Still Smearing Ralph Nader for 2000

[no_to_war_economy]

The Atlantic Monthly is perpetuating the Ralph Nader myth, blaming him for Bush's election in 2000. This is, at best sloppy journalism; at saddest, extreme denial; and at worst a plain lie. Here are just a few of the actual facts:

* In Florida, it was also true. In nine successive surveys in which Nader pulled only two or three points, Gore's total varied by seven points. As late as two weeks before the election, Gore was ahead by as much as seven to ten points.

* Gore lost his home state of Tennessee, Bill Clinton's Arkansas and traditionally Democratic West Virginia; with any one of these, Gore would have won.

* In short, the individual who did the most harm to Gore (aside from himself) was Bill Clinton. If Gore had distanced himself from the Clinton moral miasma he would probably be president today.

http://www.counterpunch.org/smith12212006.html

[democracyindanger]

1. Screw St. Ralph

[helderheid]

2. GORE WON. Re-elect Gore 2008!

[NYCGirl]

3. And it couldn't happen to a more deserving guy! NT

[ronnykmarshall]

4. Amen!

[tabasco]

5. LMAO !

Nice rabble rousing !

Ralph sucks.

[wryter2000]

10. Absolutely

I don't know that Nader managed to throw the election into the Supreme Court, but he went around telling people there was "no difference" between Bush and Gore. Anyone with a brain knew that wasn't true. Screw him.

[ashling]

26. I am sick of Nader supporters

claiming that somehow his candidacy had no effect on Gore's loss because the number of Nader Votes. Though that may be technically true, a campaign is a dynamic thing and is hurt or helped by events.

How many more voters could Gore have gotten if he wasn't having to deal with attacks from Gadfly Nader. How much more money would he have raised if it hadn't gone to Nader? We'll never know, but I am willing to bet that it would have been enough to keep the outcome out of the hands of Scali and co.

[helderheid]

30. I'm not a supporter, but GORE WON. It was the Supreme Court that stole 2000

not Nader.

[LWolf]

66. I am sick of people

blaming Nader for 2000 instead of the voting "irregularities" and supreme court "selection," and I've never voted for Nader.


I don't like hate fests. I find them ignorant and embarrassing.
:shrug:

[ashling]

72. I didn't blame Nader

In fact there is a lot of blame to go around. First off, I blame Gore for running away from Clinton and choosing Lieberman as his
runningmate because, in large part, Joe was so self righteous about Clinton.

His campaign had a lot of other problems, not the least of which was that they spent too much time having to fight off attacks form the rear.

Sure he got the popular vote, but that was not enough to keep Florida from becoming a debacle.

I'm not blaming Nader for that, but I do strongly assert that his constant nipping at Gore's campaign was part of the mix. It took time , resources, and energy that could have better been used convincing people what a fool Bush is.
supporters of Nader shouldn't have wanted Bush to win. And in the end the winner was going to be Gore or Bush, so they should have been making sure it was either Gore, or not Bush.

It is unfair and not right that liberals and progressives have to work twice as hard and accomplish twice as much to come out on top. That means that they all need to work together. Bring their energies (physical and spiritual, if you will) their money as well as their votes, because in the end they are going to have to overcome all the dirty tricks, obfuscation, and ignorance of the conservatives, neo conservatives, selfish money hungry Republicans (sorry, I don't mean to be redundant).

In the end it was Scalia, Thomas and Co. that stole the process, but it was a mix of things, not the least of which was Nader's ego candidacy that allowed them to be in a position to do it.

[philosophie_en_rose]

6. Poor Ralph Nader!

Won't somebody please think about Ralph Nader?

[paulk]

7. counterpunch

still carrying water for the right wing.

[Missy M]

8. Actually, the individual(s)who did the most harm to Gore were...

the individual(s) in the Supreme Court.

[Botany]

9. Ralph is a punk

In 2000 his campaign took money from republicans to run
t.v. spots in Florida .... he knew that.

Ralph running around and saying that there was no difference between
Gore and bush was stupid at best a knowing lie @ worse.

