader had not been pretending to run for President. You don't agree with me fine, whatever helps you sleep at night but you had a hand in Bush getting in the whitehouse like it or not. You can rant and rave all you like, but explain this:
New Hampshire: Bush won by 7,282 votes - Nader got 22,156
New Mexico: Bush won by 366 votes - Nader got 21,251
I can't read my handwriting but I think it's Oregon: Bush won by 6,460 - Nader got 77,186
As for how I feel about him or his policies, it makes no difference. He has no chance of winning and for damn sure the Democratic candidate no matter how much I disagree with him is still infinitely closer to my philosophical and political beliefs than Bush on a good day. It's not a lesser of two evils, it is a mathematically calculated risk analysis.
Submitted by TheTruth (user info) at 2004-02-24 01:22:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"He'd certainly be better than Bush, but a fucking sock puppet would be better than Bush. Nader would raise taxes 30%, repeal the Second Amendment, and turn the country into the western equivalent of the USSR."
I'm going to pretend I didn't read that...
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2004-02-24 01:12:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm running in 2012 on the Populist Party ticket.
Here's the thing about Nader... even if he was electable, he'd make a horrible president. He'd certainly be better than Bush, but a fucking sock puppet would be better than Bush. Nader would raise taxes 30%, repeal the Second Amendment, and turn the country into the western equivalent of the USSR.
Still, the two party system is horrible for the country, and I'm glad that Nader is running. Like it or not, he demonstrated something very important in the last presidential election - third party candidates can have a tremendous impact in a presidential election.
Did Nader "steal" votes from Gore? Sure. Will Nader "steal" some votes from the Democratic candidate this year? Probably. In fact, I hope he "steals" a lot of votes. Then, based on his sucessful "theft", I hope the neo-Nazis enter a candidate in 2008 that "steals" a lot of votes from the Republicans. The year after that, maybe a Libertarian candidate will "steal" more votes from both the Democrats and Republicans. Keep this theft up for a few more years, and we may actually have a viable multi-party political system.
This crap isn't going to change overnight. The future starts today. If you want a world where the only candidates are "Big Government before Big Business" and "Big Business before Big Government", then keep voting Democrat and Republican. If you want a world where the parties are smaller and closer to the voice of the people, then send your vote someplace else starting the day after Bush loses the presidential bid this November.
Submitted by TheTruth (user info) at 2004-02-24 00:43:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Remember the whole Pat Buchanan thing as well?
Haha good times. Unfortunately some people just can't let it go.
Submitted by finkboy21 (user info) at 2004-02-24 00:40:04 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Rock On Ralph Nader.
Bush '04
Ross Perot stole the election from older Bush so stop whining.
Submitted by TheTruth (user info) at 2004-02-24 00:39:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
America was also so weak an alliance with France would jeopordize it. Times have changed and every country needs a foreign polcy. Washington was more concerned with factions due to the weak state of the country (Anti-Federalists/Federalists). It's inevitable for people to aggregate.
You ever wonder why everytime there's a new issue (Campaign Finance Reform, Partial-Birth Abortion, Gay Marriage) both sides try to make it look like we're all going to die, country's in hell, ect. ect. People have started to tune out the rhetoric (hopefully).
Submitted by El_Guapo (user info) at 2004-02-24 00:33:47 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
ok, i just read the responses and.....
you make me fucking sick with you defeatist attitudes and your pompous "We won" machismo.
this isn't a game. the only winning and losing is borne by the american public. and we are LOSING. we are losing our rights, we are losing our wealth (most of us), and we are losing sight of the principles our government was founded on. george washington, on leaving office, warned his peers of two things:
1. political parties will ruin america.
2. don't get involved in foreign politics.
don't ever forget that as long as you live.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-02-24 00:28:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ah Nader. So clueless, yet so delightful. I hope he does well just to piss some people off.
Submitted by El_Guapo (user info) at 2004-02-24 00:19:09 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
sorry loki, but you're so heinously wrong it scares me. i stopped in for a farewell dammit.
