Hatred for Nader

Email Print posted by ginger baker 02/26/2008 01:24:34 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit

Why hate old Nader? When there's so much blame to go around?

Why? Ralph Nader not only gets mounds of hatred and resentment thrown at him by disgruntled Democrats but the same ol tired questions lobbed at him by Wolf Blitzer, Russert, et al. No one seriously believes that he was a "spoiler" in 2000 so what's the beef?

Why? Ralph Nader not only gets mounds of hatred and resentment thrown at him by disgruntled Democrats but the same ol tired questions lobbed at him by Wolf Blitzer, Russert, et al. No one seriously believes that he was a "spoiler" in 2000 so what's the beef? Nader puts issues on the agenda that the Dems have been running from for years. And the real political differences between him and the Dems have been growing over the years. So all these reactions and accusations say more about those who make them than it does about old Nader. Nader calls the Dems out on their hyprocrisy &, to be specific, for being pulled to the right by the Clintons. Yet the "progressives" who complain about the Dems being soft and for caving in to the GOP are the ones with animated hostility. I am not endorsing Nader. My point is that the furrowed brows and clenched fists he gets from Dems are more about them than they are about him. He has the right to run for office so what are they complaining about? And the issues he runs with (the Dems caving on the war, silence on poverty, living wage, impeachment, etc) are issues alot more real than the ones being debated by Clinton & Obama. Again, this is not an endorsement. But its important for the Democratic Party to look at why they're more prone to take out out their anger against the representative of 2% of the votes than direct it more productively, say, at the GOP., or even the Dems.

 

< Stating the Obvious (The Hillary Bomb) | Did Bush Really Qualify for Guard Service? >
 Display:
Hatred for Nader | 37 comments (37 topical, 0 hidden)
Welcome to TYT (none / 0)
I say welcome because I don't think I've seen you post before.

In 2004 he had almost no impact (precisely because of 2000 backlash), and he's likely to have even less impact this year.

But 2000 upset makes sense, because while it's true Bush stole the election, it's also true it would've been harder for him to do so had Nader not run.

With that said, I agree that he raises good issues that Obama/Clinton won't touch, or at least not in any meanginful way. That's why I liked Edwards run, because he pushed Obama and Clinton further down the progressive end of the spectrum. That's important because we all know Obama will move closer to the center as we get closer to the general election.

And even though there are a lot of "reformed Republicans" at TYT, I agree with Cenk that the current "center" is currently right of center.  In other words, we need someone further left to actually pull the country back towards a *real* center (granted, I want it left of center, but at this point I'll take the real middle as it's surely better than what we've had since 2000).

by ihavenobias on 02/24/2008 08:53:36 PM EST

democratic hypocrisy, writ large (none / 0)

when nader runs for president in a "close" year (like 2000), he is excoriated for taking votes away from democrats.

when nader runs for president in a supposedly "sure-fire" year (like 2008 is expected to be), he is tarnished as a self-aggrandizing old fart.

democrats, apparently, do not believe in democracy. the only electoral equation they understand is that a vote for nader is somehow a vote "stolen" from their pathetic selves---for some reason, the exercise of franchise by a citizen is more worthy of condemnation than the outright theft and electoral fraud by republicans. how dare the american citizenry decide to vote for someone whose opinions they most closely identify with, rather than vote for the pussies chosen for them by the d.l.c.

if hate against a person or a party or a political philosophy were somehow proportional to the level of disagreement with and the degree of danger caused by that person/party/philosophy, then the democrats would be (should be?) on a genocidal warpath against republicans and republicanism.

instead, their venom is directed against those most sympathetic to their supposed core beliefs.

the very fact that the sense of outrage is so disproportionate and so misplaced gives credence to nader's original complaint that there is little difference between the two arms of the reigning corporatocracy. 

failure to recognize one's true enemies is the surest sign of idiocy or of craven misrepresentation.

until democrats stop their petty squabbles with left-leaning third-party movements, and focus directly, virulently, viciously, brutally, and thoroughly on the republican disease that has infected this country, they do not deserve to hold power, and will slowly and surely be decimated into oblivion.

by neo on 02/24/2008 09:38:38 PM EST

Why? (none / 0)

Because he single handedly destroyed the Chevy Corvair with one of his goofy books. One of the coolest American cars ever made.