Yes, lots of reasons caused Gore not to get the victory he won
and Ralph was one of those reasons.

[Hav]

17. .

That's exactly the way I see it. There were several reasons but take away only one of these reasons and Gore has probably no problem to win it. Nader did his part, despite the other factors. The existance of other factors doesn't mean that Nader had no impact.

Further concerning other points of the article, didn't Gore "distance" himself from Clinton because the Right was always screaming about Clinton's "moral" problems to connect these things to Gore? Because I heard it often enough that Gore should not have distanced himself from Clinton.

[wryter2000]

45. I think you're right about the "distancing himself from Clinton."

I think that was a huge mistake. The people didn't care about Clinton's affair, and he's the most effective campaigner I've ever seen. If Gore had had more help from him, Bush wouldn't haven't been close enough to steal it.

[dansolo]

65. That is what gave us Joe Lieberman as VP

Gore's advisors convinced him that having "Holy" Joe on the ticket would insulate him from the stigma of Clinton's affair, since Joe was such a vocal critic of Clinton at the time. Of all the mistakes made in 2000, this was by far the biggest.

[skipos]

11. Does anyone still believe the Nader lie "there's no difference between Bush and Gore?"

Too bad so many people had to learn the hard way.

[originalpckelly]

68. Yeah, dumb punk probably thinks a little differently now...

this is what happens when ego trips hurt a country. BUSH.

[Mabus]

12. So, instead, you attempt to smear Gore

Let's look at how Tennessee voted in previous presidential elections and you'll note that the only reason that the Clinton/Gore took Tennessee was because of Perot. When Gore was at the top of the ticket he got almost 50% of the vote with a very hostile media. And if you go back and compare how Gore did in his homestate as opposed to previous presidential Democratic tickets you'll find out he did better than any other Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter.

1994:

William Clinton Albert Gore Jr. Democratic 933,521 47.08%
George Bush J. Danforth Quayle Republican 841,300 42.43%
H. Ross Perot James Stockdale Independent 199,968 10.09%
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1992&fips=47&off=0

1996:

William Clinton Albert Gore Jr. Democratic 909,146 48.00%
Robert Dole Jack Kemp Republican 863,530 45.59%
H. Ross Perot James Campbell Independent 105,918 5.59%
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1996&fips=47&f=1&off=0&elect=0

2000:

George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 50,460,110 47.87% 271 50.37%
Albert Gore Jr. Joseph Lieberman Democratic 51,003,926 48.38% 266 49.44%
Ralph Nader Winona LaDuke Green 2,883,105 2.73%
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2000&fips=47&f=1&off=0&elect=0


2004:
George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 1,384,375 56.80%
John Kerry John Edwards Democratic 1,036,477 42.53%
Ralph Nader Peter Camejo Independent 8,992 0.37%
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2004&fips=47&f=1&off=0&elect=0

[MamaBear]

32. Thanks for putting that piece of it in perspective.

That will help in the water cooler wars here.

[dmallind]

13. So instead let's still be in denial

All apologetics aside the election came down, very publicly and very emphatically, to who won Florida. Who REALLY won may be debatable, but a razor thin margin of a few hundred points is not.

If your opinion is that out of almost 100,000 Nader voters, less than 1% would have voted for Gore had Ralph not done his vanity run then I'm speechless. Even the most unrealistic suppositions of where those votes would have gone cannot stretch to a scenario where Gore would not have picked up just a few hundred more than Bush. Heck 90% of Nader voters could have abstained and 40% of the remainder could have voted for anyone other than Gore (Bush? Greens? Yeah right) and Gore would have still won.

Volatile polling is par for the course. Not winning your home state is a rather silly complaint given where Gore was born (but had not reprwsented for many years).

Distancing himself would have been a good thing? Are you nuts? The man did distance himself - from the greatest natural politician and campaigner of the generation, a man who even at his lowest popularity could still energize crowds of core Democratic constituencies like minorities, women and urban residents and even now is mobbed like a movie star by enthusiastic crowds when he appears in public? IF Gore had had Clinton campaign on his behalf in every major city in the country he would have won by even a Diebold-proof majority, but he tried to work on his own much lesser charisma and ability to engage, and paid the price.