"I used to have a lot of respect for Ralph Nader. I always thought of him as the champion of the little guy willing to take on big corporations and call a spade a spade. Now I can't stand the guy. Part of it is that I blame him for splitting the Democrat ticket and in effect handing Bush the Whitehouse. The end result is the opposite of what he claimed he was going for and now look where we are, thanks a lot Ralph."
read the fucking numbers god damnit. the states where he got any votes it wouldn't have mattered. not even in florida. the more i hear that BULLSHIT the angrier i get. you and i both know that the election should never have gone to bush. the ridiculous intitution know as the electoral college is the one thing that got herr bush elected, and only one of the horribly wrong things in our system Nader is against. i can at the very least sleep well knowing that i believe in the person i voted for. i bet if more people didn't have that chickenshit "he couldn't possibly win, so i might as well vote for the lesser of two evils" attitude, then he would have won many more votes. i won't even get into what could happen if he actually got to debate the other candidates. you are much better than the average brainwashed partisan banner waver, i can't fucking believe you posted this.
"Now Ralph Nader is running again. This time though he doesn't even have the "wealth, power, and prestige" of the Green party behind him. This time he's running solely on the Egomaniac Party ticket. He claims that people like me who are calling for his head on a platter are trying to stifle his 1st amendment rights. To this I say bullshit. It's one thing to try to stop him from running through legal channels it's entirely another to ask him to think about the consequences of running and opt out."
as if the legal channels to run as an independent isn't enough? do you have any fucking idea what it takes to get on the ballot as an independent candidate? i have faith that you do. i was one of thousands of people petitionaing that got him on the fucking ballot last time. Egomaniac party ticket? why, because he has the nads to run on his own? because he will run and stand by his statements no matter if he has a snowballs chance in hell? do you even know what the fuck he stands for? remember this, he stands for more of what you believe in than any candidate our ruling parties will ever field. have a little faith and invest in some hope. hope that we can one day enjoy something far closer to a democracy than what we have now. hope that someone will oppose the rape of civil liberties and personal privacy due to the patriot act. hope that someone, anyone will represent all of america, not just huge corporations and the rich.
"Just because you have a right to do a thing does not necessarily mean that you should."
just because the way things are now are "the way it is", does not mean they are the way they should be. would you apply that rhetoric to protesters? the way i see it you're walking terribly close to contradicting yourself.
if i thought there was any way you could approach it with an open mind, i would challenge you to find out what he is really about.
you just might want to vote for him too.
take a fucking chance. tell everyone you know. that's how change actually happens.
Submitted by TheTruth (user info) at 2004-02-23 22:57:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Yea, damn that canal was a bad idea, eh squirrel?
Submitted by Otter (user info) at 2004-02-23 22:35:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"Methinks he may have indulged in some mind altering substances from time to time." Wow, Snookie-Poo, y'think?:)
Bart brought up Gore, I liked him more than Clinton, but if Gore had won, Clinton would would have been pulling his strings and we'd still have Clinton as prez., just not as a person actually sitting in the oval office.
I couldn't see the US haveing a prez named Nader. It just doesn't sound right. But all the guys can exclaim "I love Bush." Well, maybe no Murphy, or Zoidberg, but you get the idea...
Harry S seems like he was a great prez. I'd like to see him whip this country back into shape. The buck stops here, and all that good stuff.
Submitted by ohlookasquirrel (user info) at 2004-02-23 19:23:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Theodore Roosevelt for president next time.
He's the only third party prez that rocked that many votes.
Cept he was a foreign policy asshole.
Though Socialist Eugene V. Debs got 1 million votes, when he ran from prison.
I give up.
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2004-02-23 19:17:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Hell fucking yeah! Loki scores again!
Submitted by Scott_James (user info) at 2004-02-23 18:08:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Back in 2000, several left-wing British newspapers ran campaigns that pleaded with Americans not to vote for Bush, rather than vote for Gore or Nader. Their point being that while they were not willing to back either of the 'liberal' candidates, Gore or Nader would have been a better choice than Bush.
I think I was in my second year at university at the time, which meant my daily routine consisted of studying until 3pm and heavy drinking till 4am. Even so, I still managed to watch the coverage of the campaign unfold on the BBC's 24 hour news service and I was amazed at the dissention within the ranks of the Democratic party. Say what you will about the Republicans, but at least they know how to pull together in order to defeat a common enemy.