That's why. 

by z1p101 on 02/24/2008 09:52:24 PM EST

I don't hate Nader for running (none / 0)

I just hate the people who vote for him, thinking that will "show them."  Nader has this stupid notion that keeps floating around among ignorant people that there needs to be a third party.  There will be no third party.  We do not have a parliamentary government, so there are no coalition governments formed in our system. 

I don't blame him for complaining about the current parties, but if you don't like it you have to pick a party and get involved within that party.  He's clearly a Democrat in philosophy, so he should run as a Democrat or get elected to congress.  But he can get a lot more famous by doing this nonsense, and he's not interested in participating in government, just complaining about it.  It's fine for him to feel this way, but his message just encourages more people to stay uninvolved and be sideline complainers like he is.  

He's perpetuating the idea that government is "them" and we are just outsiders who have no influence.  The truth is that the government is based on the will of the people.  (stolen elections notwithstanding)

by schmoab on 02/25/2008 03:37:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
nader hate (none / 0)
here here this is right on what he brings to the game,he's doing it all the wrong way. there is no way i will vote for someone who will not get in the real race.he always waits way to long to get in anyway,he needs to get in at the begining .so step aside and let it be

by tuna on 02/26/2008 06:22:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Change the system (none / 0)
Hope he doesn't run, not until the system gets an update.

There is a gigantic flaw in the US election system that comes to the foreground in close elections with more than 2 candidates for President. The fact that your vote is lost when you don't vote for a Democrat or Republican.

Solutions (all tried and tested in the rest of the world):
1. make it possible to form coalitions, for instance Democrats form a coalition government with the Greens, so that would have swung the election to Gore in 2000
2. multiple rounds, the 2 candidates with the highest votes go to round 2, this might have changed the Clinton-Bush-Perot election

by callisto on 02/25/2008 01:26:31 PM EST

What you call a "flaw" (none / 0)
Was actually the design by the Founding Fathers to introduce some stability into the system.  It seems to have been fairly successful.  You're going to have to move to Canada or Europe if you want to see more than 2 parties with any influence.  I happen to love our electoral system, and many other countries are jealous of the amount of say the people get in a national election.  The head of state in most countries is decided by a Parliament. 

by schmoab on 02/25/2008 01:42:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Stability also breads bad habits (none / 0)
Sure, unless you want to have any real change of course, something that is clearly needed at this point.

If you change the system The Green Party wouldn't get elected but their concerns would be taken into account, now they only swing elections to the Republicans, a party they totally disagree with. By just entering the race the 3rd party candidates on the left just swing the election to the people they hate most. Logical, I think not.

People in Europe and Canada tend to have to say more in national elections:
1. no corporate donations, so politicians tend to do less things in favor of corporations
2. bad government results in a huge amout of voters goingt to another party, kicking the ruling party out of power
3.head of state and head of government are usually 2 different people, head of states have mostly not much to say in policy (President of King), it's the heads of government (Prime Minister) that lead the government
=> yes people in the rest of the West have far less to say about Head of State (the people cutting the ribbons and stuff), but they have far more say in the Head of Government, because of the diversity in parties and hence in policy

by callisto on 02/25/2008 02:06:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
you missed the point of my post (none / 0)
Obviously I wasn't referring to the people who cut ribbons.  The POTUS has power and is sort of directly elected by the people.  I like the current system and I think the electoral college is still a good idea.  The Prime Minister is usually elected by the parliament, not directly by the people.

by schmoab on 02/25/2008 11:58:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
think you are missing something (none / 0)
The President is usually chosen by the Parliament, except in France, ....

The Prime Minister is not elected by Parliament, normally it is the top candidate of the biggest party, he then has to find a majority coalition to form the government.
The Parliament then has to accept the government, but since the government is a reflection of the parliament they automatically have that majority. The Parliament more follows the government instead of them choosing a PM.

True the PMs are not directly elected, but you have a vastly bigger choice in leaders, which in the US you haven't. Also, your vote for a 3rd party in the US is basically a lost vote, while in a Parliamentary system that vote can still be of influence.

by callisto on 02/26/2008 10:08:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't hate Nader (none / 0)
I agree with Cenk that Nader is annoying for denying that there are differences between Republicans and Democrats, and for insisting that his presence in the race made no difference in Florida, and I don't like that he ran again in 2004 and now 2008, and I think he should have dropped out in 2000.

Apart from all that, I don't have that much hatred toward him. I think charges that he does this for his own ego aren't grounded in too much evidence.  Of course all Presidential candidates have large egos, and I don't have illusions or delusions about Nader.  But if he's such an egomaniac, why doesn't he do anything anymore to get into the public eye in between election years?