But Nader and his useless vanity campaign took that price from him and laughingly sneeringly said there was no difference between Gore and Bush, paving the way for Bush to win and siphoning away 200 times more votes than would have been needed to stop him. Is there any Green fan so blind and stupid that they still beleive there is no difference?

Salve your conscience all you want but there is no rational way in which it could be said that absent Nader Gore would not have won Florida, won the presidency, and spared us from the horror of the last six years.

Thanks Ralph and your "no difference" sheep.

[wryter2000]

46. What you said!

:applause:

[Cameron27]

70. You've got it exactly right.

Distancing from Clinton---> Big mistake


Nader in the race---------> Goodbye Whitehouse

[LSK]

14. its not a myth, look at the New Hampshire vote

[TechBear_Seattle]

15. Even the Democratic Party has admitted that Nader was not a factor

Of course, it wasn't until 2002 that the party leadership made that statement.

[Mark E. Smith]

16. Myth?

The only myth I see here is the one that you are so disingenuously pushing.

Remember the big lie that Nader's supporters pushed in 2000? That there was no difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore?

How vile and insidious that all seems now. I guess the GOP got their moneys' worth when they invested in the Greens.

[MH1]

18. Yeah, and Counterpuke was advocating not voting for Kerry in '04.

I'm still not sure why a site supporting the Democratic Party allows linking to that site, without the kind of disclaimers/commentary that are required of links to sites like freakrepublic.

Counterpuke advocates for the downfall of the Democratic Party. Never forget that when reading their spew.

[Uncle Joe]

19. Even though I despise what Nader did, here is a sample of the real culprits behind the coup of 2000

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h071100_1.shtml

"We don't know if Stahl's account is completely accurate. If it is, we don't know if Darman meant what he said. But the anecdote has become quite famous, and we thought of it as we perused the current Atlantic Monthly. On its cover is a picture of Vice President Gore—with a vampire's tooth coming out of his mouth. "How Al Gore Learned to Love the Jugular," the cover says. "An Acquired Taste, by James Fallows."
The Fallows piece is a detailed look at Gore's history as a debater. The portrait is less than flattering. Here's the synopsis preceding the piece:

THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY: Al Gore is the most lethal debater in politics, a ruthless combatant who will say whatever it takes to win, and who leaves opponents not just beaten but brutalized. But Gore is no natural-born killer. He studied hard to become the man he is today.

Yikes! No wonder the Monthly pictured Gore with a fang coming out of his mouth! For the record, Fallows didn't likely write the synopsis which preceded his lengthy piece, but almost all the key elements of the précis were found in the article itself. Here is Fallows' nugget statement, right in paragraph 3:

FALLOWS: Debate has also been the medium in which Al Gore has displayed the least attractive aspects of his campaigning style: aggressiveness turning into brutality, a willingness to bend the rules and stretch the truth if necessary. A generation ago Gore was a divinity student who said he was repelled by the harsh realities of politics. Now he is the political combatant most likely to leave his opponents feeling not just defeated but battered.

Yow! How people can change! Of course, a few years ago, Fallows was a celebrated press critic, a contrarian trashed by glowering colleagues for his aggressive book, Breaking the News. Now he's telling a Standard Tale mouthed by pundits all over the press corps. According to the Fallows piece, Gore is not only a "brutal" debater who would leave his foes "battered" as he "bent the rules and stretched the truth if necessary." He is also, we're explicitly told in the article, someone who has "learned to destroy opponents in debates," with the "ability to fight close in and mean." Gore is someone with "the ruthlessness to frame—or distort—facts in an argument of devastating effect." Fallows refers to "the way has learned to destroy opponents;" compares him to fictional figures from organized crime; and says that "Gore is manifestly willing to lie for political convenience." Interestingly, Fallows never says, in his text, that Gore "will do and say anything to win." But that standard, seminal GOP soundbite is excerpted in the article's synopsis, and the final sub-head in the article is "Whatever It Takes." Editors worked the GOP soundbite into the piece at two points, although Fallows himself never mouthed it.

