Al Gore Has a Nobel! But Ralph Nader? Nada!
“I say to President-elect Bush that what remains of partisan rancor must now be put aside, and may God bless his stewardship of this country,” Al Gore said on December 13, 2000.
Well, George W. Bush didn’t listen to Al Gore’s advice, and neither so much did God. But Ralph Nader evidently took it as holy writ.
Thus, seven-odd years later, Nader would show up on Meet the Press on Feb. 24, 2008, preserved in the amber of his own dried-up rectitude, to put himself forward as a candidate for the presidency. Or rather as an entrant in the presidential race, which is not the same thing.
“You know,” he told Tim Russert, “when you see the paralysis of the government, when you see Washington, D.C., be corporate-controlled territory, every department agency controlled by overwhelming presence of corporate lobbyists, corporate executives in high government positions, turning the government against its own people, you—one feels an obligation, Tim, to try to open the doorways, to try to get better ballot access, to respect dissent in America in the terms of third parties and, and independent candidates.”
At that point, Russert made a signal with his hand, and a producer opened a valve, sending three feet of filthy water flooding through the studio. A dead black person from New Orleans floated by, facedown.
Or not. The political discourse operates within certain boundaries, and Ralph Nader is nothing if not part of the political discourse. Russert let him keep talking, then asked a question about Democrats blaming him for costing Al Gore the presidency. Ralph Nader, it turns out, was the victim in the room—of “bigotry” and a lack of “tolerance” by a “liberal intelligentsia” that unfairly reduced the complexity of the 2000 election to his role as a spoiler.
It is true that the blame for 2000 can be doled out to nearly everyone. Yes, as Nader told Russert, Katherine Harris—“Katherine Bush,” he said—was an active agent of the Republican Party. Yes, Al Gore could have saved himself by winning Arkansas or Tennessee (though Nader credited himself with having pulled Gore to the left, even as he faulted Gore for losing right-leaning swing states).
Sure. And when you want to get down to it (537 votes!), if the young Karenna Gore hadn’t been dumb enough to play Purple Rain in front of her mother, there might never have been a Parents Music Resource Center, and a generation of fashionably oppositional youth might not have grown up reading anti-Tipper Gore messages in the runoff grooves of their punk records, and therefore might not have been quite so disposed to regard Al Gore’s candidacy as a symptom of AmeriKKKan Corporate Fascism and to follow Nader’s plea to seek an alternative.
But eight years later—these particular eight years later? In 2000, Ralph Nader was nominally carrying the banner for the Green Party. Now Al Gore has a Nobel Prize (and an Oscar) for his recent quixotic gestures on behalf of the environment, gestures he performed in the absence of the actual environmental regulatory powers of the American presidency.
Also there are soldiers in full combat gear on the streets of New York. And we seem to have built a global network of secret torture prisons.
Whatever has Nader been up to since his sad, abortive 2004 presidential run? (That little project of his only served to remind voting people of the trauma of his run in 2000. They ran from him. Bad touch!)
His most memorable recent accomplishment was the publication of a memoir last year that recounted his “serene and enriching childhood.”
The Seventeen Traditions, put out by the former publisher Judith Regan, sold, according to Nielsen BookScan, 26,000 hardcover copies—about the same number of votes Nader received in Tennessee in 2000. Next Page >
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 46.0
- 42.0
- Obama +4.0
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 55.7
- 33.0
- +22.7
- McCain
- 52.7
- 34.1
- +18.6
*************************************************************
IF THE ELECTION WERE BETWEEN HILLARY AND RALPH --- I WOULD VOTE FOR RALPH. HILLARY WOULD BE NOTHING BUT FOUR MORE YEARS OF BITTER PARTISAN POLITICS AND 'CONSPIRACY' THEORIES.
**************************************************************
Happy Birthday Ralph, You've been out there making speeches, doing interviews and writing articles and have written at least three books in the last 6 years. And you've been writing weekly commentary on the things that really matter, at www.nader.org .The question is where has the Press been on these important matters you discuss, where have the "Talking Heads" been. The population is too busy being entertained and watching Sporting events to get involved, they take the EASY route and don't bother to think, settling instead for snippets and quick slogans. Knowing what' s going on TAKES WORK, in a Corporate controlled State.
