Since 2000, when he claimed there was no difference between Republicans and Democrats, Ralph Nader has had blood on his hands.
By his own admission, on Sunday’s Meet the Press, pollsters indicate that 39% of the votes he received in Florida in 2000 would have gone to Gore, with only 25% to Bush. He fails to follow the math to its conclusion, though -- a clear Gore win in Florida by 13,111 votes – if Nader had not run.
Nader didn't mind because he got what he wanted in 2000 -- party clashes.
In the August 2000 issue of Outside Magazine, it was reported that when Nader was asked if threatened with a gun to his head, who would he vote for – Gore or Bush – he immediately said, “Bush.” Why? “If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win.”
Nader’s agenda is no longer the well-being of Americans. His agenda is a complete disruption of majority rule. Nader wants a multiple choice, multiple party democracy – but this would often leave Americans with a leader that the majority of the people, split into two or more parties, voted against.
With almost 4000 American military dead, to say nothing of the multi-fold more disabled, poorly cared for, often with ruined marriages and families, together with estimates between 88,000 to almost a million Iraqi citizens, leaving a dangerously angry generation of uneducated orphans – all as a result of the Bush administration’s determination, beyond reason, to oust Saddam Hussein and control the future of the oil-rich land – there is a lot of blood that has been shed. In a war that was a phony response to 9/11.
Al Gore would not done this to Iraq – or to Americans. Therein lies a huge difference.
When Nader ran again in 2004 – despite Bill Maher and Michael Moore publicly dropping to their knees before their former hero, on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher”, and begging him not to run – he claimed it was because he alone was willing to end the war in Iraq – the war his ego facilitated.
Nader’s 2004 run was largely unsupported and pathetic, especially when he knowingly accepted – and defended – donations from top Republicans aiming to split the democratic vote.
Now, in 2008, Nader claims he must run again, this time to take on corporate control of the government. Again he seeks to fix what he made worse. It was his interference in majority rule that put the U.S. government in the hands of the most corporate-friendly President in history – the man who filled Cabinet posts with the lobbyists who had fought federal agency oversight.
Al Gore would not have populated the entire executive branch with industry lobbyists aiming to censor scientific evidence. Another major difference.
Whatever Gore's flaws, these unarguable differences have had significant, deadly consequences.
If Ralph Nader were the man he once was – the crusader for American consumers – he would put his energy into the important voting issues that have been rampant since 2000 - the Help America Vote Act (written by the corrupt and jailed Congressman Bob Ney under the influence of Diebold money transferred by Jack Abramoff), the hackable voting machines, the illegitimate purging of voter registration lists, the uncounted ballots, the corporate intimidation of election officials. There was an important role for Nader to play.
Instead, Ralph Nader has forsaken us. And “We, the People” are worse off for his betrayal.
We owe it to our selves, our families, and to the world, to see this 2008 candidacy for what it must be: empty, without value, and over.
http://oneperson-knowmore.blogspot.com
"Look around. You're not alone, and you know what we need to know. So go tell it on the mountains and in the cities. From your websites and laptops, tell it. From the street corners and coffeehouse, tell it. From delis and diners, tell it. From the workshop and the bookstore, tell it. On campus, at the mall, the synagogue, sanctuary and mosque, tell it. Tell it where you can, when you can and while you can. Tell America what we need to know, and we may just rekindle the patriot dream." -- Bill Moyers (as Studs Terkel calls him, "my North Star"), June 7, 2008 at the National Conference on Media Reform. . .
I am a working mom living in the very red state of Utah who began to really pay attention in 2003 and began sharing what I found out in 2004 -- with "Know Bush Facts", a series of 40 emailed statements that culminated with "Know Bush: Launching Facts That Shock & Awe, A One Person Patriot Act" -- a presentation of the best of the facts retold for theatre -- in October 2004.
I continue to write about the hypocrisies I study, believing that what the Bush administration has done goes far beyond partisan disagreement and should be known. I've learned that it isn't that hard to discover the bit of information that puts the news we see into a much greater perspective.
I don't need to bash. I don't even need to convince. I simply need to reveal what is going on behind the tap dancing.
Just curious-how can you claim what Gore would/would not have done if he had had the courage to pursue election results in 2000?