If a candidate is ruthless, brutal, dishonest and mean, and "manifestly willing to lie for convenience," that, of course, is a serious matter which magazines ought to report. And you could hardly blame a mag for putting a fang into such a pol's mouth. But something else is also true—if a writer is going to say such things about a major public figure, he has an obvious obligation to back up his remarkable statements. On this count, Fallows fails badly. Fallows recounts five debates or debate cycles involving Gore—those from the last four White House campaigns, and the 1993 NAFTA debate with Ross Perot. In three of those five debates—against Quayle, Kemp, Perot—Fallows doesn't even seem to allege any misconduct by Gore. Fallows cites only one case in which a pol has plainly lied; that is the 1992 debate, in which Fallows says that Vice President Quayle deliberately lied, about Gore. In the 1988 debates, Fallows says that Gore either "wholly invented an accusation" against Michael Dukakis, or at least " large interpretive liberties." But the claim is hard to square with the facts; even the texts which Fallows cites seem to support Gore's statement. And Fallows claims that Gore misrepresented Bill Bradley's health plan in the 2000 debates. " charge was misleading at best," he says, referring to Gore's description of the Bradley plan. Unfortunately, at the final Gore-Bradley debate in New Hampshire, Bradley himself was still representing his own health plan in precisely the way which Fallows rejects. As a simple term paper by a college freshman, stuff like this would be hard to peddle. As a major attack on a candidate's character, this article is an utter puzzle—and a striking display of what is going so wrong within our troubled public discourse.

Schoolboys like to draw funny teeth on pictures of people whom they disfavor. As our discourse continues its downward spiral, this practice has reached the Atlantic."

[Skidmore]

20. Where is my little bitty violin?

Oh, jeez, I must have lost it.

Ralph can go to hell in the handbasket he helped weave.

[sshan2525]

21. Ralph's an asshole...

You can argue all day why Gore lost, but Ralph will forever be on my shit list for perpetrating the myth tha Dems and repukes are "the same thing". That has done more damage than his presidential run. Fuck him.

[wisteria]

22. Is he going to run in 08?

If he does, I hope it is on the Republican side. They need more help than we do.

[Jersey Devil]

23. Unsafe at any speed

Fuck Ralph

[Skinner]

24. Speaking of sloppy journalism.

I notice that for some reason that article doesn't include the total number of votes for Nader in Florida in 2000 compared to the margin of victory* for Bush over Gore in Florida. Wonder why that is.

[Uncle Joe]

29. I'm wondering why is the Atlantic Monthly Journal blaming Nader when the Journal is responsible?

I believe they are doing it to stir up shit and divide the Democratic Party enabling the Republicans to win 2008. If the mass corporate media can split the liberals from the moderates, the pukes win.

[NoPasaran]

25. Kiss my shiny steel ass, Ralph!

Enjoy eternity in Hell!

[hunter]

27. Ralph Nader has always been a feckless tool.

He's the broken chainsaw they give you when they want you to lose a leg, the car with the bad brakes they send you down a mountain road in, the drunken Dick Cheney they send you hunting with.

Hot enough?

:evilgrin:

[EFerrari]

28. Doe this battle really belong to the War On Christmas?

I mean, can't it wait? I'm trying to burn some cookies here!

[omega minimo]

31. ...

:popcorn:














Democrats still need to face the issues that caused folks to vote Nader 2000.

[Uncle Joe]

33. I believe the primary issue, was the mass corporate media's "War Against Gore"

slandering his credibility and integrity, they simultaneously pumped Nader up and gave Bush a free pass, enabling him to power. Today the same mass corporate media is doing their best to keep the divide alive and enable the Republicans to win in 2008.

[omega minimo]

34. ...and which candidate was campaigning about corporate dominance issues?