I think Nader does have a valid message (and that makes it almost irrelevant that he does this for egotistical reasons), and he believes the only way to get heard and noticed is to run for President. This is the only way, he claims, that the Democrats will listen and adopt progressive causes.  A lot of the Young Turks/DailyKos-type liberal blogosphere progressives also cry out all the time that the Democrats don't embrace the progressive movement enough.

He screwed the country badly in 2000, but he couldn't have known. And he messed up back in the 1970s with that air bag bill, but other than those two mistakes, I don't share the animus toward Nader.

David

by yturks on 02/25/2008 07:58:23 PM EST

Hmmm (none / 0)
That post was unproductive, marginal at best...

;)

But seriously, you bring up a good point WRT the liberal blogosphere crying out for more progressives.  Some people just can't get over 2000.  But like you said, he didn't *plan* it that way.


PS---Air bag bill?

by ihavenobias on 02/25/2008 08:05:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The real culprit (none / 0)

"I agree with Cenk that Nader is annoying for denying that there are differences between Republicans and Democrats, and for insisting that his presence in the race made no difference in Florida, and I don't like that he ran again in 2004 and now 2008, and I think he should have dropped out in 2000."

That about sums it up for me also.  When it comes right down to it, I resent Nader far less than I resent the millions of people who were stupid enough to vote for junior after they knew what he was like in 2004.  How could so many people ignore so much evidence?  I wanted to collectively choke them when this happened.

by bfaul on 02/26/2008 12:50:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't hate him. (none / 0)
What I do hate is the fact that he does less than me to help our cause for four years and then pops up for each election like he's saving the world.  Spare me.  Can't he find a better way to foment change?

by Spencer on 02/25/2008 08:35:52 PM EST

Oh please! (none / 0)
How can you post with a straight face that Nader didn't cost Gore the election--and in turn subject us to this fascistic regime for 8 years???  Let's not even discuss Florida, but if Nader hadn't run, Gore would have taken New Hampshire at least and thus won the presidency, that's not even controversial.  Yes, Nader can do whatever he pleases in a free country, but what the hell change is he effecting by helping repubs get elected?  Tell me, exactly what does he do in between these ego-driven bullshit campaigns for president?  Goddamn it this is crap if it helps these crooks even one iota and you should know it.

by costa205 on 02/25/2008 09:19:52 PM EST

If Dems were worth a shit themselves... (none / 0)
Al Gore lost because he failed to inspire people to leave their TVs and vote.  The fact that Nadar did doesn't excuse the Democratic Party for running two of the worst campaigns in American presidential history.  George Bush is and was a fucking idiot, and yet the Democrats couldn't field a candidate to challenge him.  Yes Nadar is insufferable, and smug and full of himself, but he at least speaks to the concerns of a huge group to the left of Nebraska's Bill Nelson who haven't been acknowledged since the Iran Hostage crisis.  If it costs the Dems votes, it is because they have lost their way.

by gdoud on 02/26/2008 12:49:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ginger, when is Cream getting back together? (none / 0)

The reason we hate Nader is that consumer activism is so retro, it's like stuff from the 60s or something. We want change. We don't like to go back to the past, to the 90s and those terrible Clinton years when the economy was booming and we were at peace, and that divisive bickering in Washington over a blow job, (yes, perjury is bad, rule of law! rule of law! until perjury is really minor when it is related to outing a CIA operative.)

Nader said there were no difference between Republicans and Democrats, then ran and stole votes from Al Gore,  who was secretly charismatic back in 2000.  Gore just hid his charisma when he was a politician, waited to show his true self later. And of course Gore should have ran away from Clinton and his sex stuff. This time the Nader candicacy will steal vote from Obama and we won't have change.

Earlier today, Cenk said Hillary is desperate for putting out the Obama garb photo. So what Drudge says must be the absolute true. And when the Clinton campaign denies any involvement, they were just lying because they secretly put out the photo while denying it. It's so Rovian. We really need for the Democratic primary to be over, because the right wing wouldn't do this kind of dirty hit job, only that desperate Hillary.

by Hue on 02/25/2008 09:46:03 PM EST

To be fair (none / 0)
it's not that there is NO difference between Republicans and Democrats.  Clearly there is, and the current administration is proving that quite well, especially WRT foreign policy and constitutional issues.