Nader's actions post-2000 may not have endeared him to his former supporters, but the man has been victim of circumstance as well as his own incomptence. A significant proportion of Democrats blame him for splitting the party vote and with hindsight, it was a poor strategy, but as some people here have already noted, it was the right thing to do. He was in with a good chance with preventing Bush taking the White House and surely it is obvious to everyone, Democrat and Republican alikem, that it was his primary motivation for running for office.
However, the current situation is different. Nader is hardly going to draw half the level of support which he did four years ago and his reputation as been compromised because what appears to be pure egotism on his part. Better that he drop out now and throw his support behind Kerry and contribute to plotting Bush's downfall from behind a candidate who hasn't already mired himself up the eyeballs in bureacracy.
Submitted by acrog (user info) at 2004-02-23 17:58:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
whoops, forgot to rate
Submitted by acrog (user info) at 2004-02-23 17:58:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I agree with the third party or rogue candidate fucking up the program.
but on one of your peripheral points:
"In other news, the esteemed Governor of California wants the law preventing non-US born citizens from running for the Presidency. I find it strangely ironic that the party he is from is decisively anti-immigration"
"party he is from is decisively anti-immigration" What?
Bush has been so pro-immigrant rights that it's starting to piss of his supporters.
Even fucking Rush Limbaugh has been bitching about it.
Submitted by Gent (user info) at 2004-02-23 17:50:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I think she meant that Arnold wants to repeal the law prohibiting foreign borns from running for president. Sponsored by Orrin Hatch... which is really ironic.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-02-23 17:40:56 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
In other news, the esteemed Governor of California wants the law preventing non-US born citizens from running for the Presidency. I find it strangely ironic that the party he is from is decisively anti-immigration.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/22/elec04.prez.schwarzenegger.ap/index.html
your wrong
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2004-02-23 17:39:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
His name really is 'Nader'? Heh, that's funny.
Submitted by Gent (user info) at 2004-02-23 17:34:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Very unlikely that we will see a repeat of the 2000 election this time around... in terms of Nader siphoning votes from the Democratic party. First, Nader will have a hard time getting on the ballots of most states. Second, the political climate has changed a lot since 2000... supporters of the democratic party have resigned themsleves to the fact that the most important issue facing them in 2004 is the defeat of W. Bush. If liberal/democratic principles were still the central issue, we would've nominated Dean or Kucinich rather than Kerry or Edwards. Electibility is the only issue worth concerning ourselves with, and, in this case, the centrist's Kerry/Edwards are certainly the most electable.
The second issue goes along with the idea of a centrist democratic party. There's no doubt that Clinton intended to move the party from the left to the center, and in 2000, when Nader appeared to voters to reflect the true, leftist nature of the party, Gore was forced to move his views to the left in order to appease these voters. But to many democratic voters, the damage was already done... the Republican and Democratic parties too closely resembled each other for a true leftist to distinguish between them (take it from someone who voted for Nader in 2000 for this very reason). But in the four years since that election, Bush has moved the republican party far to the right, creating glaring differences between the parties. Since there is now a true difference, reflected in the candidates, between the right and left, votes will be split between the two. Fringe leftist voters can again vote for the candidate that best reflects the opposite of George Bush... a luxury not afforded when Gore was running. The point... most people will be far less inclined to vote for Nader, assuming he is on a states ballot, which is not likely.
Because of all this, I think it is good to see a prominent third party candidate. And don't kid yourselves... Nader is an extremely capable man. His performance on Meet the Press this saturday made Bush's performance look even worse than it was originally. He is a man that knows the issues and knows how to relate to the people that support him. It is important for this country to produce viable 3rd party candidates, and Nader, although lacking true popular support, at least brings the notion of a 3+ party system to the forefront.
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2004-02-23 17:18:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
There was a little comedy bit on one of the radio shows that I listen to that purported to be an open letter to Ralph Nader, Howard Dean, Kucinich, et. al about how they should run as independants and not give up and how the people were counting on them. I don't know, it was just a tad too smug to be funny.