:popcorn:

[Uncle Joe]

35. The one with the least chance of winning and the best chance of

enabling the true corporate champion to power.

[omega minimo]

38. "Best chance"? "Enabling"?

Like I said, Dems still need to face those issues. In fact, you depended on them for your first reply. :applause:

[Uncle Joe]

39. I don't blame Ralph near so much

as the mass corporate media, who I believed trashed and slandered Al Gore beginning in March of 99, because he empowered you and me when he championed the internet. I would call it the Prometheus treatment.

Whether Ralph was conscious or not as to if he was being used, I cannot judge.

[omega minimo]

40. Some of the issues

to look at include NAFTA, GATT and Telecommunications Bill 1996.


We shouldn't have to "undo" the Telcom Bill. It should never have been passed. During Clinton/Gore......

[Uncle Joe]

44. I agree

on the telecom bill, and I believe it should be revisited however nothing approaches the scale of the empowerment the people received from the internet, and nothing pisses the mass corporate media off more. I believe Bush's ratings today would be much higher without the internet to get the truth out.

The same with NAFTA, President Gore would have insured environmental labor protections, and the corporations knew it.

[omega minimo]

58. good points

[Uncle Joe]

37. P.S. CNN's homepage in 2000 only listed three partys in the race

and the conservatives such as Pat Buchanan was not one of them.

[wryter2000]

49. I don't have any problem with your statement

Yes, Dems need to adress the issues that sent some folks to Nader.

What I will never forgive that megalomaniac for is his "no difference" lie. As someone else mentioned above, that lie is still with us, and it's still causing problems. When large numbers of voters are throwing up their hands and yelling "they're all the same!" we're losing support we need to fix the mess BushCo has made of this country.

[omega minimo]

54. Yes. And Dems would do well to get the "they're all the same" NON-voters back!!

esp. youth

[wryter2000]

55. Then, stop supporting the "all the same" lie

As long as you're supporting Nader, you're supporting that lie.

[kentuck]

36. I think the Party now recognizes that...

ten times as many Democrats switched to vote for Bush in 2000 than voted for Ralph Nader. Therein lies the problem. If we had spent just a little more effort keeping those Democrats with us rather than slobbering and ranting about Nader....

[hayu_lol]

41. The Greens, like most snakes, continue to be in denial about their...

pivotal role in Florida Election 2000. They were the single factor that prevented Gore from gaining the distance he needed to protect from Consigliere Baker's successful dirty tricks.

Ivory Tower squeeky-clean Greens with their votes for Nader gave the election to Bush. Quit rewriting your own history Greens.

[omega minimo]

42. No they weren't. No, they didn't. And this hate doesn't help anything.

[wryter2000]

51. So, after all we've seen for six years

Do you still think there's "no difference" between Gore and Bush?

[omega minimo]

53. Please don't push your assumptions on me

:thumbsup:

[wryter2000]

56. I'm asking

I honestly don't know how you feel about that.

[skipos]

47. Greens tried to defeat Lamont in CT, Wellstone in MN, etc

They are never going to be happy with Dems.

[JI7]

60. those were Zell Miller type Democrats

while their party registration may have been Democratic they have no intention of voting Democrat. at least not in statewide and national elections.

[WinkyDink]

43. Well, let's see: are we discussing the Impeachment of Nader's "Tweedle-dee"

or his "Tweedle-dum"?

Nader is a punk who never met a Democrat he didn't criticize, UNLIKE his silence about Republicans.

[mindfulNJ]

48. He didn't HELP things, did he?

Ralph Nader can go to hell.

[leftofthedial]

50. and well-deserved too!

Sanctimonious prick.

[11 Bravo]

52. Myth my ass! Nader was and remains a narcissistic prick.

How many families, American and Iraqi, will go to sleep minus a few family members tonight because that jackass managed to convince a few thousand snowbirds that there was "no difference" between Gore and Bush. Fuck Nader and every one of his apologists!