But to be fair, the difference, particularly on economic/trade/deregulation issues and corporate influence, has been greatly reduced since 1980-Today.

The DLC democrats (and NAFTA, GATT, The Telecom Act of 1996 to name some examples) proved that quite well.  BTW, who was the economy booming for in the 90's and why?  I know it's not *entirely* because of the tech boom, but no one can deny the tech boom helped.

But I mean, in this country we have a strange habit of measuring economic success by only looking for increased growth and GDP (and various stock market related scrolling tickers saying up, up and away), which can very easily be disconnected from how well the *average* American is doing.

PS---With all that said, the majority of Americans *do* benefit economically from having a Dem in the Whitehouse.  And yes, NAFTA *has* been a net negative for America (and Mexico).  I know some people disagree, but they need to explain why, especially in light of the evidence.

by ihavenobias on 02/25/2008 10:08:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
haven't watched cenk yet (none / 1)
I feel sort of mildly annoyed at Nader this time around. My opinion is that Edwards did a lot more to pull Clinton and Barack towards the left than Nader ever will.  After the last election, when we were all so sure that Bush would lose, I am not very happy about anyone that might take votes away from the dems.  The risk is just too great for me to take it lightly, and that is where the annoyance comes in.
Angela 

by desertpear on 02/25/2008 10:06:51 PM EST

cenk, oi vey.... (none / 0)

Cenk, I love you but.....Nader has said more than once that there IS a difference between the two parties but that they both "flunk" on numerous issues. See the interview with Max Blumenthal on youtube. So the point of his candidacy is to push the agenda, raise these issues, and make demands on the Dems so progressives are not reduced to being freaked out by Bush and the GOP, and for always having to vote for the "lesser of two evils." Can you understand the point? Edwards motioned for the  Dems to talk about class and move left, and Kucinich made a genuine effort as well. In the General Election Nader is trying to do the same.

There is a big difference between Nader and the Dems...so it seems that YOU'RE denying a difference, eh?

And finally, this argument about "ego" is sooooooo ridiculous. Since when has vanity not been an issue in campaigns? You guys sound naive? Politics is a beastly art & yet we have to choose. So look at the issues, the personalities, the records, shit in the wind, and hope for the best.  

 

by ginger baker on 02/26/2008 12:08:42 AM EST

Dems, look in the mirror (none / 1)

I will not vote for Nadar this time.  But he is at least a voice from the forgotten left.  This is where the Dems are going to have to return if they want to ride the wave.  The Clintons represent what Nadar, and many on the left are weary of: moderate Republicans posing as progressives.  And it is true, Hagel and Spectre (I mean, Bill and Hillary) look good compared to Bush and Satan (I mean, Cheney).  And although there are substantive differences between Obama  and Clinton, there is nothing even close to a Feingold in the lot. 

 
If Democrats insist on triangulating to the center-right before they even have a nominee, then don't complain when your base abandons you in November.  Gore and Kerry fucked up their campaigns so badly by fighting for a few midwestern soccer moms, and failing to do what Obama has done: excite and mobilize the base.

Nadar should run to keep the Dems honest.  If he peels away too  many  votes, it's because they are the spineless dinosaurs that deserve to go extinct, and make way for a real liberal party in our two party system - which currently has a conservative party, and a really, really fucking conservative party. 

by gdoud on 02/26/2008 12:16:21 AM EST

I don't hate him (none / 0)

I just think he should die from gonorrhea and burn in hell forever.

Nader got over 90,000 left-wing voters in a state decided by around 500 votes. And you say, “No one seriously believes that he was a ‘spoiler’ in 2000.” Don’t expect anyone to take you seriously if simple math exceeds your intellectual grasp.

Why hate him more than Jeb Bush, Katharine Harris, Antonin Scalia or many, many other guilty parties? We expected more of him, we expected him to know better.  Of all the criminals who facilitated the theft in 2000, Nader was the only one on our side, and he still didn’t care.  Unlike the other criminals, he saw his agenda destroyed. What part of “Divide and Conquer” is he too stupid to understand?

What has he done since 2000 to further his message? Run for president in a fantasy world where the fascists are not united, where we can be divided without harm. 

If Nader wants to push the message to the left, he has to run in the primaries.  That’s what John Edwards did, and it worked. When he runs in the general election, Nader takes votes from the left, which pushes the Democrat to the middle in an effort to form a majority.