To lay so much at the feet of Ralph Nader when the real failure was a Democratic Party failure, is incredible. Nader did not cost Gore Tennessee, now did he? Favorite son loses home state? Forget the headline? How about the home state of the then sitting President? Arkansas did not go for Gore either? Hmmmm. Curious. And yet Nader is to blame. Millions of Reagan Democrats crossed party lines and voted for Bush. Care to explain that?
In 2004 the Green Party and the Libertarian Party had to embarrass the election campaign of Kerry and the Democratic Party into investigating the shenanigans in the election results in Ohio. The DP walked away from it. My goodness.
So what if people voted for him? When did God annoint the Democratic candidates? Nader had a right to run and people had a right to vote for him so get over it. If we wanted a Democrat in office, we might have voted for one. We did not. You folks failed to convince us otherwise.
The blame for the war laid to Nader? What did Congress do to disallow it? What has Congress done to end it. Who currently controls Congress and has since Jan 2007? Right. And still they fund, they don't question, they expand power to spy on Americans, they condone torture, they support the emplacement of Milton Friedman's economic lunacy, thereby destroying our economic and financial infrastructure. And yet it is all Nader's fault. Right.
As you note that, because he did not win in 2000 or 2004 he should not, thereby, run again, then I suppose you will argue against the running of Democratic candidates as well, as they did not win those elections either? Hmmm?
Gore's Inconvenient Truth never mentions the role in global warming played by the corporations. I wonder why that is?
Why lay it on Nader's shoulders to fix all those ills you spoke of when 1) the Democrats won't involve themselves in fixing them and 2) the Democrats had a great hand in creating those problems?
Nader did not forsake us, the Democratic Party did.
by
Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 399 comments)
on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 3:27:11 PM
I feel sorry for people like you that are lost in the media orchestrated wasteland. FACT There is no real difference between Bush and Gore or Karry or Clinton or Obama. They are all puppets to the same master. The only differences are superficial. Wake Up if that is possible.
by
arlen custer (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 279 comments)
on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 3:46:36 PM
Yes, it is true that Nader took votes away from Gore.
But, it was NOT lack of votes that caused Gore to lose.
It was a partisan Supreme Court that gave the presidency to Bush, in spite of the fact that the people gave Gore 400,000 more popular votes than Bush, and would have given Gore enough electoral votes if all the ballots would have been counted as Florida law called for.
But to me, that's beside the point.
Ralph Nader is quite correct about certain things. After all, 80 percent of the funding for the political campaigns of BOTH Republicans and Democrats is provided by the wealthiest one percent of the population.
Those wealthiest few get what they pay for, regardless of which party gains the presidency. And while Democrats are certainly the "lesser of two evils," they are still part of the problem.
In the American system, the most important candidates are not the frontrunners. The parties will never have any trouble finding candidates like Obama and McCain to front for party corruption. The most important candidates are the ones like Nqader and other independent candidates who represent the American system of elections rather than things that are popular with political parties like abortion and the war in Iraq, the two forms of party sponsored homicide that represent political power to the leadership of these two corrupt parties. America has a system of elections in which unpopular people have always been encouraged to run for office, until now. When I was in grade school, my fourth grade teacher brought a general election ballot to school. In addition to the two major party candidates, there were several small parties like the Prohibition Party and the Socialist Party, and a couple of independent candidates. The same state now is like most of the rest, restricting ballot access to the two major parties. There is one thing we can say about elections today. They have one more candidate per office to vote for per political office than the people of the Soviet Union had to vote for when Josef Stalin was dictator and elections were held for that country.
The people of the United States need to send these two major parties down the road. They are not the government of the United States. They are, as George Washington said, "self-created societies" which seek special status for themselves in government.
by
Robert Winn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 28 comments)
on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 7:32:29 PM
Is there NEVER enough attention? A pity these "old boys" can't relax and enjoy a nice walk or bicycle ride. HOW SAD YOU LOOK Ralph, John, Rudy, Dick, Don etc. etc.
Posted by "an old man" :-) :-)
by
davy (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 240 comments)
on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 2:39:03 AM
Fact; In 2000 it would only have taken 1! senator to stand up for a recount and stop the theft of the presidency. Fact; The same is true in the 2004 theft. Fact; Bush didn't do all of this stuff alone, [wars, patriot act, raping the constitution, helping war profiteers, et.al]. The DEMS helped.
by
arlen custer (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 279 comments)
on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 9:45:55 AM
6 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