[FreeStateDemocrat]

57. He has blood on his hands, 11th hours pleas were made to him, pointing out the coming calamity.

He made a difference when he ignored his sense of greater patriotic duty to massage his own well intentioned but grossly mis-directed ego. Never forget or forgive. He helped undermine this country and his own credibility as sentient human being.

[NaturalHigh]

59. I wouldn't vote for Nader with a gun to my head.

I also wouldn't ever condemn anyone who did, nor would I condemn him for running. That's what a democratic society is all about, the whole voting your conscience thing. If Nader chooses to run again, that's fine by me. If he takes money from the Republicans, shame on him, but that's his business so long as he doesn't break any campaign finance laws. If someone wants to vote for Nader, that's their business.

I think this country would benefit from MORE third-party candidates and independents, not fewer. In the long run, demonizing these people is a losing strategy. If the Democratic candidate wants their votes, then that candidate needs to reach out to them rather than just imploring their candidate to drop out of the race.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

61. As They, And We, Should. He's A Complete POS.

Fuck him, his smug ignorance, and those pathetic enough to have voted for him.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

62. Hit & Run Horseshit.

[omega minimo]

63. Remember To Put The Horseshit Bucket Behind The Hit And Run Cart

:hi: :happyholidaze:

[RamboLiberal]

64. I will always lay some of the blame on Nader

He damn well knew his votes could cost Gore a state he needed for the stupid electoral college. Jebbie, Katherine Harris, the damn crooked Repub machine, the butterfly ballot, vote stealing and the SCOTUS bear the ultimate responsibility but I can't help thinking that a lot of those Florida votes for Nader would have been otherwise for Gore and wouldn't have suffered through the past 6 years. IMHO Nader has some blood on his hands as do Nader voters in Florida and Nader voters in general IMHO. You damn well knew your guy couldn't win and I remember people like myself begging Nader voters in battleground states to think of the consequences and vote for Gore.

[originalpckelly]

67. I have always believed and still continue to believe, that Ralph Nader needs to fuck off.

Yeah, Ralphie, Bush has been a joy, right? Really worth your fucking ego trip asshole, I hope you understand that you are one of many people who are responsible for Iraq. Had you stayed out in 2000, we'd have won, no Iraq, no dead soldiers. 655,000 Iraqis would still be alive.

[blondeatlast]

69. No one could have undone all the good that Nader did as well as (H)e

did himself.

So concerned about auto safety but doesn't seem to give a good goddam about American soldiers or Iraqi civilians.

Go twiddle yourself, Ralph, you louse--there's no difference between your sphincter and your penis, either, right?

[jgraz]

71. Say what you want, the biggest reason Al Gore isn't president is Al Gore

Yeah, Nader was a small factor, but since the election, Al Gore has shown himself to be one of the most intelligent, articulate and passionate people in politics. Where was that guy during the 2000 campaign?

Just like Kerry, Gore should have mopped the floor with the lying, evil moron. From the start of that campaign, he was playing to not lose, especially in his craven, triangulating choice of a running mate. That's not what most people look for when they're electing a leader.

[Hippo_Tron]

73. 2000 isn't Nader's fault but Gore would've won without Nader, he was a factor

From a purely objective view, here's why Nader gets so much heat for this. Gore did a lot of harm for himself but it's not like he could've snapped his fingers and stopped doing this harm to himself. You take a lot of advice from different people while campaigning and Gore took the wrong advice. The problem is that he had no idea it was the wrong advice when he was taking it.

Gore also would've won without Katherine Harris. The problem is that Katherine Harris is a Republican and we weren't in a position to stop her from doing what she did.

People get pissed at Nader because they feel that because he is left of center that he should be on our side. They feel that someone who should be on our side made a conscious decision during the 2000 election that hurt Gore and hurt him enough that Harris was able to tamper with the election.

Now the objectivity ends and I give my view. Nader simply isn't on our side. He's an egotistical ass and Democrats need to stop assuming that we can be friendly with him. He is right that Democrats are by no means entitled to the votes that he gets. Therefore we should be smearing the hell out of him and exposing him for the asshole that he is so that his voters will stop voting for him.