So no, I don’t hate Nader. I just think he should die from gonorrhea and burn in hell forever.

by Dogger on 02/26/2008 04:52:34 AM EST

with all due respect, (none / 0)

and I mean this honestly...I think the disagreements about Nader are not at all about being beyond anyone's "intellectual grasp" but about the resentment of those who hate Nader when they know THERE ARE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF VARIABLES IN 2000 TO EXPLAIN AWAY THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION. And so, my point is, to say it again, is that to blame Nader, call him names, and wish him to die is soooo inane....and you know it...it IS within your intellectual grasp even if you cant admit it....and you know it!

And like most others on this forum, you always fail to address the points Nader makes, namely that THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NADER AND THE DEMS... and as just one exampl, namely marching and speaking against the war in 2002, in the streets, back when the Dems were caving in to Bush. Need I remind you that just because the TV cameras werent there covering Nader, doesnt mean it didnt happen. If you ever get the chance to look past Wolf Blitzer, you'll see Nader has spent the last 8 years touring the country making speeches, signing books, petitioning Congress, and yes, appearing on TV.....I wish I could say the same for Al Gore, thats for sure.

So again, its not aboutbeing above anyone's intellectual grasp, it about having different political priorities & Nader haters being blind to their double standards. Nader is a different candidate than Gore, Kerry, Obama....so stick to the public issues & dont  pigeonhole the debate with an asinine analysis and death wishes.


 

 

by ginger baker on 02/26/2008 12:14:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh my god (none / 0)
This is the MAIN reason why we lose general elections. We would rather sit at home or vote for people like Nader than vote for the DEMOCRATIC candidate.

8 years of Clinton were 10,000 times better than 8 years of Bush (Economically, Militarily, Supreme Ct Justice wise, etc) Yet you wouldn't know it reading a LIBERAL web site! Why? Oh, he was a moderate? he compromised?

Is there any doubt a Gore Presidency would have been better for this country?

kEEP ON VOTING FOR THE NADERS OF THE WORLD, KEEP ON NOMINATING PEOPLE WHO CAN'T WIN ELECTIONS AND WE WILL LIVE IN A FACIST STATE AND AN ENTIRELY CONSERVATIVE COURT. THEN YOU CAN SIT IN JAIL NEXT TO NADER AS AN ENEMY OF THE STATE AND TALK ABOUT THE OLD TIMES WHEN YOU COULD HAVE STOPPED ALL THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by LORD FOUL on 02/26/2008 04:28:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
yeah... (none / 0)

we agree....

thats why you keep losing elections. you keep taking the left for granted.

by ginger baker on 02/26/2008 10:58:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Just checking... (none / 0)
Do I detect high-blood-pressure condition, Lord Foul?

by bfaul on 02/27/2008 02:00:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nah (none / 0)
I just been away for a while.

by LORD FOUL on 02/28/2008 08:17:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Simple math (none / 0)
“I wish I could say the same for Al Gore.”

Really? You missed that whole “Inconvenient Truth” episode? And his speeches on the war, the economy, the budget, and the environment? You should try to be better informed.

I’m frustrated with the Democrats who supported Bush’s War, but I understand the power of the Presidency to shape the national agenda, especially after the 9/11 attack. Democrats moved to the right because they can’t reason with the purists on the far left, and they have to get votes somewhere. You want Democrats to take a stand that demands unity, but sniping from the left destroys that unity and pushes them to the right. My politics lean far left as well, but I know what a bell curve looks like, and how that distribution plays out in the general election. Republicans know this, too.  That’s why they lie and pretend they’re moderate.

I acknowledged that Nader was not the only guilty party, but I disagree that this absolves him. Florida was so close that Gore would have won absent almost any of the myriad actors that coalesced against him. That is especially true for Nader because he had 97,000 supporters, and Gore only needed less than 1% to avoid the Bush nightmare. I hear the Nader apologists who believe Bush would have simply stolen more votes, but if he had that ability he would have stolen enough to avoid the recount in the first place.

I don’t believe Gore would have gathered all 97,000 votes.   Of 97,000 narcissistic crybabies, less than half would have stayed home. Of the rest, most would have gone for Gore over Bush, probably about 90% to 95%. But let’s look at it with really conservative figures. If a scant 10% of the whiners (9,700) voted, and they split 60/40 for Gore (5820 vs. 3880), that’s a margin of 1940 extra votes for Gore in a race decided by less than 600 votes.  It’s simple math.

Why single out Nader for special hatred? After war, we try to reconcile with the enemy. But we still hang the traitors.