Thank you Ralph, for all the good things you've done to protect the PEOPLE of this Country. Amazing how quickly they forget, or perhaps they just don't know. Almost everyone's lives, or that of friends and relatives of theirs, has been improved and made safer because of you, Some wouldn't be alive today, if not for Ralph Nader! Their minds have been intentionly bombarded with with Corporate propaganda and the Democrat Party scapegoating machine. Obama and Clinton should be ashamed of their comments regarding you. They continue the DNC scapcoating myth. thank you for your great and continued service to your fellow Countrymen. America will never ever be able to repay you. More power to your ideas. www.votenader.org. Happy Birthday!.....All the rest of you out there, buckle-up! .... Sebastian McGarigle
There are really only two viable choices for President: Democrat or Republican. At this point in the election process, it is statistically impossible for an Independent or any other party to climb high enough in the polls to get elected.
Someone like Nader sounds good to many people, but it is truly wasting a vote. Worse yet, it actually steals a vote from a candidate who needs your support.
A vote for Nader is not a vote of conscience. It is not a protest vote. It is not an abstention, a vote of no confidence, or anything other than a chicken-hearted way of saying that you do not care enough about this country to dig through all the slung mud and figure out which of the front-runner candidates from the two major parties is the one you want to pin your hopes upon for the next four years.
A democracy is not about taking the easy way out. Do the hard thing and take a side. There is, unfortunately, no middle ground here.
At the very least, take a stand against Nader's irritating attempt to disrupt the election process. Get a "Nader No" graphic for your blog, avatar, signature, or sticker.
http://nader.no.sac-on.com
It's really something how many people attack this guy for running for president. This article is nothing but a weak character assassination, written by a guy who is pissed Ralph might take that 500 votes away from Obama and let the evil McCain slip into the White House. Well, guess what, the American Empire will reach its demise faster under McCain than it will under the sedative known as Barack Obama. As if we must only confine ourselves to who is "electable." Well, if more people voted their conscience, and knew that Nader has the public interest in mind more than any other candidate, then he'd become "electable." Sorry if that's what I'm aiming for. And sorry, Will M., but I'm not interested in your angry rhetoric about wasting a vote on Ralph. Go on preaching your noisy bluster, but please confine it to Obama lovefests and other such nonsense.
You stupid saps. Why are you blaming Ralph for Gore's demise??!! If Gore had won his own state, like most presidential candidates, he would have become president. If he would have won all of those states that Clinton nabbed but he didn't, he would have become president. You know the states: Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, New Hampshire, Arizona, Nevada, Florida. Jesus, Gore was a disaster. A sitting vice president, after 8 years of growth and blissful ignorance about the world around us, is going to lose all those states his boss won four years previous! That's outrageous. And you people have the temerity to blame Ralph Nader. Trust me, people in those states weren't mulling whether to vote for Nader over Gore.
Nader is a convenient whipping boy to hide the fact that (except for Bill Clinton,) Democrats have a nasty habit of putting up unelectable candidates every four years.
Regarding Nader 2000, 2004, and 2008, many liberals will recognize themselves in the Merriam-Webster definitions below:
groupthink a pattern of thought characterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics
scapegoat to assign someone to bear the blame for others; to make someone the object of irrational hostility
bigot [from French, hypocrite] a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance
denial a psychological defense mechanism in which confrontation with a personal problem or with reality is avoided by denying the existence of the problem or reality
Think about it: the ACLU in lockstep with the corporate-statist (K Street) "wing" of the Democratic Party working with state party chairs and executives and Democratic Secretaries of State to deny ballot access to an independent party that is based on the platform of confronting the culture of cronyism, corruption, and crime.
Remember, George H. Bush is a two-term president only because the New Democrats lacked (still lack and always will lack) vision, message, organizing ability, and spine. One need only follow the money to know who and what they are.
And the 1996 Democratic congressional majority including most of the "populist" freshmen: same lack of character, same money trail.
To whom do you think the current candidates are beholden? Check out their (Wall Street) economic advisors.
Liberals' vilification of Nader and their continuing simplistic anybody-but-Bush mindset has overshadowed the dark days of working people voting for George Bush.
thank you to all of you Nader fools............yes he has done good things but also did a lot of harm giving us Bush!! and the iraq war..............he is just like Hillary can't ever win but very self serving!!!! Thank you all you Nader lovers 4 more years of demise!!!!
Dispelling the Myth of Election 2000:
Did Nader Cost Gore the Election?
http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html
It's undemocratic for any one to say Ralph should not run for President.
If I were to choose between the more important issue, (War or environment) I would pick environment because it has the potential to negatively take more lives unless a nuke is set off.
Therefore, I feel it best that Gore lost so he could pursue his global warming efforts and raise awareness. I bet if you asked him, He would agree. We can fix the damage Bush has done. The Dems just need to get off their butt, organize and vote. Look at how many Democrats voted for Bush in 2000 yet one never hears about that. What about the folks who voted for Bush. You never hear about that. Should we be reduced to two partys? Don't 3rd partys serve a purpose by bringing up topics the others shy away from?