As for Arnold, I saw that item in the news and it made me laugh like a bastard. Coming soon to a party caucus near you, etc[insert lame 'Terminator' joke here]. As for the rest, I think its a little simplistic to say that the Republican Party is anti-immigrant. Especially considering that bill the President has proposed to extend citizenship. I think it might be more accurate to say that they are concerned about ILLEGAL immigration.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-02-23 17:06:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
It's not that they take the money that Democrats have an issue with, it's what that money buys them. The largest contributors to the Bush election have been big oil, banks pharmaceutical companies, and god help us Enron. Then if you look at the kind of policy they've been handing down it's rather big oil, bank, and drug company friendly.
Maybe Kerry's issue is the avoidance of the appearance of impropriety, but so far I have not seen anything about him selling out for money.
For all the money that Dean raised, he was broke by the end of it all. That just shows how much money it takes to get anywhere.
You're right about the Dean scream costing him credibility. I thought that at the time. He seemed to have a problem with his temper and did not exactly project an image of control. I think the same thing happened when Dole fell off that podium. He looked like an old man and not all that presidential - whatever that is supposed to mean.
Submitted by tito (user info) at 2004-02-23 16:56:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Money wasn't Dean's problem, he raised about $41,000,000 through individual contributions (this is from about a month or 2 ago http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00025663) His problem wasn't the money. It was the fact was that some of his policies were a little too conservative for the ultra liberal primary voting base. And then there was that Macho Man yell. People say that shit doesn't matter, but it does. I know it is saying too much to completely take away corporate donations, but it seems a little hypocritical of the Democratic party to take as much as they do, since they're supposed to be against big business.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-02-23 16:41:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Without accepting money from special interest groups, there is no way to win an election. All you can do is not allow the money to influence your decisions, but without serious and meaningful reform, that's just the way it is. It would be nice to say you won't do any negative campaigning or that you won't take money from special interests but you won't be in office either. The sad this is, of all the tax returns that I do no one except me wants to check that box to earmark funds for elections. The money has to come from somewhere. Dean proved that you can't get elected with $25 contributions.
Submitted by tito (user info) at 2004-02-23 16:36:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I agree, but I think that that the democratic party has to share the blame for Nader running. We forget that the democratic party is also heavily influenced by special interests and corporations (Not nearly as much as the republicans, but they (the dems) are still are slaves to big businesses, the dems still got about $154,000,000 in PAC's from businesses in 2003 http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.asp?cycle=2004). Also, we forget that a lot of Dems in Congress approved the Patriot Act and the war on Iraq.
I'm not endorsing Nader, I still think that he's a douche for running, because he will never win. But I think that if the Democratic Party cleaned up a little, Nader wouldn't run, because I think that the reason he's running is because of the corruption and favortism to big interest groups in both parties (of course, i'm under the assumption that this isn't an ego trip for ralphie, if it is, then fuck it, kill the bastard).
+1 for motavating me to write this.
Tito (voting for the democratic party because it is the lesser of two evils)
Submitted by Shay (user info) at 2004-02-23 15:51:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I can't believe anybody voted for Nader in 2000. How they actually thought he was going to win floors me. I am listening to him on the radio now, he actually thinks he has a chance, and he actually doesn't see how he's stealing democratic votes.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2004-02-23 15:35:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I would have rather had Nader than Gore, but I would rather have had Gore than Bush.
I would prefer to have Nader or Kerry president instead of Bush, but there's no chance I'd vote for Nader, not after seeing what happened in 2000.
Why can't I cast my vote for both candidates? I should be able to look at a ballot of ten names and select all the people I would want as president. Whoever ends up with their name checked on the most ballots wins. That way, I could vote for Kerry and Nader both without just "throwing my vote away" on Nader. It would provide a healthy way for the US to ween ourselves off the two-party system which I suppose is why nobody in either of the two parties has proposed such a scheme.
One good thing for me is that I'm in Chicago. Even though Chicago has always been Democratic, the state level used to be guaranteed Republican. In recent years, even the state level has gone decidedly Democratic as the rest of the country has fallen to the dark side.
Submitted by drink_DDT (user info) at 2004-02-23 15:26:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Ralph Nader is an unkempt zombie with a tiny penis.
Submitted by Istaros (user info) at 2004-02-23 15:24:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"**All the President is, is a glorified public relations man who spends his time flattering, kissing and kicking people to get them to do what they are supposed to do anyway. **
Harry S Truman, Letter to his sister, Nov. 14, 1947"
I can't count how many times I've said exactly that.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-02-23 15:24:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I could do a whole post on the good Dr. Seuss. First of all, he saved me personally from a life of illiteracy. Ok, maybe that is a bit dramatic but there is no way in hell I was going to sit there and give a shit about Dick, Jane and Spot - fuck that.
Most people don't know this, but he was Jack Kerouac's roommate at Dartmouth. I have a book of his political comics as well as the secret art of Dr. Seuss. Methinks he may have indulged in some mind altering substances from time to time.
http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/speccoll/dspolitic/Frame.htm
http://www.vegalleries.com/seuss/
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2004-02-23 15:16:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I never knew Dr. Seuss was so politcally minded in his art
Submitted by Shay (user info) at 2004-02-23 15:00:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-02-23 14:48:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I looked it up to see if it was fair to blame him for the way the election turned out. Most of what I've heard had to do with Florida. Not to rehash, we all know what happened, didn't happen, should have happened etc in Florida but I was curious about the rest of the states.
I just looked at the states that Bush won because like domenad said, the idea that conservatives are voting for Nader makes me laugh - HA.
In Florida he got 97,419 votes so yea we can blame him for Florida.
New Hampshire: Bush won by 7,282 votes - Nader got 22,156
New Mexico: Bush won by 366 votes - Nader got 21,251
I can't read my handwriting but I think it's Oregon: Bush won by 6,460 - Nader got 77,186
So yea I think that pretty much paints a picture.
Does anyone else just think that Arnold wants to run for President because he thinks the President gets more action than a mere Governor?
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-02-23 14:41:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
What an absolute load Nader is! He even opined that he'll draw off the CONSERVATIVE VOTE! I have never heard any conservative say "Well that GW, he just ain't for me. Now Ralph Nader, that's my guy. DOPE!
Submitted by Kristen (user info) at 2004-02-23 14:39:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Nadar is a nutsack.
Submitted by AlwaysAnEagle (user info) at 2004-02-23 14:38:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Loki's posting habits seem to be running parallel to my life. Convo from last night, paraphrased:
Friend: In other news, Ralph Nader is running again.
Me: Oh, fucking great. He's a commie.
Friend: I thought you liked him!
Me: No, I definitely don't...he knows he's not viable yet, but he ran anyway and wound up handing the White House to that douchebag Dubya. Even you [NB: "Friend" is a conservative] should be pissed at him, if nothing else for the fact that he made the race closer and makes it possible for democrats and all other thinking people to contest Dubya's validity.
Friend: But shouldn't we have more than two parties?
Me: Yes, but the issue is that right now, third parties are like the Chicago Cubs...<continuing on into rant about my Third Parties Are Like The Cubs theory>
That's a big ole "-2 die" for Nader.
Submitted by Biloba (user info) at 2004-02-23 14:36:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If there had been no Ross Perot, there would have been no Bill Clinton. If there would have been no Ralph Nadar, there would have been no GWB.
BTW it's the Constitution that bans anyone but natural born citizens from becoming President.
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2004-02-23 14:34:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
AMEN! Nader is running as an Independent this time because he thinks by doing so he will garner more votes than he would as a Green Party candidate. This sack o' crap that I, too, used to have respect for is also claiming that, as far as being a "spoiler", he would siphon off more rightist/Republican votes than leftist/Democrat votes. Bullshit, I say, bullshit.
Submitted by Deisangua (user info) at 2004-02-23 14:30:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by whataefag (user info) at 2004-02-23 14:27:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Oops. Forgot to rate.
Submitted by whataefag (user info) at 2004-02-23 14:27:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I voted for Nader in the last election, living in Texas there was little hope except for a possible 3rd party check on government. I agree though that his efforts to run unabided are pretty feeble at best. I can't see any reason to vote for him this election without the Green Party behind him, especially since I'm now in an area where my electoral votes are up for contention. I doubt he'll garner even close to the amount of support he had in the last election, now that Americans realize how detrimental a vote for Nader can be.