Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 5 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest 1 Share on Fark! 1 Share on Reddit 1 Share on StumbleUpon 1 Tell A Friend 3 (12 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   10 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Why do "they" blame Nader?

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

Well Said 1   Supported 1  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H3 5/28/14

Become a Fan
  (15 fans)

Ralph Nader, speaking at BYU's Alternate Commencement
(image by Wikimedia Commons)

Let me start out by saying, there are two distinct groups of "they", each with their own reasons and agendas for claiming that Ralph Nader lost the election for Al Gore in 2000.

The most visible and virulent, of course, are the sour-puss Democrats. I understand how they feel. Which is why I have no respect for them any more.

Disclosure: I was raised working class in Detroit, when unions were strong. I don't think I even met a Republican for my first eighteen years. Certainly my parents, their friends, and everyone within 50 miles of the trailer park we lived in was Democrat. Until 1996, I voted as a knee-jerk Democrat.

So let's get down to the nitty-gritty.

The presidential election of 2000 was decided in Florida. Almost 6,000,000 people voted. Al Gore lost to George W. by 537 votes. There were massive irregularities in the election, including 54,000 alleged felons who were disenfranchised of the right to vote. Most turned out to not be felons at all, and 54% of them were African-American, a demographic highly likely to have voted for Al Gore. Also, there were all sorts of problems with chads and double-voting, usually attributable to weirdness with vote tallying and the ballots themselves.

Having said that ...

97,421 people voted for Ralph Nader. It is assumed that had these 97,421 people not voted for Nader, they would have voted for Al Gore and he would have swept the election.


But even before I get into that, why don't they rail against the 538 registered Democrats who were too lazy, too drunk, too preoccupied, too busy shacking up with some honey, too hooked on some soap opera or sitcom, or maybe too stoned, to get off their lard asses and vote for Al? Why pick on people who made a considered, deeply principled decision to take a stand against the rabid conservatism of the right -- aka the Republicans -- AND against the sell-out and betrayal of the progressive left by the Democrats?

It's no secret. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were responsible for tilting so far to the political right they gutted the Democratic Party of its core values. True progressives -- the kind of people who responded to Nader's message -- comprising the 97,421 that voted for him in Florida, were finally fed up with the Democratic Party, its pandering to big business, its pathetic cowering to bubble heads like Newt Gingrich.

If Ralph Nader had not been on the ticket, most of those 97,421 would have stayed home. Because they -- like yours truly -- had had it up to their widow's peak with the Beltway's business-as-usual, resented Clinton's pivot to the right, and were stunned if not horrified by the corporate takeover of the Democratic Party.

I admit I was charmed by Clinton. I loved his humor, his persona, his sax playing. He was -- and still is -- a brilliant speaker, a real charmer. But remember, this is the man who led the charge for deregulating Wall Street and the abolition of Glass-Steagall, initiated the subversion of the social safety net with his aggressive attack on welfare, and foisted on a gullible nation the horrible trade agreement known as NAFTA.

Yes ... NAFTA!

I remember watching the debate between Al Gore -- who by then I found both articulate and in his robotic way extremely mesmerizing -- and Ross Perot. I recall my reflexive and now embarrassing rooting for Al, wanting him to put that ugly little jerk in his place. But guess what? Al was wrong! I was wrong! Ross Perot was dead on the money. NAFTA has turned out to be, just as Mr. Perot predicted, a very bad deal for America.

That was just the tip of the iceberg. Much of the Clinton-Gore agenda -- Mr. Gore's commitment to the environment being the commendable exception -- turned this country completely around. But in the wrong direction!

When the 2000 campaign got underway, many of us were getting wise to this. Growing numbers of voters were becoming restless, disenchanted. I sat in the huge coliseum in Portland, Oregon, where 10,000 people paid to hear Ralph Nader speak. That's right, we paid for tickets like we were going to a Sting concert. That's how desperate people were becoming for a presidential candidate who talked straight and made sense.

Next Page  1  |  2

John Rachel has a B. A. in Philosophy, has traveled extensively, is a songwriter and music producer, a left-of-left liberal, and has spent his life trying to resolve the intrinsic clash between the metaphysical purity of Buddhism and the (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Going Postal

Ten Commandments For A New American Century

"Throw the bums out!"


Candidate Pledges: A Strategy For Jettisoning The Scoundrels and Restoring Representative Democracy

Militarizing The Police


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
8 people are discussing this page, with 10 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

This article says:97,421 people voted for Ralph Na... by Eric Zuesse on Wednesday, May 28, 2014 at 3:07:20 PM
-- continued --Harvard's Barry C. Burden, in his ... by Eric Zuesse on Wednesday, May 28, 2014 at 3:13:18 PM
How could I not be familiar with this paper? Every... by John Rachel on Wednesday, May 28, 2014 at 5:14:36 PM
Ralph Nader is an American hero. Al Gore was a so... by Joe Giambrone on Wednesday, May 28, 2014 at 4:33:00 PM
My OpEdNews article opens an old wound. But it is ... by John Rachel on Wednesday, May 28, 2014 at 5:17:16 PM
John, I think Democrats who blame Nader are delusi... by intotheabyss on Wednesday, May 28, 2014 at 7:59:38 PM
Excellent article, thanks. Three additional points... by Leftcoast7 on Wednesday, May 28, 2014 at 10:56:40 PM
To all third party voters, thank you for being sma... by Gail Harrison on Wednesday, May 28, 2014 at 11:34:14 PM
Great article! Ralph Nader did the citizens of our... by Sebastian McGarigle on Friday, May 30, 2014 at 11:51:14 AM
Obama has just about destroyed what remained of th... by Nelson Betancourt on Wednesday, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:31:48 PM