And of course, I don’t want Nader to die. If he ran in a Democratic primary, I’d probably vote for him. Gonorrhea? That sounded funnier when I heard it in “Ace Ventura: Pet Detective” than it reads on paper.

by Dogger on 02/26/2008 06:18:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I forgot (none / 0)
Oh, I forgot the Nobel Prize, the Oscar and the Grammy for Gore.

by Dogger on 02/26/2008 07:47:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
ha,ha,haaaaaaaa (none / 0)
gore was accepting oscars but i dont remember him speaking out against the Dems during the lead up to war, during the invasion of iraq, during debate about impeachment, during the Gonzalez hearings, during the Mukasey hearings, during unsafe imports from China, during abu graihb, during Enron.........aaaaaaa, you people are too much......a fucking riot!!!!! Nader spoke out on all these issues, its all public record man....

by ginger baker on 02/26/2008 11:04:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Gore has spoken out plenty (none / 0)

Here is Gore warning about the folly of invading Iraq before the war: 

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/ 2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

Do you ever bother to ask yourself why Nader always runs for President but never for lower offices?  It's kind of like demanding to be a CEO without "bothering" with those lower level management positions.  Could it be because he doesn't expect to win or even that he doesn't actually want to win?  Maybe he just wants to be a spoiler to piss of the Democrats.  He reminds me of a dog who craps on the bed to get your attention.

by bfaul on 02/27/2008 02:22:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hey bfaul (none / 0)

yes, I agree...gore was not silent but he has not exactly been present either. Sadly his whimpy (in)decisions as to whether he would run again or not got him more attention than everything else. Havent heard anything from him at all in this election season though....Could it be he doesn't care? 

To you other point, running for Prez gets national attention, unlike running for HouseofRep or Gov or whatever....So to extend your analogy, the Dems remind me of a dog who are too afraid to bark as its bully master squats down to shit upon them.

by ginger baker on 02/27/2008 11:36:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
touchet (none / 0)

"So to extend your analogy, the Dems remind me of a dog who are too afraid to bark as its bully master squats down to shit upon them."

I can't deny the truth in this statement. 

by bfaul on 02/28/2008 12:30:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You're disproving your own point (none / 0)

"To you [sic] other point, running for Prez gets national attention, .  .  .  "

That's true, but I though Nader's purpose was moving the agenda. If all he wants is attention, then he is a narcissistic attention seeker as his detractors claim.

Had he run in the Democratic primaries, he could have moved the agenda and gotten attention for that agenda, as John Edwards did.

Nader isn't content to simply curse the darkness. He has to piss on other people's candles and smash the only working lightbulbs because they don't shine with the perfect, pristine light that only Nader can see.

by Dogger on 02/29/2008 12:06:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't hate Nader (none / 0)
but I always thought he would be a terrible President.  Yes, I liked many of his views (and still like them) better than mainstream Democrats.  But when I think about a candidate, I think about how good and effective a President he would be.  I don't think that anyone seriously thinks that Nader would be either a good or effective President.  He has the right policies but has a combative personality that no one will work with.

So I hate to see someone who would be a suck ass President running and taking away votes from Democrats.

He will NOT move the discussion to the left.  In fact Obama might be so loath to be identified with Nader he would be unwilling to hold the same positions.

by blueheartinaredstate on 02/26/2008 10:25:30 AM EST

Nader is just tooting his old ass horn (none / 0)
I could have some respect for Nader if he had even bothered to open his mouth the last 8 years. We don't hear anything from the guy until it's time to try and grab some self aggrandizing spotlight by some supposed campaign for president. He absolutely dissed the Green Party years ago, walking out on them because they actually had the nerve to want to have a nomination process instead of just coronating him as their nominee. The great Nader does not need a political party. We see no effort from him to get constituents, no town hall meetings (a perfect forum for him), no nothing. Does he have a website? Does he even speak to real Americans or do you have to be part of the media to be blessed by the presence of the great Nader? Dude, you are so over that it is now you who are "Unsafe at any Speed". Take your ass home.

by mijoh on 02/26/2008 04:37:57 PM EST

and toot away he will (none / 0)

he is not a member of the green party, so running for a  nomination would have been impossible, if not irrelevent. Thats what being Independent means, bro.

And asking "does he even have a website?" shows how informed you are. Do more research, then we'll talk.

by ginger baker on 02/26/2008 10:55:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hatred for Nader | 37 comments (37 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: